Up with Chris Hayes, Saturday, March 10, 2012. With Katori Hall, Rebecca Traister, Mike Daisey and Katrina vanden Heuvel.

I've had a harried week, so I've been offline most of the time. But when I had a chance to sit down at the computer and check my Facebook account, I was inundated with links to the wildly viral "Kony 2012" video (now up to an astonishing 68.9 million views). I watched it and ached for these child soldiers of Uganda--a story I've heard reference to before, but never in such an immediate and gut wrenching way. And because I've worked at this site for so long, it didn't take more than a minute before I thought to do a post for C&L and started researching the subject.

My research quickly turned up that Joseph Kony wasn't even in Uganda any longer and the numbers cited in the video--30,000 child soldiers--was a hyperbolic aggregation of the number of children over the years. At any given time, the actual troops were in the hundreds. I realized quickly that the story was more complex than I could do justice in a blog post and abandoned the post.

Nevertheless, the viral--if not completely factual nature-- of the video intrigued me, since I'm sure there are now millions of people aware of the LRA and the horrifying conditions in Uganda that had not even thought of it a week earlier.

And that is an amazing power. It is the same power that allowed some significant number of people to rise up collectively and scare off Rush Limbaugh's advertisers. There's a mind-boggling amount of information available to us, as well as a mind-boggling amount of misinformation. As a culture, we have morphed into one that demands that we be entertained by the like minded rather than be informed or have our personal beliefs challenged. Would a PBS news special on Ugandan child soldiers get nearly 69 million viewers in just a few days? Unlikely. Would Fox or any of the other cable channels be able to take a stab at the complexity and underlying American mixed messages in foreign policy in an honest way? Very unlikely.

So we learn about issues through viral videos and Daily Show clips. We may not get the whole truth, but we get small truths that may inspire us to greater ones.

Chris Hayes, showing a willingness to spend far more time on a subject like this than any other weekend show, spoke to Mike Daisey, whose one man show on Apple's factories in China raised awareness more powerfully than a dozen news stories on the nightly news on the blurring of news and "infotainment" and how information is disseminated.

I'm not sure how I feel about it, so I'm looking forward to your response. I worry that there are too many people painfully unaware of the world around them because we've made it so easy to focus on the entertainment aspect. But still, I am awestruck by how social media and avenues like YouTubes and blogs have allowed people to deal with truths without being part of some inner circle of journalists and push the journalists to stories they may have otherwise ignored.

What do you think? How effective do you feel this brave new world of citizen journalism is?

This is an interview I did with The UpTake.

The Occupy movement has successfully put the economic injustice plaguing the United States on televisions across America, says Tina Dupuy, a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist and managing editor of Crooks and Liars.

The reason that most Americans were unaware of these issues before the Occupy movement caught fire this fall is that 60 percent of us get our news exclusively from local news sources. Those 30-minute local news segments devote a full 10 minutes to commercials and two minutes to “teasers” of stories to come. That leaves very little time for real news about real issues. Dupuy says that newscasters too often fill the gap with trivial stories such as reports about “Dancing with the Stars” or news of a cat stuck in a tree in Germany.

“We don’t have a real broad knowledge of issues that affect us, like the housing bubble or about what our local and national government is doing,” says Dupuy. “But at least now the local news is showing protest signs of what economic injustice is. They’re being forced to cover these issues and cover the raids, arrests and encampments and have the protestors on television talking about these issues.”

“Now we’ve seen our local news talk about the homeless population, talk about people who aren’t able to find jobs, talk about students who are now sharecroppers to banks because they have $200,000 in student loan debt — debt they can’t renegotiate.”

I'm running out of redundant jokes to repeat about all these debates...

Newt is wonderful for comedy. Bad for the country. Wonderful for comedy.

We have all been here before.

In a closed press conference - on Black Friday - at the very end of the day (read: serious news dump) - Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - a mayor who has presided over a May Day Melee, massive foreclosures and the arguably the worst homeless problem in the country declared Occupy LA a success for changing the national dialog.

He said in the press conference, "Occupy LA has brought needed attention to the growing disparities in our country and I look forward to its ongoing efforts to build an economy that works for everyone."

And then proceeded to tell the protesters that it's time for them to leave. More specifically, Monday morning at 12:01 am is time for them to leave. The park will be closed.

Here's the thing: this is civil disobedience. This is occupying a public space - breaking rules that don't hurt anyone. They're doing it to bring to attention things which we would otherwise ignore. It's supposed to make our elected officials uncomfortable. It's not a comforting message: they're in office and things are bad.

But, the hubris of a politician thinking he can placate civil disobedience by saying it has changed the national dialog is stunning. Really Villaraigosa? I hate to say this but at least we know where Michael Bloomberg is coming from. This "I agree with you but you have to go" seems slimier. Especially since Villaraigosa made no offer of policy changes that would show he, in fact, has heard any message from the protest. (They have made a list of grievances and, yes, they are mostly local issues...ya know, the jurisdiction of a mayor.)

Speaking of slime, in the mayor's statement on Facebook he clarifies that a "free speech area" - the west steps of City Hall will remain open. As if free speech is something that can be designated. Not how that works. Besides it's the freedom of peacefully assembly that's being pushed to its limits to make a point, not speech.

Occupy LA's response:

We reject outright the City’s attempts to lure us out of City Hall and into negotiations by offering us nebulous, non-transparent and unconfirmed offers which fail to even begin to address our local grievances. We will continue to occupy this space, in solidarity with our global movement, until the forces of the few are forced to capitulate to the power of the people.

The Occupiers are planning to defend the park. Some are planning to be arrested. I'm told even if they lose the park, they will still be Occupying. Shepard Fairey tweeted this last night:

Full statement from the mayor after the break:

Continue reading »

(h/t Scarce)
Newt Gingrich loves to be the tough guy in the room, spouting off bizarre and dissonant policy suggestions in the name of toughening up Americans with some vague promise of self-made American-ness at the core of his thought process. Well, not really, but that's how he portrays himself. He tries to come off as some sort of out-of-the-box thinker but falls flat on the mean streak he always seems to let come out.

During a talk he gave at Harvard University this week, he said this, via The Politico:

The comment came in response to an undergrad's question about income equality during his talk at Harvard's Kennedy School.

"This is something that no liberal wants to deal with," Gingrich said. "Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.

"You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model," he said. "Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising."

He added, "You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age. They all were either selling newspapers, going door to door, they were doing something, they were washing cars."

Never does Newt consider what happens to those "unionized janitors" if they were to be terminated in favor of paying a child a pittance to clean their school at the expense of their homework, I assume.

The richest part of the Newt/GOP mean streak is that so many of them made their fortunes being pond scum after leaving Congress or their government jobs. Here's a guy who never held a legitimate job in his life, who lives off the largesse of corporate and small business donors who pay for everything from his Tiffany's bill to his private jets, and he has the nerve to suggest that if only kids would be school janitors for a couple of bucks an hour there would be less income equality. Because the adult janitors who are paid whatever they're paid (union or otherwise) would then do what? Stand on the street and beg?

When does someone stand up and remind Newt that right now in this country there are 5 applicants for every job available and those applicants include college graduates?

But Newt promises more exciting ideas:

The former House Speaker acknowledged that it was an unconventional pitch, saying, "You're going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly."

Oh, happy day.

The past week has been unfortunate for women's rights and reproductive health. On Friday night the super strict abortion law passed by the Virginia Legislature took effect. The new regulations require that the 22 clinics that perform abortions now must comply with physical standards that may require buildings to be rebuilt, renovated, or facilities to be moved at significant costs to the clinics of course.

The new restrictions that require five-foot wide hall ways and 250 square-foot operating rooms are a kind of financial asphyxiation of women's health care resources in the state of Virginia. Since anti-choice advocates can't overturn Roe, despite their best efforts, and voters are too worried about jobs and the economy to take anti-choice legislation seriously, they're just going to work slowly to bankrupt anyone providing women's health out of the business.

The same law that Virginia passed and is now enforcing was also passed in Kansas earlier this summer that would have closed all but one abortion clinic. Perhaps, realizing that the law was an effort to make [or "was part of efforts to make"] the compliance standards difficult and nearly impossible, a
judge blocked the state from enforcing those regulations and shutting down the clinics.

The other interesting news in Kansas, however, is a strange law that was passed very late in the legislative session this year that some even think was in violation of the rules. It prohibits any insurance company from providing coverage for elective or necessary abortion procedures. Women requiring these services would have to obtain an insurance rider under the new law - but when the petitioner in the suit asked her insurance company for the rider she was informed that an insurance rider doesn't exist. The law also does not provide an exemption for the life and health of the mother nor does it provide any coverage for women who are the victims of rape or incest. Those women would also have to obtain an insurance rider for the insurer to provide the procedure - but again - the riders don't exist.

The Kansas ACLU is suing the Insurance Commissioner saying that these practices are discriminatory to women because they don't require men to obtain separate insurance riders for procedures. Interestingly, when this bill came up last session there was a lot of activity on the House floor with members who said that it shouldn't stop at abortion coverage riders. Members attached amendments to the bill that would require that prescriptions for Viagra would require a rider, treatment for smoking would also not be covered unless a rider was obtained. So many amendments were attached for so many things that the bill was sent back to committee where it promptly died.

Continue reading »

Lynda Bryon at KING-5 News in Seattle has the story, ably summed up at The Consumerist:

Ikenna [Njoku], a 28-year old construction worker, went to deposit a $8,463.21 Chase cashier's check at his local Chase branch, only for the teller to decide that neither he nor his check looked right and he got tossed in jail for forgery, KING5 reports. The next day, a Friday, the bank realized its mistake and left a message with the detective. But it was her day off, so he spent the entire weekend in jail.

By the time he got out, he had been fired from his job for not showing up to work. His car had been towed as well. It ended up getting sold off at auction because he couldn't afford to get it out of the pound. He had been relying on that cashier's check for his money but it was taken as evidence and by the time he got it back it was auctioned off.

All this while the cashier's check had been issued by the very bank he was trying to cash it at.

Chase didn't even apologize, not even after a year. A lawyer volunteered to help write a strongly-worded letter requesting damages. After trying hard to get a response, they sent KING 5 a two-sentence reply: "We received the letter and are reviewing the situation. We'll be reaching out to the customer."

I dunno about you, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if he had been another color, none of this would have happened. Auburn is not a lily-white suburb by any means, but the man's description of her questions raises all kinds of red flags.

Meanwhile, I just love being at the mercy of the people who run the financial-services sector, don't you?

Oh goody:

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

Here's how I predict this will play out:

• We spend a crap-load of money maintaining air strikes and funneling all kinds of weapons to the Libyan rebels. They eventually topple Gaddafi. A great day for freedom!

• John McCain will send out a Tweet telling us he's having dinner with the very interesting rebels at their ranch. The good news: If we give them more arms, they'll embrace freedom!

• It then turns out that the Libyan rebels we armed have ties to terrorist organizations.

• Libya becomes a safe haven where al-Qaeda can plan attacks on the United States.

• We get hit with another terrorist attack and then go re-invade Libya.

• No one in the media will bother to point out that we put these guys in power in the first place. Instead, the Republican or Democrat who's heading the State Department at the time will tell us that "nobody could have predicted" Libya would become a safe haven for terrorism.

• And finally, we'll make the war deficit-neutral by laying off a bunch of teachers.

This sort of thing seems to happen quite frequently. So frequently, in fact, that even some of the dim bulbs in Congress are starting to take notice:

Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activates in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."

"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.

If the past is any guide, Rogers will soon forget all about this and give Obama and the CIA a blank check to do whatever they want.

We aren't a very smart country. It's amazing we've survived as long as we have.

UPDATE: Oh this just gets better and better:

The new leader of Libya's opposition military spent the past two decades in suburban Virginia but felt compelled — even in his late-60s — to return to the battlefield in his homeland, according to people who know him.

Khalifa Hifter was once a top military officer for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but after a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s, Hifter switched to the anti-Gadhafi opposition. In the early 1990s, he moved to suburban Virginia, where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gadhafi groups.

The good news is that "Hifter" sounds an awful lot like "Hitler." It shouldn't be too hard to make him out to be the greatest most evilest ever threat to world peace when we re-invade Libya ten years from now.