Now, the fact that West Point allowed a group of uniformed academy cadets and faculty to be used as props by Beck is a serious matter in itself, and I’ll get to that in a minute, but Beck, in his zeal to slam Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, unknowingly promoting a core step towards socialism is just way too ironic to pass up. And what is this step towards socialism that Beck, in all his ignorance, was so enthusiastically promoting? That government employees and officials should never be paid more than what the average citizen earns.

In a 1911 speech about the Paris Commune — a movement lauded by Marx as “heroic,” and said by Lenin to have been “a practical step that was more important than hundreds of programmes and arguments” –Lenin pointed out the Commune’s (and apparently now Glenn Beck’s) position on government salaries: “And, as if to emphasize its character as a truly democratic, proletarian government, the Commune decreed that the salaries of all administrative and government officials, irrespective of rank, should not exceed the normal wages of a worker …” I think maybe that crack research team (or research team on crack) that Beck is always boasting about should have done a bit more research for this show.

Now, back to the other issue with this episode of Beck — the utter impropriety of West Point allowing Beck to use West Point cadets and faculty members for his studio audience.

According to CPT Olivia Nunn of West Point’s Public Affairs office, the cadets and faculty members, all from the academy’s Systems Engineering Department, were visiting the studios of FOX News as an academic exercise “to watch how news productions are done from beginning to end.” The cadets appeared on several other FOX News shows on Thursday, answering questions about why they decided to join the military and their experience at West Point, and the faculty members answered questions about teaching there. All of this was perfectly appropriate. But then, on Friday, they appeared on Beck, which was completely inappropriate. Military personnel in uniform cannot engage in any activity that gives the appearance of supporting any political, religious, or ideological movement.

There is no question that, more than anything else, what Glenn Beck’s show consistently promotes would be classified as an “ideological movement,” fitting the dictionary definition of “ideology” to a tee: “a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.” Whatever the specific topic of any given Beck episode — whether it’s history, religion, politics, or just picking someone to bash for weeks on end — all are clearly tied into the promotion of this ideology in one way or another. How can a studio audience full of uniformed West Point cadets and military officer faculty members clapping for Beck’s overtly partisan rant against Congress not be seen as engaging in an activity that gives the appearance of military support for Beck’s “ideological movement?”

As I wrote in a previous post about the problem of Glenn Beck’s show being aired on the American Forces Network, and the complaints received by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) about televisions in PXs, gyms, and other facilities on military installations being regularly tuned in to Beck, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) — “Contempt toward officials” — states: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

But on Beck’s show last Friday, during which Beck spewed his typical contempt towards members of Congress, we had eighteen future Army officers, under the guidance of five faculty members — four majors and a lieutenant colonel — clapping on national television for statements that they, as military officers, could be court-martialed for uttering themselves.

As seen in the video above, in addition to being contemptuous towards Congress as a whole, Beck, of course, singled out Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in his rant about members of Congress whose wealth has increased during the time they’ve been in Congress, even though, according to Roll Call’s 50 Richest Members of Congress list, Pelosi is only at number 13. But the wealthiest member of the House of Representatives is a republican — Darrell Issa of California, whose minimum net worth for 2009, according to Roll Call, was more than seven times the net worth of Pelosi. And Harry Reid? Well, he didn’t even make the top 50. But these pesky facts didn’t stop Beck from insinuating that there’s something suspicious about Pelosi and Reid having money. Exactly what Beck is implying isn’t clear, but his intent certainly is — plant the notion in his audience’s heads that Pelosi and Reid have somehow gotten rich as a result of serving in Congress.

When asked if West Point considered it risky to allow the cadets to appear on a show hosted by someone who is well known to be highly partisan and contemptuous towards the President and Congress, CPT Nunn responded that Glenn Beck had told them that his show would only be about honoring the military for Veterans Day, and they had no way of knowing that he was going to get political. Right. We all know that Glenn Beck would never be less than completely honest.

Now, there actually was one very important federal regulation that West Point was apparently quite concerned about. As Beck pointed out on his November 11 radio show, he wasn’t allowed to spend more that $20 per person when he bought the cadets dinner that night. Obviously, violating that regulation would have been a real problem.

It was pretty clear, however, that Beck just didn’t care that he was crossing a line, beginning the overtly political part of his show by saying “I’m going to try very hard to not get overtly political here because then everybody in the military always says, oh no, oh no, don’t look at me, I neither agree or disagree,” and, towards the end of his little rant, actually laughing about the fact that his captive audience of cadets wasn’t allowed to respond to his political opinions even if they disagreed with them.

Beck also had a few things to say about my previous post, “Should the U.S. Military Be Promoting and Endorsing Glenn Beck?,” on his October 29 radio show:

“Well, we have now — we have now — another attack — and we’ll get into this probably next week — on us, now through the military. ‘Should the U.S. Military Be Promoting and Endorsing Glenn Beck?’ And this is the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and they’re saying that the military is pushing my religion. Now, it’s not my actual faith, or not my actual religion, but, you know, the religion of Glenn Beck, if you will. Complaints about the program on the televisions in the PXs, the gyms, and other facilities now include complaints that ‘these televisions are being tuned into Fox News’s own evangelist Glenn Beck.’ They’re the usual complaints — ‘one about a senior NCO beginning each day by quoting a bit of Glenn Beck’s wisdom to his subordinates, and telling them they should continue their education by attending Beck’s online university, making their base a satellite Beck University campus.’ And then it just goes on about how evil I am, etc, etc. I think this is fantastic, and if I can find out who this NCO is and this base, we’ll make them an official satellite — a satellite of our Beck University. There’s nothing better. Of course, then again, I’m just a — I’m just a crazy anti-communist.”

No, Mr. Beck, I didn’t just go on about how evil you are. I went on to write that it’s your constant contempt for the President, Congress, and other government officials that makes your show inappropriate to be aired on the American Forces Network, as this kind of contempt against government officials is prohibited in the military. But, I realize that letting your listeners know what the main issue addressed in my post really was might have been a bit awkward, so I’d expect nothing less from you than your complete omission of my main point.

Finally, a note on the numbers Beck used to show how the evil Congress is screwing over the troops. Now, I don’t think anyone would disagree that our troops in the junior enlisted ranks should absolutely be paid more. A private’s starting salary of around $17,000 a year is unconscionably low for someone who’s putting their life on the line for our country.

But Beck’s use of the salary of a specialist with four years service as the “Average U.S. Army” salary, while very effective for his goal making the disparity between military pay, civilian salaries, and federal employee salaries appear as big as possible, is more than a bit deceptive. For one thing, Beck’s “Average U.S. Citizen” income of $50,462 is the median “household” income, not the average individual income.

This figure, of course, includes households with more than one wage earner, making it significantly higher than the average individual income, which, according to the Census Bureau is $39,138. Next, military personnel don’t have the single largest expense that civilian workers do — their housing. If they don’t live in government-provided housing, they receive a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), based on the cost of housing where they’re stationed, in addition to their pay. So, the pay for Beck’s example of an E-4 getting out after four years of service would not be $22,676. Their base pay would have been $25,128, plus a BAH of $14,940 if they lived off post and had a family (using Fort Drum’s BAH scale as an example), for a total of $40,068, well above the average income of a high school graduate with four years at a civilian job. If they stay in for a few more years and make staff sergeant, the’ll be up to about $50,000 (again based on Fort Drum’s BAH scale).

If they make a career of it and stay in for twenty years and make first sergeant, they’ll be up to a total of about $75,000 — well above the average civilian income. And what about those future officers in Beck’s studio audience? Well, when they graduate, their base pay of $33,396, plus a BAH of $15,984 (again based on Fort Drum’s scale) if they live off post, would add up to about the same as the average starting salary for a recent college graduate in the civilian world. At the end of their five year active duty commitment, by which time, unless they’re a total screw-up, they’ll have made the rank of captain, their combined salary and BAH will be over $78,000 — more than the average federal employee. And if these cadets decide to make a career of it, and rise to the rank of colonel or one-star general, they’ll be in the $120,000 to $160,000 range. So, yes, something absolutely needs to be done to raise the pay of the lower enlisted ranks, but the income of officers and NCOs is actually well above the average American’s income (and they deserve every penny of it, of course).

The full November 12 Glenn Beck episode can be found here.

Chris Rodda is the Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), and the author of Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History.

But there’s also a major contradiction, to wit: Which small government does the Tea Party have in mind to hire and train the thousands of additional border guards and deploy all the new technology it will take to “seal” the border? Who’s gonna pay for all that?

Oh, those costs will be covered by “prudent fiscal management.” In Washington-speak, that means eliminating existing programs.

Well, OK, which ones? Social Security?  Medicare? Support for our troops? Health care for our returning veterans? FEMA help during the next disaster?

I have never seen or heard of any example of a credible U.S. government budget claiming to be able to run the country without these programs.

What I hear are old canards like abolishing the Department of Education. Or cutting taxes and doing away with the IRS. Or vaporizing the National Endowment for the Arts. Or privatizing Social Security and Medicare – because the private sector has done such a splendid job of leading our economy off a cliff.

What I hear are empty generalities, like those written by one Carla Howell of the Center For Small Government. She says, “When government gets too big, it won’t go away on its own. We must carve out pieces of it that don’t belong, that cost too much, or that do more harm then good. We must remove them the same way we get rid of a fallen tree: One piece at a time.”

And which are the pieces she says are bloating federal spending?

Requiring everyone to buy medical insurance (whether they want it or not);

Handing out taxpayer “cash for clunkers;”

Bailing out banks, auto companies, state governments, mortgage holders – and just about anyone who wants to be on the dole, or stay on the dole;

Handing out stimulus checks;

Driving up taxpayer liabilities and debt;

Building another overpriced, unnecessary school or library;

Raising the sales tax, property taxes, “sin” taxes, and meals and hotel taxes.

So where in this laundry list are any proposals to even so much as tweak the spending of our Defense Department. This year, DOD will spend $ 685.1 billion – a figure that’s doubled over the past decade. And Pentagon-watchers will tell you unequivocally that at least a third of that is total waste. That waste comes to a very large chunk of cash. And Bob Gates seems to be the only person around who’s concerned.

There is no doubt that our government is chockablock with programs that don’t work, with inefficiencies that drive up costs, with expensive “carve-outs” for this or that favored industry or company, and with thousands of “earmarks” that move stealthily through the system and have the enormous benefit of keeping their sponsors in office for another term.

Of course there’s a need for the kind of fiscal soundness commission that Senate Republicans proposed and than voted against. Where were all those dedicated small government devotees when the votes were cast? On the wrong side of history.

Fact is that our country is undergoing a huge demographic and cultural change, and change is scary to a lot of folks who need someone to blame and find Government a convenient scapegoat. That’s the wave being ridden today by crazy-as-a-fox demagogues like Sarah Palen and Glenn Beck.

Fact is it’s a lot easier to just rant at Big Government than to actually try to do something about it. Because doing something about it requires thoughtfulness, patience, deep knowledge of how government works, compromise, political will, and creativity.

I suggest these are not the attributes that spring to mind when you think of the Tea Partiers.

William Fisher, a regular contributor to The Public Record, has managed economic development programs for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere for the past 25 years and served in the administration of President John F. Kennedy. He reports on a wide-range of issues for numerous domestic and international newspapers and online journals. He blogs at The World According to Bill Fisher.

Author’s note: This article was written several days before President Obama’s escalation speech at West Point, when it was first leaked that 30,000-plus troops would be bound for Afghanistan.  I offer this as argument that in less than a year, the Obama presidency is a failure, by his own campaign’s definition.  I do so in the hopes of being presented an argument that convincingly counters the evidence of Obama’s policy trajectories presented here.  And, as you will see, Sotomayor and the stimulus bill do not serve a sufficient counterweight to the general body of policy the Obama Administration has so far evinced.

The psychology of previous investment proscribes humans from responding rationally when conditions warrant or even demand.  If the investment has been heavy enough, the psychology behind the investment will insist that people hold on to it, no matter how badly the investment may tank.  This occurs at all scales.  The American public’s investment in Barack Obama is tanking badly.  The question at this point becomes, how much longer can the policy trend lines continue before the body of his political support collapses altogether?

***

President Obama has failed his mandate.

It’s not a happy thing to have to say.  Many won’t agree, desperately fending off the obvious. The campaign sloganeering, well, it turned out to be just that.  All the worse that so many had hoped otherwise. Obama has been embarrassingly supine in dealing with the know-nothings. The end game of which is what, exactly?  Republicans will suddenly — one day — apprehend their misbegotten ways and cuddle the furry kitten? The GOP and their agents continue the attacks, the lies, the filibusters — a well funded font of rancorous, racist, rancid bullshit.  Palin-Beck in 2012!  That’s the ticket.

The last straw was escalation in Afghanistan.  And didn’t he ever drag out the process of doing what the military told him he should do weeks ago?  Perhaps that was suppose to make him look steely-eyed and circumspect.  One wonders what the point of all this review was meant to reveal when the end product is to tap almost all the troops McChrystal wanted in the first place.  In fact, we almost suspect that McChrystal may have high-balled his numbers as a negotiation entry point.  Then again, maybe not.  Because McChrystal knows he is dealing with a Democrat, one who seems especially smitten with getting along.  Which meant, of course, that Obama would meet McChrystal’s opening bid, with the necessary appearance of due diligence of course, because, well, that’s how Democrats roll.  They are the party of looking like they’re for “the people.”  The “review” at this point looks like mere window dressing.  Whether it was or was not is unimportant.  Certainly, it is unimportant to those on the ground.

If this does go down with plus-30,000 troops, Obama can kiss it goodbye.  Here is the short of it.  One way or another, Afghanistan will be the doom of Obama.  Withdrawal is conventionally seen as political suicide. It matters not that the American and Afghan public would like to see this happen.  Obama will be “ravaged” by foes in Washington.  Just like LBJ fretted.  Once Afghanistan turns more deeply unpopular — more than now — political forces will then turn that against Obama, and it will become his Vietnam.  If this escalation is a cave to military pressure and political considerations (and really, what else could it be?), then Obama may think he is staving off a near term political hit.  In reality, he is only delaying political doom.  And worse, he is consigning to their deaths, who knows how many more thousands, ravaging the land and the lives of millions more.

Tellingly, the left are squabbling about whether Obama is worse than Bush.  Indeed, when one finds oneself in a position of defending any president by trying to demonstrate that they are “not worse than Bush,” or even mentioning, in a subjunctive clause, that Obama is not “worse than Bush,” the admission is plain: failure.

***
Obama has pathetically caved to most every Republican yowl on every domestic bill, only to watch no Republicans even vote for the butchered bill anyway.  The health care botch will be the same [see below].

Obama demands Israel halt building on the West Bank, only to watch Israel approve more building on the West Bank.

Obama shamefully and shamelessly pulled a complete one-eighty on the odious FISA amendment.  To his great pleasure now, as he only balloons the already expansive surveillance state [see below].  On the plus side, he did this before he was president.

Obama has adopted all Bush era legal positions and then some — even asserting sovereign immunity — in warrentless wiretap lawsuits and beyond.

Obama has quietly backed renewal of the worst of the PATRIOT Act provisions, and doing so over the objections of fellow Democrats.

Obama has only escalated, atrociously so given his “Si, se puede” campaign, immigration raids and harassment across the country, the American Apparel episode especially mean-spirited in a time of brutal recession.  Only recently, a janitorial company “quietly let go” many illegal immigrants, a move that is part of an Obama administration plan to  “thin the ranks of illegal immigrants by going after the companies that hire them.”  Now, there’s a plan.  All those homeless nurses and accountants piling up in LA tent cities can go work as janitors now that the illegals have been purged.

Obama has continued to assert the power to conduct extraordinary renditions, or, as the Italian court that convicted 23 Americans (22 CIA) of just such an operation called it, “kidnappings”.

Obama has continued to assert the power to hold detainees indefinitely, without charge.  Apparently, he intends to do so.

Obama has continued to assert the power to conduct military tribunals in lieu of trial.  Apparently, he intends to do so.

Obama has continued to assert the power to spy on Americans.  Apparently, he intends to do so. With sovereign immunity.

Obama has continued to assert the power to torture and abuse detainees secretly, specifically within the confines of US SOC base at Bagram, and a similar facility at Balad Air Base in Iraq.

Obama has adopted a position on the Guantanamo detainees so arbitrarily pendulous, it makes Bush look like a model of sober reason: no trials for anyone. Say what you will about that, but it is consistent.  Obama’s “position” is no position at all.  He’s all over the map.  Particle and wave.  “Whatever works.”  Yes, he really is a Democrat.

Obama will fail to close Guantanamo Bay as a detainee prison by his own deadline and admission.  Obama fired the man who was trying to close it according to Obama’s own agenda [see below].  I predict this may go on for years, as Obama attempts to keep the GOP from swatting him on the issue.  And once again, petty domestic politics drive policy.

Obama has overseen the worsening of conditions at Guantanamo Bay.

Obama has upped the US military footprint in South America by bumping up military presence in Colombia, with the lapdog enthusiasm of a visibly excited Uribe on full display.  Pissing off everyone else, of course, but no matter.  Tensions are bound to escalate beyond those already on the rise.

Obama displayed an unaccountable hypocrisy and equivocation regarding the Honduran coup, even as his administration railed against Tehran for election rigging.  Of course, the one-way outrage is not unaccountable at all, and certainly not when one’s own military base is quietly involved.

Obama has continued to embrace long standing US-resistance to treaties banning landmines and other passive, deadly weapons, weapons that kill thousands of children every year.  This, even as the world observed the 20 year anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the passing of which was notable only for the sole company the United States keeps in refusing ratification of that treaty: Somalia.

Obama has deployed private mercenaries in Somalia.

Obama has only continued the escalation of the Pentagon budget, and emergency off-the-books contingency funds.

Obama has more currently deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than Bush ever did.  And he is about to up that unhappy fact in Afghanistan again.  Certainly, we will be assured there will be a timeline for withdrawal. And certainly, it will be a sham.

Obama is expanding the US “Embassy” in Islamabad to behemoth proportions, in keeping with the model presented to the world in Baghdad.  Pakistanis are fuming at this project, viewing it rightly as a “military and intelligence command outpost.”

Obama has promoted, rather than denounced and fired, the commander of JSOC, which oversaw extreme abuse and torture of detainees.  Under McChrstyal’s command, many subordinates were convicted of such crimes.  No one above of the rank of major was convicted, despite “the documented role of more senior officers and civilian officials in authorizing and then covering up these crimes.”

Obama intends that the “withdrawal” from Iraq will be as every bit as farcical as has always been planned.  Major permanent military bases (and a billion dollar embassy) holding 50-60,000 troops, scattered hither and pointedly yon.  Oil contracts are in the works.

Obama is escalating a global missile defense shield, first actively begun by Reagan, mandated by the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance and then later by the plowed under Project for the New American Century.  The putative suspension of the installations in Poland and Czech Republic was a technical ruse.  There will be missiles and radar in those places, and elsewhere, such Romania and Bulgaria.  Plans are afoot for footprints in Georgia, Azerbaijan and beyond the Caspian.

Obama has escalated pipeline negotiations throughout Central Asia.  This may not sound bad.  Did I mention that Blackwater and JSOC are conducting military operations in Uzbekistan?  No? Not yet?  [see below.]

Obama has escalated the drone war “dramatically” in Pakistan.  Blackwater appears to be fully involved.  Of course, the whole damned debacle is illegal, but no matter.

Obama continues to embrace the employment of Blackwater, which is roaming wild in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, and elsewhere.  Yes, Uzbekistan. In addition to planning drone strikes and operations against suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan for both JSOC and the CIA, the Blackwater team in Karachi also helps plan missions for JSOC inside Uzbekistan against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

“That piqued my curiosity and really worries me because I don’t know if you noticed but I was never told we are at war with Uzbekistan,” he said. “So, did I miss something, did Rumsfeld come back into power?” Obama has overseen a skyrocketing forty percent increase in private contractors in Afghanistan between June and September of this year.  There is some change here: no other president has overseen a war employing more private contractor personnel than Obama.  Private contractor personnel now comprise fifty-seven percent of all US personnel in Afghanistan.

Obama has coddled Wall Street beyond anyone’s wildest fears.  He has said not a word that I can discern about the bailout sham.  Is he sad that the Wall Street brethren who dumped vast sums on his meteoric rise to the White House behaved so badly before, during, and after the bailout? His administration is more vested with Wall Street chums than the Bush White House.  A ghastly embarrassment.

Obama got needlessly shabby on Greg Craig.  Another embarrassment.  A gross performance and easily as bad as anything Bush ever did.  But worse, because Craig was pushing Obama’s own agenda and got burned because Obama discovered some scary things that make that ol’ Constitution just as silly as Bush and Cheney always said it was.

Obama is watching key supporteres flee his administration, either forcibly or by choice: personal matters.

Obama is pushing the Congressional Black Caucus and the GOP together in refusing to address the concerns of the CBC regarding financial reform.  “Waters suggested the CBC’s 43 members could vote with the GOP to scuttle a variety of Democratic bills if Obama and Emanuel don’t address what she thinks is a lack of understanding of the CBC’s wide-ranging goals of reducing urban unemployment, home foreclosures and bank failures.” Obama continues to ignore the Don Siegelman miscarriage, and leaves Bush/Rove DoJ hacks in situ in Alabama.  Siegelman claims that there has  been  “no substantial change in the heart of the Department of Justice from the Bush-Rove Department of Justice.”  The judge who oversaw the travesty, Mark Fuller, is friends with all the DoJ Rovian Canarys, and had a personal grudge against Siegleman.  Fuller is in ownership of a defense contracting company that fuels Air Force One.

Obama stood back on health care reform and watched the carnage from the sidelines.  He stood nowhere, for nothing.  Congress made a hash of it, as is their wont.  Who knows what it will actually do, but it will get tens of millions of new customers for the insurance companies.  In all likelihood, the bill will wind up being a shameless corporate crap shoot, without the snake eyes.  The man who once said single payer was the obvious solution, sat on his hands while a vestigial public option was ravage further, and pernicious C Street amendments popped up like ulcerous sores.  Not a word.  He’ll sign anything at this point.

Obama has ramped up the secret surveillance state beyond mortal reckoning.  There are estimates, of course, wherein numbers drop into the $50-100 Billion* bin. Under Obama, the NSA is building a giant secret facility in Utah that will house a Yottabyte archive.  Surveillance state “Fusion Centers” are spreading like wildfire.

Obama has thrown out a trail balloon about cutting NASA’s budget.  Yes, let’s cut that one half of one percent of the federal budget that goes to that wastrel NASA.  All that fancy pants galavantin’ about the solar system, and … learnin’ stuff.  Can’t recall Bush threatening to cut the NASA budget.  He wanted to kill Hubble — the certitude of that “billions of years” talk shook his biblical bones — but at least he wanted to go to Mars or some crazy shit.  Now, NASA are talking to the Chinese about partnering up.  Change!   Not exactly the change I was imagining.

Obama’s glamour is wearing thin.  In fact, it’s threadbare.  The Chinese know it.  He’s a pushover.  In this, the investment cannot let go; he is so damned likable.

That is over.  Obama’s plain failure is obvious.  Unlike the election of 2000, 2008 was a known, vital cast, one the American public knew was important.  No one really thought or knew what the stakes would become in 2000 (except perhaps for those in on the fix).  Not so in 2008.  We all knew it.  The wreckage is everywhere.

The above is not an agenda bent on fixing any of it, but reeks of acquiescence and inertia. It demonstrates that Santos knew, two years ago, what we know now.

Mr. Obama, if this truly is your path for the United States, you have failed your mandate.  Not your Goldman Sachs mandate — clearly not — but the one entrusted to you by the American public, one that is desperate for a change of course.  One that still believed it was actually possible.  This is not that change of course.  Though admittedly persistent, as many a dead president may testify, this course is a dead end.  Instead of doing or even attempting to take on the necessary tasks at hand, you have folded across the board.  Cowardice in the face of potent adversaries? or were you in on this all along?

***
* Let’s just note the institutional proclivities here. Up to a $100 Billion per year into op tech to spy on Americans is unremarkable,  secret in fact, yet $80 Billion per year on health care for American citizens redounds to gross public spectacle, reason dragged through the shit strewn ditch, spat upon by clotpols with guns fully strapped.  Because health care for Americans, well, that’s some dangerous stuff, there.
—————–

Kenneth Anderson, an astronomer who has worked on a number of NASA projects, devotes his scientific training to observations and inferences about current affairs, politics and the media. He blogs at boneheadcompendium.com and can be reached at ken-AT-boneheadcompendium.com

That the House of Representatives has moved swiftly on anything is stunning in and of itself. More stunning, this is in response to a single independent report by conservative activists, with no follow-up investigation, no hearings, not even being provided a copy of the full, unedited video tapes shot by conservative activists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles at a couple of ACORN offices.

This is serious stuff here. This is not a game of gotcha, of cheap political points, of practical jokes — not when this is money that helps in many real ways in impoverished communities around our country.

It is vital to assess how this backlash was accepted so quickly in light of videos that were from someone whose films are funded by conservative backers, videos that misrepresented ACORN through editing and not disclosing other failed attempts at their desired response, and may well have been dubbed over, if O’Keefe would dare to release the unedited tapes in their real context to prove otherwise.

A significant reason that this ACORN backlash has moved through Congress like Montezuma’s Revenge is that this particular hidden camera stunt had the ring of “child prostitution” in it, which most politicians of either party would run from rather than dispute its irrelevance. “Anyone defending ACORN is for child prostitution” is an immediate fallacious meme. It’s not like we’re talking about the Catholic Church here, which still gets federal funding.

Noteworthy is that there have not been any previous allegations between child prostitution and ACORN. In this weekend’s LA Times, O’Keefe himself asserts that this ruse had nothing to do with prostitution, importing underage sex workers, or tax help for starting up a business.

“Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization,” he said. “No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find.”

That’s what this is really about: the elections, and the threat that has been hyped tirelessly that ACORN is in some way stealing your vote.

Before I digress into the long campaign to smear ACORN because of its successful voter registration, I don’t want to be accused to changing the subject to the elections. O’Keefe clearly stated that is what these stunts were about from the beginning.

There is much to dispute in O’Keefe’s quote. There is no evidence whatsoever that politicians are getting elected single-handedly by ACORN, and it is a wild exaggeration. Many claims of voter fraud are made, few instances ever occur.

What has been distorted is that these allegations surround voter registrations, not actual votes, and that ACORN has regularly flagged forms that were incomplete, duplicate, or unverifiable. By law, anyone collecting voter registration forms has to turn in all that are used, even if they know the forms will not be processed.

Far-fetched is the idea that no one in the media has been putting pressure on ACORN. That O’Keefe would even think ACORN could elect politicians single-handedly is because of FOX News’ rampant coverage and conflation of ACORN conspiracies and allegations, to the extent that John McCain worked it into his stump speech by the end of the 2008 Presidential Election.

The red herring of voter fraud as an excuse to deny others the right to vote is a well-worn claim. Voter suppression, specifically using the fear of “voter fraud” to advance voter suppression, is a topic I have explored and documented in-depth in my documentary FREE FOR ALL! which you can see online for free right now. I also produced a video about ACORN with Video the Vote focusing on the fraud of voter fraud.

David Iglesias, a Republican U.S. Prosecutor for New Mexico, investigated allegations of voter fraud throughout the state at the urging of Republican leaders, and when he found no evidence and would not prosecute falsely, he was fired, as asserted by David Iglesias in his testimony before Congress and emails recently declassified from Karl Rove.

But again, I don’t want to be accused of dodging the issue–I am just looking to rebut the persistent falsehood which directly affected this kid’s motivation to punk a community organization into losing millions of dollars to help the poor.

O’Keefe is comparable to the FBI informant who brought down the Bronx terrorist plot — only that there would not have been any actual plot were it not for this FBI informant actively recruiting mentally challenged Muslims from Mosques for this plot, which apparently involved entrapping people who were dumb enough to listen to him.

O’Keefe could well have actually attempted to show something about ACORN’s voting registration controversies–like speak to registrants who admitted falsifying voter registration forms, or followed up on who registered and who voted, or even interview ACORN directly. But none of those would have involved a minister’s daughter dressing slutty, so you can’t really blame him.

So it came to pass that in this effort to dispute voter registration that Giles and O’Keefe conceived of the worst sounding scandal they could invoke, and traveled the country to ACORN offices across the country to find someone to take their time to humor them in the improv game of “Yes, And.”

And they eventually found some clueless ACORN employees, people far too eager to offer good customer service than employ any common sense. A couple of workers comply with O’Keefe’s outlandish inquiry for underage brothels in dispensing tax advice.

The well-publicized clips are shocking enough, and have been exploited as much as any couple of minutes of video can be. Glenn Beck taunted other networks for not covering it. Even Jon Stewart bunted on it, as if his guest interview were Sistah Souljah. As a potent testament to Stewart’s “Most Trusted Newsman” gatekeeper status, the House next day voted to cut all federal funding for ACORN.

It is worth noting here that what transpired on O’Keefe’s videotape were conversations about hypothetical situations–not actual prostitution, no actual crime, and not proof of an agency-wide policy or program involving prostitution or illegal immigrants. In fact, O’Keefe’s experiment proves this–that several other ACORN offices would not be ensnared by their absurd scenario, and turned away these provocateurs. One office in Philadelphia filed a police report because they were alarmed by the pair.

Ironically, the only thing illegal in some of these tapes is that O’Keefe is filming illegally. States like California and Maryland have strict consent laws about surreptitious recording, which is why the news and entertainment industries have long figured out workarounds for hidden cameras. (Hint: Vegas.)

As the crankosphere raves over how the Media didn’t uncover this, it is worth pointing out that not only are the tactics against the standard of journalism, the lack of disclosure and misrepresentation pushes this expose well out of the range of journalism and in to the realm of entrapment.

As it was, O’Keefe had to misrepresent a conversation where a woman stated up front that their inquiry was illegal, but played along because she figured it was a gag. Another misrepresentation by FOX was the breathless uproar about a woman who joked that she had killed her husband–well after it was established that her husband was alive, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and others kept repeating the ridiculous claim for another day, demanding an investigation, since they obviously didn’t have the resources as a major news network to confirm that this guy was alive.

Nor is this O’Keefe’s first foray into being the Tucker Max of conservative hacks. He pulled a stunt on Planned Parenthood entrapping receptionists and donation reps into conversations where he said he wanted to kill off black people, while his compatriot Lila Rose called and claimed to be underage to see if the clinics would report statutory rape. (Lila Rose just recently called for abortions to be held in public squares to create the mass gross-out that would therefore make them all illegal)

In a detailed response from Bertha Lewis and Steven Kest :

O’Keefe has a sordid history of preying on receptionists and other front-line service workers for respected organizations. In 2008 he pulled a similar stunt on Planned Parenthood when he and another female colleague secretly recorded phone conversations with staff who handle fundraising calls at a few of the organization’s affiliates. During the calls, O’Keefe pretended to be interested in setting up funds for low-income women in need of health care. Once the conversation hit a comfortable stride, O’Keefe would change his tune and explain, in explicit language, that his real intent was to target women of color in an effort to control minority populations. The audio recordings were edited in an attempt to make it appear that Planned Parenthood was complicit in accepting donations for racist purposes. O’Keefe’s intent then, as it is now, was to entrap an organization whose mission he is ideologically opposed to, and masquerade his efforts as investigative journalism rather than the propaganda videos they are.

This effort caused a conflict with a collaborator over misrepresenting their targets, as reported by the New York Times:

Not everyone among Mr. O’Keefe’s acquaintances agrees. Liz Farkas, a Rutgers student who called Mr. O’Keefe “a nice guy and a loyal friend,” said she grew disillusioned after he asked her to help edit the script of a Planned Parenthood sting.

“It was snippets to make the Planned Parenthood nurse look bad,” Ms. Farkas said. “I said: ‘It has no context. You’re just cherry-picking the nurse’s answers.’ He said, ‘Okay’ — and then he just ran it.”

Asked whether the left-leaning documentaries of Michael Moore do not do the same, Ms. Farkas said: “Michael Moore goes after the rich and powerful. James isn’t doing that. He goes after low-level bureaucrats and people who are trying to help low-income people.”

And in college, O’Keefe showed women their place with his video wit, as reported by Media Matters:

As a Rutgers University undergraduate, O’Keefe videotaped a classmate distributing to a Women in Culture and Society lecture a handout that emphasized that a “good wife always knows her place.”

And most tastefully of all, O’Keefe drove around posing as a Publisher’s Clearing House van offering big checks to people, only to taunt them that the money is what was going to bank bailouts. Black people sure are suckers for that one!

Do not-so-subtly racist or sexist stunts count as courts of law? Shouldn’t there be a requirement that they at least be funny, besides mean for the sake of mean?

Is this same adolescent accountability accepted by defense contractors, when Blackwater and its owner Erik Prince are implicated in murder? He just keeps getting contracts. Rep. Darrel Issa from San Diego sent out a letter bragging of cutting ACORN’s money for all of us, then asked us to give him money. San Diego has had political scandals that have led to actual convictions, not simply recordings of speculative conversations. Isn’t it time to slash San Diego’s federal funding? All of this is not to get off subject, though. Whatever angry conservatives want to insist the subject is.

It is natural for many to shirk away from defending ACORN in light of this footage. But this particular exchange is not just cherry-picked—it was planted, nurtured, and harvested, the latest to take down an organization that empowers the numbers that vote Republicans out of office.

John Wellington Ennis is a filmmaker whose most recent documentary, FREE FOR ALL! was hailed by critic Roger Eberg as “engrossing, even enraging.” His production company Shoot First Inc., in Beverly Hills, specializes in unscripted entertainment, such as documentaries, reality TV, comedy, and live music. He blogs at johnennis.tv.

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:25 PM
To: 005 -Washington
Subject: standards

For those of us who have only been at Fox for a relatively short period of time, it’s useful to remind ourselves that, as journalists, we must always be careful to cover the story without becoming part of the story. At news events, we’re supposed to function as dispassionate observers, not active participants. We are there to chronicle the news, not create it.

That means we ask questions in a fair, impartial manner. When approaching interviewees, we identify ourselves, by both name and news organization, up front. We seek out a variety of voices and views. We take note of the scene in order to bring color and context to our viewers.

We do not cheerlead for one cause or another. We do not rile up a crowd. If a crowd happens to be boisterous when we show it on TV, so be it. If it happens to be quiet, that’s fine, too. It’s not our job to affect the crowd’s behavior one way or the other. Again, we’re journalists, not participants — and certainly not performers.

Indeed, any effort to affect the crowd’s behavior only serves to undermine our legitimate journalistic role as detached eyewitnesses. Remember, our viewers are counting on us to be honest brokers when it comes to reporting — not altering –the important events of the day. That is nothing less than a sacred trust. We must always take pains to preserve that trust.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please stop by.

RICK SANCHEZ: There is something that I got to tell you now. If you watch this show every day- as I mentioned a while ago- you know that I usually don’t suffer fools gladly, especially when it comes to the fools who perpetuate falsehoods.

By the way, we put a call into Fox News for a comment, and we expect an apology. But we’re still waiting. Let me address the Fox News network now. Perhaps the most current way that I can, by quoting somebody who recently used a very pithy phrase. Two words- it’s all I need- ‘you lie.’

Well today, thousands of you flipped through the pages of the Washington Post, only to come across a lie so bold and so upsetting that frankly, I’m not just going to sit here in silence and allow my craft or my news operation to be unfairly maligned, because enough is enough. And, yes, I’m talking to you, Fox News. You, who claim to be ‘fair and balanced’ -at what, I wonder? You know, I don’t know, but I’ve got a couple of ideas. Fox News’s full-page color ad today- it asks, ‘How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN miss this [story]?’ They’re referring to the picture there of the Tea Party protest in the nation’s capital last Saturday. They are saying that we missed this story. They are saying we did not cover this story. They are using a lie to try and divide people into camps- and, you know, Americans are starting to get tired of this.Look at the bottom of the ad there, that says ‘we cover all the news.’ Really? You do? What, we don’t? You know, that’s an offense to myself and to my colleagues who risked their lives for our viewers in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world to break the news. They’re actually telling people that we didn’t cover a rally on Washington. Really? Rog, roll the tape.

T. J. HOLMES: Tea Party march and rally happening in Washington. Our Paul Steinhauser is there with what appears to be a whole lot of friends gathering around you now.

PAUL STEINHAUSER: In about two hours from now, they’re going to march right behind us down Pennsylvania Avenue to the U.S. Capitol, and that’s where they’ll gather at the west front of the Capitol.

SANCHEZ: Okay, what was that, like made-up video? Am I crazy or did I just watch CNN’s Paul Steinhauser covering the story? You want more? Here’s more.

BETTY NGUYEN: We’re going to check in again with CNN’s Kate Bolduan live at the Capitol.

KATE BOLDUAN: Well, we came down because we heard that they’re actually so many people still stuck on Pennsylvania Avenue trying to make it too. You can see- basically, these people are all still coming from Freedom Plaza.

SANCHEZ: All right. That was CNN’s Kate Bolduan. Here’s another one.

FREDERICKA WHITFIELD: We are joined now by CNN Radio Capitol Hill correspondent Lisa Desjardins.

LISA DESJARDINS: What do you think of Congressman Joe Wilson? (Crowd cheers) See? So there are- there are people here who strongly support Congressman Wilson, Fredericka, and many of them are right here.

SANCHEZ: I don’t know- call me crazy, but that sure looked like our CNN Radio’s Lisa Desjardins. One last one- from our own Jim Spellman, who followed and covered thirty rallies- thirty rallies along the Tea Party Express route from coast to coast the last couple of weeks. Here it is.

DON LEMON: CNN All Platform Journalist Jim Spellman traveled with the Tea Party Express as it made its way across the country.

JIM SPELLMAN: The bulk of the people that are there are for low taxes, less government control, but there really is an element that’s got these kind of outlandish conspiracy theories about death camps and- and about the- you know, this takeover- people comparing President Obama to Hitler, and that really is a sizable thread. It’s not just a couple of people on the edges.

SANCHEZ: All right, I want you to see more proof now, and this is really just an unbelievable coincidence that I want you to see. You see that picture in the ad that they took out? Okay, pay attention to that picture right there on the right. That’s the ad that they took out saying we didn’t cover the event. All right- now, keep an eye on that picture right there. You see the Canadian flag? That’s on their ad- see the Canadian flag right there at the bottom? All right, let me show you this- see the thing on the left now? That’s our tower cam shot of the event, that we used repeatedly throughout those shows. Funny how you can say that we didn’t cover an event by using that picture- that picture that looks an awful lot like our tower cam shot, doesn’t it? And you used it in your ad saying we didn’t cover the story.

By the way, if you want even more proof of our coverage, maybe you should just watch your own shows? Here’s a good one maybe you should watch. There’s a show on Fox News called ‘The O’Reilly Factor.’ You’ve heard of it? Here’s Bill O’Reilly doing a segment called ‘Reality Check.’

BILL O’REILLY: CNN, as we mentioned, covered the anti-Obama protests, of course, but ran into a little trouble.

SANCHEZ: CNN covered the event- there it is. This is Bill O’Reilly showing us covering a story you say we didn’t cover. Let me give that to you again. That was Bill O’Reilly showing CNN’s coverage of a story that Fox News says we didn’t cover- hmm. Can you see- can you say reality checkmate?

O’REILLY: CNN, as we mentioned, covered the anti-Obama protests, of course, but ran into a little trouble.

SANCHEZ: Here’s the fact- we did cover the event. What we didn’t do is promote the event. Just like when thousands marched on Washington to protest the war in Iraq, we covered it as well, probably less than we covered this event. But we didn’t promote it. Bottom line is- we do cover the news, and we did extensively cover this event. We didn’t promote the event- that’s not what real news organizations are supposed to do. We covered the event. I would invite you to look into that distinction between those two words- promote and cover. Cover is kind of like a fair and balanced way of doing things- you get it? You might want to look into that. It’s about letting Americans make up their own minds.

Let me cut to the chase- when thousands of Americans showed up at the nation’s capital to protest big government, we covered it, with four correspondents, two satellite trucks, multiple live interviews- lawmakers on the record and conversations with attendees.

Q: Madam Speaker, in terms of the political tone, the tone of the debate, [House Majority Leader Steny] Hoyer said earlier this week he thought it was the most vitriolic since ’93-’94. And around that time we also saw acts of domestic violence, domestic terrorism. How concerned are you about the tone of the political debate, in terms of people talking about anti-government rhetoric and so on and the possibility of violence?

Speaker Pelosi: Well, I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country, and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance.

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this, myself, in the late ’70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place.

So I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, so that understanding that some of the people — the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.

But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.