Wednesday, October 18, 2017

And let the tiara clutching begin!

Heads of major corporations and legions of their minions deny the harms of cigarette smoking, or the possibility of making safer cigarettes, and millions die as a result.  And this is only one of hundreds of similar stories involving every product you can think of and more.  How many of these stories were first revealed in the pages of the New York Times?  Not to say it hasn't sometimes happend, while other times stories are known to have been buried for years, often until after elections or other events that made them less timely.

World leaders, heads of major corporations, to some degree even the majority of people alive today contribute to Global Heating, a human caused change which may eventually destroy civilization, dooming the lives of billions, and most non-human species as well.  Even if the outcome isn't quite that bad--it's going to be increasingly horrific for the next few hundred if not thousand years.  This story does get covered, but is often underplayed, and not taken even as a problem by a substantial number of people including the US President himself.

And I could go on with with stories of vast preventable death and destruction which continues every day.  The world we live in is terrible beyond belief when you stop to think about it this way, just looking at the dark sides and threats.  In many many ways, including especially cheerleading for war--which may include inaccurately demonizing heads of other countries--major media outlets are themselves helping to make many of these problems worse.  Those wars do continue often pointlessly killing thousands of people every year, and injuring and terrorizing virtually everyone.

But what story gets the best placement, the most attention, the most followup, in the well fitted pages of the New York Times?  Of course, the touchy feeley ways of a movie producer noted for producing dozens of the more establishment challenging documentaries and independent movies ever made, helping to mint dozens of related stars and starlets, and in many cases bringing important issues to the attention and understanding of millions better than mainstream media did--perhaps saving millions or billions of lives in the yet to be written future.

My first thought was that it seemed like a waste of space which could have been used to cover more important issues.  Scandals and shootings, just like my local rag.  My second thought was--what made the Times run this story now?  Was Weinstein about to start on a documentary of abuses of all sorts at the Times itself?  Or maybe some of the issues that the Times forever gives short shrift.  That would surely be more damning.

A Hero Sometimes

But what really got me off my chair was reading about how Harvey Weinstein essentially saved the most popular documentary of all time, Fahrenheit 9/11, from the evil clutches of the Disney Corporation led by Michael Eisner, who was determined to kill it (not even having seen it) probably for political reasons.*  It is not a simple story. Michael Moore began making the movie with Mel Gibson as his producer.  But Mel Gibson decided to sell off the movie to Miramax, which was the original Weinstein company.  And, as the time, the Weinstein brothers were trying to sell Miramax to Disney for a cool $80 million, while supposedly retaining control over the company as well.  This was The Big Time for the Weinstein brothers Bob and Harvey, who had started producing rock concerts in the New York area in the 1970's, then rolled their money into producing relatively low budget independent films and documentaries.  They are often credited for bringing such movies into widespread distribution on the biggest screens all over the US.  In the 1960's, you could hardly see such movies at all, by the 1980's they were available in very select artsy theaters.  I remember such a theater very well, I enjoyed many movies there...but it had issues too.

*Fahrenheit 9/11 showed how Bush used the 9/11 incident cynically to further his plan to wage war in Iraq.  This is a story now that we all take for granted.  But at the time, many of the scenes in the move were a revelation to viewers, and might still be today for some.  Moore released the film in early 2004.

Harvey fought Eisner primarily through subterfuge.  He held off Eisner until the documentary was produced, and when Eisner found out how he had been deceived, he was furious.  This quite possibly was the beginning of the end for the Weinsteins at Disney.  Within a few years they were gone and had started their own company, The Weinstein Company.

Now, much later, Michael Moore sued Weinstein for not getting the agreed share.  So maybe everything was not necessarily flowers.  But Weinstein produced several more Moore movies, which I think are all gems.


A Hands On Producer

The 9/11 production shows what the bottom-of-the-moneypole producer like Harvey Weinstein did.  He first job was keeping the bigger money people happy.  His second job was keeping the production people going...in some sort of way that would keep the bigger money people from demanding even more sacrifices to the gods of commercialism and plutocratic politics.

It's not hard to see that this kind of middleman must try to maintain both love and fear, in the people on both sides.  With the hugest egos in the world on both sides, and not lacking in the middle either.

It's has to be a very tough job, even for a very extroverted big and physical guy who used to produce rock concerts.


Family

I'd always envied the kids who were thesbians in High School, and actors in College.  They got to live vicariously through the imaginations of the greatest writers.  I hardly went to plays or movies, and had a solitary and often boring life.  I often wanted to talk to pretty girls.  But most often all I could do was talk to my equally nerdy and introverted friends, about fear and other nerdy stuff.

So it's hard for me to imagine exactly what it's like, and yet, such is the human imagination, that I can.*  A movie production is like a whirlwind, that lasts a few years, and any one person may participate for any certain length of that, not necessarily the whole, and then be off to another just like it, or something different.

(*Which is actually, one of the principal points of this essay, and to which I shall return.)

The Harvey Weinstein producer is there for the whole deal, but also doing other movies at the same time.  This is the guy who never gets off the phone, or out of the last meeting, because there is always another.  So, when does he take a bath?

Now Harvey himself has never been an actor, though he's probably played soft or tough quite well, as the situation demanded.  Really, he just loves movies, and loves the fact that he's become one of the ultimate movie moguls.

More than anything, he wants to be the center of the production "family."  The sugar daddy, alternatively creating love and fear, but in the end, everyone walks away getting most of what they wanted, and sometimes scoring beyond their dreams.  It's high risk, high drama, and high tension.

[to be continued...]


Motor Neurons


Kick 'em when they're Up, Kick 'em when they're Down


Fragile and Dainty


Milhous, not Nelson


Every Day Harassment














Saturday, October 14, 2017

"Anti-Semitism"

Zionists in Europe, the UK, and the USA are pushing for laws that define anti-semitism as including criticism of the State of Israel and those who lobby for it.  This is worse than merely outrageous.  It is Orwellian.

Already this has resulted in the expulsion of a Jewish mathematics and philosophy professor, Moshe Machover, from the UK Labour Party.  Ironically the specific reason for his dismissal was that he had written an article titled "Anti-Zionism does not equal Anti-Semitism" for a publication of the Labour Party Marxists group.  Machover himself was born and raised in Israel.

Already, and long before, I would argue that it is Zionism that represents real anti-Semitism.

Machover has spelled out the historical facts that Hertzl himself thought anti-semitic regimes would be allies in the Zionist cause, and for this reason Zionists of the time welcomed the early Nazi policies including the Nuremburg laws of 1935, before the Nazis switched to a policy of extermination.

After WWII, the worst atrocities of the Nazis became the ultimate justification for Zionism, as an eternal get-out-of-jail-free-and-label-others-as-the-monsters card through which the newly US owned and operated world could ignore the forcible expulsion of other peoples (also mostly semitic) from the newly claimed State of Israel.  This has continued without significant change, and is now in its deep stage having clearly become Genocide itself.  While on-the-street Israelis are openly calling for the Final Solution for Palestinians--nothing new, ever since Golda Meier defined the Palestinians into non-existence or long before and I've heard similar sentiments from Zionists ever since 1967, and recently the West Bank having been annexed complete by official political statements now (of the sort "we are never going to allow...")--and where for a long the original people have had no right to property, privacy or life, and Gaza getting a periodic Mowing the Lawn killing tens of thousands and terrorizing all--while always being a prison from which no travel or exchange is possible except what little is allowed by the Israeli gatekeepers and their police state allies.  The is not merely "Apartheid"--the Blacks in South Aftrica were not being systematically driven from the country they were doing the work.  In Israel--there is no alternative to no alternative for "Palestinians"--the people who occupied the country and to whom it had been promised before it was taken from them by force in the late 1940's.

There are about as many Palestinians including Refugees (and they are a tough people who will never lot go of their Palestinian identity and claim to original ownership) as there are Jews in Israel, and the Palestinians have been increasing more rapidly.  But they suffer mightily while their country has been demolished to make way for rich whiter people seeking refuge from previous enemies who are now legally and traditionally bound not to be anti-semitic--threatening to be to the point of criticizing any of their actions.  The US and the UK are both excellent places for Jews, who are the single richest ethnic group in the USA--a fact rarely mentioned.   Meanwhile, wars and destructions intended to shore up Imperial control of the Middle East (for Empire and Israel, or Israel and Empire, or something like that) have been enormously destructive and costly and unending.  This does not look like something that goes on well forever.  It is a matter of Imperial Patience, or perhaps Imperial Succession.  I will go on saying that at best Zionism was a big mistake, Diaspora was and remains the better choice for most Jews, the ultimately safer choice, as well as being the most ethical choice without extreme devotion to Palestinian rights or sovereignty (which is now legally prohibited by that "Democratic" but also "Jewish" state of Israel---you could be denied entry or immediately deported for calling for BDS).

To add to the deep ironies, the most prominent arbiter of the new anti-semitic thought crimes is Johnathan Freedland, a senior columnist at the Guardian and the Jewish Chronicle, who is himself a winner of the Orwell Award.  (I had to look it up, and was disappointed to find that the Orwell Award was not some kind of sarcastic anti-Award.  Or maybe it is, and they're simply not upfront about it.  Freedland won apparently for a series of articles on different topics, which look a bit edgy, but also try to mix left and conservative memes for a kind of bogus centrism.  In an oped about Thatcher's passing, he contrasted his left center feeling that Thatcher should merely not be specially blessed to the "idiots" who wrote "the bitch is dead."  Count me with the latter.)  I learned long ago not to completely trust the Guardian.  They seem to have a particular thing against real leftism--as somewhat represented by Corbyn whom the Guardian is always smearing with one hatchet job or another--and instead pushing for neoliberalism and identity politics and Zionism.  Yes, perhaps the Guardian is not quite as bad as the New York Times, but with those same tendencies take further, and with the Times being in addition the one of the best examples of a pro-War propaganda machines in history, with the latest red scare about "Russians manipulating our Elections!" being as bogus and counter contextual as previous examples going back to at least the bombing of the US Maine, and designed deliberately to promote militaristic and Zionistic ends.  The whole "Russians!" thing is daily debunked by the ultimate investigative reporter Robert Parry at Consortium News, to this day.  Every knows which foreign government more far more than any other manipulates the US government,:Israel and it's lobbyists mostly, and massively.  It's likely they have a very outsized effect on elections also, from their millions in contributions and dedicated mobilization.  Meanwhile the NYTimes hyperventilates about how alledgedly a few Russians bought Puppy ads for some reason costing a few thousand dollars cash in all, having no likely impact, but potentially making a pretext for war if detected, something chessmaster Putin would be certain to never do.

Well despite this Orwellian counter reaction by some people in high places in the media and politics, the main action, as Machover says, is the international world of people pulling away from a knee jerk lock step alignment with the hawkish needs of Zionists.  This is especially notable with those under 30, even among Jews, perhaps especially among Jews.  (Somehow never my somewhat more elderly friends.  Not in 60 years of associating with mostly jews from my Southern California semi elite background, has one of my own Jewish friends been or become anti-Zionist.  But I see Jewish anti-Zionists to be the majorities of young jews in radical conferences.  Before WWII, the majority of jews and most Rabbis was anti-Zionist, there was a long Talmudic tradition of opposing a new State of Israeli until certain conditions were met.)

But meanwhile, UK courts finally cleared for release and undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into the Israeli Lobby and it's influence in the UK.  Among the findings were how Zionists in the Labour Party did actually try to undermine Corbyn.  The judge decided against the claims that criticism of Israel or the Israeli lobby would constitute anti-semitism.

Hopefully we will see the results of a similar documentary made undercover within the US Israeli Lobby, the existence of which was subsequently made known.

The most authoritative account of the way the Israeli Lobby and its Zionist friends have manipulated US foreign policy to their own ends is a book by two highly respected and prominent Jewish scholars, Mearsheimer and Walt, in their book aptly titled, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

But I admire the straightforwardness of one commenter who quotes this from another website (from a prolific Jewish scholar in the USA):

Israeli power over the making and implementing of US Middle East policy has led to the US invasions of Iraq, Syria and Libya; the current economic boycott and blockade of Iran; the breakup of Sudan; and the bombing of Somalia.
We could quibble that it's not just Israel and it's armies of lobbyists and friends including officials and people in "think tanks".  There are cold war imperialists who might not care at all for Israel itself except as a projection point for US power...for which all of the above might also make sense.  I see as an even confluence of forces, Zionist and Imperialist, with each person and organization having some combination.  However, the Zionist part is a major part, and why should Zionists be running US Foreign Policy ???  See all the harmful things it has gotten us into.  And now, war with the most successful independent country in the middle east, Iran???



Wednesday, October 4, 2017

A Hero

Hugh Hefner was a hero not just in one way, cleaning up and legitimizing visual aids for men, to help them cope with modern atomized life (which was already there...).  But in very many ways, and to very many people.  The list of good people whose careers he boosted or even made possible is endless.

Often there is a grain of truth in what critics say.  But in this case, his critics are not just partly wrong, they are completely wrong.

He did not invent objectification, nor apply it more than other capitalists (much less, actually, as far as I have seen).  Objectification is the fundamental nature of capitalism.  Some sell their bodies, others their minds, still others their souls.  I would say the body is the least of these.  Some of his worst critics sold their souls long ago.

He set such a high standard in his personal relations, business dealings, girlfriend dealings, employee dealings, that even such a perfectly fair minded person like me would be hard pressed to do as well.

These things are not easy to do well...he carried on for 91 years.

Sure, he had lots of girlfriends, and a few had some bad times (though that seems relatively rare), likewise with employees, customers.  Overall, almost everyone who has actually dealt with him praises him.  And I think it's fine if he has lots of girlfriends, and does his thing, so long as never forcing himself...and that is never claimed.  Only psychological pressure.   Being a follower or a friend always comes with this kind of pressure...and either it works for you or it doesn't.

I and many others have long seen him as an Icon.  He earned that.

He opened up Jazz to new audiences, and many liberal writers and ideas as well.  I think that's wonderful.  Perhaps indeed that is a large part of why I am what I am, though I would seem to be farther lefter.  Well, see, he made me possible, by making liberalism cool and respectable, that made it possible for me to go a bit further.

It was for THAT reason, his left liberal influence on the youth, that Hefner's philosophical ambitions were trashed by the interventions of supposedly fellow liberal Gloria Steinem, who had been an asset of the CIA spying on leftist groups, and might well have been working for the CIA while an undercover bunny spying on Hefner's first club.

It is true Steinem has promoted the "equality" of women meaning that women should be able to "rise" to the same occupations of men, and of course that kind of equality is a good thing.  But her focus has primarily been on the top, eliminating the "glass ceiling" that kept women out of the CEO's office.  But what the world needs is not more heartless CEO's who happen to be women, it needs a structure in heartless CEO's can't exist.  The goal should be a world in which all occupations provide security, respect, and fufillment.  Equality, not merely the hollow "equal opportunity."

And so, even from the beginning, Steinem was not a left liberal, she was a neoliberal, and the very prototype of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The neoliberal plan from the very beginning was to destroy the real left whose concern is social justice for working people, and replace it with weak tea identity politics that just gets enough people charged up to win a few elections.  So her liberalism is fake, her leftism is fake, and even her feminism is fake...and it has been the source of much social destruction.  Phony left feminists essentially destroyed the left in this country by creating division, with tract upon tract of influential nonsense misandry whose effect has barely diminished to this day.

Leftism will only work through unity, and the kind of unity that comes from within, from positive social and sexual relationships.  Meanwhile, the right was immune, and was not affected.  That was the plan all along, I believe.  None of these phony left feminists (the 2nd wave antiporn ones) are what they claimed to be.  Sexual prudes have always been tools of the Empire.  The fake accusations against Julian Assange a good example of the timeless pattern of how the forces of empire use widespread prudity to crush dissent.  The real scandal is always the Empire itself.

The result of Steinem's intervention has been that instead of a President Hefner or his disciple ending all wars*, including the War on Drugs and the War on Sex, we got Presidents Reagan, GWB, and Trump, who have ratcheted them all up in the name of Empire.

(*Hefner gave a platform to war critical journalists such as Seymour Hirsch--who exposed the Mai Lai Massacre.)

A large part of Steinem's work ever since has been the extreme form of antipornography, even to the depiction of women in any form, including the very clean Playboy Magazine, the antithesis of the "smut" which it replaced.  In the extreme form of antiporn, the mere principle that women's pictures might be printed is "exploitation."  Another antiporn feminist pushed for national laws to make magazines like Playboy legally liable for any crime.  This didn't resist court challenges in the USA, but was pushed into law in Sweden, which has led me to believe I would not be comfortable staying there for any length of time.  Porn reduces crime by reducing stress, much as smoking marijuana does.  Hefner was an early promoter of drug reform too.  His influence may even be a part of the long term decline of violent crime between 1960 and 2000.  One famous psychopath claimed that pornography drove him to crime.  But should we believe him?  It seems to me more that violent crime comes from lack of pornography and drugs.  It's hard to pull another trigger when you're using those.

Sometimes it is claimed that magazines such as Playboy create "body image issues."  But there's nothing super special about Playboy centerfolds, other than the same youth and beauty you can find in any college classroom.  The Playboy centerfold may be the prettiest girl in the classroom, but is not from another planet.  When Hefner said he chose the girl next door, that was not far from the truth, though obviously he chose the prettiest or nicest girls he could find.  The basic point of such "visual aids" is to pretend for a minute--or as long as it takes--that the prettiest girl in the classroom is interested in you.  And most of them will not be--everyone knows that.  But perhaps tomorrow, there may be one who is.  So don't give up.  Girls have always been hard to please, that's how heterosex works.  Meanwhile, a piece of paper can help you get some relief tonight, and become a part of a larger and more interesting world.

There is a lot of exaggeration about these sorts of things, such as the girls being super busty.  But that was rarely the case in Playboy.  The girls are pretty and perhaps thinner than average, and that's all.  Only the December centerfolds, up to about 1973 or so, were a bit bustier than average.  After then, Playboy toned down that aspect.  So much so, that I myself didn't subscribe to Playboy for very long, but looked for 'speciality' magazines where the women were bustier, if not as knock out pretty.

The famous "bunny suits" were/are sufficiently padded so any woman would be special wearing it.  It's just make believe, and everybody knows that.  But make believe is often needed just to keep on rolling down the road of modern life.

The take of antiporn feminists is anti-sex, anti-freedom, anti-human, unconstitutional, etc.  And yet, it goes on.  Antiporns on the fake left and the right.  Most of them are antiabortion too.  They provide only more restrictions, not solutions.  In fact, the problem gets worse, by design, so that poor people suffer more.

I have met women in the Porn industry, who always insist they are the real feminists, and I believe they are correct.  Nowadays many porn stars run their own businesses.

So as it turns out, including even the great antiporn pseudo feminist Gloria Steinem, Hefner's critics are all a bunch of prudes and theocrats.

Often heroes have weaknesses.  It is quite hard to find one with Hefner.  I can only guess that he didn't challenge Steinem and the fake left more than he did was that it was clearly not going to be good for business.  Dissing people rarely is.  He didn't put up the fight that might have done so.  If he could have done that, he would have been our savior, not merely a hero.  He retired from grand philosophical and political ambitions, and focused on his core mission: having fun and living well and living up to the quite demanding image of male pro sexual goodness he had created for himself and others.  And so, we never had a complete revolution, sexual or otherwise.  Just a small opening.

Meanwhile, because of the pernicious influence of the Empire's reaction to Hefnerism (the alignment of sexual freedom and leftism) by 2nd wave "antiporn" feminist memes (largely penned by Dworkin and Mackinnon, though backed by Steinem), only conservatives who never bought into those memes, and especially Christian conservatives, are allowed to be pro heterosexual very much anymore, and I'm not sure they are either except they have a lot more kids, and meanwhile virtually all of my similarly aged leftist male friends have none, and most haven't had girlfriends in a long time either.

Speaking of Mackinnon, similar ideas (and her name) was invoked at this threat at NakedCapitalism just this week.

I replied thusly (slightly edited):

It is a denigration of men to say that pornography or masturbation are any kind of substitute for real sexual relationships, or establish priors that would necessarily be required in those relationships.
Men are people, they have minds, can tell the difference between pictures and people, and most of them are concerned what other people feel about them (except psychopaths), and are interested in having real friends and perhaps families and children too.
Masturbation merely releases sexual tension, which means it might be a substitute for prostitutes or other forms of very casual sex, the very kinds of things that conservatives and theocrats claim to deplore.
Organizations that prohibit masturbation and abortion ought to be well aware that these policies are going to increase the number of unplanned babies. Do they really deplore that?

The Empire always wins.  Until it loses.

Hefner did his part better than anyone else, and probably as well as anyone could, the rest is up to us.

RIP, Hef.



Friday, May 26, 2017

Algorithmic Trading should be minimized with Financial Transactions Tax

 http://www.npr.org/2017/05/23/529730657/data-driven-traders-begin-to-dominate-financial-markets

This is typical NPR whitewash.

They don't give many details, I don't think he mentions the most famous Quant meltdown of all, LTCM, it was the biggest bailout-thing of any kind in history at the time, only to be outdone later.  It was a famous hedge fund based on the math from the "economics nobel" award winning formula by Scholes et al in the 1970's for figuring out the average math for commodities, therefore a fair way to price them.  So LTCM was based on the idea that if you just raise billions and borrow hundreds of billions more, and bet against all the commodity price levels that don't meet the math, and ride the average profits.  All the big money, smart people, and big banks believed it, or so they said.

Problem is, in all forms of gambling, there's always one more number, and when that comes up...  In this case, it was the post-Soviet meltdown of Russia, caused by the western backed (if not created) Yeltsin regime.  But all the big banks and everybody had bought into LTCM, so it had to be slowly "unwound" over months to prevent the entire economy from tanking.  A scraped profit for a few had put the entire economy at risk (and risk is a very big cost).

To the extent we even allow trading in stocks, bonds, and commodities, those trades should be taxed to discourage clever ways of "gaming" them which creates only zero sum gains at best, if not public losses in the aggregate.

The so called transaction tax.  That's the chief tool to crack down on excessive trading and re-trading, because small percentages add up when you are doing trillions of trades to gouge a profit.

Right now we leavy heavy and unfair 8% tax on "sales" of ordinary commodities, like clothes.  But we refuse to levy any tax whatsoever on trades of stocks and commodities.  In the 1920's, there was a 0.02% tax on stock trades, but today there is none in the US.  There used to be such a tax in London, I'm having some trouble verifying that right now.  It turns out one major reason for Brexit was to dodge the proposed EU transaction tax, which would be 0.1% on stocks and bonds, and 0.01% on commodities.  If London had such a tax, and I believe they did at some time, it was somewhat smaller than that.  So you can see now why all the money people wanted to leave the EU.  I did not know this until right now.

We should tax stock trades and clothing exchanges the same, and everywhere in the country.  0.1% seems like a good rate to me.

Anyway I believe most tax revenue should come from taxes on large wealth and income flows, and not as much on sales and trading--which weigh down the economy at greater expense to the poor.  But 0.1% seems ok.

A financial transactions tax was promoted by Sanders and Warren, but is certain never to get passed and signed by the current representatives.  We could only test our democracy by replacing anyone not like Sanders and Warren, then would our representatives still follow the will of the banks?  I would hope not, not that I know for sure.  But we certainly cannot expect anything until we do replace all the representatives not like Sanders and Warren.


Thursday, May 18, 2017

The Smoldering Laptop

An anonymous federal investigator has backed up the claim that Seth Rich, the DNC staffer slain last year, had sent over 40,000 emails and 17,000 attachments to Gavin MacFadyen, an American journalist and director  of Wikileaks in London.

The DNC has never released materials to the FBI, preferring to hire a private investigator associated with the anti-Russian think tank The Atlantic Council, who claimed that they had been hacked by Russia.

Update!  This story has now been fully discredited, the most believable discrediting (not the Washington Post for sure) is Snopes.com.

But this is not Perry Mason.  They don't talk about the laptop at all.  They talk about Wheeler's walking back his own claim.  That is what it is ALL about.

Well it's easy to see someone might be putting the finger (or $$$$) on Wheeler not to say anything more.  Discrediting the messenger does not discredit, necessarily the message.  Where Snopes says "False" the correct answer is "We Don't Know."  I'll accept that.  Wheeler is not a fully credible witness, having now reversed himself.  But that is hardly proof at all that his original remarks were fabrications, and he clearly has been someone involved in investigating the case.





Thursday, May 4, 2017

Shorter Hillary Clinton: I confess, I confess that Wikileaks did it

6 months after the election, while the Trump+GOP juggernaut is a clear and present danger and we should be watching and responding to each and every one of THEIR actions, Hillary Clinton wants to tell us she is now taking full responsibility for losing the election...she is taking full responsibility by blaming Wikileaks.

And her co-travelers on MSNBC are still echoing in every way, including editorializing by the imitable Brian Williams (who I see now was suspended a while ago for false reporting about the War On Iraq--and it looks to me  now that he shouldn't even be allowed on TV).

I'm spending a week with my sister who (gasp) loves to watch MSNBC.  On Tuesday night I was all set to declare that Rachel Maddow isn't nearly as bad as I thought.  I was listening from another room, but it seemed that it wasn't Wikigate 24/7 anymore.  Rachel was actually detailing contemporaneous actions by Trump.  I was going to post that Rachel might now be worth watching.

But no more.  After listening to the Blame Wikileaks chorus of Brian Williams et all, I've decided that I will not watch MSNBC any more ever until they can get past this.

And I've decided to start making monthly contributions to Wikileaks, who IMO has been doing a great service from it's inception, including showing how the monsterously corrupt DNC was crushing the Sanders campaign.  By the way this isn't hard to do, and you don't have to use Bitcoin or anything like that.  You can contribute to Wikileaks through sister organizations in the USA and the EU using Paypal or any credit card.