Who Should Get Their Comeuppance in 2015? How Will You Make It So?

So I’m reading year-end news wrap-ups and I’m thinking, “I want to see some of these sick bastards get their comeuppance next year!”
New Year's Dog

I’m tired of reading these phrases, “Nobody was fired for…” “Nobody has been prosecuted for…” or “None of the perpetrators are in jail for…” and of course, “Technically it was legal.”

 Who do you want to see get their comeuppance?  Are you doing anything now to make that happen? If it happens, would you be satisfied, or would you want more? I didn’t say justice, but comeuppance. (I like the word, I used to challenge a friend of mine to use it, which was hard since he wrote mostly about CAD/CAM products.)

 In 2015 I want to see photos of perp-walks and hear about sentences that fit the crimes. I want to read about a high-level person going to jail because his abused underlings rolled on him and the prosecutor needed a bigger fish to fry. I want to read stories about the people and systems that weren’t subverted with the right amount of lying, lawyering, lobbying and lucre. 

 I also crave the old-timey ripple effect of justice. When justice is carried out, it is supposed to change people’s behavior.  Not just on the people who got punished, but the people around them. 

 If you saw your boss arrested, handcuffed and led out of the office for knowingly and willfully delaying the disclosure of drinking water contamination with secret fraking ingredients, it might change your attitude about your future actions. 

 However, if you constantly see people avoiding punishment, it becomes a sick joke.  We cynically sigh and say, “Forget about it Jake, it’s Cheneytown.”  

The thought leaders in avoiding justice, people like Yoo and Cheney, understood that to get what they want they needed to make things that were illegal, legal. They had to convince people that immoral acts were necessary, even moral. 

 All this is designed for the people in an organization who are working from a traditional legal or moral framework. If they have new legal and ethical precepts to hang their conscious on, they are good to go.  But not everyone is so intellectually and morally flexible.

I think a lot about the people in organizations who push back against actions that they knew/know to be wrong. What are the subtle or not so subtle ways they fight for what is right? Maybe you are one of those people. 

Sometimes we get accidental justice or karmic justice, which might have been nudged along by someone who understands the need for justice, “Opps, we accidently released too much information in the FOIA request!”  But I also really want to see intentional justice done. 

For that to happen we need to help the people who actively work to make justice happen. That’s why I’m a huge fan of The Center for Media and Democracy. They have done kickass research and reporting on groups like the Koch Brother’s front organizations and ALEC. They recently got the 100th company, eBay, to cut ties with ALEC. That’s a big f’ing deal.

As I and my friends at Color of ChangeMedia Matters, and @StopRush learned, when you start making an actual impact on things people in power care about, they notice and hit back, hard.

It infuriates me knowing all these groups struggle for money. If we can mess up the entire right wing radio industry advertising model, isn’t that worth something to the left?  If funders say, “Well we never listen to RW radio anyway.” They are naive about the power that it has to push radical right wing ideas into the public and the mainstream media.

Digby wrote over in Salon how the billionaires on the right fight vs. how the billionaires on the left fight.  That story illustrates some of our problems.

It’s hard to keep fighting, especially when some on the left don’t see the value.

We can’t count on billionaires, we need help from thousandaires.

I have a desire to see justice served, to see someone get their comeuppance. I want to have an observable impact on the institutions and people who are hurting America. But some people and organizations on the left think we should just be satisfied knowing we are “fighting the good fight.”

RW pundits who write “best seller” books that nobody actually buys or reads are treated as Very Serious People by the media because they are promoted and groomed to push their radical ideas.   Let me give you an example.

 

The Comeuppance List

Number one on the Comeuppance List is Dick Cheney. Wouldn’t it be nice for someone to push back on Dick Cheney and the RW who have mainstreamed the acceptance of torture? (“What about the tough questions from Chuck Todd, Spocko?” Don’t make me laugh, I have chapped lips.)

Right now I’m helping Dr. Rebecca Gordon get on radio and TV shows to talk about her book Mainstreaming Torture.Ethical Approaches in a post 9/11 America. I want her to describe how Cheney and torture pushers changed minds and attitudes and how to fight back.

We missed an opportunity to talk about the Senate torture report on KQED, because one of the 12 Heritage Foundation PR people had already booked three of their research fellows on the radio show.

Dr. Gordon has no team pitching and prepping her. Later when I wanted to get her on a video podcast I didn’t have the lights or quality microphones to do it, unlike the Heritage Foundation whose fellows talk to hosts from their professional radio studio and control room in DC.

And what were some of the issues I wanted Dr. Gordon to cover? What Digby summed up on the Majority Report this week, The new American public attitude about torture, “It’s okay, I can live with that.” Torture has become just another issue to be haggled about. That’s not okay.

When nobody is fired, prosecuted or goes to jail for torture, that is a war of ideas that we are losing. When nobody gets their comeuppance and no justice is served, those ideas take root on the right, influence the middle and increases cynicism on the left.

I’m not a cynic, so this year I want to take some actions that lead to justice, or at least some comeuppances.  Happy New Year!

LLAP

Spocko

Cross posted to Firedoglake and Hullabaloo 

The Media’s Views on War and Torture Aren’t Fixed

As a person who has had his brain physically removed once, mentally transferred twice (not to mention controlled, rebooted and sped up) I think a lot about what influences, controls and re-configures our brains and how we use those methods on others.

I’ve been working on a series of posts on media based on Aaron Sorkin’s HBO show, The Newsroom at Crooks and Liars and talking about torture at Hullabaloo, Firedoglake and here.

Besides just analyzing what is happening, I keep thinking, “What is to be done?”

The Newsroom, a fantasy, has shown the external and internal pressures today’s media (esp. TV news) are under. Financial, political, professional, ethical and personal.

In the real world the news media has gone from a public trust to a profit center. They are now part of a “portfolio of companies” dedicated to maximizing shareholder value.

This last week, with the release of the Senate Torture Report, I was remind of what started me on my path to push back on the sickness I saw in right wing media.

We have have tremulous success in de-funding the right wing media using reason, politeness and an understanding of what pressures the right wing media responds to.

I . . . → Read More: The Media’s Views on War and Torture Aren’t Fixed

Here’s What The Media Isn’t Talking About, the Immorality of Torture

I’ve been on the “torture beat” for a long time. It makes me a real drag at dinner parties, so I decided to move those conversations out to the web and to the media.

So much of the current discussion in the media about torture is focusing on, “Does it work?”  There is little focus on, “Is it right?”

People in the media are looking at the legality, but not the morality. Discussing morality makes the mainstream media uncomfortable. To help them out, I’ve been suggesting they talk to Dr. Rebecca Gordon, a philosophy professor at University of San Francisco, who wrote this book:

Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post – 9/11 United States.

(It got great reviews from Torture Magazine! Seriously, there is a Torture Magazine.)

Here she is on Fox News 2 KTVU last night.

This morning she was on the Majority Report with Sam Seder. (Audio link.She starts at 30 minutes in.)

Because she has a depth of knowledge she can talk about the legal and political issues around torture, but especially the moral issues. We need to talk about that. The moral condemnation of acts of torture is not a given today.

Bill O’Reilly thinks . . . → Read More: Here’s What The Media Isn’t Talking About, the Immorality of Torture

New Fantastic Four Script Product Placement and Merchandise Possibilities

Possible Fantastic Four script leaked.  Email forwarded to me by mistake

From: Art Foonman, merchandising and product placement dept.

To: Josh Trank, Fantastic Four producer

Josh, the script looks GREAT! A few notes:

1) Action figures. Tell me more about these costumes Sue wears that contains her “powers!” .  I’m assuming skin tight, blue, white and black. Need Art ASAP.  Confirmed toy art dept is using SPRHRO blue, Pantone 9-286  Heads can wait until casting is complete since they just pop on, just make sure the cast is all white! Remember the scare with a black Spiderman!? HA!

2) The Doombot line of military drones–GENIUS!  Killer line of toys! DoD is already on board with rejected designs from the latest war. Lego has ponied up big numbers for licensing. Got one request for a “cute” doombot from Hasbro, think Wall-E with guns. Any chance of a good Doombot? One with big “eyes?”

3) Computer product placement. Sad trombone sound. Hacking into them? What is this 1989? Boring, nobody wants to pay to see their servers hacked. Oracle paid big bucks for Iron Man tie ins but we had to promise Ellison a bit part. Thank god he was a RDJ fan . . . → Read More: New Fantastic Four Script Product Placement and Merchandise Possibilities

The Newsroom: A Fantasy Network Reality Show

Aaron Sorkin writes more fantasy than George R.R. Martin. The Newsroom is Sorkin’s latest. I watch SF and fantasy for entertainment first and if I get some some insights into human nature and into a different world that’s a bonus.  The season three opener of The Newsroom was useful in both these ways and also gave me some ideas for media activism.

These things happened in last night’s episode of The Newsroom:

A TV news network  learned from a major mistake made last season. They changed their behavior to maintain a higher professional standard and are trying to do better. People in the news division have values and responsibilities in their lives and profession other than the bottom line. They will act on these even at the cost of their ratings or job. The president of the network states that the news division’s autonomy can only be protected if they have good ratings.  Rating are not separated from quality or ethical work. Ratings equals money. If they don’t maintain high ratings they will lose autonomy. It appears the news division’s recent failure impacted the parent companies’ financial projections.  The parent company is now under some kind of attack from outside entities with unknown goals. . . . → Read More: The Newsroom: A Fantasy Network Reality Show

Homeland Discussion: Shalwar Kameez. Who decided “All’s fair in love and war?”

This is a post about Homeland, season 4 episode 3 titled “Shalwar Kameez” This is chock full of spoilers, but it’s not a recap or review, more of a starting point to talk about issues that strike me. You don’t have to watch the episode to join in and comment on the issues, but I’ll be using shorthand for characters and to describe scenes in the show.

The episode is about love and war. The phrase “All’s fair in love and war” came to me as I thought about what struck me. What will people do for love? What will they do in a war? I like Mari-Lou A’s explanation, “The concept behind the phrase is that some areas of life are so important and overwhelming that you cannot blame someone for acting in their own best interest.”

Homeland Season 3 Episode 3

The title of the episode, Shalwar Kameez, is an interesting choice. it is a traditional dress of South and Central Asia. It is worn by men and women in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. People selling them on ebay say,”Salwar Kameez (shalwar kameez) are beautiful and elegant Indian fashion clothing meant to accentuate the female body.” . . . → Read More: Homeland Discussion: Shalwar Kameez. Who decided “All’s fair in love and war?”

View NFL Player Crimes in Interactive Graphical Form

Can’t keep track of which NFL player has committed what crime? Want to avoid filling in your Fantasy Football League with past or current domestic violence felons?

Here’s a nifty website (Link) that takes the data from USA Today’s updated arrest list and lets you sort and display by crime, team or position.

Note: No commissioners, NFL staff or team owners are on the list.

Recommend on Facebook Tweet about it Email this!

UPDATE: Why Does Fox News Side with Abusers, like Ray Rice?

Today’s Ray Rice story is still developing, but one thing it illustrates is the role outsiders can play in demanding justice and then expecting change from an institution that failed to act–or failed to act with sufficient seriousness about a problem.

Digby and Perlstein wrote today about what happened when we failed to hold individuals accountable for malfeasance. When institutions protect individuals, by explaining away their actions, it prevents change from happening.

The other thing it is illustrating is how great it is to have a group of people like Fox News or the RW media on your side, even if only temporarily.

Last week I wrote this piece, CEO Abuses Puppy. Why RW Media Supports Abusers Instead of Victims. I wondered how the RW media would act when they were told to be on the abusers’ side.

Well today we saw just a peek of what that might look like on Fox and Friends. Now they aren’t totally on the side of Rice, but they are able to get in some victim blaming and pass on some protective advice to their abusing buddies.

“We should also point out, after that video — and now you know what happened in . . . → Read More: UPDATE: Why Does Fox News Side with Abusers, like Ray Rice?

Why Doesn’t Good SF TV Spawn More? Case in point, CBS’s Great Person Of Interest vs. Its Intelligence

I’m excited for the return of ” Person of Interest” Season 4 premieres Tuesday, Sept. 23 on CBS. I will not be missing the cancelled TV show Intelligence.

I was praising the show recently and i09 user Longsnake agreed.  “POI is probably the best show on TV, full stop. ” Agreed.  I wondered, how the hell did this make it to mainstream network TV? J.J. Abrams of course, but I wondered if any of the people who green lighted PoI figured out why it works and make more like it or if they learned the wrong lessons and make crappy copies? The answer: They make crappy copies, like: Intelligence. 

But why make crappy copies? To answer the question I used the power of my mind and my computer hacking skillz to find the answer.

Below is an inexact transcript of the pitch meeting for Intelligence that took place at CBS following the success of Person of Interest.* 

Guy pitching Intelligence: “It’s like Person of Interest meets Chuck. He’s a good looking Navy Seal who has the NSA database in his head. Actually the whole Internet is IN the head of  the hero. He works for a Government cyberspace agency nobody’s heard of . . . → Read More: Why Doesn’t Good SF TV Spawn More? Case in point, CBS’s Great Person Of Interest vs. Its Intelligence

A Darker Side of Dark Money: Negative Ads Are Just the Start

People in media and politics love dark money, especially if they are gettin’ some. -Spocko

On Fresh Air yesterday they talked to campaign expert Neil Oxman about making political ads. He talks about how much money congressional campaigns spend on TV and how much it costs today.

Even beyond the cost of the way college in tuition have gone up. I mean, the cost of American television has exceeded every year the cost of inflation by many times.

He talks about the new role in social media but explains why it’s still not as important as reaching voters, whom he points out are older people.

And older people watch TV. They’re much more passive about how they get their information. They sit in front of the television. They don’t flick away from commercials. They watch TV. Kids today don’t watch TV on TV. They watch it on every other thing they can get. They watch it on their phones. They watch on their iPads. They watch it on computers.

So his premise, and I’m sure he has data to back it up, is that this expensive medium is the best way to reach the target voter. For . . . → Read More: A Darker Side of Dark Money: Negative Ads Are Just the Start