How we know anyone who is harping on the Steele memo's unreliability is hiding something else

Scott Limieux at Lawyers, Guns, and Money Blog nails the issue regarding Trump's Russia ties, and, along the way, has some fun with his nemesis, Glenn Greenwald on the Rittenhouse case*--and, sadly, how Glenn is a bit soft on things like Black Lives Matter. Calling Dave Chappelle! Another white gay guy who is on the side of white supremacy. Oh well. The key points of Scott Limieux's post are: 

(1) The graph showing how corporate media coverage favored Hillary's email and private speaking fees scandals over the many, many Trump business oriented and personal oriented scandals, and

(2) How the Steele memo proves less than Russiagate is a Hoax folks want to admit, compared to the then-Republican controlled Senate report showing (1) the Russians did acts which proved the Russians wanted Trump to win in 2016; and (2) Trump welcomed Russian help in the 2016 election.**

When one also adds in Trump's cozy ties with Russian oligarchs for nearly 20 years before 2016 and, well, lots of smoke and even some fire. Therefore, one does not have to be a supporter of the FBI, CIA, and NSA in general to recognize there was a reason for those agencies to have people concerned about whether Trump was compromised. Do I think the Russians tipped the election to Clinton in 2016? I have strong doubts and I don't think it is reasonably provable in any event. As I said in a post dated August 1, 2018, the key goal for the Russians was less about victory for Trump than sowing chaos in the United States.

However, I don't think that would matter if, oh, I don't know, Bernie Sanders had such a level of contacts with the Russians.  So many people, including progressives, would be saying there is no doubt the nation could not afford to have Bernie in the White House. It is why I just laugh at right wingers who suddenly hate the FBI, CIA, etc. and trust a con man--a literal con man--over those institutions. For the anti-anti-Trump left, yes, they are correct about neo-libs and the systemic fascistic nature of those institutions. However, I have long said there are many great people who are regular FBI agents, regular CIA analysts, etc. who do their jobs with integrity, with good faith, and are truly interested in preserving our nation's ideals while doing their jobs--and the CIA's analysts' track record on any number of foreign policy issues, when not politicized, are fairly accurate, just to take one long arc example. Why this is so difficult to hold in one's head is perhaps the greatest failing of the species, and explains why we are hurtling toward climate disaster while gross inequality continues.

* My take on the Rittenhouse case may be summed up as follows: Wisconsin's self-defense law gave a Mack truck wide opening for this white kid to walk away from the following facts: (a) he crossed state lines to get a gun to shoot people; (b) he shot the first guy, the bipolar one (Rittenhouse didn't know that, of course), four times, with the first shot taking down the guy so that he was no longer a threat, and Rittenhouse decided, at point blank range, instead of retreating, to plug three more bullets into the first guy, including one to the head--and the first guy was unarmed; (c) he shot and killed the second guy, also unarmed, who was trying to subdue Rittenhouse for his clearly to anyone not white, I suppose, an aggressor in a mayhem situation; and (c) shot the third guy, who was armed, in a similar circumstance. The trial judge all but adopted Rittenhouse, as shown by his ridiculous ruling at the start of the trial that the persons shot cannot be called "victims," but could be called, with NO evidence, "rioters" or "arsonists." Then, during the trial, the judge excluded (suppressed from the jury) video evidence from Rittenhouse, before he went to Wisconsin, saying he would like to go to BLM protests and shoot people. But, sure, Glenn, corporate media commentators didn't have a right to be outraged--even if the media folks don't articulate as well as you and me.

*In a February 3, 2018 post, I wrote about why there it is not necessary to use the Steele memorandum to reveal Trump's and his campaign's Russian ties. However, my memory of my Facebook postings from 2017, when the Steele Memo was first disclosed, and throughout 2017, I was willing to believe the Steele memo may have had some validity.  I just didn't think it was all that important compared to other information from other sources. For me, Craig Unger's "House of Trump, House of Putin" is a far more comprehensive investigation and analysis of Trump's long-time Russian ties--though Unger is credulous about the Steele memo in a few parts of his book. There is, though, much, much, much more information independent from the Steele memo.  And, folks, as I have long said, in comparing this controversy to the Red Scare, I would not fully discount much of the Steele memorandum allegations of facts (not sourcing) eventually coming out. I guess, at that point, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and even Krystal & Saagar will say, "Who could have known?" Heh. 

My review of the new Vonnegut documentary

My Wife and I rented the newly released documentary last night, and loved watching it, particularly the Vonnegut family home movies (I had been a Kickstarter donor years ago, but only gave $25, I think, so I didn't see my name listed as a Kickstarter donor at the end of the film. :)). The Vonnegut home films were amazing and gave important context to the information regarding Vonnegut's amazing and sometimes tragic, often happy, childhood. We loved the documentary's structure that follows a style of a Vonnegut novel--tell us the main person is going to die right at the start, and inject oneself as part of the story, along the lines of watching a kettle boil. The narrator or author affects his own story, and, in Vonnegutian fashion, why not just tell the truth, dammit? :)

However, I admit to being a bit surprised there was not more literary analysis, considering the biographers and lit profs interviewed--particularly for those books the documentary noted were ripped at the time of release, meaning Slapstick, Gallpagos, and especially Hocus Pocus. I know it was two hours plus already, but I think we could have withstood five more minutes to talk about how Vonnegut truly played with narrative arcs in the later novels, which went to Vonnegut's point of how little we know about Time with a capital T. And maybe a shout out to another person who, besides Kilgore Trout, appeared as a real life person in I believe three Vonnegut novels, Eugene Victor Debs. 

The strangest things to me are: (1) making Jill Krementz look like a homewrecker, when Kurt left Jane because Jane embraced a sort of evangelical type of Christianity, which the creator of Bokononism and the Church of Jesus Christ, the Kidnapped could not abide. Vonnegut himself is made to look like the successful doctor spouse who leaves a marriage after the other spouse had paid for medical school. It hints at Kurt's falling out with Krementz, which was over Krementz's infidelity in the 1990s, and it is of a piece that Krementz is never interviewed to tell her side of the relationship. (2) There was no mention of son Mark's psychological challenges, when Mark himself wrote the very successful book, The Eden Express. These two sets of omissions cause me to believe Vonnegut children may have been dictating what was said or not said, even though most of the children got in their usual, and highly understandable, child-of-famous-people digs at Kurt for not being a good parent. 

Still, I have long been a major fan of Robert Weide, having adored his Marx Bros. documentary which I saw in real time on PBS, and his later documentary on St. Lenny (well, not a saint by any means, but he was a martyr for free speech and all). My Wife and I were so pleased to be let in on the life journey he had with Vonnegut, the kind and loving phone messages Vonnegut would leave, and to get a glimpse into Weide's amazing life, particularly with his wonderful and courageous bride. 

My Wife and I both happily sighed at the end of the film, and deeply felt Vonnegut's words about how being kind is a great thing to do as much as we can--though as a political activist, I admit to being frustrated when people will go out of their way to not enact kind policies to help each other, and instead allow or push policies that enable us to kill each other and the planet. Weide's use of the Vonnegut line about mother nature wanting to kill off us humans was also classic Vonnegut, to throw in lightheartedly something that is ultimately very ominous. :)

The defeat of Democratic primary winner, India Walton, in the Buffalo, NY mayoral race reveals why staying in the Democratic Party is futile

I did not do a deep dive into the Buffalo, NY Mayoral race after India Walton shocked corrupt Dem incumbent Mayor Brown in a primary earlier this year. However, I wanted to understand how Brown beat Walton, and read up on Ballotpedia, which broke down endorsements and money. It shows there was no Republican candidate and only write ins after Walton. Had the usual bromides for unity after a primary been stated, Walton would be mayor. Instead, most elected Dems in Buffalo or the county suddenly decided unity was no longer operative, and backed Brown. Worse, so did the majority of unions who have the most members and most money. Add to that all three newspapers backed Brown, as did the business interests, which knew Brown was going to continue getting them public funds at the people's expense. The money result was Brown raised twice as much money and used free broadcast and newspaper media to promote himself. 

This is American politics in a nutshell, and why people-oriented activists should strongly consider ending their involvement with the Democratic Party and, if anything, focusing on further development of movement politics. The information in this Ballotpedia website is devastating to me.

UPDATE AND MORE EVIDENCE FOR WHAT I AM SAYING:

Irami nails the politics of pain management, which is Nancy Pelosi in a kente. Irami's analysis of the WaPo charts in the Virginia Governor's race, which ended with corporate Dem McAuliffe's dreadful loss, to show how the class divide among white folks, male and female, explains what is really what is driving our politics. Too many of our voting white folks, mostly older, have already embraced fascism. I am not sure they can be rescued from their desertion of class solidarity, but I know the Democratic Party leadership stands most effectively in the way of that project to bring back those white working class voters to the Democratic Party. And here is the chart Irami cut and pasted to make clear his analysis. The numbers for some or no college white men and women are devastating. Any Democratic Party voter who does not cry over this is part of the problem. We are supposed to be the workers' or labor party. The Party is controlled by corruption, by wealth, and by power. And the Republicans are, too, but speak in a strong voice for cultural resentment, and private power against a world no longer understandable, and use effective media advertising style marketing. Meanwhile, the Dems just punch left and down against their base, and put down workers and the poor from a cultural snob position.

Sigh.