
If you are new to the Reality Winner story, this is an excellent place to begin. There are a number of things I disagree with in this podcast, especially the assumptions and analysis of Chris Hayes at certain points, but it is well worth listen to.
Join me in trying to make sense of a complicated world.
Note: there is all too little discussion of the role of evangelical thinking and the Republican movement.
See: ” The Power Worshipers.”

I don’t pretend to fully understand the ideology of Chris Hedges or Glenn Greenwall, and there are important positions I disagree with them on. But, I think they are important to at least listen to given the lack of criticism on the part of the corporate media for the Biden Administration. CNN is doing a “celebrity piece” on Kamala Harris where she is asked to tell stories from her life.
The media is supposed to be a critic of those in power, not their best friends.
These are notes from an interview Chris Hedges did on his RT program “On Contact.”
Points made by Greenwald:
• Bernie Sanders was rebuffed in his attempt to get the Secretary of Labor position in the Biden administration. Sanders has expressed frustration with the Biden appointments.
• AOC was denied a position on the Commerce Committee.
• (Note: The DNC also refused to give Katie Porter a waiver to stay on another important committee)
• What the Biden nominations represent is a third term of the Obama administration.
• Susan Rice was nominated for the Domestic Policy Council
• Biden has a long completely obvious history. He has supported militarism. He was a key supporter of the Invasion of Iraq, 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
• Biden’s state is the center of Banking and credit card industry. He was so supportive of them that it provoked Sen. Warren to get into politics. Biden was the architect of a bankruptcy bill that made Warren furious.
• Biden, in addition, was more responsible for the crime bill than anybody else.
• Biden has shown himself to be a man who serves imperialism and corporatism.
• Wall Street celebrated when he picked Harris as Vice President.
• (Greenwald lives in Brazil.) People ask him why Brazil suddenly lurched to right. He explains that after years of what billed itself as being a “liberal” system, the system failed people. They rallied behind anybody who seemed to oppose the system that failed them. That’s what has happened with Trump.
• Now, the Biden administration is going to do exactly what the Obama administration did, nothing, for regular people. And so, if you are doing exactly the same thing, you have to expect the same outcome. The Obama failures led to the Trump administration. And, now the Biden administration is setting itself up to repeat Obama’s failures. (Note: See Majority Report discussion noting that the Biden Administration seems to have learned from the failures of the Obama administration.) According to Greenwald, the Middle class will continue to be destroyed. Jobs will continue to be moved overseas. The drug addiction, suicide, and anger that characterize working class communities will all continue to get worse.
• Note: There were such enormous hopes for Obama. My brother, noting the support enjoyed by Obama, said “He could be the next Roosevelt.” But, Obama wasn’t the next Roosevelt. Obama was constitutionally predisposed to behave himself in many senses of that. No matter what happened, Obama was going to behave himself. Research the discussion about “behaving” and race. Also, the Obama administration assumed that the Republicans were operating from a position of good faith, (what ever that means). The Republicans are definitely not operating from a position of “good faith” and have not done so for decades. How long it will take the Democrats to acknowledge this, I don’t know. And, Obama was never a progressive, never a supporter of real change. The movement that helped Obama get elected was jettisoned immediately after the election in 2008. The group organizing for him were told to “behave.’ People were told not to give money to these groups, but to give the money to support Obama. These groups, by and large, went silent under Obama.
Christ Hedges: Biden and Obama regard progressives as the enemy.
• Biden has always had contempt for the left. As has Obama.
• And, the left is now more submissive than ever. They are even praising Biden for distancing himself from Bernie, saying it was a savvy political move. They played along with the excuse was that it was better to leave Barnie in the Senate than appointment his labor secretary.
• There are no progressives in the cabinet.
• And, even with this fact, there is little dissent on the left.
• The choice that is presented is you can either unite behind the Democratic Party or succumb to fascism.
• The left has embraced censorship coming from corporations, and Biden is calling for new terrorism law. Biden was an architect of the Patriot Act.
• Hedges brings up the Hunter Biden laptop story which, he says, was censored out of the Intercept (the organization Greenwald co-founded).
• Hedges points out that progressives supported Markey in Massachusetts against a primary challenge from Joe Kennedy. After Markey won, he participated in a hearing with Zuckerberg. Markey told Zuckerberg: we don’t believe you are censoring too much, you’re not censoring enough.
• Obama released a statement before election in which he said that the internet was the greatest threat to democracy.
• The political center has decided we cannot have free speech in this technological age. The center was pleading with billionaires to censor people even before the election.
• World leaders denounced the banning of Trump from the internet (Merkle, Obredor of Mexico).
• These leaders are well aware that tech corporations can do this to them (censor them) and their countries. The EU has tried to break up these big Silicon valley companies without success.
• What Google has done is to destroy a competing platform, Parler (AOC, Khana, and others supported this).
• This will make more difficult the ability to organize on the internet. Corporations are outside democratic accountability.
• Hedges points out that Greenwald has gone to Substack as has Matt Taibi.
• This is an effort of destruction of any outlet that permits independent voices of dissent. They are laying the groundwork for rightwing censorship. They will go after others. It won’t be long before they are Turning guns on Substack and Patrion.
Greenwald
• Greenwald became concerned (about the media) when, during the Bush administration, the mainstream media presented torture as a “both sides” issue. They wouldn’t call torture torture because the Bush administration said it wasn’t torture. They took the position of “who are we to decide?” We can’t call it torture because the Bush administration says it’s not true. We’ll just present both sides and let you decide. This is not journalism.
Article about Greenwald, Counterpunch
• Greenwald first came to prominence as an anti-Bush blogger
• He published much of the Snowden reporting in “The Guardian.”
• He co-founded along with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, The Intercept.
• His columns have become “insufferable.”
• There is “almost no ideology besides reflexive contrarianism.”
• Greenwald is “a kind of fanatic.”
• The tendency toward contrarianism has led him to increasingly align with the far right.
• For example, Greenwald has made comparisons between Trump and Bernie.
• Matt Taibbi has taken a “similar turn.”
• He is an opponent of the national security state.


Just listened to a podcast, Skullduggery, hosted by Michael Isikoff. This episode was recorded before the coup attempt. He was talking with someone and they were saying that Trump was likely to just fade away. Why do we have journalists, not just celebrity “journalists”, people who should know better, dismissing Trump and his movement?
I don’t understand it.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/skullduggery/id1333621434

A lot of people were extremely upset with the Democratic leadership for loudly proclaiming on the one hand, that Trump presented a grave danger to the country and on the other, calmly informing us that they were going to wait over the weekend to start impeachment proceedings.
I was one of those people. This morning, turned on my computer to find that someone named Samantha Corbin was lecturing me about House rules. According to her, Democrats could not reconvene until Monday without Unanimous Consent and Kevin McCarthy was holding this up. So, I could just shut my uninformed mouth and stop carping.
Others who were disgusted with the Democrats were also lectured on Twitter their lack of understanding of House rules and procedures and chided for childish impatience.
This is so characteristic of the Democratic elite I just don’t know where to begin.
First of all, on the rules question. Corbin and evidently Pelosi’s daughter @sfpelosi (whose tweets I am prevented from seeing because she strictly limits access) presented this rule about reconvening as iron clad. The House could not reconvene until Monday, period. No way, no how without the unanimous consent of the House.
But, as other people in the Twitter discussion pointed out, it was simply impossible to believe that there was not a way around this rule. What happens, for example, if the House needs to meet on a Sunday because of a national emergency (which this is)? Are they sincerely telling us that under no circumstance can the House meet before Monday without unanimous consent?
And @MattGlassman312 contested Corbin and Peliso’s read of the rule. He wrote that was required was “consultation” with the minority leader, not consent, and definitely not unanimous consent.
So, there is a question of whether what Pelosi et. al. are asserting about the rule is even correct. And, even if it is correct, aren’t there ways around the rule? If Nancy Pelosi is the strategic genius her supporters (and her daughter) maintain she is, why hasn’t she figured out how to get around this rule? I would be willing to take a bet that if this rule was constraining Mitch McConnell he would have figured out a way around the rule or would simply violate the rule and worry about the consequences later.
And, as another person in the discussion pointed out, even with all this self-righteous lecturing about the rule, we don’t know whether Pelosi formally requested a weekend session and McCarthy objected or whether the Democratic elite were simply assuming that McCarthy would object and not bothering to even ask. One of the people in the discussion points out that a “statement would be helpful.” Ya think?
Pelosi et. al. are whining on Twitter about being misunderstood, receiving unfair criticism from ignorant people, but we wouldn’t even be in this position if the elite in the Democratic Party felt it in any way incumbent on them to explain to the American people what was going on.
For at least yesterday and today, Pelosi’s phone couldn’t be reached. The mailbox is full and nobody is answering. Now, if Nancy Pelosi sincerely wanted to know what the unwashed masses thought, she would arrange for her phones to be working and messages to be taken. But, the truth is that she doesn’t care.
If indeed the Democrats absolutely cannot convene until Monday, they should be all over the news explaining exactly why and who is holding them up. They aren’t. This is the very first time I have ever heard that the rules prevent them from convening and that McCarthy is holding them up.
Why, oh why, can’t the Democrats seem to understand that every time the Republicans obstruct them, pointing this out gains them political points? What’s so hard about that? Why can’t the Democrats bring themselves to tell the truth about their “colleagues?”
There is political advantage to be gained by first of all explaining what they are doing to the American people and second of all scoring points off the Republicans’ obstruction. They just won’t do it. You tell me why.
Part of the attitude seems to come from an unbelievable hubris that characterizes the Democratic elite and the absolute belief that a class of professionals who make an enormous amount of money for consulting and advising, know what’s best. They aren’t out there explaining to the rest of what they are doing because they don’t think they have to. They regard us as a necessary evil. It reminds me of that line in “The Postman Always Rings Twice” where the lawyer (Hume Croyn) says with sinister finality: “When I say I’m handling it, I’m handling it.” The Democratic elite doesn’t feel a need to explain. They don’t feel a need to answer their phones in a crisis. And, they get damn offended if anybody questions them.
Nancy Pelosi and her minions have managed to create this narrative that Pelosi is this genius strategist and that the rest of us just aren’t smart enough to understand the three-dimensional chess game she is playing. I have heard this mouthed by Mika Brzezinski and Jennifer Rubin, to name but two. The “she’s a genius” combined with a big chunk of “you’re just criticizing her because she’s a woman” intimidates a lot of people.
As another person in the twitter discussion (@RhiFionn) pointed out: “If you want understanding, explain what’s going on…”

Ali Velshi of MSNBC started last night trying to push what I can only suppose will be the corporate media line, i.e. that the election in Georgia had nothing to do with policy. It had nothing to do with voters choosing one view of the future and the way to get there over another.
Velshi said that the wins in Georgia were not due to “ideology.” This is the quote:
“What happened here in Georgia…This stopped being a Republican versus Democrat thing in Georgia and became a referendum on everything that was going on – on the Senate, on federal politics, on Perdue and Loeffler who are two of the richest senators alive, Loeffler is in a whole different field of her own….they were involved with stock trading. This was not a battle of ideology, Democratic versus liberal ideology or conservative versus liberal ideology.”
Later on in the night, Kimberly Atkins handed Velshi his head on a plate. She talked about the “issues that drove them to the polls,” like criminal justice reform. And, she said, these voters have a sense of “urgency” about change. They want something “beyond forming commissions.” And they are going to let Biden know.
But, Velshi couldn’t help himself. He had to take another shot at progressives by claiming that they “sat on their hands” in 2016.
Whenever there is anything like a progressive win, or a demonstration that the corporate democrats are on the wrong track in terms of fighting for power, the corporate media consolidates like a fist. They did it after Sanders won Nevada.
Jamil Smith (Rolling Stone) was on the same panel with Kimberly Atkins. He also put Velshi right about what was going on. He noted that Abrams decided to “turn out the people who are already on our side” rather than going after people who aren’t. For four years corporate Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and the DNC have courted independents and republicans rather than try to appeal to their own base.
“At what point” Smith asked, “do you act like you are in charge” and stop trying to negotiate with “people who have promoted hatred and lies about you.” When are the Democrats going to start to “….act like they have a mandate? “At what point do you act like you belong there…you’re in charge?”
I could have listened to Smith all night.
.

Under the category of “Where we are”
The Attorney General of Texas was awaiting trial on securities fraud charges when he actively lobbied Donald Trump for a pardon. How can a man who has been charged with securities fraud and who used the powers of the office of the Attorney General to harass the enemies of his cronies, stay in power? And, now, after lobbying Trump for a pardon why is he still in office?
Under the category of “How we got here”
The DNC pushed new untried technology into the Iowa caucus process in 2020. The story was that the DNC wanted to know in real time exactly what the vote count was. But, the new technology was a disaster and the Iowa vote count was also a disaster. Because the new technology caused such a chaos, the win was not immediately announced and this left Pete Buttigieg a window to declare himself the winner.
The upshot of all this was to deny Bernie Sanders, who polls showed was going to win Iowa in a landslide, crucial momentum, and an untold amount of free publicity which would have come with a clear win.
The DNC has plead incompetence, which is, I suppose, better than admitting that they interfered in the process deliberately to deny Sanders a clear win.
And, it is important to remember that Pete Buttigieg quit the run for president and endorsed Biden right on cue, along with all the other corporate democrats. As a reward, Buttigieg has just been named Secretary of Transportation.
In talking about his fitness for the job, Buttigieg said that he had always liked transportation as a kid (had a train set?), and that he had proposed to his partner at an airport. You can’t make this up.
Podcast of Preet Bharara
Bharara is a former U.S. Attorney.
In this episode, Bharara interviews Rachael Maddow about her book “Bagman.”
Notes:
Agnew was on the take in Maryland before he was chosen Vice President by Nixon.
Nixon liked Agnew partly because he talked aggressively about race in his speeches and public appearances.
Agnew was essentially getting a cut of every construction contract in Maryland. He wanted to try to establish that relationship with federal contracts.
George HW Bush tried to squelch the investigation into Agnew’s criminal behavior. These Bushes have a lot to answer for. They are a crime family just like the Trumps only better behaved in public and more circumscribed.
When Agnew started to be aware of the fact that he was being seriously investigated, he invented a story that he was the target of assassination plots. He talked publicly about buying a gun to protect himself against government agents.
Agnew engaged in “grievance politics.” He was always the victim being pursued by bad men. After he left office he established a career for himself as an “anti-Semite” for hire.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/preetbharara

Bharara is a former U.S. Attorney.
In this episode, Bharara interviews Rachael Maddow about her book “Bagman.”
Notes:
Agnew was on the take in Maryland before he was chosen Vice President by Nixon.
Nixon liked Agnew partly because he talked aggressively about race in his speeches and public appearances.
Agnew was essentially getting a cut of every construction contract in Maryland. He wanted to try to establish that relationship with federal contracts.
George HW Bush tried to squelch the investigation into Agnew’s criminal behavior. These Bushes have a lot to answer for. They are a crime family just like the Trumps only better behaved in public and more circumscribed.
When Agnew started to be aware of the fact that he was being seriously investigated, he invented a story that he was the target of assassination plots. He talked publicly about buying a gun to protect himself against government agents.
Angew engaged in “grievance politics.” He was always the victim being pursued by bad men. After he left office he established a career for himself as an “anti-Semite” for hire.