Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All' | Common Dreams

Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All' | Common Dreams

Published on Thursday, June 28, 2012 by Common Dreams

Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All'

Members of congress and citizens groups will not let Supreme Court interupt fight for 'real solution' to health care crisis

- Common Dreams staff

Both inside and outside of the US Congress, advocates of a single payer 'Medicare for All' approach to health care see the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as an opportunity to voice their continued support for the only solution they say will work to cover all Americans while also bringing down costs. Regardless of what the high court announces on Thursday, they vow to continue their fight despite the political roadblocks in their path.
"It's easy to see it's a good idea," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday, the day before the court's decision. "It's the cheapest way to cover everybody."
Asked by the HuffPo's Jennifer Bendery why progressives in Congress think a single-payer option could advance this time around, Ellison said if the court strikes down some or all of the existing health care law, it will show that the individual mandate was a failed approach. "We've tried it the right-wing way. Let's try it the right way," he said.
In Vermont, where Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin has championed a state-level single-payer system which would cover all Vermonters under a GreenMountainCare plan, efforts may be impacted by the SCOTUS decision, but they will not be derailed.
Talking to Vermont Public Radio, Shumlin said that the court's decision, regardless of outcome, would not thwart his state's quest for a single payer model. "Vermont is going to continue to pursue the smartest, universal single payer health care system in America that spends less money on health care contains the rate of growth," said Shumlin. "So that we can have our companies and middle class Vermonters invest in other things like their kids education, groceries, sneakers for the kids, hiring new employees."
Citing other countries with more socialized health care models that cover all citizens and spend "two to three hundred percent less" than the US per capita, Shumlin argued against any further entanglements with the private insurance industry. "Forget the Supreme Court," he said.
Oliver Hall, an attorney who filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of single payer advocacy groups  argues that the US already has examples of such systems in the US and says they work great.
“Those are Medicare and the Veterans Administration,” Hall told the website Single Payer Action. “Single payer is possible. It’s already happening in the United States. And that rebuts the primary tenet of the government’s contention in this case – which is that it cannot successfully regulate the health care market unless it has the power to require every American to buy private insurance. That is simply not the case. And Medicare and the Veterans Administration prove it.”

A Supreme Court for the 1 Percent | Common Dreams

A Supreme Court for the 1 Percent | Common Dreams

As we go to press, Americans are waiting to see how the Supreme Court will rule on the Affordable Care Act. But the Court’s right-wing majority has already guaranteed that insurance companies and other corporations will continue to have dramatically more say in American politics than citizens. With a pair of decisions on campaign finance, the Court reaffirmed its status as the branch of government most consistently in the service of the 1 percent, at a time when the concentration of income, wealth and political power is reminiscent of the Gilded Age.
The Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision had already given corporations the right to spend freely on behalf of candidates, causes and parties. But that ruling, as dark as it was, left some loopholes. Labor unions, while dramatically less well funded than corporations, still had significant leeway to spend on campaigns. Reformers also hoped that state and local governments would be able to enact limits on corporate campaign overreach.

Read more at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/28-5

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Mandate of Health Insurance

Live Stream from DemocracyNow.org: "Democracy Now! Live Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Healthcare Ruling: Tune in Thursday 10-11am EDT"
Democracy Now: "Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act"

A one-hour Democracy Now! special broadcast hosted by Amy Goodman, covering the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote in upholding the Act, joining Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. From outside the Supreme Court in Washington DC, to New York and around the country we get reaction from: filmmaker Michael Moore, health insurance industry whistleblower Wendell Potter, Georgetown University law professor David Cole, Elisabeth Benjamin of the Community Service Society of New York, Congressmember Keith Ellison (D-MN), Dr. Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program, Hilary Shelton of the NAACP, Russell Mokhiber of SinglePayerAction.org and Karen Higgins of National Nurses United.

Jeffrey Young, "Supreme Court Health Care Decision Preserves Biggest Expansion Of Coverage In 45 Years" --Huffington Post, June 28, 2012
Voting for upholding Barack Obama's individual health insurance mandate law: Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Chief Justice John Roberts' swing vote to the liberal direction saved bill: Mike Sacks, "Supreme Court Health Care Decision Preserves Biggest Expansion Of Coverage In 45 Years" --Huffington Post, June 28, 2012
Truth be told, this is a liberal sell-out to the private health insurance industry. It is ironic that Mitt Romney and conservative company decry it, as Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank proposed this individual mandate. As Cenk Uygur at Huffington Post points out in "The Mandate Is the Perfect Symbol of the Central Mistake of Obama Administration", June 25, 2012, the conservative Heritage Foundation originally proposed this.
From Alternet:
"Supreme Court Upholds Most of Obamacare"

The Supreme Court--with Chief Justice John Roberts leading the majority--has voted to uphold the heart of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, according to reports on Scotusblog, in its first quick reading of the Supreme Court's historic health care reform decision.
The ACA's requirement that all Americans (except the very poor) have a health insurance plan by January 2014 or pay a tax penalty was upheld, giving the Obama administration a tremendous political victory.
However, the decision appeared to allow the coverage mandate to stand based on the Congress's ability to impose a tax, not under its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. That interpretation is a victory for conservative ideologues, as it may constrain future congressional action on national economic issues.
Scotusblog said this was the Chief Justice's key quote, "Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it."
Another major element of the law, concerning the expansion of state-based Medicaid programs to help the working poor and elderly was largely upheld, but apparently with restrictions that may allow red states not to implement the ACA, according to early reports.
On the Medicaid expansion, this was Robert's key quote, "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."
In other words, it remains to be seen if red states will still be able to thumb their noses at the Obama administration and Congress and not implement the Medicaid expansion--such as opening clinics in underserved areas--without losing any funds for its other existing Medicaid programs.
Reading from the bench, Justice Anthony Kennedy made it clear that he--and presumably the other conservative judges would have thrown out the entire law.
Alternet will have more reports and update its analysis as the day proceeds. By Steven Rosenfeld | Sourced from 358 Posted at June 28, 2012, 7:34 am

Contrast this lame system with some of the best systems in the world, which do not have individual mandates to get private insurance. Sweden -government-run, costing approximately 9 percent of Sweden’s gross domestic product (GDP). Italy -government-run, costing 9.0% of GDP in 2006.
France, the top rated globally by the World Health Organization, is closer to the approaching American model than the above systems. BUT, with its private component, it is much costlier than most European systems: it cost 11.2% of GDP on health care in 2005, or US$3,926 per capita, a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe.

Rock n Roller Nugent, Whose Endorsement Romney Camp. Acknowledged, Man Messing Around with Underage Girls

As DemocraticUnderground.com reported (citing Politicus USA), rock 'n roll guitarist Ted Nugent said some violent words at a National Rifle Association convention this weekend, but that's not the only problem with the man whose endorsement the Mitt Romney for president campaign accepted.

Apparently, Nugent said in a 1998 VH1 "Behind the Music" interview that he messed around with underage girls back in his 1990s tours.

Of course, whether this was legal messing around or statutory rape, depends on a few factors.

From the videocafe, with allusions to Nugent's being a chickenhawk:

Lawrence O'Donnell went after Nugent for his draft dodging during Vietnam tonight, but he didn't mention this. I wonder if Romney is still going want Nugent's endorsement if the media picks up on this story as well. Given Nugent's history of violent rhetoric, you've got to wonder why Romney thought chasing after this guy for an endorsement was a good idea in the first place. Now we can add bragging about potential serial statutory rape, depending on just how young and what states these girls lived in, to the list of why his campaign should not have touched Nugent with a ten foot pole.

As this site reports, Nugent's marriage fell apart due to infidelity on the road, including with a 17 year old girl: http://www.roctober.com/roctober/behindthemusic1.html

Don't Write Off Gingrich, Santorum Delegate Effect After April 10

Yes, Rick Santorum has given up his 2012 presidential nomination bid.

But do you really think that his delegates are going to shift entirely over to Mitt Romney's camp?
At this point most of the Santorum delegates are going to go to Newt Gingrich.

With all the mainstream media pronouncing clear sailing for Romney, with the suspension of the Santorum campaign, you would wonder, have they looked at the primary and convention schedule for the next few weeks?

HOW THE HEADLINES WILL LOOK, APPROACHING APRIL 24, NEXT BIG PRIMARY DAY
The headlines over the next few weeks are going to most likely tell the story of Santorum delegates staying in the anti-Romney camp. The anti-Romney voters probably have not forgotten Romney's aide Eric Fehrnstrom's March 21 comment about Etch-a-Sketch of Romney's positions in September and October.
In the next few weeks we have various district, county and state level conventions. These are important meetings. As GreenPapers, one of the better sites on the primary elections tell us, these are dates at which convention attendees will vote on whom delegates will be, heading toward the August 27 Tampa convention.
So, on these dates, anticipate the affirmation of the anti-Romney position, and a shift of support, and endorsement of sorts, from Santorum to Gingrich:
April 13, Colorado district conventions, April 14, Colorado state convention and April 21, Minnesota's district convention.
Wyoming's convention, April 14, could go a number of ways. Out of the March 10 county delegate selection announcement, Romney won 10 delegates, Santorum 8, Ron Paul 6 and Newt Gingrich 2. If the Santorum delegates all go to Gingrich, then Gingrich would be tied with Romney.

Friendly primaries and delegate assignment meetings in the next few weeks also would more likely go Gingrich's way than Romney's:
Kansas (4/24), Louisiana (4/28), Minnesota (5/5), Indiana (5/8), West Virginia (5/8), Nebraska (5/15), Arkansas (5/22), Kentucky (5/22), Texas (5/29). And much of New York and Pennsylvania consists of red counties, so watch for Gingrich to pick up many delegates in those states on April 22.

So, the Newt Gingrich juggernaut will certainly not die out during April or May.

How Will Greek and Other Under the Debt Gun Voters React?

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE:
GREECE TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT TODAY; TO HOLD SNAP PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, SUNDAY, MAY 6
Details in this Reuters story from Tuesday night, April 10. Parliament has been summoned to meet Wednesday, April 11, at 2 PM, GMT.

(Alexis Tsipras, the next #2 leader of a coalition government? Tsipras is a civil engineer, and is the leader of Synaspismos political party, which is a leading party of the coalition of left parties, Coalition of the Radical Left [SYRIZA].)
(Scroll to the bottom for other austerity-strained countries' elections, this year and next.)

Europe is have a sovereign debt crisis.
Greece, most hardest it with austerity in this crisis, is having its parliamentary elections in April of 2012 (Sunday, April 29 or May 6, according to wikipedia). Already, polls are indicating that Greek voters are already set to vote in in increasing percentages for the Communist or other left parties.
Traditionally, either of the two largest political parties, New Democracy (the conservative party) or PASOK (the socialist party), had governed with a majority or a large plurality of 40 or more percent. In this era of the European sovereign debt crisis, it appears that Greece is heading to a party system with no party winning more than one-third of the vote. We are looking to a situation in which a government will be formed from a collection of eight or so parties. And it looks as though left of Socialist parties will pick up a larger percentage of the vote.
Ekathimerini.com reports with an April 1 dateline that the conservative New Democrats are anticipated to receive 22.5 percent. PASOK is polling at 15.5 percent. The Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) is polling at 12.5 percent, the Democratic Left at 12 percent and the Communists at 12 percent. A new Independent Greeks party of New Democracy defectors is polling at 8.5 percent in opinion polls of voters.
Another ekathimerini.com posting, from March 21, 2012, also addresses the new political system and the great spread of support across different parties.

World Socialist Web Site claims that the various left parties are cozying up to the PASOK party [Socialist], with their eyes on PASOK to form a governing coalition.

Skip over its Trotskyist bias with the slanted adjectives and verbs:

Following a relentless series of attacks on their living standards and social gains, millions of Greeks are angrily turning their backs on the established political parties. According to recent polls, support for the social democratic PASOK party has slipped from 44 percent in 2009 to between 8 and 15 percent. Under these conditions, a number of pseudo-left parties are working to stabilize the situation and prepare the ground for a new government capable of enforcing additional social cuts.

The driving force behind a government of “leftist” parties is the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA). It has repeatedly called upon the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and the Democratic Left (DIMAR) to cooperate in such a project, but so far both organisations have turned down the offer.

The last the New York Times addressed the party situation was "Greece’s Socialist Party Changes Leaders," March 19, 2012.

Other Countries Under the Debt Gun --with elections this year include:
France, presidential election, April 22, May 6, 2012; legislative election rounds, June 10, 17, 2012. The Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, is trailing right behind incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. The Christian Science Monitor news site has portraits of the top five presidential candidates. From far left, to center, to far right.
Ireland, referendum on EU debt compact, or fiscal treaty, May 31, 2012. So far, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom have voted against signing the debt compact. Ireland is the only nation that holds a referendum on the treaty.
Iceland, presidential election, June 30, 2012 (a beauty contest for a largely ceremonial position)
Lithuania, October, 2012.
Mexico, with a more stable debt situation than the above countries, is having its presidential election this year, July 1, 2012. Its leading left party is Party of the Democratic Revolution, whose strengths are restricted to the center and the south. It has cooperated in the Broad Progressive Front with the Labor Party and the Citizens' Movement. Its Congressional election are the same day. It will elect a mixture of first-past-the-post (winner take all) seats and list proportional representation seats. Follow the news at La Jornada.
(Other news: Croatians voted in a referendum, January 22, to join the European Union.)
Elections, next year, 2013: Bulgaria, Iceland, Italy)
How Will Their Voters React?

Spain's general strike shows first signs of rebellion against austerity

Spain's general strike shows first signs of rebellion against austerity
Austerity measures look set to become far more dramatic on Friday, when prime minister Mariano Rajoy delivers one of harshest budgets ever seen in Europe
Giles Tremlett, in The Guardian, March 29, 2012

With near-empty railway stations, shut factories, mass marches and occasional outbreaks of violence during a general strike on Thursday, Spaniards showed the first signs of rebellion against the reformist, austerity-preaching conservative government they voted in four months ago.

Police and pickets clashed in a handful of places, but it was a largely peaceful general strike in a country whose sinking economy, with 23% unemployment, has become the focus of worry about the future of the whole eurozone area.

Thousands of police officers remained on duty around the country on Thursday night as tens of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators flooded into city centres for protest marches against labour reform and austerity measures introduced by prime minister Mariano Rajoy's conservative People's party [PP].

Demonstrators brought the centres of Madrid, Barcelona and other cities to a standstill as trade unions claimed the strike was more widely supported than previous nationwide stoppages in 2010 and 2002. Rajoy's officials claimed, however, that the 2010 strike against a socialist government had received greater support.

Electricity consumption fell by 17%, suggesting the strike was impacting on major industries – though most shops appeared to be open in Madrid.

Street fires were set in both Madrid and Barcelona, where roads into the city were blocked, but there were few reports of serious violence.

The strike was most successful where Spain's big two unions, the General Workers Union and the Workers Commissions, are strongest – in large factories, the civil service and transport.

General Workers leader Cándido Méndez put average participation at midday at 77% but said that it was 97%in industry and construction.

"This strike has been an unquestionable success," he said.

Civilized protest looked unlikely to alter the determination of the government to drive on with reforms and austerity.

Rajoy has pledged not to backtrack on reform that has made it easier for employers to sack workers. And the austerity measures which strikers also demonstrated against looked set to become far more dramatic on Friday, when Rajoy is set to deliver one of the harshest budgets ever seen in Europe.

The general strike came on Rajoy's 100th day in power and at the end of a week that marks a watershed in political support for his party.

At the weekend he had seen support slip away in Spain's largest region, southern Andalucia, where the PP's share of the vote fell in a regional election from 46% to 41%.

The party also did badly in the northern region of Asturias, where it finished in third place in a Sunday vote.

Regional governments, which provide most welfare services and jointly failed to reduce their deficits at all last year, are seen as one of Spain's main problems.

The strike came amid growing concern about Spain in Brussels and the financial markets, which have put pressure on bond yields in recent weeks – though the Spanish government has had no trouble borrowing money to finance itself.

Yields remain below the levels at which bailed-out eurozone countries like Greece, Ireland and neighbouring Portugal were forced to seek help. Spain's national debt remains lower than in most eurozone countries.

Portugal's central bank cut its economic outlook on Thursday, warning the economy would be flat next year, where it had previously forecast a mild rebound of 0.3%. This year it expects a contraction of 3.4%.

With an economy that is twice the size of Greece, Portugal and Ireland put together, however, problems in Spain would have far-reaching consequences.

Rajoy held the budget back until Friday in order to avoid alienating voters in Andalucia, a strategy that has annoyed some commentators who believe he has wasted valuable time.

The European Union has set Spain a target of cutting its deficit from 8.5% of GDP to 5.3% this year, a net cut of some €34bn (£28.3bn).

As Spain falls back into a double-dip recession, however, economists say austerity measures will sharpen the fall. The government already predicts a 1.7% fall in GDP this year, with unemployment rising to 24%.

And with Spain entering a spiral of falling tax income, higher unemployment and recession, the real size of the cuts or tax hikes needed to meet the deficit target are much higher.

Economists have put the total adjustment needed to meet this year's target at between €52bn and €64bn – or well over €1,000 per Spaniard. The government has already covered €15bn of that with emergency measures announced in December.

Government sources said they were aware that Spain's credibility with the markets was on the line if it failed to meet the target, though some economists consider this impossible.

But Juan José Toribio, of Spain's IESE business school, said the country could no longer afford the welfare state built up during boom years and fuelled by a giant housing bubble that has since burst.

"We cannot sustain the current model of the welfare state," he said. "I am not saying we cannot have welfare, but we must seek a less expensive model."

Kathleen Brooks, research director at Forex.com, warned that the sight of protesters on the streets of several Spanish cities will prompts fears that the government might relax its fiscal plans, making sovereign debt a less attractive purchase.

It's a GOP Race of Two and a Half Candidates

Shouldn't it be obvious by now? This is a race of two and a half candidates. Much as former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum would like it to be a two-candidate competition for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, it is not. And while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes that it is a three person race, it is not that either.

Scroll down - Santorum threat to Romney ahead with Etch-a-Sketch gaffe & Romney flip-lops -See flip-flop video links

Gingrich --besides the Alabama and Mississippi races, has been stuck in the seven to 15 percentage zone. His returns in all the other recent primaries bear that out:
14.4 percent in Kansas
10.9 percent in Hawaii
8.0 percent in Illinois
(Remember that Gingrich did not even have the organization for getting into the Missouri contest; and Puerto Rico saw Gingrich getting an even weaker return, two percent.)

The former Confederate states provide the exception to the rule of Gingrich mired below 15 percent in the primaries or caucuses. The Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi contests were in the to 23.9 to 31.2 percent range. So, with Gingrich's 15.9 percent share of the vote in yesterday's Louisiana primary, this was a precipitous defeat.
Crushing defeat for Romney
Furthermore, the Louisiana results were terrific for Santorum and terrible for Romney. Santorum took the entire state, save for one county, Orleans County, the one with the state's largest city, New Orleans. With Santorum's win of 49.0 percent of the vote, the Louisiana win was his third greatest victory yet since the Missouri contests with 55.2 percent of the vote. and Kansas with 51.2 percent. Romney was over 20 percentage points behind Santorum in Louisiana with 27.0 percent.
References:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/
With either reference click on the state contests on the 2012 table for the links to the addresses for the 2012 primary returns.

THESE WILL BE SANTORUM'S NEXT VICTORIES & HOW WILL VOTERS REACT TO MITT'S FLIP-FLOPS?:
One cannot help but think that longtime Romney campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom's Wednesday March 21 gaffe that Romney will switch his positions in the general election campaign with President Obama like Etch-a--Sketch will play poorly with authentic conservative voters.
The quote:

“Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

4/3, a Tuesday: Wisconsin primary
4/24, a Tuesday: Pennsylvania, aside from the northeastern (Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island) primaries losses to Romney
(And Romney's victories in New York, Connecticut and Delaware will not be that total. For upstate New York is much like the conservative regions of Pennsylvania and unlike any area in New England. See maps of these results from 2002 or 2004; and Connecticut is the state in which Republicans ion 2010 chose flaky World Wrestling Entertainment entrepreneur Linda McMahon for their Senatorial nominee, and Delaware is the state that gave us even flakier not ready for prime time Christine O'Donnell as its 2010 Senatorial nominee. So there will be big percentages for Santorum in those states. With the proportional distribution of delegates in these states the Romney victories will not mean a thorough sweep of the delegates, for Santorum will take his fair share with the proportionality rules.
This statement, combined with Romney's record of flip-flops in transitioning from Massachusetts to the national stage, will further caste doubt on his real plans for governing. See this set of videos of Romney's public statements on issues ranging from abortion to Contract for America, gay marriage and gun control. Youtube video of Romney speaking in support of Massachusetts' gun control laws. Youtube compilation of Romney flip-flops, "Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush." "That's what we did in Massachusetts. That is, we put together an [health care insurance] exchange. The president's copying that idea. I'm glad to hear that." On global warming: "I believe that the world is getting warmer. I believe that humans are contribute to that.")
5/8, a Tuesday: Indiana, West Virginia primaries
5/15, a Tuesday: Nebraska primary

*Multiple choice exam on Mitt Romney positions on social and economic issues:
http://massresistance.org/romney/quiz/MittRomney20.pdf
5/22, a Tuesday: Arkansas, Kentucky primaries

Table of liberal cartoonists and their newspapers

Please scroll down. Tricky html pushed the thing down.

Newspaper	cartoonist
Washington Post:	Tom Toles
Los Angeles Times:	Jeff Danziger, David Horsey (hired away from Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Philadlphia Inquirer:	Tony Auth
Philadelphia Daily News:	Signe Wilkinson, one of few women cartoonists
Atlanta Journal Constitution:	Mike Lukovich
*Austin:	Ben Sargent
Boston Globe:	Dan Wasserman
(Dallas Morning News:	no seeming staff cartoonist)
Miami Herald:	Jim Morin
Chattanooga Times-Free Press:	Clay Bennett
Cleveland Plain-Dealer:	Jeff Darcy
Denver Post:	Mike Keefe
*Hartford Courant:	Bob Englehart
Houston Chronicle:	Nick Anderson (centrist)
Kansas City Star:	Lee Judge
*Lexington Herald-Leader:	Joel Pett
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:	Rob Rogers
(San Jose Mercury News:	no seeming staff cartoonist)
St. Louis Post-Dispatch:	R.J. Matson
Seattle Times:	Eric Devericks (centrist)

(Chicago cartoonists are pro-Republican; except Sun-Times, which runs Margulies cartoons)
*Not in top 50 circulation papers
Syndicated: Jimmy Margulies, Tom Tomorrow

How Smart Is It to Have a SmartPhone? --Theft of Photos and iPhone User Account Info Rampant

Much news on smartphones is cause for serious concern.
Sharing and inter-connectivity have their risks. I have long had this concern, and I early noticed that security problems, including vulnerability to viruses, malware are abundant in Microsoft Office products, especially Microsoft Outlook.

On the iPhone your photos can be remotely captured by another user. This is of concern for people concerned for their privacy and their families' security. It also is of concern for people that want to have proprietary control over their photographs, lest they want to sell such photos.
From at Suzanne Choney at MSNBC, undated: "iPhone photos can be seen by others: report"
http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/iphone-photos-can-be-seen-others-report-261014

And Android has other problems with apps and security:
From Kevin Fogarty at IT World, March 2, 2012, "Google threatens to ban insecure apps on Android: News: Google to ban all Android apps: Google threatens apps that exploit excessive access rights; not security system that allowed them"
http://www.itworld.com/security/255210/google-response-flaw-lets-apps-steal-photos-ditch-insecure-apps-thats-all-them

Missouri Caucus Confusion, Arrests; Broader Implications

March 17, 2012 turned out to be a day of complexity for the Republican presidential contest in Missouri. 5:00 Eastern time and we do not have clear results.
However, we do have impressionistic reactions. Of course, the impression is that Rick Santorum did well. Interesting are the reports from the ABC-TV News blog that this was one of Ron Paul's best days. Also, news supports contentions that there is some level of coordination or at least strategic peace between the Mitt Romney and Ron Paul campaigns.
See ABC's "Missouri Caucus Anecdotes: Arguments, Arrests, and a Good Day for Ron Paul", March 17, 2012.

Actually, this story will not resolve this weekend, for the last results do not get released until March 24, 2012. Many locales, including St. Louis, will not hold their caucuses until the 24th.
From UPI:

So the winner of Missouri's 52 electoral votes for the GOP presidential nomination will not be known until a round of meetings in April, weeks after most of the county-level caucuses are conducted.

And reports on the political infighting and arrests: These are not a good development, for if these things were happening on the Democratic, or a third, progressive side, the Left would be crying, state control:
From Des Moines Register: Contention, confusion mar Missouri caucuses, http://www.desmoinesregister.com/usatoday/article/53587822?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Iowa%20Politics%20Insider|s
From STLive: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/gop-caucus-sites-drawing-big-crowds/article_a8eb35ec-7050-11e1-acac-0019bb30f31a.html

Celeb gone psycho: Russell Brand in snatch and toss of photog's phone, in police custody

New Orleans, March 15, 2012, from TMZ:
Whoops!!!
British TV and film Actor Russell Brand, the one with the sinister or at least moody glare, the one that recently separated from famed pop singer wife Katy Perry, the one famous for his roles in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and the 2011 remake of Arthur, is alleged to have snatched a photographer's cellphone and is further alleged to have tossed it out a window.
The celebrity gossip site, TMZ, gave the news flash in the last hour: "Arrested for Cell Phone Snatch and Smash".
Apparently, there is little dispute over the facts at hand. Also, it has taken a while for the matter to reach the stage of the New Orleans police's arresting Brand. The incident happened on Monday night. However, the retrieval of the phone and Brand's offer to pay for the broken law office window in question was not enough. Police and prosecutors nonetheless have moved against Brand.
The New Orleans Police Department issued an arrest warrant for Brand; and he turned himself in.
NOLA.com reports that Brand is in the Big Easy for making a movie.

HR 347, Obama, Congress and America's Authoritarian Turn | Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters

America's Authoritarian Turn | Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters

Super Tuesday Analysis: Santorum's Victory

Conservatives love to make hay of the liberal bent of MSNBC.
Romney's victories
NBC News is a different story: David Gregory of Meet the Press is in steady pro-Mitt Romney mode, speaking with a cheery tone about Romney's victories:
Massachusetts,
Vermont
and Virginia (which doesn't count as a competitive model, as only Romney and Paul appeared on the ballot).
(BREAKING: By 11:15 PM, television network news announced that the Ohio margin had reversed, from Santorum with a narrow lead, to Romney with a narrow lead. The margin remains less than 5,000 votes.)
The Wyoming caucus results are at first indications leaning towards Romney.
Santorum's greater number of victories: Super Tuesday true big story
Rick Santorum has won Oklahoma and Tennessee.
Since about 9:00 PM Eastern, all the returns have Santorum leading over Romney.
NBC just reported that the North Dakota caucus went to Santorum.
Ginrich's sole victory
New Gingrich has won his home state, Georgia, probably what will be his last victory of the campaign.
(The Idaho caucuses seem too early to call, but are strongly leading to Romney at 10:50 PM.)
Santorum in the coming contests
This Saturday, March 10, the Kansas caucuses will probably go to Santorum. All of Kansas' surrounding contests, to date have gone to Santorum: Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado and Iowa.
And the same holds for next Tuesday's main contests will go to Santorum: Alabama and Mississippi. (Hawaii will probably go to Romney.)

Little Romney pick-up soon
And it will be until March 20 and the Illinois primary that Romney will have a victory.
Another big night for Romney will probably be April 24, with friendly primary contests in Connecticut, Delaware, New York and Rhode Island.

Mere Cracks in Democrat Leadership or Will Emanuel, Obama Attacks Lead Teachers, Other Public Workers to Sit Out 2012 Presidential Race?

On the one hand, we have this story that hints to cracks in Democratic leadership, suggesting that some Democratic Party leaders, or elites, are disgusted with Rahm Emanuel's fight against Chicago schools and teachers. (Chicago Mayor Emanuel is continuing predecessor Richard Daley's school closing program.) Rev. Jesse Jackson has called Rahm Emanuel's school policies, "educational apartheid." Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog reports that Nance Pelosi will appear this morning at Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition headquarters, where she is expected to endorse son Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s reelection bid to Congress to the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois.

But don't hold your breath for open breaches in the Democratic Party elite. The wind is blowing in the direction of more of the same public sector austerity. Take note:
In New York there is Governor Mario Cuomo who is on a holy war crusade against organized labor, government employees and their pensions: from Bloomberg Business Week, January 27, 2011: "Cuomo’s New York Budget Faces Union Fight on Pensions, Teachers".

Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a $132.5 billion budget that links an increase in education spending to a new teacher-evaluation system and raises the retirement age for future workers, a move already drawing opposition from unions.

Cuomo’s spending plan for fiscal 2013 closes a $2 billion deficit with no new taxes in part by finding $1.14 billion in savings from consolidating purchasing and human resources, he said yesterday in Albany, the capital. A tax deal reached last month that raised rates on those earning $2 million or more added $1.5 billion in revenue.

The proposal follows through on Cuomo’s pledge to raise spending on Medicaid and education by about 4 percent. The boost in school aid will be tied to compliance with a new statewide teacher-evaluation system, a plan similar to one proposed last week by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The governor suggested he expects opposition from the teachers’ unions.

One wonders what is driving Cuomo to do this. Most likely is a pandering to middle class voters wincing at taxes, and willing to cut living and retirement standards of public employees.

From public employee unions we do not hear much, but Danny Donohue, president of the Civil Service Employees Association, the state’s largest public-workers union said,

“The proposal for a new public employee pension tier is an assault on the middle class and a cheap shot at public employees . . . . It will provide no short-term savings and will mean people will have to work longer, pay more and gain less benefit.

. . . . . . . . .

Then we have Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, who apparently is now beginning to pursue a war against teachers. (This is an about-face to his pandering to teachers in his 2010 election campaign: "Malloy’s pitch to teachers: pensions to stay, binding arbitration a right, Foley would slash funds," from the Raising Hale site, September 22, 2010.) In his February 8, 2012 State of the State he said, “…only thing you have to do is show up for four years.” (No, he was not talking about being governor, he was speaking about teachers.) He is the state's first Democratic governor since 1991 and he is making this anti-tenure statement?
Malloy further said,

“Since 2009, 31 states have enacted tenure reform, including our neighboring states of New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. It’s time for Connecticut to act. ”

Jonathan Pelto's "wait, what?" blog pointed out that Malloy conveniently skipped over the fact that Connecticut with its four year probation length is one of the nine states with the longest probationary period for new teachers.

Democratic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, "Quinn looks to shift teacher pension funding to local school districts", February 4, 2012.

And in Maryland, with Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley and Democratic-led Senate and House, we are seeing the impact of the kind of shift of pension funding to local districts. The effect is local layoffs, cuts to libraries: from CBS Baltimore, February 29, 2012, "Counties Warn Of Cuts If They Pay Md. Pensions,"

Montgomery County school officials say they would have to cut 600 teachers and increase class sizes if lawmakers in Annapolis approve Gov. Martin O’Malley’s proposal to shift teacher pension costs to the counties.

Board of Education President Shirley Brandman told the County Council on Tuesday that class sizes could increase by an average of 2.4 students per class. She says that would be the result if the school system has to pay $38 million in pension costs in the 2013 fiscal year.

Prince George’s County officials say they’re also worried the shift would lead to cuts in the workforce and services.

Politicians, Democratic and Republican, love to use the words, "cut," "trim." But they are skipping over the fact that those things mean the diminishing of the quality of life for public workers AND for the USERS of public services (schools, police, libraries, medical facilities).

From Truth-Out:
How Pop Culture Influences Political Expectations
Saturday 25 February 2012
by: Bill Moyers, Moyers & Co. | Interview and Video

Film historian and culture critic Neal Gabler joins Bill Moyers to discuss how representations of heroism in movies shape our expectations of a U.S. president, and how our real-world candidates are packaged into superficial, two-dimensional personas designed to appeal to both the electorate and the media. As a result, says Gabler, we never get to the true pressing questions and issues of America.

“We love candidates who speak their mind in movies,” Gabler tells Moyers, adding that the same is not true for real life. “Movies are clean; democracy is a mess.”

Neil Gabler on How Pop Culture Influences Political Culture from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

BILL MOYERS: For all its many qualities, including some fine acting, “Contagion” was frozen out of the Oscars—not a single nomination. In fact, none of my favorites were nominated. Nonetheless, let’s go to the movies for some insights on our politics today, because when it comes to storytelling, Hollywood and Washington are co-dependents. Political conspiracies, skullduggery, and infighting have long provided solid plotlines for moviemakers. In turn, politicians try to embrace the values that movies depict as the noblest virtues of the American character: selfless courage, patriotism, sincerity and compassion. Both know that movie entertainment informs our image of what leaders should be but at the very same time capably and handily distracts us from certain grim truths.

So we’ve chosen this moment to talk with Neal Gabler, the historian of culture and film who expertly interprets how movies reflect our society and politics. Here in New York, Neal Gabler is an indispensable Saturday night guide to the movies on our flagship public station WNET/Thirteen.

NEAL GABLER on Reel 13: Welcome to Reel 13. I’m Neal Gabler.

BILL MOYERS: His books include biographies of Walt Disney and the powerful gossip columnist Walter Winchell, this one An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood and my favorite, Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality. He’s back in town after a semester as a fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Welcome home, Neal.

NEAL GABLER: Thank you very much.

BILL MOYERS: When you say life's a movie what are you saying?

NEAL GABLER: What I'm saying is that life itself has become an entertainment medium, that we are all actors in, and audience for, an ongoing show, that we have so steeped ourselves in the theatrical arts by watching them and ultimately by assimilating them that we have turned our own lives, and life outside of us, into a movie which we can watch and which we can perform in simultaneously.

I'll give you one example, you know, if you were to ask a farmer in the 19th century, or even in the 20th century for that matter, 'Why are you wearing overalls?' He would have looked at you in complete befuddlement. 'What do you mean why am I wearing overalls?'

But now we have people who walk down the street wearing cowboy hats from Ralph Lauren or wearing safari outfits from Ralph Lauren. You can, your clothing becomes a costume and you become a role player in some sort of fantasy.

And of course we see this in politics, you know, in spades where politics is a movie. And we're now, you know, in a campaign season where what we're really watching is not so much political debate, though it's called that, as we are watching a movie in which candidates are contending to be our protagonist-in-chief, as I would put it.

BILL MOYERS: Protagonist-in-chief--

NEAL GABLER: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Meaning?

NEAL GABLER: Meaning that they, themselves, see the country as a kind of movie and they want to be the hero of the movie because they understand that's what the American people really are looking for. They want a Clint Eastwood, they want a John Wayne. They want an Arnold Schwarzenegger to be the head of state.

BILL MOYERS: But we wanted heroes in the White House before there were movies. George Washington, hero; Andrew Jackson, hero; Ulysses S. Grant, hero. That was some-- that seems to be something inherent in human nature, not in the movies, per se.

NEAL GABLER: I mean, there’s a distinction between real heroes and celebrities who are people on whom we impute a kind of heroism who haven't really earned it. John Wayne is a perfect example. John Wayne never whenever to war, and yet almost everybody in America regards in as heroic because he played a hero.

So the lust for heroism I don't think is anything new. That's a product of human nature possibly, and it's certainly a tradition in America. But the difference is the nature of heroism, what we define as heroism and the way in which heroism gets framed. We have expectations now of our political leaders.

And the expectations are that our political leaders are going to operate the same way that movie heroes operate, not the traditional war heroes or whatever operate, but that movie heroes operate, and that they'll essentially slash their way through problems and vanquish them at the end of the presidency, which in this case is the end of the national movie.

BILL MOYERS: It used to be that the first reel contained a villain and the last reel contained a hero. But in politics it's just the opposite. Very often the hero, who gets elected is a villain by the time he takes office, right?

NEAL GABLER: Well, you know, the election is the greatest movie of all. And when the lights come up on election day and we leave the theater and we say as we did in 2008, as many people said, 'Boy, this is, what a great day for America that we could actually elect an African American to the presidency and that the slogans of hope and change that you can believe in, all these things are really operative.' But there's a sequel. And the sequel is governance. Now, as much as the movie of the election may be powerful and entertaining and even in some cases uplifting, governance is a whole different thing.

BILL MOYERS: So in the end are movies contributing to the paralysis and the frustrations of democracy? Because as you say, the movie is glamorous, governing is not.

NEAL GABLER: Absolutely. In fact I think the-- I would even go farther than that. I mean, governance is a very bad movie, it's a really lousy movie. Elections are a better movie because look at, elections fit into a clean framework of there's going to be a winner and there's going to be a loser. It's essentially a sporting event.

But then, that contest ends and after that we have a whole different set of problems and situations, but there aren't clear winners and losers. There isn't the clear framework. There's not the clear sense of hero and villain as there was during the election as we impute those things onto our candidates. So governance is as I say, is a lousy movie. And we don't know how to deal with that.

BILL MOYERS: One of my favorite moments in one of the best political movies ever made, The Candidate, Robert Redford--

NEAL GABLER: Ah, wonderful movie.

BILL MOYERS: Remember he runs this race for the-- and he's elected.

NEAL GABLER: He’s selected, tapped as the Democratic candidate in California partly because he's the son of a former governor, but also because he looks like Robert Redford.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah.

NEAL GABLER: You know, he's handsome and he's articulate and he gives the impression of sincerity, all the things that one needs to be elected. But there's no substance to the campaign whatsoever. And indeed, as the campaign goes on it becomes more and more about aesthetics.

About how one looks, how one appears, where one shows up. I mean, there's one scene in the movie where he walks down the beach just so he can be photographed for a television commercial and people come up to him and he looks like, boy, he's so relaxed, he's in his element. And then we get to the end of the movie. Now, he's elected and he goes to his political advisor-

MARVIN LUCAS in The Candidate: Okay, we have about 60 seconds of privacy before they find out we’re here now, so what’s on your mind, Senator?

BILL MCKAY in The Candidate: I don’t know.

MARVIN LUCAS in The Candidate: Okay, we got to get out there. See I told you they’d be here.

BILL MCKAY in The Candidate: Marvin, what do we do now?

MARVIN LUCAS in The Candidate: Wait a minute, wait a minute, what?

NEAL GABLER: Election's easy. Governance is hard.

BILL MOYERS: The hero of the campaign becomes a pretty weak figure at the moment of governance, right?

NEAL GABLER: If the campaign is about aesthetics. And that's what has happened in American politics.

BILL MOYERS: Earlier this week on CNN there was a headline that said, "Will the debate reveal a new Romney?" I mean, a new Romney is the-

NEAL GABLER: A new Romney? Well, here we have another debate and what's Romney's role going to be in this debate? How does he project himself? This is all about the narrative that the candidates are presenting to the public. And it's all about how well they can seduce the public. Now, the public's wise to this. It's not like the public is sitting back and they're stupid. The public gets this. They understand that this is-

BILL MOYERS: So why do we go along? Why do we go along with it?

NEAL GABLER: Well, I think--

BILL MOYERS: Because we-- after the election we are so frustrated, democracy's not working, nothing gets solved. And yet we were party to the movie, we were in the audience applauding when the new Romney emerged.

NEAL GABLER: You know, there's, I think, a kind of American schizophrenia about our politics. On the one hand we love to sit back and see these people be compelled to seduce us because elections are basically about seduction. And we understand, there's no fooling us that that's what the process is. So we sit there and we say, 'How well are they going to seduce us?'

But that also gives way to an incredible cynicism about the process. Americans are deeply cynical about politics generally. And one of the reasons we're cynical is because we get it. We get how it works. On the other hand we would have theoretically at our disposal the ability to change American politics, to say, you want to know something? I don't want to buy the new Romney, or the old Romney, or the new Gingrich, or the old Gingrich, or the new Santorum, or the old Santorum.

I want to know who a candidate really is. I want him to speak honestly and forcefully to me. And I also want to understand policy-wise what choices is he going to make? What interests are we going to-- is he going to serve? You know, these are questions that are almost never addressed in a political campaign and yet they're the fundamental questions of a political campaign.

BILL MOYERS: But let's go to The Candidate because there is another scene that I remember so well when Robert Redford, the candidate, tries to get his opponent and the media to take the issues seriously.

NEAL GABLER: This is the moment during the debate, if I'm not mistaken--

BILL MOYERS: Exactly.

NEAL GABLER: Where he's debating his Republican rival, a three-term Republican senator. And he's saying, 'Look it, we've got to address the issues here. We're not addressing the issues.'

DEBATE MODERATOR in The Candidate: Mr. McKay, you now have one minute to sum up. Mr. McKay?

BILL McKAY in The Candidate: In the begin-- I don’t, I think it’s important to note what subjects we haven’t discussed. We completely ignored the fact that this is society divided by fear, hatred, and violence. And until we talk about just what this society really is than I don’t know how we’re going to change it. For example, we haven’t discussed the rot that destroys our cities. We have all the resources we need to check it and we don’t use them. And we haven’t discussed why not. We haven’t discussed race in this country, we haven’t discussed poverty, in short, we haven’t discussed any of the sicknesses that may yet send this country up in flames. And we’d better do it. We’d better get it out in the open and confront it. Before it’s too late.

NEAL GABLER: And his handlers absolutely feel that he's done the absolutely wrong thing in trying to compel the press to address issues in an aesthetic campaign.

But the difference today would be that there would be a headline that the candidate says, Redford says, 'America is rotten,' or, 'America is sick.' And everyone would jump on it and then he would be compelled to come before the camera and say, 'I didn't say that America was rotten and I didn't way that America was sick.'

Now, interestingly, we've seen Newt Gingrich do a variation on this, and I think it's fascinating, it's kind of post-modernist. Because Gingrich is going around saying, that, you know, we don't talk enough about policy. We really ought to talk about policy. We're talking about personal things, but we really ought to talk about policy. But in talking about talking about policy, he never talks about policy. He's simply talking about talking about policy. Now, this is a wonderful trick. It makes him sound as if he really wants to address policy without ever having to do so.

To see more articles and videos from Moyers & Co., click here.

BILL MOYERS: So would Mitt Romney get the role of playing Mitt Romney if there were a movie about which Mitt Romney is going to win?

NEAL GABLER: Well, it depends on which Mitt Romney you want in the movie. I mean, I think what Mitt Romney has done is he's created the narrative that he is the strong businessman. And he looks the part, and that's one of the reasons why he can play this role.

On the other hand, that narrative has not played well with the Republican constituency. Because they don't care whether he's a strong businessman. What they want to know is, does he have the courage of his convictions which is essentially the courage of their convictions, their conservative convictions.

So Romney's problem in this campaign is his narrative is the wrong narrative. He's playing the wrong role. They want to see if he has courage. They don't want to see that he has the financial acumen to run the economy, they don't care. And this is a very difficult thing to do. He's miscast. What makes a great actor? What makes a great actor is the authenticity. You believe in that performance. That's great acting.

And, what we do is we get a candidate, Gingrich, you know, coming along and saying, 'Well, I'm authentic because I'm going to-- I say what I want to say. I don't pull my punches.' And then he gets taken down. Now Santorum is cast in the same way. Why is Santorum being boosted? Because he's sincere.

BILL MOYERS: You say in here that we escape from life by escaping into a neat narrative formula. Isn't that true of politics, as well? Movies give us a neat story, a neat drama with a beginning, a middle and an end and we like that even though politics isn't really like that?

NEAL GABLER: Politics is antithetical really to the values of movies even though the values of movies as I said earlier permeate politics, and that's a problem. You know, Americans love democracy, but they hate politics. And politics is one of the things that gives us democracy.

BILL MOYERS: I would have thought just the opposite. They love politics, witness the audiences for the debates, witness the enthusiasm of the crowd. But it's the working of democracy they don't like.

NEAL GABLER: Well they love the theatricality of politics. But when I say politics I don't mean the horse race aspect of it. I mean the bargaining, the negotiations, the policy, all of those things which are the essence of real politics and political decision making, Americans hate that and they are cynical about that. They feel it doesn't work.

And that is not a healthy situation for democracy. What we have to do is embrace the fact that democracy's a mess. Movies are not, movies are clean. Democracy is a mess. That's what makes it democracy.

It's about finding out how interests get resolved, that's what democracy's about. Movies aren't about that. Movies are about vanquishing a villain, that's what movies are about. And what happens in American politics is that notice how, and we see this in the Republican debate, that idea of vanquishing the villain, in this case Barack Obama, has become the political meme.

It's not about policy. It's not about interests. It's about, there's this bad guy in the White House and we've got to defeat him. That's Batman. That's not really the way the political system would operate. And it contributes to polarization.

BILL MOYERS: Have you seen Ides of March with--

NEAL GABLER: Yes, I have, yes.

BILL MOYERS: George Clooney? There's a moment in there where he talks differently about religion from the way many candidates including Santorum are doing. Let me play that for us.

GOVERNOR MORRIS in The Ides of March: I am not a Christian, or an atheist. I'm not Jewish or Muslim. What I believe, my religion, is written on a piece of paper called the Constitution. Meaning, that I will defend, until my dying breath, your right to worship, in whatever God you believe in. As long as it doesn't hurt others. I believe we should be judged as a country by how we take care of the people who cannot take care of themselves. That's my religion. If you think I’m not religious enough, don't vote for me. If you think I’m not experienced enough, or tall enough, then don't vote for me. Because I can’t change that to get elected.

NEAL GABLER: Of course, if anybody had ever said what Clooney says here, and again this is where we get this kind of schizophrenia, we love candidates who are forthright on the movies. We love candidates in the movies who say what they want to say and just rip the cover off the ball and, you know.

But in real life if a candidate ever said that he would have doomed his chances to be elected in a second because the headline would be-- and every one of his opponents would say, 'Doesn't believe in God. Clooney doesn't believe in God.' And then for a week the narrative that week would be him having to come back and def—'I never said I don't believe in God.' And you know, this is the kind of idiocy that absolutely overtakes the American political narrative. But this is the only-- the only thing we get is idiocy. We get one-

BILL MOYERS: We're a nation of idiots?

NEAL GABLER: I won't say we're a nation of idiots although I will say this-- I would never say that of course. Because if I said that-

BILL MOYERS: In a movie you would.

NEAL GABLER: That would-- in a movie I would, in a movie, absolutely. Yes.

BILL MOYERS: We'll do a movie.

NEAL GABLER: But I would say that we allow this kind of thing to happen, we let it happen. And we let the media promulgate this sort of thing and we don't put our feet down and say, 'You know, enough, enough.'

And I think we have to shame the public and the media, shame them, into saying, 'Look, as a citizen this is your responsibility. It's not your responsibility to watch, you know, woodpeckers in a debate, you know, knock one another's heads. That's entertaining and it's fun and all of that, but now you have a duty. You have a responsibility.'

We've got an Occupy Wall Street movement. We now need an Occupy Media movement in which, you know, ordinary people say, 'I want a real debate on issues.' And find the resources to do that.

BILL MOYERS: But in a society so thoroughly saturated with entertainment, aren't we losing our capacity for the sustained or more serious ideas?

NEAL GABLER: We are losing our idealism. We are losing our ability to process these things. We outsource our opinions. I mean, when you look at Fox News and MSNBC for example, and they're not the only culprits, what do they really represent? I mean, people always say, 'Well, they're, they market to a niche.' But what they really represent is outsourcing our own opinions.

Yeah, we don't have to think. We can outsource it to Fox. We kind of agree with them generally, we kind of generally agree with MSNBC, so now we've outsourced it. They'll do it for us.

So in some ways in this media saturated, entertainment saturated culture what we have to do, it's imperative for us to do this, is disenchant ourselves, get ourselves out of the movie, leave the theater for a moment and say, what is the real impact?

When we get into the cold light of the sidewalk after the movie is over, what is the impact of all this? What is it going to mean for my life? What is it going to mean for America? And if we don't start asking those questions we can't move this forward at all. All we're going to get is punditry and analysis of who's winning and who's losing and a movie. We'll get nothing but the movie. But the problem is movies don't answer the pressing questions of America. Policy answers the pressing questions of America and we have to demand to know what these guys are going to do and what choices they're going to make.

BILL MOYERS: Neal Gabler, we'll continue this conversation as the year goes on. Thank you for joining me.

NEAL GABLER: Thank you so much, Bill.