Ejection of Breitbart Reporter from Beto Speech Is Inconsistent with Democracy

I just saw the news that a Breitbart reporter, Joel B. Pollak, who actually is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News, was ejected, apparently for no valid reason (he wasn't being disruptive, his mere presence was deemed as such) from a Beto O'Rourke speech at Benedict College.

Before I tell you why I think that was such a bad move, let me make two things clear:

1. I intensely disagree with Breitbart's political views.  The last and only time I voted Republican was for John Linsday for NYC Mayor in 1969 (because he was an early opponent of the Vietnam War).  He won, and two years later became a Democrat.

2.  I don't think what Beto's people did is literally a violation of the First Amendment.  A political candidate not currently in office is not a member of Congress ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press") or of any government (prohibited from abridging speech by the extension of the First Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment).

But, the removal of any reporter on account of his or her political views is grievously in violation of the spirit of the First Amendment, and flies in the face of what the First Amendment is designed to protect, which is the public's right to information and opinions about people in office and people running for office.  How else can a democracy work, if we're not as thoroughly informed as possible, meaning exposed to the entire gamut of political views and actions?

Trump's daily denunciation of the press he finds unwelcome as fake news echos Hitler's attack on the press in 1930s Germany as the Lügenpresse or the lying press.  Trump's characterization of the press critical of him as "enemies of the people" picks up a favorite phrase of Stalin.  Further, Trump not only speaks these epithets, but acts upon them, recently revoking CNN political correspondent Brian Karem's press pass after an exchange between Karem and Trump supporter Sebastian Gorka.  Karem has taken this to court. (The White House backed down last year after taking away CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's pass, and Acosta filed suit.  Acosta and CNN were lambasted as "fake news" by Trump even back when he was President-elect, in January 2017.) 

In tossing out Pollak, Beto's campaign is joining Trump in his contempt for the press, and by extension the American people, which I assume is the last thing that Beto wants to do.  People on Twitter, typically seeking to justify any attack on the right, have sought to explain what happened to Pollak by saying he isn't really a reporter and Breitbart not a legitimate source of news.  That, alas, is a traditional fascist tactic, used to justify suppression and even killing of human beings by arguing that the victims are not fully or really human.

Beto O'Rourke and his campaign can do better than emulating Trump and his fascist tactics.  I hope they see the light and apologize to Pollak.  It would amount to an apology to our democracy.

Fourth GOP Presidential Debate: Rand Paul Scores

Herewith my assessment of the just-concluded fourth GOP 2016 Presidential debate, as always with the proviso that I've only voted Republican once in my life - for John Lindsay, for Mayor of New York City, in 1969 (because he was against the Vietnam War) - but I do try to call these debates as objectively as possible.

I think Rand Paul made by far the most lucid and logically sound points tonight, on a variety of topics, and contra what some of the other Republicans were saying.  His single best moment was countering Marco Rubio's and just about every other Republican's assertion that we need huge military expenditures - Rand correctly explained that such expenditures are not only contrary to conservative fiscal policy, but unlikely to keep us safe, especially if they undermine our economy at home.   Rand also punctured Donald Trump's posturing about China and the trade bill, observing that trade with the Chinese was not part of the territory covered in the massive bill.   And he made better sense than anyone else about the U.S. carefully considering its military policy in the Middle East and towards Putin, rather than just rushing in.

I'd rate Jeb as second best tonight.   He spoke truth to Donald Trump and his inhumane and unworkable deportation policy.  John Kasich spoke well on this point, too.

The rest, I thought, were unremarkable.   Obviously, a lot of people currently support Donald Trump or Ben Carson, but it's hard - at least for a progressive like me - to see how either of them will go on to win the nomination.   Trump continues to have a good sense of humor - though little of it came through in the debate tonight.  And Carson is a complete enigma to me - or, at least, why anyone would support him.

The best point I saw about Carson tonight came from my Fordham public relations colleague Gina Vergel, who observed on Twitter -

Third GOP Presidential Debate: Participants and Bystanders

Back with a review of the third GOP Presidential debate tonight, as always with the proviso that I've only voted for a Republican once in my life - for John Lindsay for Mayor of New York City decades ago - and no doubt won't be voting for any of the Republicans up on the stage in Colorado this evening.

But, that said, who did the best and the worst?

I think Chris Christie had the single best moment, when he said he did not deny climate change - as do many Republicans - and would do what he could to improve our climate by supporting private alternate energy enterprise.  That's an enlightened anti-government position on this issue.

The best exchange was between Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who both came across well in Bush's attack on and Rubio's defense of his poor attendance record in the Senate.   In general, both Bush and Rubio had a good night, with Rubio somewhat better.

Cruz had a strong moment with the perennial Republican chestnut of attacking the media in general and the questions being asked of him and his colleagues in the debate.  But that was about Cruz's only moment.

Kasich started strong then all but disappeared.  Rand Paul gave some good answers but looked tired and bored.   Huckabee was unmemorable - except for his proud admission about wearing a Trump tie - and Fiorina was the dullest I recall seeing her in any of the debates so far.

Carson and Trump, the two front runners, were both ok, sometimes pretty good, but they often seemed more like bystanders than full-fledged participants in this economic debate.   Someone tweeted - I think it was Farhad Manjoo - that if "if you knew nothing about the polls and watched this you wouldn’t believe Trump and Carson were leading."  I've got to agree.

And so it goes.   Trump will have a chance to rekindle some of his fire on Saturday Night Live this weekend.   He'll need that, because he certainly didn't have all that much tonight.

PS: I thought Lindsey Graham was far and away the best in the junior GOP debate tonight, and was better than at least half the contenders in the main debate tonight.

Mad Men 4.8: A Tale of Two Women

A relatively low key but provocative Mad Men 4.8 on AMC this past Sunday, focusing mostly of Joan's treatment in the office, and Peggy's response.

I was a student in the City College of New York in 1965 - a far cry from being an ad man, I'll admit - but I found the crude sexism exhibited by Joey (a freelance ad writer) in the office perhaps a little over the top (as in not fully believable) for that time in history.   He shows sheer contempt for Joan (and obvious attraction to her), at an early point asking her "what do you do around here besides walking around like you're trying to get raped" and continuing with a "pornographic" cartoon of Joan (as she puts it).   Men back then (and, for that matter, now) no doubt could and do think that, and maybe crack wise about it to their friends, but actually say that to the target's face?

Be that as it may, Peggy's response, compared to Joan's response, and then Joan's response to Peggy, make for an important Mad Men story.   Joan tells Joey that she hopes he goes to Vietnam and dies.  Peggy speaks to Don about Joey - Don tells Peggy to fire Joey, if she's upset by his behavior.  And Peggy does just that, after Joey takes a beat too long to agree to apologize to Joan.

Later, in the elevator, Joan is not only not appreciative of what Peggy did - Joan's annoyed.  Why?  The answer, I think, gets to the different kinds of women that Joan and Peggy now are.  Joan is still one of the girls, however powerful she may be in the office.   Peggy, in contrast, has become much more of an equal with the guys - her firing Joey seems as natural as if Don had done that himself.   The portrait of Joan and Peggy in this episode thus provides a good representation of the evolution, before and after, of women in the office.

Meanwhile, it was good to see Henry on the edge of getting involved in John Lindsay's first (Republican) campaign for NYC mayor.    Not that I like Henry.  But Lindsay was one of the most courageous and clear-thinking politicians in this period of time.  His early opposition to the Vietnam War, his standing up to transit and teacher's unions, made him a rarity in New York City and for that matter national politics.

See also Mad Men 4.1: Chicken Kiev, Lethal Interview, Ham Fight ... 4.2: "Good Time, Bad Time?" "Yes." ... 4.3: Both Coasts ... 4.4: "The following program contains brief nudity ..."  4.5: Fake Out and Neurosis ... 4.6: Emmys, Clio, Blackout, Flashback  ... 4.7: 'No Credits on Commercials'

And from Season 3: Mad Men Back for 3 and 3.2: Carvel, Penn Station, and Diet Soda and 3.3: Gibbon, Blackface, and Eliot and 3.4: Caned Seats and a Multiple Choice about Sal's Patio Furniture and 3.5: Admiral TV, MLK, and a Baby Boy and 3.6: A Saving John Deere and 3.7: Brutal Edges ... August Flights in 3.8 ... Unlucky Strikes and To the Moon Don in 3.9 ... 3.10: The Faintest Ink, The Strongest Television ... Don's Day of Reckoning in Mad Men 3.11 ... Mad Men 3.12: The End of the World in Mad Men ... Mad Men Season 3 Finale: The End of the World

And from Season Two: Mad Men Returns with a Xerox and a Call Girl ... 2.2: The Advertising Devil and the Deep Blue Sea ... 2.3 Double-Barreled Power ... 2.4: Betty and Don's Son ... 2.5: Best Montage Since Hitchcock ... 2.6: Jackie, Marilyn, and Liberty Valance ... 2.7: Double Dons ... 2.8: Did Don Get What He Deserved? ... 2.9: Don and Roger ... 2.10: Between Ray Bradbury and Telstar ... 2.11: Welcome to the Hotel California ... 2.12 The Day the Earth Stood Still on Mad Men ... 2.13 Saving the Best for Last on Mad Men

And from Season One: Mad Men Debuts on AMC: Cigarette Companies and Nixon ... Mad Men 2: Smoke and Television ... Mad Men 3: Hot 1960 Kiss ... Mad Men 4 and 5: Double Mad Men ... Mad Men 6: The Medium is the Message! ... Mad Men 7: Revenge of the Mollusk ... Mad Men 8: Weed, Twist, Hobo ... Mad Man 9: Betty Grace Kelly ... Mad men 10: Life, Death, and Politics ... Mad Men 11: Heat! ... Mad Men 12: Admirable Don ... Mad 13: Double-Endings, Lascaux, and Holes

20-minute interview with Rich Sommer (Harry Crane) at Light On Light Through

---

                 Special Discount Coupons for Angie's List, Avis, Budget Car, eHarmony, eMusic, Mozy, Zazzle

---

---

The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Tweet

Democracy Direct: At the Village Pourhouse in NYC Last Night with Ron Paul Supporters

I spoke to Ron Paul supporters at the Village Pourhouse in New York City last night. The NYC Ron Paul Meet-Up group had invited me to talk about the mainstream media's misreporting of Ron Paul's burgeoning campaign for the Presidency - to elaborate on what I've been writing about here in this blog and talking about on the radio, and what could be done about it.

I was impressed. It's always good meeting people with whom you have conversed online - in this case, Ryan Cowles and Avery Knapp and Kevin Leslie. But there was something else.

Here was a group of people, assembled in the back room of a noisy bar on a warm summer evening. Men and women, different ages, different accents.

They could have been doing many other things on an August evening - dining, movies, enjoying the city streets, relaxing at home.

But they were brought together by a desire to get this country back on track by electing a candidate with an old-fashioned idea: follow the Constitution of the United States. Don't go to war without a Declaration. Don't muzzle the media in contradiction of the First Amendment. Clear, straightforward points, really, that almost every other politician and public official seem to have forgotten these days. Actually, for decades.

I was impressed. The questions I received were perceptive. I got enthusiastic nods when I mentioned Thomas Jefferson.

There was something in the air, and it was more than the fine spirits wafting in from the other room.

It was a different spirit. Democracy. Yeah, I know that sounds like something from a speech, but it was there. I've seen it a few times in my life, first hand like this. I saw it in Eugene McCarthy challenging Lyndon Johnson to stop the Vietnam War in 1968. I worked in his campaign on the streets of New York. I saw it when I worked for John Lindsay, running for a second term as Mayor in New York, a year later.

It's rare to see democracy so directly. It was there in the Village Pourhouse last night. Not like on the television screen. Right there in the room.

It was good to see again.

Stay tuned.

complete YouTube video of my talk

Talking About Media Misreporting of Ron Paul this Tues Night in Manhattan

Hey - a heads-up for everyone in the New York area, with an interest in the mainstream and Internet media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, and its current percolating campaigns:

I've been invited to talk to the New York City Ron Paul Meet-Up group at 7:30pm this Tuesday - in particular, about the media's misreporting and in one case outright attack on Ron Paul, and what can be done about it.

I'll be talking at the Village Pourhouse on 11th Street and 3rd Avenue (southwest corner) for 30-45 minutes, followed by 15-30 mins for questions and answers.

The meeting room will be spacious. The general public is welcome. Admission will be free.

I think the media coverage of our election campaigns thus far should be of concern to anyone who values our democracy.

Ron Paul and his supporters, in particular, have received less than truthful treatment from a variety of media. ABC News and its affiliates has had the greatest confluence of misreporting, and I'll be talking in particular about ABC's posting of misleading photos, reporting of Internet poll results which left out Ron Paul's standing, and, in the case of ABC radio talkshow host Mark Levin, about his urging listeners to call Ron Paul headquarters with hostile comments. In short, I'll be discussing the many abuses I've been loudly blogging about here for the past weeks.

Readers of Infinite Regress also know I'd be outraged about such media malfeasance whomever I supported, but I do support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President. That's easy for me to do, for two reasons. 1. I think our country's disregard of the Constitution - whether it's trampling on the First Amendment or going to war without the Declaration of War required - has gotten us into enormous difficulties. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party with a lifelong commitment to supporting the Constitution. 2. My second reason for supporting Ron Paul for the Republican nomination is that the other Republican candidates are simply impossible for me to support - three of them don't believe in evolution, and most support the Bush administration's continuation of the war in Iraq. (In all honesty, the last Republican I voted for in any election was John Lindsay in the 1969 NYC mayoral race. He won, and soon after switched his affiliation to the Democrats.)

But there are Democrats I admire in this Presidential election, too. Indeed, any of them is easily better than any of the Republicans, with the exception of Ron Paul. But the three leading Democratic contenders - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards (in that order for me) also have qualities that would make me consider their candidacies very seriously (not to mention Al Gore, who at this point is not in the running). And "second-tier" candidates Kucinich and Biden have much to commend them, too.

Accordingly, I'm urging everyone to work for the best candidate receiving the nomination in each party. And in the happy event that this happens, we can then decide in the general election who is better - the Democrat or the Republican - to lead this country.

But, whichever candidate you support, I hope you agree that our democracy is best served by truthful media coverage. How can we make a rational decision when we're fed misleading and false information? When that happens, we are being starved of the basis of our democracy.

It would be good to see you on Tuesday. And I'll be posting a postscript here to my talk later Tuesday night or early Wednesday.

complete YouTube video of my talk

Further details on two of the above points:

ABC's Abuse of American Electorate to Be Included in my Curriculum This Fall

Something New: How About We Look for Best Candidates in =Both= Parties?