Snowden and "his" files and the Intercept

I've never been a 100 percent fan of Edward Snowden. While noting that, in balance, he did a service to the country, he also has his fair share of lies and more, stuffing full the pages of "Permanent Record," as I noted after reading it. 

That said, I had long wondered what his reaction was to Glenn Greenwald, with agreement of Jeremy Scahill and others at The Intercept, but withOUT advance agreement from Laura Poitras, turning over the 95 percent of the files that had not been used, to Intercept owner and Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ techdudebro player Pierre Omidyar.

I already knew that Glennwald had kind of "used" him, while still wondering if somebody in Russia had honeypotted him in the first place. 

Turns out, on Snowden, per a Blogger site called Electrospaces that I stumbled upon while doing some searching on teh Google for stuff related to Scahill's time at The Intercept, he didn't know in advance, and reading between the lines, didn't fully like it. 

That said, while we still haven't seen those other documents, per pieces at Electrospaces in both 2023 and earlier this year, we have had new writing about at least bits of those other documents. (That latter is more about peering around the edges of already published files that may have had bad redacting work.)

R/AskHistorians mods are pretendian leftists as well as unethical

A couple of years ago, I was banned from the subreddit because I challenged their claims that every European interaction with American Indians was genocidal. Read more here.

About 9 months after that, one of the mods — without disclosing that they were one of the mods — used Reddit research tools to ask me and other people banned from the sub about our experiences.

I reported that person, Sarah Gilbert, as a Cornell prof, to the people overseeing the research project. Those people said it was an accident and did nothing further, including not throwing out my responses. As I noted, this meant, accident or not, that the research was not appropriately "blinded."

OK, I had already thought their leftism was kind of an identitarian tribalism. I actually, before being banned, called them "librulz" and "pseudoleftists."

A few weeks ago, looking up possible critiques of Edward Baptist's "The Half Has Never Been Told" and Sven Beckert's "Empire of Cotton," I come across a piece from R/AskTribalistHistorians. [sic]

And, they throw both under the bus, specifically using a critique by a pair of economic historians who are clearly mainstream neoliberals.  Here's an academic piece on the same subject by the pair, Alan Olmstead and Paul Rohde. Interestingly, they list Beckert among people assisting them, but not Baptist. From my own email interactions with him, he probably told them to fuck off.

Further refudiating these non-leftists and neolibs and upholding the broad thesis of Baptist and Beckert? Mark Peterson, in "The Making and Breaking of the American Constitution," notes that in 1860, MISSISSIPPI had the highest per-capita income of any state. Yes, today's "at the bottom" Mississippi. Also, remember that, whether at 100 percent or 3/5 a person, that per capita included Black slave numbers. Toss that out, and it's even worse. (Note: The Census had per capita income estimates by region, not cold facts by state, but the Lower Mississippi, led by Mississippi cotton and Louisiana sugar, led the country.)

In any case, my first impressions of r/AskTribalistHistorians got confirmed. 

Post-Trump, will public media stations with university ties reconfigure?

I say this over Austin's KUT firing its general manager last month. Indirectly, at least, the firing seems related to the political big chill that has descended on the UT System, as well as the A&M and Texas State university systems, in the past 18 months.

This:

Is the nut graf.

The festival dispute raised questions about UT-Austin’s relationship with KUT. The university holds the station’s broadcast license, KUT employees are university staff and the newsroom is housed in the Moody College of Communication. But the station says it operates with editorial independence and relies almost exclusively on donations rather than university funding.

Does KUT think it still has editorial independence? 

That's especially with the Evangelist [sic, see story name] who fired Hiott telling PR lies in a folo story. 

If not, what are its options? Note that I said "post-Trump." Before then, it surely has no options.

After that, unless we get an even bigger wingnut, it can either try to wrest the current license from the university, or apply for a new one, and if it gets it, set up shop on its own. 

That said, KUT is nowhere near alone in this predicament, per another public station, KISU, affiliated with Idaho State:

More than half of NPR’s 1,000 member stations are licensed to or affiliated with colleges or universities, according to NPR’s website. A 2019 PBS article listed 49 university and college public television licensees, a majority of which belong to public institutions—many of them flagship or public land-grant universities, but some community and technical colleges as well.

Ouch. Now, as the likes of Dick Tofel have written about nonprofit-status newspapers, any situation with a nonprofit boss is fraught. But, the media landscape? Even more.

And, no, it's not just "red" states. I don't know if Harvard or other Ivies have NPR stations or not, but we're at two-plus years and counting of their Zionist-based anti-Palestinian stances. 

New Reddit blocks

Slayer of Deez Nuts. NAFO Nazi or fellow traveler. Accuses people like me of being ignorant.

"Without Precedent" but WITH looking at Scotus through left hand of the duopoly framing

Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights by Lisa Graves
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

3.5 stars rounded down. 3.0 stars period at the end of my thoughts, per the bottom. Little new for a deep reader. I hadn't before read the details of Gorsuch's frat-boy college life, but could have found them elsewhere, and didn't know that Barrett, as well as Roberts and Kavanaugh, was involved with Bush v. Gore work.

And, that's it.

It's written from the left hand of the duopoly.

And, as a non-duopoly voter (and no, I didn't "really" vote for Trump; shut up), it's got holes.

Take the "god" chapter. Never mentions the Bladensberg Cross case (technically American Legion v American Humanist Association, nor Breyer's disastrous concurring opinion (with Kagan riding along), written in part, IMO, to make his opinion in Van Orton into precedent.

Or, beyond "god," take the "First Amendment" chapter.

I'm sorry, there is none. So we don't get to read the reality of Ginsburg bagging on Colin Kaepernick and other issues.

Beyond that, Democratic-appointed justices past and present have at times been squishes on civil rights and related issues, especially if they involve people arrested for crimes. So far, Ketanji Brown Jackson has been pretty good, but who knows if that will last. (Related? Don't forget that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was passed while the Slickster was prez. The Senate could have easily overriden a veto, but he might have gotten enough representatives to change their minds to sustain. That, of course, was just one of several issues where Clinton squished out in 1996.)

And, IMO, contra the author, this is as serious issue as Congress, in 1988, passing the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 that, as cited by her, lessened the Supreme Court's mandatory cases. But, Reagan was president in 1988, so from a duopoly framework, it's easier to bag on this than bag on Clinton.

This Wiki page shows a decline in rulings before 1988 that moderately accelerated for a few years after that, but looked like the decline might be slowing down again, until after 1996.

Finally, per her epilogue, and the background to it, Trump v United States, one can indeed argue it was wrongly decided, but the ruling was not 100 percent de novo. Related? Blame the Nixon Administration's Office of Legal Counsel within the DOJ for wrongly claiming that sitting presidents can't be indicted, and blame John Sirica and Leon Jaworski for accepting that idea. See here.

In other words, the idea of the president as king has a longer history than Graves presents, and the left hand of the duopoly, or at least people touted by it, have played their part in making that what it is.

I could rate it lower than 3.0 stars, and I could give it the mendaciousness tag, but I'm holding off. Graves believes these things sincerely, so I won't accuse her of conscious mendaciousness. Yes, I could say "Mendacity," but I used the other word for my bookshelf and besides, I'm an editor; I can invent that word. For similar reasons, it didn't get the "disappointment" tag but it DID get the "meh" tag. Otherwise, I won't rate it lower than 3 stars because it's good for showing how the left hand of the two-party duopoly can go down a tribalist road. 

Yes, the left hand of the duopoly is better than the right hand, but that's small potatoes. And, per what I said early in the review, it wouldn't surprise me if Graves saw my takes and did claim that I "really voted for Trump."

And, all of the above is once again why the annual four-year cry of #BlueAnon, "Oh the SCOTUS," sways me not.

View all my reviews

Texas Progressives are steaming hot about ICE

UNT kills "ICE Pops" art display by Victor Quiñonez. I would have done to see it had I known about it. Per the story, then-Provost Michel McPherson, now a senior advisor to UNT President Harrison Keillor, pushed to kill it to suck up to Strangeabbott and the Lege. UNT strikes me more and more as being more and more Nazi even beyond state-mandated anti-DEI initiatives and other things. Anyway, to see what UNT's Nazis didn't want you to see, click the link.

Off the Kuff has written multiple times about Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, the Houston resident killed by ICE. 

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project reported on what each member of Houston City Council initially said the day after the ICE killing of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo. Many are calling for an independent investigation now. That’s not quite what most of them said at first however.  

SocraticGadfly, like many others, spent 20 minutes visiting with Mitch McConnell, and was fortunate enough to see Dr. Jeebus H. Trump apply his ministrations.

The Monthly looks at what happened to all the Texas public school teachers who actually or reportedly said mean things about Charlie Kirk, including noting an active lawsuit by the Texas branch of the American Federation of Teachers against TEA and its head Nazi, Mike Morath.

The Monthly also then looks at the rise of anti-Indian sentiment in Frisco, and notes that in many cases, it's actually coming from outside Frisco.  

Jose Ralat supports Tex-Mex restaurants charging for their chips and salsa. 

Chris Tackett calls out Republican blame evasion.

Levi Asher defines the three jobs of a campaign manager.

The Barbed Wire introduces us to the Weird Moms of Fort Worth.

The Texas Signal introduces us to YouTuber and Christian right antagonist Taylor Leigh.

Bayou City Sludge has some feedback for the Houston Chronicle's op-ed page.