Jo-Ann Shain is my first cousin. She and her partner Mary Jo Kennedy have played a historic role for the past 7 years. This @CNN re-run memorizalizes their long journey. Their fight has been part of an epic battle that will change the lives of so many.  Congratulations to them both. Thank you for your service, ladies. 

 

 

Source: Same-sex couple Jo-Ann Shain and Mary Jo Kennedy won the lottery to wed Sunday in New York.

Backstory

Related

 

 

Introduction

In early June, right wing bloggers were having a field day blathering about what they claimed was an “illegal recording” which I had made of a conversation with a right wing operative named Jason Wade Taylor (JWT) aka Randy Hahn,  @farRightOfLeft, et al), now made infamous by Matt Osborne’s several articles about him.  The recording in question was passed to JWT by two women who were conned into thinking he was a rich progressive philanthropist from Texas. They were led to think that if they helped him, it would result in funding or other assistance for their advocacy efforts. Neither of them have ever publicly confirmed or denied these charges.  But my purpose here is not to speculate about why that is, nor rehash any of the broader details again, but only to set the record straight with these three key points about this purported “illegal phone recording.”

 

1. Recording this scoundrel was necessary

What I did was a simple “sting,” or “scam baiting,” in law enforcement parlance. I pretended to believe a con man’s lies so I could lure him into exposing those lies to our associates in the the #stopRush effort, the progressive community, and possibly law enforcement.  JWT was extracting personal, financial, and strategic information under false pretenses. His targets included me, Matt Osborne (@OsborneInk), Julie Sigwart (@jsigwart), and other #stoprush volunteers. Moreover, by this time JWT had extended his contacts throughout the progressive Twittersphere, turning him into a more general threat. That community lacked any hard information to guard itself against his maneuverings and I needed to gather some.

In the recording, any reasonable listener could  hear me trying to get JWT to admit his role in several mysterious fake Twitter accounts, and his many false postures, pretenses, and credentials. That was the sole purpose of recording the call.  It was our only way of documenting his lies, because he never put much in writing. Today, most people know JWT was and is a fraud, but back in that day, while we suspected it, we couldn’t prove it. The purpose of the recording was to do that. Period.

2. The recording was completely legal

According to Florida Supreme Court, my recording of the call was entirely legal. JWT was not a Florida resident, and the point of interception was not within the state of Florida (as defined by Florida statute, originally crafted for ordinary wiretaps,and then expanded rather imperfectly, “interception” takes place only where the words are uttered, and not where they are received).  Source

Even though I’d quickly learned that the opinions of illegality being offered by several people were flat-out wrong, and my first reading of Florida law had been correct, I decided to not speak about the recording at all and see what came of all the noise and tree shaking. Once JWT and several right wing bloggers had worked themselves into a comical lather over it, new information (and informants) started pouring in from many quarters, and I just decided to let it all pile up until I could decide what outcome I wanted to see come from all of this.

Meanwhile, I quietly consulted with media and communications lawyers who assured me that my actions were perfectly legal, no matter how many ridiculous assertions and opinions were being spewed to the contrary out there on the Internet

 

3. What may not have been legal was this:

The women and JWT both distributed and/or published recordings they did not own, and had no right to transmit to others in any form. The recording was my property, and in some applicable states, the distribution—and certainly the publication—of confidential communications without the consent of the parties is a crime—even a felony.

The #StopRush effort still goes on, but over 1500 volunteers were harmed by this pointless and unnecessary drama caused by a combination of a con-man’s machinations, false assumptions, rash actions, and self interest. I still receive threats from him like this one (and worse), either directly, or via numerous Skype-calls he's placed to my 85 year old mother.

Whether anything else comes of this sad drama of dishonesty, manipulation, greed, and betrayal, the fact remains that I never made any “illegal recordings.”  The larger teaching moment for me, and anyone else involved is simply this: be wary of whom you invest your  trust, especially the ones who call you “friend.”

 

 

Update:  This term has been recast as “Puritopian.”  Emo Progressive was never coined by either Joy Ann Reid or myself. It had already gotten traction before we came together and tried to give it greater definition. We succeeded, perhaps too well. Like others, we were never comfortable with it because it was far too disparaging of emotion, which in itself is not a bad thing.  At the same time, we never much liked “Pro Left” either, as many of the people associated with the behavior and attitudes were amateur writers and boggers. Thus, we now feel that “Puritopian” is a better term of art to decribe the beliefs and attitudes that were being discussed on this page. You can read more about the term as soon as I have time to write it up here. For now, just substitute it wherever you seer Emo Progressive below.

Note: Joy Ann Reid and I posted the definition below on Urban Dictionary. But it really needs more discussion than what can be posted there. So this post will serve as an ongoing primer on the subject, and will be expanded incrementally.   If you have comments or ideas for things to include, please post them below.

Emo Progressive

The Original Definition, reprinted from Urban Dictionary

Emo Progressive (or “emoprog”) is a self-described liberal or progressive, often with strong libertarian leanings, whose primary political orientation is to be angry, dissatisfied and unhappy with the state of the nation at any given time, because in their view, liberal policies are not being implemented quickly enough or articulated forcefully enough. They have particular contempt for Democratic presidents.

Emoprogs are ideological purists who disdain compromise and incremental change, which they see as “selling out” classical liberal ideas like full employment, an end to all wars, state secrets, and liberal social policy.

Emoprogs dislike Republicans but reserve their greatest disdain for Democratic presidents, whom they relentlessly attack for not meeting a set of ideological goal posts that are constantly adjusted to ensure that the president will be deemed a disappointment, “not progressive enough” or “just like a Republican” no matter what policy achievements are made.

Emoprogs routinely dismiss or ignore congress’ role in making or impeding policy, believing presidents can simply “use the bully pulpit” and “fight” in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles.

Emoprogs have a strong affinity for third party politics as a way to punish Democratic presidents. They are especially hostile to President Barack Obama and deem anyone who expresses a lack of ill will toward him to be “Obamabots” and enemies of liberalism.

Example1: After Eric Holder announced congress had blocked the Justice Department from trying 9/11 mastermind KSM in civilian court, social networks lit up with emo progressives complaining that President Obama had broken his campaign promise to end military tribunals. Their criticism did not mention congressional Democrats who helped block Holder.

Example2: Emoprogs dismissed healthcare reform as a failure, saying President Obama should have used the bully pulpit to achieve a single payer system, despite the fact that Sen. Harry Reid made it clear that such a plan could not pass the Senate.

 

Related Reading

Apparently, some conservatives are having a tiff with a twitter user named @wingnutwatch.  They made some convoluted youtube movie about it called "Twittergate".  For reasons I cannot really figure out, two of my tweets are in this video.  As best I can tell,my tweets merely mention words and concepts I'm known for, and try to explicitly or implicitly connect them to whatever bizarre effort—real or imagined—the video addresses.

I don't have a working relationship with @wingnutwatch under that, or any other name, and I wouldn't have such involvement in anything like the alleged schemes if I could. I don't know how much of this "plot" they speak of was real, if any, and I really don't care. I simply don't want to be associated with any kind of willful manipulation, real or imagined.

I have no interest playing any kind of political game with conservatives on Twitter or anywhere else. They, and the billionaire proxy astroturfers like AFP and Freedomworks have made politics so hateful and ugly in this country, the last thing I want to do is engage in the same kinds of gutter-level activities that got us here. When I confront conservatives, it's upfront and in their face, as it should be.

So if someone tries to suggest I am in any way involved with these efforts, please direct them here. Thanks.

UPDATE1 (4/4/2010):  I have it from a pretty reliable source that David Shuster has NOT been fired (as of this writing, anyway).  And his bio has NOT been removed, as some had claimed. His "blog" may have been removed, but that could have been due to some unrelated issue.  His MSNBC bio page is still there.


 

With a few notable exceptions, I've always been a fan of David Shuster.  I like his boyish enthusiasm as he tears into the leg of any guest he knows is full of shit.  After some exchanges with him over the past few months, I can't say I'd be very surprised if he was in fact on the way out at MSNBC, but I've yet to see any hard evidence that this actually happened. 

It's mostly a lot of supposition based on this New York Observer story.

Inside the CNN Stockroom: Network Recently Shot Pilot Staring MSNBC's Shuster and NPR's Martin

Recently, according to CNN sources, the network's in-house team shot a pilot for a news show featuring David Shuster of MSNBC and Michel Martin of NPR as co-anchors.

The NY Times Brian Stelter gets on board, and adds..

“If true, this is unacceptable and David will be punished appropriately,” an MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, said Friday afternoon"

Then Mediaite steps up to fan the gossip wires

And in the short term – he’s not anchoring at 3pmET. Shuster has already been trouble with MSNBC for his inappropriate tweeting, and hasn’t used Twitter for months. … An NBC insider tells Mediaite, “Shuster has never been a major player at MSNBC.”

Bringing up the rear, the ever faithful Wingnut Daily, Newsbusters, couldn't pass up a chance to bust General Soros for trying to buy another foot soldier for his Communist News Network (owned by one of the largest media conglomerates on the planet).

Shuster's Twitter account has been silent since January 27, when NewsBusters and other center-right blogs documented his blatant conflict of interest in covering O'Keefe's arrest. Ironically, his last Tweet cites a post from the far-left group Media Matters. Need we say more?

An uncertain period of time after the Observer story dropped, Shuster's website at MSNBC up and vanished.  Hmmm….

So there we have it. On the surface, a lot of hearsay and supposition based on an anonymous "CNN source" that reported a "pilot" that may or may not have happened; that Shuster missed his shows; that there had been prior friction between Shuster and MSNBC; and that a web page disappeared. 

But that's all we know. It's certainly a compelling sequence, but hardly conclusive. It's mostly interesting to me because it illustrates how our new blogger-centric world can play a story in incremental steps, from many bloggers, each with their own world (and industry) view.  

Perhaps David is toast, or perhaps his dog got hit by a car and someone edited his page and broke it. Nobody has made any statements on the record—or supplied any evidence—that says anything to the contrary.

My gut says it's probably true. But mostly because I'd like it to be true. Especially that part about NPR's Michel Martin going to CNN. 

In my view, she's one of the best broadcast journalists working today. If CNN wants me as a viewer again, she'd bring me over in any time slot.

Good luck, Shuster, wherever you are, and wherever you go (or not).

This is the very essay I was going to try and tackle this week. These fine folks have done a superb job of writing it for me.  You must read it, and then see my note that follows:

How To Do Effective Political Activism: What Always Worked And What Never Did — by Peterson Park Blog

While young liberals and progressives were sitting in coffee shops tweeting, emailing and updating their Facebook status, embracing the tools of the “new activism,” tea baggers were disrupting town hall meetings and staging credible rallies and marches on the halls of power. While the left embraced the delusion that new media technologies have changed the rules of political and social activism, mossback conservatives and libertarians were effectively applying the same techniques of political protest that have worked and worked and worked since the dawn of history.

Now please..

Don't just read the above essay, maybe make a bookmark, and then promptly forget it. Take a few minutes and think about how many you might share it with by employing just the smallest amount of effort.

I don't just mean Retweeting it. Got email lists?  Got phone? Got a neighbor? Got a blog?

The social side of social media makes it so easy to organize voices, but it's getting those voices into the streets where they are really heard by politicians, employers and the media that will really make the difference. And that's the hard part. But social media makes it so much easier than it ever was before.  It provides the multiple megaphones with which we can drive the herd, and the herd can provide the warm bodies in the streets. But that herd must still go there when called upon. And the only way it will, is when it's been educated, enraged, engaged and excited. That's where YOU come in.

You personally may not be able to take to the streets, but you can compensate for that by making so much noise that it helps fire up so many others who might.

Wingnuts get active, and it's why they win. Even when they don't hit the streets, they keep their conversations and narratives alive with constant regurgitation and redistribution, which reinforces all their memes and messages.  It sinks in. The left–and all of us on it–must learn to do this too.

It's not that we don't all want to do it. It's that we simply DON'T do it.  We simply have to find a way to change that.  And very, very quickly. The only way we can start… is to just start.

Look at what @MLsif just do with #demandQuestionTime. That entire effort, as described here,  http://bit.ly/9uTPTU took just a few days. Yes, it's only an online effort at present, but he could very easily issue a call to action which might translate into action offline. It's just one small example of the powerful weapons we have. We just need to start using them. 

SO DON'T JUST NOD YOUR HEAD. 

  • Do your part. (Any part is better than no part at all).
  • Tell someone. Educate, Enrage, Engage and Excite someone
  • Make our narrative happen (and stop echoing theirs so often).
     
  • PROGRESSIVE PASSIVITY is what allowed the right to seize this county.
  • Change that, change our world.