Liberal MSNBC host says Snowden thinks he’s in a Spielberg movie and Greenwald is a ‘jerk’

Israel/Palestine
on 49 Comments

Did you hear Edward Snowden’s inspiring speech the other day in Moscow airport? Another example from him of what it means for a citizen to commit himself to principles. Snowden explained why he had abandoned a home in “paradise” for a life on the run, in the name of the people’s right to know:

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

And did you hear the White House saying he’s a propagandist? For what– democracy? Jay Carney:

I would simply say that providing a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden runs counter to the Russian government’s previous declarations of Russia’s neutrality

You’d think that the duty of people of conscience with a platform in the west is to give support to Ed Snowden. If you agree that this spying program needed to be exposed, rather than deliberated in secret– that as Snowden says, below, justice must be seen to be done — then you must give him support, now, when he needs it most to keep speaking out.

But here is Melissa Harris-Perry at MSNBC urging Snowden to return to the United States, where she promises he will be treated well in prison. Because his case has become a distraction. She dares to question his altruism, this man who sacrificed so much. Her Tom Hanks link is to the Spielberg film, The Terminal. The MSNBC anchor penned a letter to Snowden: 

And maybe your intentions were completely altruistic–it’s not that you wanted attention, but that you wanted us, the public, to know just how much information our government has about us. That is something worth talking about. But by engaging in this Tom Hanks-worthy, border-jumping drama through some of the world’s most totalitarian states, you’re making yourself the story.

We could be talking about whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional, or whether we should continue to allow a secret court to authorize secret warrants using secret legal opinions.

But we’re not. We’re talking about you! And flight paths between Moscow and Venezuela, and how much of a jerk Glenn Greenwald is. We could at least be talking about whether the Obama administration is right that your leak jeopardized national security. But we’re not talking about that, Ed.

As if Snowden wanted this ordeal he is in the midst of; as if Snowden did not consciously make himself a fugitive in order to call attention to abuses.

More from Snowden’s opening statement in Moscow airport the other day, saying that the most essential principle of justice is that it must be seen to be done. Yes and none of this would have been seen except for him.

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

Thanks to Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, who says that Melissa Harris-Perry’s statement makes him “despair for America.”

49 Responses

  1. Citizen
    July 14, 2013, 12:46 pm

    I agree with Muhammad Idrees Ahmad who says Melissa Harris-Perry’s statement is worthy of despair for America. She’s the offspring of a black father and white mother brought up in Mormonism. She has no clue that Snowden reflects the highest values of American morals and ethics. She, like so many anti-white spokes folks today, merely work for themselves to become part of the 1% elite. The dead at Gettysburg mean nothing to her because they are nearly all white dead.

    • MRW
      July 14, 2013, 3:07 pm

      Uhhh…not exactly, Citizen.

      The American Civil War lasted from 1861 through 1865 and was a turning point in the history of the United States. Over 180,000 African Americans fought in this war, on both sides of the battle. They were instrumental in the Northern Victory over the Confederacy.

      The life of a colored soldier was not an easy one. The treatment of most colored soldiers was sub-standard, and they often bore the brunt of ridicule and violence. Although they fought as equals, they were not treated the same as the white soldiers. They were paid less than white soldiers, only making $7.00 a month, compared to the $10.00 a month that the other soldiers were receiving. African American units were given the most dangerous and least desirable missions, resulting in a higher percentage of colored soldiers being killed or injured. The total number of African American soldiers who died during the Civil War was around 37,000.

      This did not stop the all-black troops from claiming major victories during their fight for freedom. The most celebrated unit during the Civil War was the 54th Massachusetts. They were involved in the Attack at Fort Wagner, and the Battle of Ulustee. The unit was recognized by Congress for their bravery, and William Carney, a member of the unit, became the first black American to receive the Medal of Honor.

      African American troops in the Civil War were fighting for more than the preservation of the Union. They were fighting for their freedom and for equality. Although it would take more than 100 years before their dream of equality would be realized, the African Americans who fought in the Civil War took a huge step in the right direction through their service to the country.

      • Citizen
        July 15, 2013, 7:15 am

        @ MRW
        Yes, I am aware of what you say in your comment. I was specifically talking about the battle of Gettysburg, which was the turning point of the Civil War.
        link to philly.com
        link to theroot.com

      • Citizen
        July 15, 2013, 7:41 am

        Battle of Gettysburg 157,289 (fought) 51,112 (total dead)
        Confederate Army 75,000 28,063
        Union Army 82,289 23,049

    • MRW
      July 14, 2013, 3:24 pm

      BTW, the majority of FBI agents are Mormons, when you stack them into silos, label them, and make comparisons, according to my FBI managerial buddy (which was a shockeroo to me). Think maybe M H-P’s relatives got to her?

      • Blank State
        July 14, 2013, 4:19 pm

        “BTW, the majority of FBI agents are Mormons….”

        Uh, really???? Just curious, but, uh…..source for that???

      • MRW
        July 14, 2013, 4:57 pm

        Reread.

    • Krauss
      July 15, 2013, 8:35 am

      Why are you rambling about the civil war, Citizen?

      OT:

      Perry is no liberal. If she were white, she’d be salivating over the Zimmerman verdict right now. She’s liberal because she is black: that is, she has to be liberal if she is black because how can you not see the inequalities? But she’s in that position because of self-interest, not because of any liberal values.

      Cornel West, who would be a liberal no matter what skin color, rightly called her a shill for the Obama administration.

      Obama’s prosecuting Snowden, therefore she must side with Obama.
      Partisanship over principles, once more.
      Her case also underlines why diversity for diversity’s sake can be idiotic. Who would you rather have, Chris Hedges or Green Greenwald, two white men, or a black woman like Perry who always sides with power and only has liberal positions because of her background, not because of any principled convictions.?

    • German Lefty
      July 15, 2013, 11:12 am

      Citizen, you mentioned in previous posts that your wife is Jewish. What’s her opinion on the conflict? Is she a Zionist or not? And if she’s not a Zionist, does she comment on Mondoweiss?

  2. seafoid
    July 14, 2013, 1:02 pm

    Microsoft NBC is part of Microsoft who send the NSA whatever they need.
    Microsoft. Your potential, our passion .

    • MRW
      July 14, 2013, 3:15 pm

      I’m sure the word came down from on high not to cover the story. What Greenwald wrote about the NSA getting complete, total capture access in the last eight months to outlook.com before encryption taking place is devastating. Microsoft deserves bankruptcy for that, IMO.

      What I want to know about is where the NSA machines are on the pipe, and by pipe I mean the trunk cables. Where are they siphoning off the data, and how many machines do they have?

      I can’t thank Snowden enough for doing this.

    • ckg
      July 14, 2013, 5:07 pm

      Microsoft sold off its stake in MSNBC cable news channel in 2005 while retaining its 50% stake in the msnbc.com website. In July 2012, Microsoft sold off its stake in msnbc.com leaving it with no affiliation to the MSNBC brand.

  3. calm
    July 14, 2013, 1:15 pm

    I thought that this interview was pretty good.

    The Weapons of Mass Distraction
    Across the world – Greece, Spain, Brazil, Egypt – citizens are turning angrily to their governments to demand economic fair play and equality. But here in America, with few exceptions, the streets and airwaves remain relatively silent. In a country as rich and powerful as America, why is there so little outcry about the ever-increasing, deliberate divide between the very wealthy and everyone else?
    Media scholar Marty Kaplan points to a number of forces keeping these issues and affected citizens in the dark – especially our well-fed appetite for media distraction.
    “We have unemployment and hunger and crumbling infrastructure and a tax system out of whack and a corrupt political system – why are we not taking to the streets?” Kaplan asks Bill. “I suspect among your viewers, there are people who are outraged and want to be at the barricades. The problem is that we have been taught to be helpless and jaded rather than to feel that we are empowered and can make a difference.”
    An award-winning columnist and head of the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, Kaplan also talks about the appropriate role of journalists as advocates for truth.
    PBS – Bill Moyers & Company
    Host Bill Moyers interviews Marty Kaplan
    July 12, 2013
    link to billmoyers.com
    Transcript:
    link to billmoyers.com
    link to en.wikipedia.org
    (Vimeo Flash Video)
    link to vimeo.com

  4. DICKERSON3870
    July 14, 2013, 1:23 pm

    RE: “We could be talking about whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional, or whether we should continue to allow a secret court to authorize secret warrants using secret legal opinions.” ~ Melissa Harris-Perry

    MY COMMENT: Yes, “we” theoretically could be, but undoubtedly “we” would not be (no matter what Snowden did). At least, “we” wouldn’t be talking about it in the mainstream/corporate media! It (the constitutional issue) just isn’t sexy enough for the advertisers. It doesn’t have a high enough “Q Score” to be considered “newsworthy” by the mainstream/corporate media.
    And, if it doesn’t bleed . . .

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]:

    [EXCERPTS] “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, is an analysis of the news media, arguing that the mass media of the United States “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”.[1] . . .

    Editorial bias: five filters
    Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model” describes five editorially distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:
    Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners – often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.
    The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a “de-facto licensing authority”.[4] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working-class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
    Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring […] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”[5]
    Flak and the Enforcers: “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet’s public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[5]
    Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the “War on Terror”, as the major social control mechanism.[6][7] . . .

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    • DICKERSON3870
      July 14, 2013, 2:02 pm

      RE: “The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners – often corporations or particular controlling investors.” ~ from the above excerpt of the Wikipedia article on Manufacturing Consent . . .

      MY COMMENT: I don’t think NBC/Comcast would take kindly to a discussion about “whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional”! It definitely would not ingratiate them with the administration. Obama doesn’t any more want to have a “debate” about it than Richard Nixon wanted to have an “examination”.*
      Not to mention that Comcast is itself an ISP! ! !

      * P.S.
      “I welcome this debate . . . I’m not [Pricky] Dick Cheney!” ~ Barack Obama, 2013
      NSA Surveillance – Does Obama Have ANY Credibility Left? [VIDEO, 22:43] – link to youtube.com

      “I welcome this kind of examination . . . I’m not a crook!” ~ ‘Tricky Dick’ Nixon, 1973
      Richard Nixon – “I’m not a crook” [VIDEO, 00:37] – link to youtube.com

  5. Blank State
    July 14, 2013, 2:09 pm

    Its obvious that our media celebrities all serve the same masters, formatting thier collusion with the state in a manner that reaches out to both sides of the aisle. Doesn’t matter if you’re Sean Hannity, or Melissa Harris-Perry, your message is scripted for appeal and indoctrination, rather than to inform. Fox News, or MSNBC, the goal is to divide us along partisan lines by offering seemingly different viewpoints, while pursuing the same agenda. While we bicker amongst ourselves along this contrived and media nurtured illusion of partisan differences, the maggots in Washington DC expand thier tentacles of power beyond our best interests. Really, these media whores are almost, if not actually, worse than their political pimps. The Fourth Estate died long ago, and all thats left is a rotten carcass, which those such as Melissa Harris-Perry feed upon.

    • Abierno
      July 14, 2013, 3:36 pm

      The elephant in the room as regards media discussion of these surveillance leaks
      is the impact of such all pervasive snooping on the political process, foreign
      policy and corporate decision making. Inquiring minds would presume that since
      the purveyors of this all encompassing surveillance so blatantly ignore any and all constitutional safeguards that there are those among them who will troll this
      river of information for political gain (having access to – all – of your opponents
      telephone, e-mail, fax messages,), for corporate gain (front running takes on a new meaning when corporate power hitters can attain remarkable advantage by snooping into competitor documents as well as those delineating forthcoming political decisions) and to alter and manage foreign policy (did I not read that
      several Israeli companies provide hard/software and expertise in executing this
      surveillance? is this a country with a track record of respecting US privacy? is
      this not what Jonathan Pollard was all about?) My question is this: Given the
      pervasive and all encompassing nature of this surveillance, as well as the
      lackidasical nature of the hiring process for the privatized companies who execute
      this surveillance, could there not be a hundred silent Snowdens selling their information to the highest bidder? Finally, these private companies are dependent upon political good will for these contracts – creating a remarkable
      conflict of interest. To think that this electronic windfall of information is available only to classified NSA personnel and other approved users would appear to simply be yet another media nurtured illlusion.

  6. Dan Crowther
    July 14, 2013, 2:20 pm

    she’s a hack – nothing new here, but I have to say, one thing is of interest to me: it’s that of the four “big names” surrounding the big whistle blowing stories (manning, assange, snowden and greenwald) two are gay men. where are the gay rights groups championing bradley manning and glenn greenwald? these guys are walking testaments to moral courage and selflessness – the real definition of manhood in my opinion – and the organized gay community seems to want nothing to do with them; sort of makes plain the moral wasteland that is identity politics. Greenwald wrote about this sort of hypocrisy regarding the SF gay pride parades black listing of all mentions of manning, but I think it should be pointed out here as well.

    • Blank State
      July 14, 2013, 3:51 pm

      Well….mixed emotions here. These men’s sexuality would become the topic, rather than the governmental abuses they seek to expose. Personally, I wish we were at the point we didn’t need to underscore or debate the sexual preferences of newsmakers. Certainly many in the gay community must realize that crowing about the homosexuality of people such as Manning only provides a diversion away from why Manning is in the news in the first place. As well, the more open minded of us, that do not judge a man’s character by his sexual preferences couldn’t care less whether Manning is gay or hetero. It is what he exposed that is important. Yet, who can doubt that the right would only exploit Manning’s homosexuality as information thru which to discredit him. I usually agree with you Dan, but, on this one, I think you’re all wet.

  7. MRW
    July 14, 2013, 3:03 pm

    Melissa Harris-Perry’s remarks are the remarks of an idiot.

    Thomas Hobbes:

    They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion.

    • Hostage
      July 14, 2013, 11:16 pm

      Melissa Harris-Perry’s remarks are the remarks of an idiot.

      And they weren’t very entertaining either. Jon Stewart offered a parody of network news that contained a more pertinent analysis of the NSA Prism program and the members of Congress and the Administration who were shreying over the revelations of just what they’d all been doing in secret:

      “No one is saying you [the NSA] broke any laws. We’re just saying it’s a little bit weird that you didn’t have to.”

  8. MRW
    July 14, 2013, 3:17 pm

    Greenwald is my kind of pisser. I’m glad he’s Jewish or he’d never get published.

    • American
      July 14, 2013, 5:31 pm

      MRW says:
      July 14, 2013 at 3:17 pm

      Greenwald is my kind of pisser. I’m glad he’s Jewish or he’d never get published.”>>>>>

      Hadnt occured to me but you’re probably right’…….still though the neo zio con estab. is after him.

    • Kathleen
      July 15, 2013, 11:11 am

      Greenwald is brutally honest and factual on all issues. As well as the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He is brilliant. Too bad Melissa Harris Perry has not had him on her program. One would think she would have the integrity to do so after making such a stupid comment. Greenwald levels out any arguments on any issue he takes on. Love his mind and his integrity. Melissa Harris Perry should have him on. Contact her. Wonder if he has been blacklisted by MSM outlets
      Greenwald Vs. Bill Maher

      Glenn Greenwald/ Dylan Ratigan take Cliff May’s arguments down and mop the floor with them

      Ask Perry to have Greenwald on. What is she afraid of? link to tv.msnbc.com

  9. richb
    July 14, 2013, 4:00 pm

    Hey Melissa,

    It’s me Rich. Did you see the Friday State Dept. briefing?
    link to video.state.gov

    Real reporters were able to multi task and discuss Snowden and other countries, even Egypt. They asked why Snowden gets stripped of his 1st Amendment rights merely because he was ACCUSED of a felony. The spokeswoman said that he didn’t deserve a “propaganda platform” and should be returned immediately. When discussing Egypt the same spokeswoman complained that Egypt had “politically motivated detentions”. And you wonder why BOTH sides of the Egyptian conflict have anti-Obama signs.

    I guess you are too busy shilling for the Democratic Party to notice. When Rachel Maddow closed on Friday nights I thought it was a metaphor for the next set of shows. Little did I know it was literal and addressed to Snowden. “Time to go to prison.”

    Rich

  10. Blank State
    July 14, 2013, 4:26 pm

    “Time to go to prison.”

    Strange that the so-called “liberal” side of of our media signs off on the weekend and airs these prison reality shows. Meanwhile, Fox News rolls on with its purposely divisive and venomous agenda, reaching all the weekend viewers that may not be as prone to watching “news” on weekdays. MSNBC funnels viewers to Fox in this manner. By design? Surely they must realize they are doing it.

    • richb
      July 14, 2013, 4:57 pm

      The “design” is corporatist media. Even when the reality shows are replaced they are replaced with talking head panel discussions. Real news is expensive, particularly having international bureaus. Maximizing viewers is not in view. Maximizing dollars is through cutting costs.

      • Blank State
        July 14, 2013, 6:06 pm

        Surely you don’t think that these prison shows are inexpensive to produce? And if it maximizes profits, why doesn’t Fox pursue the same windfall? The dearth of weekend “news” coming from the so-called “liberal” side of our media is really inexplicable, and its hard for me to imagine that it is purely driven by economics. Do you really think the viewership of these prison shows equals that of the “news” programs that Fox airs simultaneously? The bottom line, Fox is hawking its rabidly biased psuedo news bullshit on the weekends, influencing the opinions of its news-hungry viewers, while MSNBC is asleep at the wheel, appealing to an audience tittillated by tragedy and human failing, undoubtedly unengaged, ignorant, and indifferent to informing themselves.

  11. seafoid
    July 14, 2013, 5:13 pm

    I remember when Obama was transformative.

    • Blank State
      July 14, 2013, 5:55 pm

      “I remember when Obama was transformative”

      I remember when he claimed to be transformative. But I certainly don’t recall him ever living up to that claim. In actuality, he’s a lying piece of shit.

  12. Les
    July 14, 2013, 6:30 pm

    She’s part of the “liberal” Obama-can-do-wrong echo chamber. This means there is no actual discourse. A good example of that is the repeat performances of U of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone who repeats again and again that Snowden will be protected by whistle blower legislation even when its victims, including Jesselyn Radack and William Binney, tell him to his face it that the procedure doesn’t work.

    To learn more check out the “colloquy” on on point to hear Stone, Radack, and Binney. The moderator was afraid to ask Stone if he actually understood Radack and Binney.
    link to onpoint.wbur.org

  13. W.Jones
    July 14, 2013, 6:36 pm

    Melissa’s letter is saying that by going to another country, he distracts attention from the most important thing, which is the issue of spying on citizens.

    However, her analysis is incorrect.

    Let’s say a woman is attacked by her spouse. If she escapes and goes to live with a relative, making the separation a family scandal, has she distracted attention from the abuse? No, because the reason for the scandal is the abuse.

    So, by making a big story out of Snowden’s international escape, attention is naturally drawn to the reason for his escape, which is his fear of arrest for exposing the unconstitutional 1984-style surveillance.

    • mijj
      July 15, 2013, 8:03 pm

      weird, isn’t it, that so many reporters claim Snowden is distracting them from reporting on the spying .. when they could just simply report on the spying. I guess they’re really fulfilling their duty to search out problems with the world, no matter how trivial, and see if they can somehow pin them onto Snowden.

      However, apart from exposing the godlike power of NSA surveillance, Snowden is providing another service .. his current limbo status is giving the US Mafia state endless opportunities to expose its essential arrogant hysterical character, scornful attitude to international law, contempt for freedom of expression, etc.. I think this exposure for all to see is significant and shouldn’t be seen as just a distraction from the issue of spying. The exposed coordinated media and international political control is as much part of the control loop as the exposed NSA telemetry.

      The NSA surveillance state is here to stay and is continuous .. isn’t going to pass into history because our attention went elsewhere for a few weeks or months, or because Obama makes an comforting statement. Every time anyone sends an email or posts a politically sensitive comment somewhere, “NSA” will rise into the mind. Kind of like an NSA-awareness version of chinese water torture.

  14. calm
    July 14, 2013, 6:50 pm

    I have followed the NSA Surveillance Program very closely for years.

    I thought I would post an .html page which contains articles and commentaries dealing with the Edward Snowden leaks only. (Sort of like an 2.3MB e-Book)
    June 06, 2013 and last updated July 13, 2013
    http://www.dotandcalm.com/calm-archive/EdwardJosephSnowden-NSA-WhistleBlower-LastUpdate–July13-2013.html

    Calm

  15. calm
    July 14, 2013, 7:00 pm

    I have a small project on the go.

    I want to support Edward Snowden (The whistleblower) and I have put some Lyrics together and contracted a production company to put some music to it. It is named “Every Call You Make” and which is sort of a spoof on the tune “Every Breath You Take” by Sting.

    I was hoping that people here might listen to it and comment.

    It is just a sample of the first stanza. The complete presentation should be ready by Thursday July 18th.

    It is a very small .MP3 file.
    link to dotandcalm.com

    I would really appreciate your input.

    I already have the YouTube Channel set up. I have ordered some T-Shirts and Coffee Mugs too.
    (YouTube Video)
    link to youtube.com

    Calm

    • German Lefty
      July 15, 2013, 10:51 am

      Hi Calm,
      the sample sounds good. However, I think that the vocals could be louder. The sound distracts from the vocals too much.

      • calm
        July 15, 2013, 5:39 pm

        Hi! German Lefty and Kathleen

        The musician or production company I hired is very tempermental like all of the artists which I have ever encountered. I have made a few suggestions and I can feel the negativity immediately. So, I have decided to let the arranger do what they feel comfortable with. I may not be 100 percent happy, but at this late point (I began this project 3 weeks ago) I think I’m gonna have to settle for at least something “Pleasant” to listen to.

        I wanted it to be a “Dance” tune and not a “Trance” tune. I wanted the “We Are Watching You” to remind those dancing about the YMCA tune by the Village People and sort of had visions of people yelling “We Are Watching You” from the dance floor, if yuh know what I mean?

        When I first heard about Snowden, “Every Breath You Take” was the very first tune which entered my mind. So, I checked out the lyrics and altered them somewhat. I deliberately chose not to use the same musical arrangement because of copyright problems. My preferred choice would of been to have a female voice so as not to confuse the song by Sting and The Police, but it would of cost me more money to hire a female singer. As it is, the musical arrangement and copyright has already cost me a thousand bucks. I do all the website design stuff myself so the cost is just for domain name purchase and to pay a commercial hosting service. The artwork (the Snowden sketch and my logo which appears in the YouTube video as an example) was done by a friend of mine. I have T-Shirts and Coffee mugs with the logo applied. I intend to allow people to upload photos of themselves wearing the T-Shirt or drinking coffee as I designed earlier for this website.
        link to canadianfoodsafetytraining.com

        I do thank you for your comments though. Every bit of feedback I get is much appreciated as I attempt to market the tune.

        The new website I’m in the process of setting up will detail all the information as per my efforts. I intend to be extremely transparent as to where all the money will go. The last thing I want is to be accused of being a fraud, like many of the Occupy Movement websites quickly became.

        Calm

    • Kathleen
      July 15, 2013, 12:09 pm

      Great.

  16. W.Jones
    July 15, 2013, 1:27 am

    Russian news claims that Ludmila Alexeeva, which HRW applauds as the “doyenne of the Russian human rights movement” said Snowden “should be punished” for revealing secrets. (link to news2.ru) However, she said that Igor Sutyagin, who was sentenced to 15 years in Russia for revealing secrets, is a “political prisoner.”

    Maybe I am missing something, but the idea of liberals like Melissa Harris and Alexeeva, demanding punishment for revealing unconstitutional governmental surveillance does not make sense. The whole reason for the constitutional guarantees is for our own political liberties.

    “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither” ~ Ben Franklin.

    • W.Jones
      July 15, 2013, 1:57 am

      The major Russian newspaper claims that Alexeeva demands Snowden’s punishment because she swore to uphold the US Constitution when she became a US citizen. (link to izvestia.ru). However, I disagree with this justification. In fact, it is Snowden who is upholding the U.S. Constitution by opposing unconstitutional surveillance!

      Article 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

  17. Shingo
    July 15, 2013, 4:14 am

    Hey Phil,

    Did you happen to notice the comments section? Harris-Perry is being ripped apart and the audience is clearly furious with her infantile sideshow. What has become so apparent about the Snowden issue is the huge disconnect between the Beltway and the MSM, and the public.

    I was even listening to a podcast the other day, “Left, Right and Centre”, and it was mind boggling to hear these main stream types (who like to think of themselves as serious commentators) dismissing the recent poll which shows the majority of Americans regard Snowden as a whistleblower.

    Some examples of the comments:

    “Absolutely appauling, revolting, shocking, incompetent, childish, privileged, selfish, malicious, shallow misanalysis of an important topic.”

    “MHP, good lord what a simplistic, snarky, “mean girl” essay. “

    ” Have enjoyed MSNBC’s coverage for years but this is disgusting. “

    ” This “letter” is the most ridiculous skew of reality I have ever seen. You are asking a man who has done one of the noblest, unselfish and helpful acts in human history to return to the U.S. where he will lose his rights, be tortured and thrown into a stinking excuse of a hole we call a prison? “

    • German Lefty
      July 15, 2013, 10:56 am

      Did you happen to notice the comments section?
      I was very pleased about all the negative comments, too. I also wrote some comments myself. I am curious about whether she will apologise next weekend or not.

  18. Abdul-Rahman
    July 15, 2013, 5:20 am

    msnbc has become an absolute joke, they will do anything necessary to serve the Obama administration.

    I’m reminded of two things here that relate to msnbc:

    link to counterpunch.org
    MSNBC Aligns With Objectives of the State
    by MICHAEL ARRIA

    And than also a video specifically dealing with msnbc’s Al Sharpton (but the video also mentions Melissa Harris-Perry and Michael Eric Dyson who appears on msnbc often as well) link to youtube.com

    The Young Turks: “Cornel West: Sharpton Sold Soul for Obama “

    • German Lefty
      July 15, 2013, 11:02 am

      Sharpton has the same reasoning as many Zionists: “We won’t negatively criticise the policies of Israel’s government, because this would play into the hands of anti-Semites.”

  19. atime forpeace
    July 15, 2013, 7:51 am

    Snowden case, and the U.S. media: the lockstep followers
    By Marc Pitzke , New York
    AP
    “Guardian” reporter Greenwald: criticism of the bearers of
    In America’s mainstream media, the NSA snooping hardly plays a role. Instead, find whistleblower Edward Snowden and the “Guardian” journalist Glenn Greenwald in the crossfire of the commentators.

    Walter Pincus, 80, is a veteran scandal. The columnist and former reporter for the “Washington Post” wrote already about Watergate and Iran-Contra, and some secret affairs and won the Pulitzer Prize. But even colleagues criticize him Pincus stand of U.S. state power often too close – especially the CIA, for which he spied a young age itself.

    This time, however, must eat lots of extra chalk Pincus: Last week provided the “Washington Post” published a two days earlier Pincus column about the NSA scandal with three paragraphs long correction, which made ​​obsolete most of the core statements in it . It was an unprecedented action in the 136-year history of the U.S. capital newspaper.
    Pincus had speculated that whistleblower Edward Snowden and “Guardian” reporter Glenn Greenwald and documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras – which brought most NSA revelations to the public – had a political agenda and “controlled” secret of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would. Pincus’ “evidence” were demonstrably false. The “corrected” column – or what’s left of it – was nothing more than slander.

    Greenwald, has long been in the crossfire of the U.S. media , immediately protested in an open letter (“Dear Mr. Pincus”) against the “baseless allegations”. The “Washington Post” took more than 48 hours to rectify the blatant flop comment.

    Criticism of the whistleblower, not the revelations

    With the broadside against Snowden and his press contacts Pincus swims both the government line – as long in the zeitgeist. More and more mainstream media criticize instead of the actual revelations prefer the whistleblower. Snowden in Moscow, Greenwald in Rio: Not getting new details of this seemingly endless scandal dominate U.S. headlines – but its bearer.

    In the “post” that began when the first material Snowden be responsible for safety issues reporter Bart Gellman offered. Gellman Snowden immediately discredited as “melodramatic”, because of his uncompromising conditions . Snowden has since launched nothing more to the “Post”.

    So it went on. The financially troubled “post”, once uncovered Watergate, derided the “Guardian” as “financially injured” – “small and lightweight, even by British standards”. “Why a London media revealed so many secrets about the American government?” she groused, as would be the only U.S. journalist to .

    A recent editorial in the “post” could even be written by the White House. Snowden leaks, it said, were harming “the fight against terrorism” and “legitimate intelligence operations.” Conclusion Verqueres the grandmother of investigative journalism: The revelations would “end” immediately. Columnist Richard Cohen also held not behind the bush: Snowden was “narcissistic”, Greenwald a “braggart”.

    link to translate.google.com

  20. lysias
    July 15, 2013, 10:16 am

    The U.S. government and ruling class are very much afraid of effective propaganda against them. If you read Jeremy Scahill’s Dirty Wars, it becomes clear that the real reason the Obama administration decided it had to kill Awlaki was that he was such an effective communicator.

  21. Kathleen
    July 15, 2013, 11:16 am

    Ask Melissa Harris Perry to have Glenn Greenwald on.

    .link to tv.msnbc.com

    • Cliff
      July 15, 2013, 1:38 pm

      Glenn would destroy her. She won’t subject herself to that.

      Its easy for a yuppie careerist to simply tow the party (the Corporate Whores) line from a safe distance.

  22. atime forpeace
    July 16, 2013, 1:20 pm

    Ask MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry to ask Diane Feinstein what she thinks of Russel Tice’s allegations?

    link to peterbcollins.com

Leave a Reply