Stephen Colbert - Monologue and Opening - 1/12/21

[Rhiannon12866]

FBI: The MAGA Maniacs Who Tried To Overthrow The Government Are Going To Pay

While the president tries to shift blame for last week's insurrection, the FBI and Justice Department are making it clear that the terrorists involved will face very serious federal charges. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington and around the country are bracing for a second wave of right-wing violence.




This Is The New App For Suspended Twitter Users

Suspended from Twitter because of your role in an insurrection? Crapr is the perfect app for you.

[nam78_two]

1. K&R.nt

[nam78_two]

2. FBI found no link to Antifa

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-found-no-link-to-antifa-but-40percent-still-blame-group-for-pro-trump-capitol-riot-poll/ar-BB1cHqqv

And that is from Newsweek via the communists at Microsoft*.

(*sarcasm-Microsoft does not (to my knowledge) support communists. It is getting dangerous to be glib-one usually assumes people have the common sense to not take glib remarks literally. And common sense should dictate how uncharacteristic that would be anyway. As far as I know, Microsoft only supports operating systems built by them that crash frequently.)

How can The Washington Times be this irresponsible? I know they are some sort of right leaning rag, but they are still journalists. They are not James O'Keefe.

In a new poll from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 40 percent of respondents said that Antifa, the largely unorganized movement of anti-fascist activists that President Donald Trump has repeatedly lobbied be designated a "terrorist organization," was either "significantly" or "somewhat" responsible for the Capitol attack. Of that number, 27 percent believed that Antifa was significantly responsible.

Trump, who has come under fire by many who say his rhetoric incited the riot, still received most of the blame in the survey. The outgoing president was deemed responsible by 67 percent of respondents, including a 53 percent majority who said that he was significantly responsible. Members of white supremacist, far-right or militia groups were deemed culpable at a similar level, with 64 percent assigning them some portion of the blame.

Many boosting the false claims cited a report published on the night of the attack by conservative newspaper The Washington Times, which said that a "retired military officer" had confided that a facial recognition software firm identified two out of the hundreds of people who breached the building as Antifa members.

The report was discredited the following day when the firm cited, XRVision, released a statement saying that its software had not identified any of the rioters as Antifa members. Instead, the firm said, the software had identified two people participating in the insurrection as members of neo-Nazi groups and another as a prominent supporter of the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory.

I am late to this party, usually being focused on environmental/animal welfare issues, but now I can see clearly the terrifying consequences of disinformation and conspiracy theory. This has really traumatized people, even when it has no direct connection with their lives. You tend to view American democracy as flawed but stable.

And The Washington Times has disgraced itself. Even that lunatic Jake Angeli is on the record saying that these were all their people. Sorry, can't find the link. But then when everyone is "in on the big lie", including apparently Fox News now, it is like Wallace trying to get through to Flat-Earthers....

I think that reliable outlet Stormfront is still around though. Though, I think Derek Black's defection has deflated Don Black. I saw that an 18 yo woman who attended blm protests trolled her Maga mom saying "you know how you told me to stay away from blm protests as they could get violent..this you mom?" (In the context of the violent coup videos). These are some signs of hope.


Sadly this will usher in an era of even greater surveillance and fewer civil rights. Thanks to Republicans and conservatives the world over, we are doomed to exist in a state of permanent crisis.
I can't wait to see all the lovely catastrophes climate change has in store. I wish they would end factory farming and switch to lab grown meat and follow the Apple model re privacy and adblocking. And Zuckerberg should move into pornography-best fit for him.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. And that idea made absolutely no sense to begin with

They were the ones who shielded legitimate peaceful protesters - the group at the Capitol was violent and on the attack!

[nam78_two]

4. ..

The unfortunate fall-out from all this is that the time I spend following the news-and I used to be an avid US news junkie-will have to be split between my comfy lefty "echo chambers" and rubbish (but at least more mainstream rubbish) like The National Review, Townhall, The Washington Times etc. I at least want to get a sense of how crazy conservatives are at any given time. Though, they will not get a penny from me. I will only read what is freely available.

I follow you rhiannon. Not a stalker . I like the way you think.

[Rhiannon12866]

5. Well, I mainly stick with MSNBC

They do discuss what's really going on, but from a perspective I can deal with. When Trump was first running (which I still believe was a money making scheme, was looking for campaign contributions), I had trouble dealing with the news at all - it was all Trump, all the time, and I found him extremely offensive!

I still can't believe that anyone who's conscious would actually vote for him, but it obviously got much worse after he inexplicably became POTUS. That's when I started posting Colbert and then Seth Meyers and The Daily Show here on DU! They do keep up with the news of the day, but they also add humor - something that we desperately need these days!

[nam78_two]

6. Very True

I should find ways to get Rachel and Chris Hayes online...I am not familiar with the newer hosts. Oh yeah, humor is needed..I will watch your Colbert videos. I was always sorry when he left TCR...I have never LOL as much at any other program, including the TDS. We get the TDS and I think Noah is a great replacement for Jon.


See you around ...


(Also heh, isn't that Fox's "terrorist fistbump". ?
Two unarmed, non-violent, liberal women fistbumping on a "radical left" website...sounds like a case for an investigative journo like Sean Hannity. .)

Have a good evening. You will see me around .

[ancianita]

7. Indeed, total surveillance is the outcome for all of us, our life data stored in one cloud or

another.

The govt and FBI used Parler data to retrieve already cloud-stored data on these seditionists. It's now next to impossible for them to go dark or underground. So we wait until they're found.

A whole new battalion are being targeted and surveilled for the 17th to the 20th. With federal reach everyone showing up to threaten statehouse Democrats and governors will also be caught.

[nam78_two]

9. Yeah but these were actual violent seditionists

Once Repugs are back in office (which will happen at some point), they will abuse rules that were made for their own violent insurrectionists.

I am ok with surveillance necessary to prevent violence. I don't however back surveillance of every average GOP voting idiot. Left or right, in times of crisis, we have to keep our heads and back useful measures but not go nuts and completely back all civil rights violations. As was the case during 9/11. Fortunately, the Dems are not going to behave like the Bushies.

It is a waste of time for the FBI, which has limited time and resources, to track everyone. They need sophisticated amd accurate algorithms capable of isolating really violent nuts from the average gas bag who engages in rhetorical hyperbole. It is up to creeps like Zuckercreep or no scratch that-actually principled social media owners to crackdown on rhetorical hyperbole that incites violence. Zuckerberg I hope goes bankrupt some day.

The FBI has to use its limited manpower and resources to get technology sophisticated enough to isolate the people about to engage in actual violence. To that extent, I don't care if they gather large data sets to help with that.

As for Zuckerberg, Google etc., I have not willingly used their trashy products since I saw them for what they are and I would sue them over data (not for money but solely to set a legal precedent) if they used my data. I despise those two companies. I am ok with Apple and Microsoft and barely tolerate Amazon. It is these pure data companies which are not even the NSA or the FBI, but just these tacky ad pedddling sleazebags that5
I cannot stand.

People tolerate surveillance to prevent violent crime and terrorism. Not to be behaviorally profiled for ad peddling by vulgarians like the Facebook and Google creeps.

Apologies for the rant ...Facebook and Google have on me the effect of the proverbial red rag on the proverbial bull. I find them aesthetically displeasing among other things.

Also my apologies to DUers who may work for Facebook or Google or use them. I just loathe those 2 companies and nothing I read about them makes me feel better.

And now, 4-5 years after I have been whining about Facebook and Google, other people (my parents for instance) are now regurgitating this stale stuff about "being the product", targeted ads etc.
I have moved on. I think it is far worse. The next big global crisis is likely to be some sort of serious hack threatening all of our bank data and other important data. And these completely unprincipled creeps are likely to be a serious security threat. Morons are a security threat sure-I am a moron and so I get that.

But unprincipled people-Zuckerberg, Andy Rubin, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt etc. are probably a bigger threat.

This is a far greater threat than merely "being the product" or being targeted by ads. That is jmho.

Outside of the military and police (who fight a different kind of existential threat), we need social media owners who are vetted, principled people who respect human dignity and that really is the source of true security.

[nam78_two]

11. Also

None of that is an actual allegation against FB or Google wrt anything but their documented sleazy practices reported by the msm. And I am not (barf) "clairvoyant" and don't have any expertise re: prediction. I just avoid these 2 cos because they seem to be likelier to cause huge security issues given their track record:
Pegasus-WhatsApp scandal.

https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/an-insider-reveals-how-the-nasty-spyware-used-in-the-whatsapp-breach-lets-governments-secretly-access-everything-in-your-smartphone-from-text-messages-to-the-microphone-and-cameras/articleshow/69375843.cms

Otoh I could be completely wrong and maybe Amazon, Microsoft or Apple might be the source or something else..
In these days of misinformation, conspiracy theory etc, i can see why experts like Nate Silver attach about 50 qualifiers to anything they say. It annoys people but is probably more accurate and I find it soothing while sloganeering degrades my intellectual facilities.

[ancianita]

12. I hear you. Thanks for your post.

Yours is too thoughtful to be a "rant," and it's worth replying to. You touch on Google and Facebook, who I consider part of my own issues about privacy, freedom and capitalism's influence on human equality.

None of us willingly gives up our privacy, which, when we look at rule of law, stands in negative constitutional space mostly by implication. Literally, privacy exists because of restrictions of government power. Americans only have a "right" to free speech because the government is forbidden from making any law restricting that freedom, and a "right" to a free press because the government is forbidden from making any law to abridge it, a "right" to freely worship because gov may not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, the "right" to peaceably assemble and protest because gov is forbidden from making any law that says they can't. That off-limits gray space is called privacy.

However. Privacy doesn't exist under capitalism's Terms of Service. Privacy, without our consent, with phones on or off, is eliminated when we accept TOS, and our lives' data are collected in any cloud, sold to other clouds, including those of the 3 letter agencies who invented them first and have used them for surveilling the nation since the Bush years. Citizens' constitutional privacy got privatized.

Govt is by our consent to the Constitution, which preserves our privacy.
Business is by our consent to Terms of Service, which cedes our privacy.

I bring this up because you're in the cloud, like it or not. We all are, including those seditionist insurrectionists (and corrupted leaders) who tried to kill off our election process and those we elected to uphold it.

So while we celebrate the apprehension of those delusional enough to "save" their authoritarian idea of America, while they "forgot" any defense of the Constitution over one big lie, we need to remember that the technology that's gathered their data has made that runup possible.

Nice that Big Biz/Big Tech helped save democracy this time, silencing the criminal Q and govt inciters, but Big Biz/Tech sites sure profited from deluded Americans (and the rest of us, for profit and power) in the entire last four years of a fomented runup to the brink.

The partnering of tech and govt this time works in our favor. From the business side it was because the economic stability of their data in the clouds was threatened; they didn't help because Big Biz/Tech has the Constitution written into their terms of service.

Next time, with the wrong leader and wrong relationship between govt and Big Biz, it could go the other way.
My issue about surveillance is that the consent of the governed has been stolen from us.
If we claim we don't care about privacy because we've got nothing to hide, we might as well say we don't care about freedom of press because we don't read, or about freedom of religion because we're atheist (eg, me), etc. To refuse to claim your privacy is actually to cede it to a state actor (eg, the NSA) that trespasses its constitutional restraints. Through the Patriot Act and its NDAA's it's what we've already done -- ceded our life data to both government and "private" tech business whose Terms of Service, we and our elected leaders allowed by signing up.

Has the partnering of private and govt clouds worked to expand our freedom forever? It could. But I won't kid myself that our democracy would survive if in the future, business decides democracy and our "rights" are no longer in its interests.

Sorry for the rant; I just see that what you say points to the heart of how capitalism and democracy now relate. So far, they work. But we have no guarantee until we make Big Biz's terms of service include the Constitution.

[nam78_two]

15. Thank you so much-I will read your post thoroughly

And return a thoughtful response. I can only skim it right now because I have to go, but I will ensure that I read amd assimilate your points and respond. Thanks again for reading and for your respectful response. It is much appreciated.

And yours is not a rant. It is impossible to communicate complex ideas in a sentence or two.

[nam78_two]

16. Thanks for this response

If we claim we don't care about privacy because we've got nothing to hide, we might as well say we don't care about freedom of press because we don't read, or about freedom of religion because we're atheist (eg, me), etc. To refuse to claim your privacy is actually to cede it to a state actor (eg, the NSA) that trespasses its constitutional restraints. Through the Patriot Act and its NDAA's it's what we've already done -- ceded our life data to both government and "private" tech business whose Terms of Service, we and our elected leaders allowed by signing up.

This is a great passage. I was also remembering the Patriot Act. Another point is, our safety and security should not depend on relationships that seem based in extortion. Which is what it often feels like with big tech or bad actors in general. If you are military or police, you took an oath to protect people. The access you were granted should not be abused to violate the rights of the non-violent or to pick and choose, whose safety is worth protecting, i.e. conditional on being "nice" to people for basic safety. Not saying any of that is the case but it feels like we have been sliding into transactions that are a better fit for dictatorships than democracy.
Greater security for all of us lies in all of us being less uninformed, less violent and more sane.

A lot of the blame for this also lies in a 4+ year campaign of sowing distrust in all institutions, which big tech has assisted. Which is not to say many institutions don't often house self-serving, corrupt creeps. It is just that you cannot deny all reality and create a fake world where everyone you dislike is a child murdering satanist. Facts and accuracy matter.

Incidentally, I was not surprised to read that Trump has more convivial relationships with the leaders of dictatorships than he does with journalists:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d17fee4e4b07f6ca57e7974

[Danascot]

8. Stephen's rightous rant

beginning at about 8:42 is a thing of beauty.

[ancianita]

13. He turned their twisted idea of unity and healing back on them: "You want both? Then join US!

Don't get it twisted. Because we're already unified in making you take your medicine.
If you don't want the constitutional medicine, you don't want healing."

[niyad]

10. The maga-waffen!

[Buckeye_Democrat]

14. One of his best monologues imo!

Such a brilliant combination of indignation with clever humor mixed throughout it!