xpost from LGBT: I mean it. I will not do Russian State Media.

[stevenleser]

From: Steven Leser <[e-mail]>
To: XXXX XXXX <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: radio program

Hi XXXX -

I've checked some of your videos, you seem like a nice person. This is not aimed at you so please don't take it that way, but I have been boycotting Russian state media since shortly after the passage of the anti-gay law in June and I am adding the anschluss/unprovoked war of aggression in Crimea to that list of reasons now why I will not do Russian state media. I've heard the pro-Russian arguments that attempt to explain Crimea away, there are always excuses for unprovoked wars of aggression. I am not swayed. I don't care who may have owned what in the past. At one time the United Kingdom owned the state I live in. That does not give them the right to take it back if they could. I've also heard the lame attempts to portray the anti-gay law as something benign.

Again, I am not buying it.

So you know, I protested my own President, George W. Bush for the Iraq war so you can understand that if I don't give the President of my own country a pass for an illegal war, I am not going to do it for the leader of another country.

At this point I view Russia as an outlaw state headed by bigots and war criminals.

Unless Russia leaves Crimea and repeals the anti-gay law, I've done my last appearances on Russian state media. Not only that, I will do my best to get as many folks as I can not to watch or listen to Russian state media and every business and financial fund I possibly can to divest from Russia.

Different folks and shows from RT and VoR have been contacting me semi-regularly over the last 6-8 months hoping I will change my mind. I am not going to change my mind. Both of those issues are completely non-negotiable for me.

Again, this is not aimed at you personally but I think an explanation is in order.

Thanks
Steve

From: XXXX XXXXX <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:32 PM
Subject: radio program

Dear Steven,

This is XXXX XXXXX, I'm a radio host from the Voice of Russia, Moscow.

I was wondering if you'd be interested in discussing the situation in Crimea on my radio show tomorrow at X am EST?
The program is recorded and lasts 30 minutes.

Please let me know, and I'll be happy to give you more details,

Thank you in advance,

XXXX

[libnnc]

1. Thank You.

[stevenleser]

2. You're welcome! Solidarity!!!!!

[bvar22]

3. I will continue to watch Thom Hartmann and "Brunch with Bernie" on RT...

...among other shows that are NOT covered by the US MSM.

If I didn't watch Thom Hartmann on RT,
I wouldn't know that The Ukraine and Russia signed a treaty in 1999 that allows for 25,000 Russian Troops to be stationed on the Crimean Peninsula, and that there are only 16,000 stationed there now.
If I didn't KNOW that,
I could have mistaken the Russian Troops stationed in The Crimea for an invasion.

Please list the US MSM outlets who correctly told the story about the Treaty between The Ukraine and Russia that allowed for 25,000 Russian Troops to be stationed in Crimea:

Please list the US MSM outlets who covered the 3rd Party debates in 2012:

Truth is...there is a lot that our sanctioned Media in the USA are NOT telling us.

You can continue to be happy with FOX and MSNBC.
I'll keep looking for other sources of information beyond the Corporate Approved.

[NuclearDem]

4. So you'll watch a network that fires LGBT journalists and tows the Kremlin line.

Because fuck solidarity, right?

[bvar22]

5. OH yeah...because I'm not a supporter of Equal Rights and Equal Protections for EVERYBODY,

...and neither is Thom Hartmann, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Goodmann

[NuclearDem]

7. Like I fucking give a shit about who appears on that network.

I'll stick with Democracy Now. Fuck RT, fuck the Kremlin, and fuck Putin.

At least MSNBC doesn't fire its LGBT hosts.

[progressoid]

19. MSNBC isn't exactly squeaky clean.

They fired their highest rated host, Phil Donahue because he was too liberal.

And just a few weeks ago fired an employee for this "outrageous and unacceptable" tweet:

"Maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/biracial family."

[JackRiddler]

21. MSNBC did not fire Donahue because he was liberal.

MSNBC fired Donahue in 2003, when he had the highest rated program on that network, after he spoke out against the U.S. government's drive to wage a war of aggression in Iraq. At that time, key "liberals" gave indispensable support to the Bush regime's announced plans for aggressive war and crimes against humanity, and you had many dispensing the talking points on this board. As a propaganda campaign not entirely dissimilar in its tone and structure from the current drive among U.S. establishment liberals to selectively demonize Russia -- as though it represents an exceptional evil among the imperialist powers, and as though U.S. establishment types possess the standing to judge without judging their own works. Luckily the present propaganda campaign is mostly a matter of self-aggrandizing rhetoric, although it illustrates the biblical saying about a "mote in your neighbor's eye." If Obama cuts a deal with Putin (which might happen in a few months or next year, depending on how this crisis goes) the self-appointed moralists among establishment liberals will turn on a dime.

This distinction about what happened in Donahue's case is very, very important! You can be "liberal." Just be on board, or at least consent through silence, when the jingos beat the war drums.

[NCTraveler]

66. Thanks for the informative post. I wasn't aware with respect to Donahue. nt.

[JackRiddler]

70. de nada

[MADem]

82. Donohue was fired because pro-Bush assholes who wanted the outlet to compete with Fox were

running the network at the time. They stacked the lineup with War-Cons. Hell, they replaced Phil with Michael (ne` Weiner) Savage--that adventure lasted a half a minute. They even hired that idiot Ventura for a few moments. They were so messed up they had Jerry Nachman, a print guy with a face and figure for radio, with terminal cancer, wasting away while hosting a show. They actually believed that they could "catapult the propaganda" but they got a huge Eff Yew from the viewing public. They were trying too hard to be Faux Lite and they were most definitely answering to the whole "flag at the bottom of the screen" crazed war footing vibe--every station was competing to see if their flag was the biggest, with the brightest red/white/blue coloring.

Leadership and editorial directions have changed hands since then. The MSNBC of a decade ago is NO MORE.

It's like trying to pretend that the CBS News of Ed Morrow is the same as the CBS News of Scott Pelley. They're two completely different outfits, with different priorities, perspectives and leadership.

[NuclearDem]

22. Bullshit false equivalence.

Have Rachel Maddow or Thomas Roberts been sacked for just being gay? No.

MSNBC has a problem with getting real lefty journalists, but it doesn't outright fire people for just being gay. RT does.

[progressoid]

35. So you're only opposed to hosts being fired for being gay?

[NuclearDem]

36. No, not at all.

I only watch MSNBC for Rachel Maddow. Other than that, I have no desire to deal with that network. In fact, I all but wrote them off for firing Keith.

I donate to independent media outlets and watch/listen to them 99% of the time. Rachel is the only exception.

[JackRiddler]

69. Please provide example of what you claim.

This:

"...outright fire people for just being gay. RT does."

[Chan790]

16. I'd say "proof is in the pudding."

if they're on Russian state-media such as RT--then, no, apparently they are not "a supporter of Equal Rights and Equal Protections for EVERYBODY."

There is this great Greek phrase "Gnosthentes eph philon" which expresses the concept that a person can only truly be "known" in one way, by the company they keep. I'd say that if they're unwilling to break with Russia Times over the conduct and policies of RT's state sponsor then we know exactly how strong their support of concepts like equal rights and equal protections really is.

[NuclearDem]

17. In other words...

You will know them by their works.

[SidDithers]

30. Nailed it. Fucking nailed it...

Sid

[JackRiddler]

24. Did you ever read a Republican press release?

[NuclearDem]

25. What is that supposed to mean?

[JackRiddler]

27. You said "watch" - is watching verboten?

[NuclearDem]

34. Is it giving a mouthpiece of a homophobic imperialist regime ratings and traffic?

Then yes, as far as I'm concerned, that's a problem.

Especially when one claims to be anti-imperialist and pro-equality.

[kwassa]

10. MSM that said exactly the same thing about the treaty.

If you read it, you would know.

USA Today, BBC, NPR, the Telegraph.uk, LA Times, NY Post, ABC News, the Guardian, Reuters, Boston Globe, and many more results.

My Google search terms were "russia treaty 25000 troops crimea". Took a fraction of a second.

[okaawhatever]

14. I think you're referring to the 1997 Ukraine Russian Treaty. Funny that Yeltsin's speech mentioned:

''We respect and honor the territorial integrity of Ukraine,'' Mr. Yeltsin added, in an important aside. Many Russian leaders have urged the Kremlin to try to claim the city of Sevastopol in the Crimea -- the base of the Black Sea Fleet -- as Russian.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/01/world/setting-past-aside-russia-and-ukraine-sign-friendship-treaty.html


MSM did cover the 25k allowance in the lease. Here's an article from the BBC printed a couple of weeks ago:

Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

Under the terms of its agreement with Ukraine, Russia is entitled to have 25,000 troops on the peninsula and currently has an estimated 16,000 deployed there. But these troops have to remain on base. Pro-Russian troops have been deployed across Crimea. Moscow insists they are local self-defence forces, but there are widespread reports that they are from Russia.
__________

The issue isn't whether Russia has exceeded the total number allowed, but rather that the sailors and Marines have left their bases. Also, the fact that they aren't wearing insignia is Russia basically saying they aren't sailors and Marines from the base. That seems to say that Russia isn't going to try and claim they were legally stationed on the base. Had the sailors been captured it would have been interesting because without insignia they are either considered spies or illegal combatants under the Geneva convention. Since Crimea has become Russian property, it likely won't matter, because the sailors won't be captured or identified.

Also, the estimates are now around 30k. (This is an estimate, I mention the number because I don't think Putin is going with the lease and the 25k allowed as any kind of defense of his actions)

(Reuters) - Russia now has 30,000 troops in Ukraine's Crimea region, Ukrainian border guards said on Friday, nearly twice the previous figure given by the government in Kiev.

Serhiy Astakhov, aide to the head of border guards service, told Reuters the figure was an estimate and included both troops that had arrived since last week and Russia's Black Sea Fleet, permanently based in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-ukraine-crisis-troops-idUSBREA260PW20140307

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. ^ This. It shows that people who watch RT are underinformed

because they've taken the decision to believe a Kremlin-run PR operation over true independent news organisations like Reuters or the BBC.

[PoliticalPothead]

38. "true independent news organizations like Reuters or the BBC."

I really hope this is sarcasm.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. No - they are independent. RT, on the other hand, is run by the Russian government

and it presents the Russian government line. The BBC is regularly criticised by members of the British government for what they see as 'bias' against them.

[PoliticalPothead]

42. The BBC is just as beholden to the British gov as RT is to the Russian gov.

Case in point:

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. 'Hardtalk' is a combative interview show

That's the point of that title. Whoever goes on it gets challenged. Showing one interview with Greenwald tells us nothing.

[PoliticalPothead]

46. Yes, it is.

And the fact that they choose people like Greenwald to be on that show instead of government officials is very telling.

[NCTraveler]

68. Who informed you that they don't have government officials on?

That is not an accurate comment in any way.

[PoliticalPothead]

72. Care to post a video of a government official being interviewed on that show

in the same confrontational manner as that Greenwald interview I posted?

[NCTraveler]

73. Nice move on the goal posts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b036r8ck/HARDtalk_David_Davis_Conservative_Member_of_Parliament_UK/

Beep beep beep beep beep

[PoliticalPothead]

76. I don't think you know what "moving the goalposts" means.

You're saying that government officials are given hardball interviews like the one Greenwald was given. I'm asking you to prove it. That's not moving the goalposts.

Also, I'm not in the UK so that video doesn't work for me.

[MADem]

84. Uhh....go to YOUTUBE. There are a load of hard hitting interviews of government officials there.

And you do know that Greenwald had a CHOICE to appear on that show--or not? He could have turned down the appearance fee and the chance to shop his book. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to turn up.

And why is he somehow being put forth by you as the "equivalent" to a government official? He was invited on because he was a "newsmaker." He accepted the invitation--and the cheque.

You want another "government official?" Here's one--it's a two parter, you can find part two yourself at the link:

[MADem]

83. Here ya go. Israeli minister of economy/commerce. He gets a good beating.

And his supporters are bullshit at the way he was treated:

http://bbcwatch.org/2014/03/04/bbcs-hardtalk-interview-with-israels-minister-of-economy-and-commerce/

[MADem]

85. +1 nt

[geek tragedy]

15. You swallowed Rt.com's propaganda. Awesome, bro!

Did rt.com inform you that the same treaty required Russia to keep those troops on base and to avoid interfering with Ukraine's sovereignty in Crimea?

No, it didn't!

So , congrats on getting played for a sucker because you believe everything you read on rt.com and refuse to apply critical thinking.

Turns out you got Foxified--tricked into believing you knew the truth when everyone who tunes out rt.com knew better than you.

Bad things happen when you listen to agents of bigotry. Apparently you need to learn that.

[PoliticalPothead]

39. +1

I'm bi and I watch RT because they are much better than the US corporate media on many if not most issues. People seem to forget about all the bigotry and homophobia in our own media. I feel like they are just using LGBTQ rights to justify cold-war style nationalism, which is absolutely NOT the same as showing solidarity.

[geek tragedy]

43. Well isn't that special of you to come in here and smear the entire GLBT community here

becaues they say true and accurate things about your precious RT.com

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[PoliticalPothead]

45. Oops, looks like I struck a nerve.

Calling people out on their selective outrage will do that, I guess.

[geek tragedy]

47. No, it's called coming in here and pretending to care about GLBT rights

while serving as a blatant apologist and pimp for Putin and his propaganda outlets, while smearing people who have been fighting for GLBT rights for YEARS here, who have had more than their fair share of criticisms of all kinds of politicians on GLBT rights, including Barack Obama.

You've done nothing but pimp Putin lately and attack his critics.

So, no, your decision to engage in homophobic baiting of Putin's critics by accusing people who stand up for their rights as being the aggressors makes you pretty much beneath contempt, that what strikes a nerve, becaues you haven't really said anything of any merit in your short and undistinguished history here.

And, yes, I read that you claim to be bi. Anyone can claim to be anything on the Internet.

[PoliticalPothead]

50. You mean like the people who pretend to care about LGBTQ rights

only to further their anti-Russia agenda?

Show me where I've attacked Putin's critics. You have been doing nothing but accusing those of us who criticize your Cold War rhetoric of being "Putin lovers." And then you use LGBTQ rights as a diversion tactic, THAT makes YOU pretty much beneath contempt in my view.

Honestly, I don't care if you believe me or not. Your use of LGBTQ rights to further your agenda is sickening, so your opinion means absolutely nothing to me.

[geek tragedy]

52. "Show me where I've attacked Putin's critics."

This fucking thread.

You label criticism of Russia's anti-GLBT government as Neocon propaganda.

Again, you've done jack shit to advocate for GLBT rights at DU. All you do is promote Rt.com and serve as an apologist for the Russian government.

So, not fooling anyone.

Last word is yours, comrade.

[PoliticalPothead]

53. "This fucking thread."

Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

You're gonna have to do better than that. Links please.

"You label criticism of Russia's anti-GLBT government as Neocon propaganda."

That's absolutely incorrect. I'm calling you and all the other propagandists out on your flagrant use of LGBTQ rights to divert from discussions of US intervention and paint all of its critics as "homophobic Putin lovers."

And just because I don't regularly post in DU threads on LGBTQ issues doesn't mean I'm not active in the LGBTQ community offline. I prefer to post in the more confrontational threads, so what?

[geek tragedy]

54. If you stuck with me, you could arguably have not crossed the line.

But when you attack people who have been fiercely advocating for GLBT rights for YEARS at this site becaues they bash your boy Putin and his sycophants at Russia Today, you reveal yourself to be nothing but an apologist for state-sponsored bigotry.

I triple-fucking dare you to go into the GLBT group where this is cross-posted and tell those folks that they're Neocons for bashing your boy Putin and his sycophants at Russia Today.

[PoliticalPothead]

55. Again, you're completely misrepresenting what I said.

I did not say that simply talking about Russia's anti-gay laws is neocon propaganda. I'm against them as well. But bringing it up in every thread where someone is criticizing US involvement to paint them as homophobic Putin lovers (like you're trying to do to me right now) is absolutely propaganda.

[bvar22]

59. Well Done, Political Pothead!

[PoliticalPothead]

62. Thanks.

It's sad to see so much Cold War-style rhetoric being thrown around, especially on a liberal/progressive site. I'm just trying to do my part to counter it.

[geek tragedy]

77. THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT GLBT DISCRIMINATION.

And you're the one who's intruded with your smearing of people who care about GLBT rights more than protecting rt.com's already shitty reputation

[PoliticalPothead]

78. It's also a perfect example of that selective outrage I was talking about.

Notice how the OP hasn't answered post #18.

[geek tragedy]

81. let's see, you who think that rt.com is credible BECAUSE

it's run by Vladimir Putin and who has never bothered speaking out on GLBT issues here at DU, versus the people who have been speaking out on GLBT rights for years.

Hmmmm, yeah, you are found to be lacking.

[yardwork]

49. Wow. You managed to get numerous astro-turf type fallacies in one post!

Leading with "I'm "x" but I have no problem with...."

Also, "Our side does it too and that makes it ok....."

Slow down, bro!

[aikoaiko]

56. And the jury results are in...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Wed Mar 19, 2014, 10:43 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

+1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4689399

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Who is this zombie? I know this won't get hidden but it is worth it to have admin take a look see.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 19, 2014, 10:58 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: i'm still confused but I trust our local LBGT community.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave and I hope Admins takes a look at the alerter for abusing the jury system. Send Skinner a pm if you want to send a message.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Comrade Grumpy]

60. Alerters should have their names attached, although I have a pretty good idea who it is.

[William769]

74. Well slavery had it's uncle toms.

I guess the LGBT community has it's Aunt Mary's.

[snooper2]

51. I will continue to watch that which keeps me mis-informed and fits my world view

I will

I will!

[TroglodyteScholar]

71. Say, were those 25,000 (or even 16,000) maybe supposed to basically stay on base, though...?

Seems silly to sign a treaty that says,"y'all come hang out for awhile and overthrow our govt whenever you see fit." Which is kind of what your post implies.

I don't know all the details, but I'd bet a dollar that treaty includes more details and conditions that aren't being met in the current scenario.

[Cha]

6. Exactly, Steven.. most of us were out there in the Streets Protesting bush's war on Iraq..

"So you know, I protested my own President, George W. Bush for the Iraq war so you can understand that if I don't give the President of my own country a pass for an illegal war, I am not going to do it for the leader of another country."

and, now you're doing your part protesting Russia for their acts of aggression against Gay People in Russia and Crimea.

Thank you.

[JustAnotherGen]

29. This times 100000!

[William769]

8. Your a great man steven.

And a great ally!

[Ohio Joe]

9. Thanks Steve...

And very well stated!

[Sissyk]

11. Good on you, steven!

[SunsetDreams]

12. Thank you Steven

[closeupready]

13. That's integrity.

K&R

[progressoid]

18. Have you also declined FOX "News" ?

[JackRiddler]

20. Of course not!

But, Leser is most known for his work as commentator and the progressive counterpoint on the very conservative FOX News cable network. Steve Leser has been frequently featured on Your World with Neil Cavuto, Bulls & Bears, and Cashing In against such FOX notables as Neil Cavuto and Stuart Varney. Leser gave the stirring live commentary on FOX as news broke of the resignation of Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska.

Leser's author page on http://www.opednews.com/author/author75.html

Laughable hypocrisy from the faction here who engage in selective approbation of RT as if it's the outrageously objectionable one among the propaganda outlets.

[adirondacker]

26. It's the No Spin Zone! nt

[treestar]

57. Not the same thing

Faux is not government owned. In fact, if a Democrat is in office, they will do their best to bash and undermine them. RT can't do that.

[chrisa]

48. Is Fox News a paid propaganda outlet for a mafia state?

Does Fox News support hate attacks on the LGBT community? Is Fox News pushing lies to make the US government look good no matter what it does?

[Comrade Grumpy]

61. Are those rhetorical questions?

[chrisa]

75. Yep!

[Rex]

90. Corporate news is a slight rung above government news imo.

Al thought Foxnews IS Republican News Channel. At least they don't own the country. Yet. You know Murdoch is working on it.

[JackRiddler]

23. Is your thing on FOXNEWS a paying gig?

[stevenleser]

58. No. nt

[JackRiddler]

63. Apologies, stevenleser, it was trick question:

There is no right answer to the question of whether you are paid by FOXNEWS. Not to someone who is arguing as you do.

You appear as a regular on the hate channel known as FOXNEWS -- a 24-hour barrage of lies, racism, homophobia, and pretty much every other bad ism.

And now you posture as a moral person because you refuse to appear on RT? That's funny!

Now, of course, you might say you go on FOXNEWS to deliver a contrary, better message. (Hm, you're like the new Colmes.) Good for you.

So why not do the same with RT, when that opportunity is offered?

Truth is, you should be taking Murdoch's money. I'd like it better if it was in your pocket than still in the News Corp. coffers, where it will do a lot worse than paying your rent.

Instead (to apply the same logic you employ with your proudly public refusal of RT) you are rendering free services to the devil known as FOXNEWS. And coming here to condemn a different devil, RT, from a laughably compromised position.

Pretzels!

[stevenleser]

64. Folks have already responded as to the obvious difference. See #s 57 and 48 above. nt

[progressoid]

91. Except that #48 was rhetorical.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. You are one of the best!

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Good for you - that's a principled stand. Thanks (nt)

[SidDithers]

33. DU rec...nt

Sid

[NCTraveler]

37. K&R. Great job as always Steven. nt.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. You are doing the right thing, and have been for a while. I respect that.

We don't always agree, that's for sure, but I admire your taking a stand. It is the right thing.
I think your experiences might make a nice feature article.

[joeybee12]

65. Good...you might as well do FUX Noise if you're going to do Russian propoganda...

KNR

[msanthrope]

67. Rec&Kick. nt

[MADem]

79. Good for you. Anyone who supports them, listens/watches them, or takes a paycheck from those

mendacious assholes is a hypocrite of the first order.

And saying "Oh well, my favorite bullshit artist has a show with them" doesn't cut it. That "favorite bullshit artist" is a hypocrite, too. And sure as hell not a "liberal" or "progressive."

I'd really like to see those tool outlets as welcome here as the FR sources. I mean, we don't sit by and allow STORMFRONT and other hate media? Why give these shitheads a pass?

Again, good for you.

[former9thward]

80. I assume you will be boycotting all other countries with gay-hating governments.

Including Ukraine, almost all of Africa, and most of Asia.

[CreekDog]

86. why are you misstating what is very clear in his OP?

what purpose here is served by deceiving people about what the OP wrote?

[former9thward]

87. If you made some statements instead of vague questions

I could understand your post.

[Skip Intro]

88. That poster is here to disrupt, not discuss. n/t

[CreekDog]

89. so you oppose sanctions against Russia?

the poster you're agreeing with is basically against them.

in an OP of yours, you've actually supported US military intervention in the Ukraine, so now we're supposed to believe that you are a serious poster who opposes sanctions but supports military intervention?

and *i'm* the one disrupting?

[Cha]

92. K