vigorously condemns the israel's approval of new plans to build another thousand settlers homes in east jerusalem. as the headlines up next they own a show from our washington studio and today they're known in luke said the financial mecca wall street which was occupied by protesters as well as freedom of speech in the usa and other stories from across the world stay with us for that. but going to be alone to show up at the real headlines with none of the mercy we

live in washington d.c. now tonight we're going to continue our coverage of occupy wall street we're going to take a specific look at that is dane towards the protesters it's coming from the left why do they hate hippies and prefer suits that our country prides itself on the freedom of speech while it's legally protected not so much socially we're going to take a look at what statements go too far for the establishment and why and it is fair and is going to join us for that what and then yesterday the media world was abuzz because of an independent stock trader that appeared on the b.b.c. he claimed that goldman sachs rules the world and that every night he dreams of another recession now while he claims that he did it for attention are his words the truth about how wall street banks would have all that and more for tonight including a dose of happy hour but first let's take a look at what the mainstream media has decided to miss. well it's another day the mainstream media keeps harping on another non-story now we documented yesterday the obsession with chris christie and the possibility of

a presidential run despite the fact that he has repeatedly said no but today they continued writing this train to nowhere. why do republicans love the new jersey governor chris christie and the only thing we know for sure is many republicans want him to run desperately a big event for new jersey governor chris christie last night what he said to an impassioned supporter he said on several occasions that his heart simply isn't in it thank you for what you're saying and i take it even though i'm listening to every word of it and feeling it. you know i am curious as to exactly how many republicans want chris christie to run how the media can say that that's the only thing that we can be sure of do you have poll numbers you have statistics or is this just the typical problem that we see with the mainstream media the tiny little bubble that they live it they are so consumed with themselves with the establishment that a couple of pundits maybe a few hundred voters suddenly all of that counts as a gigantic majority

a large group something that you can be completely sure of give me a break this is such a perfect side of the problem of the disconnect between the mainstream corporate media and the rest of the country but you know what here's an even better example do you remember when the president unveiled his deficit reduction plan two weeks ago when he suggested the buffett rule would require that anybody who makes over one million dollars pay the same percentage in taxes as those who make well below that now immediately the g.o.p. jumped all over this proposal labeling it class warfare and so the mainstream media of course played along it is class warfare class warfare essentially or class warfare look for that phrase quite often his whole thing is class warfare would you agree with that i mean i necessarily know what really though i mean what the president is saying look the opportunity they're going to have to be responsible he is saying what a lot of republicans are saying that to suggest taxing the wealthy is class warfare

is it really. now i think though whether or not people believe there is a class war going on in this country is a potent question we ask that of you our viewers. we've been reporting on piece after piece of evidence to prove that yes there is a class war going on in this country that's been in fact going on it's just the rich that have been winning now the fact of the income gap is growing exponentially we have the highest number of people in poverty on record i know the wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals the fact the corporate welfare is something that our congress mostly because of republican opposition won't dare abolish but cutting social programs for the needy no prob they are all just lazy leeches aren't they but the mainstream media what do they do well they pick up on it only when the elite of the ones that are crying about class warfare and the old me people of bailout have a voice on whether or not it's happening are those same elite or basically you know anybody within the d.c. new york media government bubble they ask lawmakers they ask but what about how americans feel well today we have yet another answer to that question

a new daily kos as you are you state of the nation survey asked of people support or oppose the buffett rule and guess what an overwhelming seventy three percent of respondents supported the idea so where is that on your television screens today why isn't it the talk of the town the question that needs to be asked at the top of every hour you know what it's been two weeks and now you're tired of the story or i know i know i get it now that it's someone other than politicians or pundits that has an opinion on it you just don't care what real people think isn't half as fun as exciting as the partisanship for tat here in d.c. what the rest of america feels that's what the mainstream media chooses to miss. now we continue our coverage of occupy wall street on our show tonight we spent a good part of the last eleven days criticizing the mainstream media for their lack of coverage or for their lack of depth in coverage once they decide to turn their

glance towards the protests only after police and demonstrators clashed this past weekend but in trying to answer why this story this movement doesn't get the coverage that it deserves. let's bring in some more let's bring in the words fear and loathing and let's take a look specifically at progressive or liberal commentators those on the left that you think would easily align with the message the occupy wall street wants to set now we've seen people like michael moore chris hedges throw their weight behind the cause others have attempted to deal with the protesters criticizing everything from their lack of cohesion and strategy to the sheer fact that they look like hippies or freaks with a guy fawkes masks on and should be wearing suits if they want to be taken seriously so where does that kind of disdain really come from joining me to discuss this is kevin gusto a civil liberties blogger firedoglake now kevin i want to thank you for joining us tonight and you by the way wrote a really great piece documenting this today and so i want you to start if you if you will by just telling us what some of the worst examples were that you saw out

there from these commentators on the left when it came to this that added to the condescending attitude they showed towards the protesters. well i would say that the main piece that actually does exist is headline the headline is occupy wall street isn't working and it comes from a writer named lauren ellis with mother jones which is a progressive magazine at least it likes to be taken as a progressive magazine and in the article there are four points that are on pact and one of them you know has to do is what you said in the opening people wearing anonymous masks or guy fawkes masks are not to be taken seriously and also she brought in this this idea if there was police brutality that has muddied the message so now the protestors have a problem and you know aside from her article we have a new york times editorial which i don't really consider the new york times to be liberal necessarily but it does private self being considered part of the liberal

establishment so will say they picked out a protester who has been there and some of these people have been doing topless protesting as shot as a show of political expression and she's seized on some people there and she picked out one person who she says the system will or are like joni mitchell making them seem even more like hippies and then another example is that some people have talked about the way that the protesters are dressed and said that they're not ready and these aren't the sort of people you should take seriously for any sort of a movement you know but at the end of the day you think the any any commentator on the left even on the right here and can agree with the basic premise of the protest of occupy wall street i think you know saying that greed and corruption rule this country and rule our government that's not a novel idea so why suddenly are they too good for these protesters i mean i think that's a bit of an elitist way of looking at it when channel. i think it is a lead this and i think that when it comes down to it what we're seeing are people

who are basically stiffs and that they're they're sitting somewhere in there they've put this critique together of how the protesters are supposed to properly go out and protest but you get the conditions that you protest and i think that they've managed to turn that condition into some pretty good conditions if you ask me if you told me three weeks ago that people were going to go into a park and have an occupation in new york city i would have said that sounds like a good idea but i don't really know if that's going to be possible you would think the police would kick out whoever tried to hold down any sort of the camera in the park and so they've managed to wiggle their way in here and they started with like fifty some people on the first night and then it grew and by now you've had hundreds of people sleeping in the park every single night for the past eleven to twelve days and it just seems like people who say the occupation isn't working well it works and it's working every day that it isn't kicked out of zuccotti park or

what they renamed liberty park well you know i think he brings up a good point when you're writing about this in that we see a lot of people that just that look down on protesters because they want people to try to go and act change but only through the political system right through through voting through i guess what you call the basic means but hasn't that been shown at this point not to work you know i mean if you look at the people that are in power you look at the fact that wall street is still in charge within this administration there is something and powering about people taking it into their own hands and not just depending on the government depending on one candidate to change everything take some responsibility for yourself. right and the people who have actually created change in this country have always been individuals who are citizens who take power into their own hands and start to actually challenge power and who are sitting and i mean i quote the great late peoples historian howard zinn who who did amazing work documenting the history of people in this country and how

they've created change and you know his core thing was always it's not the people who are sitting in the white house but it's the people who are sitting in in places so the people in the park actually have more potential to create change than those in power and i have been to believe that because what they are doing is awakening a consciousness in america and a lot of people who have felt isolated who have felt fearful who lost hope maybe after the two thousand and eight election are finding that you know we're not going to get what we want from one man who we elect but we might get something if we all band together and start to create changes as you know as as a people but do you buy this notion that they have to look more professional look more put together that respect only comes when you're wearing a suit i mean what is that stemming from you know some disdain and left over from the sixty's i feel like we have enough people in suits running this country. yeah i

mean it does seem to be that to me sounds like a class based elitist type of a sentiment and i would say that. where that would come from is from people who actually do consider themselves to be part of the establishment who do think that they understand what it takes and actually i will say that some people who are making this critique are liberals who just think you have to cater to this sort of beltway type of thinking you have to you have to look like them in order to get what you want you have to play their game and they may not necessarily think that this is what people should do but they think pragmatically this is what you have to do to have success now kevin lastly i just want to ask you to you write about the fact that the myth of this american dream might be one thing that's standing in the way of larger protests of more people getting involved can you elaborate on that for us. right i mean i think it's fair to say that for most people the american

dream has become a nightmare basically quoting michael moore what he said on real time with bill maher show on friday night and a lot of americans have tried consistently to prosper just to get ahead and they haven't been able to do it and i think that has to do with a lot of problems in our country where people just don't have equality in our criminal justice system i think has to do with by having equality in the workplace i think it has to do with there being more power in the hands of the few you know concentrating wealth in the top one percent and the ninety nine percent which is you know everybody in occupy wall street keeps saying we are the ninety nine percent well the ninety nine percent don't have it as good as they used to and it's much more difficult and this myth of the american dream whether it was a reality or not ten twenty thirty years ago i'm not sure but now it's quite clear that telling everybody that they could make it someday sounds patently ridiculous

and more and more that you repeat it and you know it just recently we had another study that i think showed one in five americans think that they're going to be a millionaire in the next ten years that there is i think still you know some of that hope alive for some people and that's reality is really sinking in for others kevin thanks so much for joining us tonight. thank you. now still to come tonight is your cell phone provider keep your user data for days months maybe even years from the information from the d.o.j. gives us a peek at what those telecom companies are thinking about you and then it's pretty speedy really free your let's play why speaking your mind can lead to such a public backlash back in just a moment. really believe something. somewhere. in the future

however. why now most people know that when you use your cell phone there's going to be a record of it a record of where you were who you talked to how long you talk and maybe even what was set but the real question here is how long it is cell phone provider keep all that information all banks to freedom of information act request by the north carolina a.c.l.u. a memo from the justice department finally giving us an insight into how these telecommunications companies operate a one page document at the label for law enforcement use only gives police a cheat sheet if you will to determine what cell data they can access but we figure that you would all would also like to know just how long your provider is keeping your information and this document called retention periods of major cell phone providers highlights activity through eighteen t. verizon sprint and t. mobile when it comes to keeping information about what cell towers were used by your film looks like eighteen t.

they take the cake they hold your information for over three years meanwhile sprint will keep it up to two years and horizon holds it for about one year now why does it matter if all phone towers are how law enforcement keep tabs on your location so if you're eighteen to customer that means they know where you were three years ago so how about the data regarding text my. which is also wins in that category they keep that info for five to seven years t. mobile will hold it for about five years and verizon keeps that data for just about one year so they know who you send messages to for the last five years or so but what about the content of those messages that's where it's a little bit different to arise and it will keep the text or images of those text messages for around three to five days and all the other providers don't keep it all which is good to know which company is the best when it comes to privacy here or i guess the worst although seems to be the worst offender in most categories of horizon is the only company that actually keeps the content of the text messages themselves and as far as i'm concerned they although way too much we discuss cell

phones holding data in the past mostly g.p.s. location data and when you look at how long they keep this information i think it's pretty unacceptable why would a company want to know about who you were texting for seven years it's hard to think of any reason that they would know that they would need that information but it's pretty clear to me that all that information is strictly so law enforcement can have an easy access database pulling whatever data they need about you or your cell phone you know it's bad enough you know if the government has all this information at their fingertips but knowing that the cell phone companies are keeping those details for them that's much worse. now is our free speech really free what the united states facing tough economic times at home and over a decade of war abroad increasing numbers of people are speaking out against how the u.s. is operating and loudly when those statements are deemed un-american the idea of free speech in dissent can fly right out the window as artie's guy in a chicken reports this isn't just limited to bloggers or reporters entertainment figures are also getting flak for their comments. it's an american icon legendary

singer world war two veteran and pacifist tony bennett has come under fire for speaking his mind on a radio talk show he said america's actions are broad it provokes terror with the terrorists or with the terrorists or are they the terrorists well two wrongs don't make a right they're the ones who started with the plane flying into the world trade center what do you do oh i don't know about that tony bennett was attacked afterwards with stinging criticism from some quarters then he went to great lengths to apologize to those his remarks may have offended i'd like to say that i am sorry if my state statements suggested anything other than an expression of my love for my country america calls itself the land of the free but some are asking why our living legend like tony bennett has to apologize for his thoughts there's no tolerance really for any deviation from the official law even though here in america we're very proud of

our freedom of speech and the right to speak his skin siddur holy except if you say the wrong things you can get in trouble and artists have musicians have now tony bennett to speak question freedom of speech approved no defense in protecting the jobs of a number of probably figures in america act after a promise that appears to and challenge conventional us establishment views journalist helen thomas who'd been a white house reporter for over half a century was forced to resign after she said he's really should leave land they taken from palestinians everybody has been fired for what they say these days you can but not if you say anything about the president of the united states you can call him anything in the book but you can't say anything about israel. that automatically makes you any systematic cnn's former senior editor of middle east affairs davian nasr was sacked a year ago because of a tweet she wrote about her respect for

a lebanese cleric who had one time had been seen as the spiritual leader of the hezbollah but had later broken ties with them nasr also apologized but was promptly pushed out of the us mainstream media it's all about consequences social and economic just pressure rather than real censorship politicians expressing ideas against the establishment if you come under fire true like congressman ron paul who's running for president or some of the law and i don't i have been missing. they have been explicit and they wrote. their we can act we attacked america because you had bases on our holy land in saudi arabia you do not give palestinians a fair treatment and you have been bombing. i didn't say that i'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing at the same time we have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of iraqis here near would you be annoyed

if you're not annoyed by going there some problem booed and labeled unpatriotic by some just like tony bennett was when he spoke his mind it's not so much about what these people said that led to them being booed or even being fired from their jobs but rather about the fact that in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech that freedom often comes at a hefty price i'm going to check out reporting from washington are two. so where is the line drawn on freedom of speech here in the u.s. or better yet who decides what socially expects acceptable speech or not you know you look at the westboro baptist church west which has the legal protection of protest at soldiers' funerals so you know that's not the courts that are standing in the way but in that case. as a washington is it the media or the word that combines them both the establishment joining me from our studio in los angeles and sperry and co-host of the young turks and i want to thank you for joining us tonight and for starters you know it's clear

here that you have legal protections for free speech in america but do you think that it's perfectly obvious that there are damning consequences in terms of political consequences or financial consequences there's absolutely no question about that the first thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is michael moore and the speech he gave in two thousand and three in front of the academy awards and he basically condemned the war in iraq and at that time there was widespread support for about war and because of his comments during that speech he received death threats in fact the f.b.i. discovered that a man was plotting to burn down michael moore's home and you know he recently gave an interview where he talked about how it personally affected him and his family so there were you know he is protected under our first amendment to make comments and to say whatever political statement he wants to say but that doesn't mean that there are no consequences that come along with that and you know personally speaking as a public figure it's something that you have to deal with audit day to day basis i

know that there are certain viewpoints that i have and because of the nature of the work that i do i'm encouraged to share my perspective and my point of view and sometimes we'll say things that will offend people and you have to pay the consequences for that and sometimes those consequences are hefty it's a hefty price to pay. yeah tell me about it. well you have a thing here is that it's very obvious to me that there are certain topics that are taboo i mean one of the main critiques we always hear directed toward somebody that might say something there's no case that apparently that's unpatriotic apparent you don't love the country but if you look at if we look back to helen thomas as comment there is you can say anything you want about the president these days in fact if you say that the president wasn't born in this country or that he's a muslim and you question him that will get you on t.v. but there are certain things like you know questioning line eleven like questioning israel and the us foreign policy towards that country are those the two most taboo

things you can think of. those are very controversial topics and in the case of helen thomas you know the comment that got her in a lot of trouble was it was a mixed bag because on one hand she said that israelis need to stop occupying palestine and then the second part of her comment was jews need to go back to poland and germany that was the part of her comment that got her into a lot of trouble and that was definitely the controversial thing so of course people are going to jump at her and criticize her for for what she said there and you know it's really interesting to see that if you criticize maybe israeli policy or jewish individuals of course it's it's a little controversial and you do get criticism for it but here in the united states why is it acceptable to immediately criticize profile discriminate against muslims i mean it's a really interesting thing and i'm not exactly sure why that's the case here well i wonder about that you know i mean do you have who do you think really is the

decider the final decider as to what is considered taboo in terms of our freedom of speech and what's acceptable what is it is it the government is that the media is that both of them is it someone else. i think that it's a combination of both and also you have to keep in mind that it's all really rooted in the american people because in the end who is the mainstream media worried about who is the government of course is worried about being criticized but when it comes to people getting fired for sharing their points of view in the media it's usually because the american people get offended by it and they don't like it and they'll criticize it and they'll say that they're boycotting the mainstream media or they're no longer going to watch whatever news outlet this person was featured on so ultimately it has to do with what makes people upset what type of sensitivities do people have and they're the people who the mainstream media is essential to afraid of that at the mainstream media doesn't want to ruffle any feathers and they don't want to share points of view that are too controversial because keep in mind

they have corporate interests at hand they want to make sure that they please their advertisers their advertisers don't want controversy so it's just this very vicious cycle that you see happening in the united states right now so while we say that we have our first amendment rights and we have freedom of speech there are absolutely consequences to really sharing your honest opinion without their corporate interests and their government interests a hand you know and i think the jank who do the turks with found that out when it came to working with m.s.m. b c that said we are the establishment and there are some feathers that you don't want to ruffle are you look at ron paul and some of the things that he says in g.o.p. debates makes you give the man a lot of credit for saying it out loud but then the media mediately dismisses him acts like he's a fringe lunatic and then just starts to ignore him let me ask you one question to now there's a story coming out of a man named peter van buren who is a state department employee and it turns out he's being interrogated for posting on his blog a link to a wiki leaks document that was already out there so you know is that really one of

the serious new bogeyman that we have to face is this idea of exposing government secrets having any association to wiki leaks. well you've got to keep in mind that peter van buren works for the government he works for the state to. apartment and the state department doesn't like that someone that is employed by them is criticizing them keep in mind that peter van britt here and also has a book coming out where he criticizes our efforts in iraq and i'm sure the state department doesn't like that as well so i understand the logic behind the state department wanting to interrogate him and investigate this but at the same time you know he should be protected he should have the ability to share his perspective and his points of view without worrying about having serious consequences from his employers you know the first thing that comes to mind are professors and it's very important for professors to have the protection of tenure because they are supposed to be able to participate in the free marketplace of ideas they're supposed to be able to publish work without worrying about getting fired and i think maybe when it

comes to governmental officials maybe the same type of protection should be considered so and i love the idea that the state department right now is saying that they're investigating peter van buren because he is releasing confidential information that's not the case at all all he did was post a link to a wiki leaks cable from two thousand and nine and that was information that was widely available on the internet anyway the fact of the matter is the state department didn't like being criticized and they want to make peter van buren pay and pay the consequences for that yeah they never like being criticized or being embarrassed for that matter and thanks so much for joining us tonight thank you. now still to come we have our web station if you said it i read it and comments by a trader in britain saying that he hopes for another recession of sparking outrage after saying a lot of other traders out there think it's a dive to the top they can just.

this is the headlines of the hour. a young girl is among a people mostly civilians killed in a car bomb explosion in the russian republic of dagestan six police officers were severely injured the explosive was planted in a coat pocket at a junction in the central district. greece prepares for the wall street clashes as the government looks even more ways to cut spending in order to secure a fresh load for the. german vote of whether to support expanding the eurozone rescue fund and write off a large part of greece's debt. so thousands of ethnic serbs living in kosovo are protest against nato actions in the region as russia. take sides in the conflict this comes as talks between save and costa have spun.