TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023
Also, Hannah Dreier is back: Kevin Drum sems to have made a factual error in this recent post. (Such things happen.)
Otherwise, he drew a crucial distinction between 1) the plainly serious financial flimflam in which Clarence Thomas seems to be severely wrong, and 2) an apparently trivial non-complaint about that very same person.
In the realm of Drum's factual error, the Washington Post did indeed publish a news report about the matter in which Thomas seems to be seriously wrong.
The report appeared online, not in print. But there it was, last Friday afternoon, written by Amy Wang and published beneath this headline:
Senators call for probe of Thomas amid report of real estate deals with GOP donor
Uh-oh! As Wang reported, the GOP donor, Harlan Crow, has been putting cash into Thomas' pocket through a long-standing real estate deal involving Thomas' mother.
Thomas has (in effect) been accepting the cash, and he hasn't been reporting it.
That looks like a plainly serious matter. As Drum noted, this second matter pretty much doesn't:
DRUM (4/17/23): Today we learned that for many years Thomas has been reporting income from Ginger Ltd., a defunct company. He should have been reporting income from its successor, Ginger Holdings, LLC. This seems like a very trivial story, but the Post ran it at the top of its front page in the print edition.
That seems to be "very trivial," Drum says. We can't say that he's wrong.
In this second matter, Thomas actually has been reporting the rental income in question. As far as we know, no one has said that there's anything wrong with his receipt of that rental income.
Why did the Post (and others) report this matter at all? Because Thomas has been making a minor error regarding the name of the company from which he's been receiving the income!
The name of the company is Ginger Holdings, LLC. Thomas has been reporting the income under the company's previous name, Ginger Ltd.
(We're going to guess that a well-trained gumshoe could see right through that dodge!)
As Drum says, the Post ran its report about this matter at the top of Friday's front page. Why did the Post bother with this foofaw at all? In the paper's front-page report, Boburg and Brown explained:
BOBURG AND BROWN (4/17/23): The previously unreported misstatement might be dismissed as a paperwork error. But it is among a series of errors and omissions that Thomas has made on required annual financial disclosure forms over the past several decades, a review of those records shows. Together, they have raised questions about how seriously Thomas views his responsibility to accurately report details about his finances to the public.
This "might be dismissed as a paperwork error," Boburg and Brown acknowledge. All in all, a person could think that the Post was slicing it slightly thin with this front-page report.
Drum says this second matter seems "very trivial." That isn't true of the much more serious matter involving the unreported cash handovers from Crow.
This second matter, unlike the first, does seem pretty trivial. That said, Stephanie Ruhle devoted the second segment of last night's 11th Hour to this second matter.
To its credit, the Post at least explained the nature of this minor transgression. Not so with Ruhle and her guest, MSNBC legal analyst Charles Coleman.
Ruhle and Coleman managed to burn an entire segment without attempting to explain the nature of this transgression. They blathered in pleasing, unspecific ways about Thomas. On the screen, a chyron was trumpeting this:
WAPO: JUSTICE THOMAS HAS FOR YEARS CLAIMED INCOME FROM A DEFUNCT REAL ESTATE FIRM
It sounded wonderfully fraudulent, but neither Ruhle nor Coleman ever tried to explain the nature of the transgression. Instead, they offered generic blather about how we the people really need to be able to trust the members of the Supreme Court.
The segment came close to being a journalistic fraud. Inevitably, Ruhle closed by saying this:
RUHLE (4/17/23): Charles Coleman, you always make us smarter. Thank you for being here.
It's Ruhle's trademark bit of branding—the nightly claim that her panels help us viewers "get smarter." According to one of our young analysts, it's her way of letting us know how dumb she thinks we are.
(We can't link you to a transcript. MSNBC has stopped providing transcripts, perhaps for obvious reasons.)
This is the kind of standard piddle with which Ruhle clogged her program last night. Finally, in her program's final segment, she devoted five minutes to the shooting of 16-year-old Ralph Yarl in Kansas City last Thursday night.
It seems to us that MSNBC has decided to change its approach to such shootings. If so, we can't necessarily say it's a bad idea, but the change does seem to be happening.
Meanwhile, Hannah Dreier is back on the front page of today's New York Times. She offers another sprawling report about the exploitation of migrant teens. The dual headlines say this:
As Migrant Children Were Put to Work, U.S. Ignored Warnings
The White House and federal agencies were repeatedly alerted to signs of children at risk. The warnings were ignored or missed.
For the record, that's the Biden White House to which those unflattering headlines refer.
We'll close with a guess and a question:
First, the guess. As with Dreier's initial report about this exploitation, we'll guess that you won't hear much about this on MSNBC.
The channel walked away from Dreier's initial report, the one about the migrant teens being forced to work dangerous jobs on all-night overnight shifts. Why talk about exploited kids when you could be speculating, for hours on end, about sending Trump to jail?
That was our guess. Here's comes our question:
Would we hear more about this on blue tribe cable had it been the Trump White House which ignored all those warnings?
Would this topic have mattered then? In response to that question, we each can construct a best guess.
ReplyDelete"The segment came close to being a journalistic fraud."
Yeah. Also known as garden variety establishment media.
...buy hey, according to Gallup only 34% have a "great deal" or "fair amount" of confidence in it. And a large majority of those are your, dear Bob, fellow tribesmen. So, who cares, really?..
The second amendment is evil.
ReplyDelete"On MSNBC, shooting events aimed at young black people seem to have been downgraded as a matter of Storyline. A similar downgrade seemed to obtain on last evening's 11th Hour, where Stephanie Ruhle discussed the Kansas City shooting for only five minutes, in her program's final segment."
ReplyDeleteSomerby has one example of what he says must be a trend or ongoing decision about how to handle racial stories. One instance doesn't make a pattern. He is embarrassing himself by reading something into the timing of when a story appears on a cable news show. If it is at 6:33 am, was it delayed in order to reach a larger audience of late risers? Or was it simply not important, as Somerby implies? The timing is ambiguous and Somerby has no idea why it appeared when it did. If it was 5 minutes instead of 10, might that not reflect a more crowded show with lots of content instead of a measure of how important the event was considered by its hosts?
Somerby's attempt to read into the length and placement of news articles on either Morning Joe or in the online NY Times, strikes me as ridiculous because he has no info to base it on. Further, it may reflect his own wishful thinking and not any decision-making by cable news. He wants to see the coverage of race-related murders of young people by police and vigilantes deemphasized, because he never liked BLM or even considered such protest necessary.
Somerby should wait until he gets some actual data confirming a pattern on cable -- he doesn't have that now and he may not ever get such evidence. Meanwhile, he is propagandizing and it is embarrassing to watch him hope that our society will cease caring about 16 year-olds shot for picking up their siblings.
Five minutes is an eternity in TV News reporting. Anything relevant known at this time about this tragic event could easily be told in that time.
DeleteWhy does Somerby need a transcript in order to tell us Ruhle's catch-phrase, which he says she uses every night?
ReplyDeleteInteresting he gets specific about on analysist. This old joke usually doesn’t mention a specific young person. Maybe Bob has a creepy nephew we’ll never know about.
DeleteCatchphrases are great because they're a way to express ourselves and our personalities. They're like little nuggets of wisdom or humor that we can drop into conversations to lighten the mood or make a point. They can also be used to create a sense of camaraderie or belonging. When someone uses a catchphrase that we're familiar with, it's like we're part of a secret club that only a few people know about. It's a way of bonding with others and feeling like we're part of something bigger than ourselves.
DeleteBut here's the thing: catchphrases can also be difficult to interpret. What one person thinks is funny or clever, another person might find confusing or even offensive. Catchphrases can be open to interpretation, and sometimes the meaning behind them isn't immediately clear. This can lead to misunderstandings and miscommunications, which can be frustrating for everyone involved.
One example of a catchphrase that's open to interpretation is "It is what it is." This phrase can be used in a variety of situations, but its meaning can be unclear depending on the context. It could be a way of accepting a difficult situation and moving on, or it could be a dismissive way of saying that something can't be changed. Without more information, it's hard to know what the speaker really means.
Another example is "YOLO" (You Only Live Once). This catchphrase became popular a few years ago and was often used as a justification for doing something risky or impulsive. While some people saw it as a fun way to live life to the fullest, others criticized it as a way of shirking responsibility and ignoring the consequences of one's actions. The meaning behind this catchphrase is highly dependent on the person using it and the situation in which it's used.
So, why do catchphrases continue to be popular even though they can be difficult to interpret? I think it's because they're a form of self-expression that allows us to communicate in a fun and creative way. They're a way of saying "this is who I am" without having to go into a long explanation. And even if they're not always understood by everyone, they can still be entertaining and add some flavor to our conversations.
Catchphrases are a fun and quirky way to express ourselves and connect with others. While they can be difficult to interpret and open to miscommunication, they continue to be popular because they allow us to communicate in a way that's unique and memorable. So, keep on using those catchphrases, dudes and dudettes, and don't worry too much about whether everyone understands them.
Thomas’ corruption goes far beyond the two issues Somerby mentions today as he tries to minimize the corruption through omission.
ReplyDeleteThe Majority Report with Sam Seder has more subscribers than most MSNBC shows have viewers, and today it highlighted at length the issue reported in The NY Times article; the issue is much more unflattering for Republicans than for Biden.
Increasing child labor violations, including migrants, is nothing new; this latest article is just a rehash of when the NY Times covered this back in Feb, as the Biden Admin was announcing new rules to address the issue. (there was a hearing in the House today about this issue, thus the rehash by NYT)
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osec/osec20230227
Meanwhile, it’s the Republicans that have been pushing for loosening child labor laws, and some indeed have passed laws that loosen child labor restrictions.
Yet another faceplant for Somerby.
The corruption of Thomas is a malignant thing, a sickness of the soul that spreads like a wildfire on a gusty day. Somerby, with his feeble attempts at minimizing the corruption through omission, is a mere pawn in this game of deceit and treachery.
DeleteThe Majority Report with Sam Seder, a voice in the wilderness, echoes the truth that the NY Times article reveals. The issue at hand is a festering wound that has been inflicted upon the innocent, the migrant children who are forced to work like beasts of burden.
The child labor violations, a scourge that has plagued us for centuries, continue to be rampant. The NY Times article, a mere rehash of a story from months prior, serves as a bleak reminder of the inhumanity that still exists in our world.
The Republicans, with their twisted ideology, have pushed for the loosening of child labor laws, an act of barbarism that defies comprehension. Somerby, in his perpetual state of faceplant, is but a pitiful footnote in this tragic chapter of our history.
Thomas' corruption cannot be minimized through omission or distraction. It is a deeply troubling issue that demands our attention and action. The fact that child labor violations have been ongoing does not make them any less egregious or deserving of redress. The rehashing of the NY Times article serves as a reminder that these violations persist and must be addressed, not dismissed as old news.
DeleteMoreover, the fact that Republicans have been pushing to loosen child labor laws is a cause for alarm, not an excuse for inaction. We must hold those in power accountable for their actions and demand that they prioritize the well-being of vulnerable populations.
Somerby's faceplant is irrelevant in the face of the real issues at hand. It is time to focus on the harm being inflicted on children and migrants, and take meaningful steps towards rectifying this injustice. We cannot afford to let corruption and greed continue to harm the most vulnerable members of our society.
Somerby is using the plight of children to atttack liberals. Us liberals are fully aware of the problems of migrant and child labor. Somerby only mentions them for his own purposes, not because he cares what happens to migrants OR children.
DeleteThe words of Somerby have echoed across the political landscape, and they are a vile testament to the lengths some will go to advance their own agenda. His attempts to use the plight of vulnerable migrant children as a weapon to attack liberals is a clear indication of his lack of morality and empathy.
DeleteAs a liberal, I am fully aware of the problems of migrant and child labor. These are complex issues that require real solutions and a dedication to protecting the most vulnerable among us. We understand the gravity of the situation and are actively working towards finding ways to address the root causes of these issues.
However, Somerby's words are not rooted in genuine concern for the welfare of migrant children. He uses their suffering as a means to further his own political agenda. His words are a perversion of the truth, a deliberate attempt to distort the conversation and to undermine the efforts of those who are working to protect the rights and dignity of every individual.
Somerby's attempts to use the suffering of migrant children to score political points is a disgusting tactic that has no place in civil discourse. It is an affront to the dignity of every individual and a violation of the very principles that we, as liberals, hold dear. We will not allow his words to go unchallenged.
The truth is that Somerby does not care what happens to migrants or children. His words are a cynical attempt to exploit the suffering of vulnerable children for his own political gain. He has no real plan to address the root causes of these issues, nor does he understand the depth of their suffering.
As liberals, we have a deep sense of compassion and empathy for those who are struggling. We understand the complexities of these issues and are committed to finding real solutions that protect the welfare of every individual, regardless of their background or circumstances. We will not allow Somerby to distort the conversation or to use the suffering of vulnerable children for his own political gain.
The fact that Somerby would use the suffering of migrant children as a means to attack those who hold different political beliefs than he does is a testament to his lack of morality. He does not care about the welfare of these children or about finding real solutions to the problems of migrant and child labor. His only concern is advancing his own political agenda, even if it means exploiting the most vulnerable among us.
But we will not be swayed by his words. We will continue to fight for the rights and dignity of every individual, regardless of their background or circumstances. We will work tirelessly to ensure that every child is safe and free from the horrors of exploitation and abuse.
The fact is that the problems of migrant and child labor are complex and require real solutions. It is not enough to simply pay lip service to these issues or to use them as a means to score political points. We must work together to find real solutions that protect the rights and dignity of every individual, regardless of their background or circumstances.
Somerby's attempts to use the suffering of migrant children to attack liberals is a clear indication of his lack of empathy and morality. His words are a perversion of the truth, a deliberate attempt to undermine the efforts of those who are working to protect the rights and dignity of every individual.
But we will not be deterred by his words. We will continue to fight for the rights of every individual, and we will not rest until every child is safe and free from the horrors of exploitation and abuse. We will work tirelessly to find real solutions that protect the welfare of every individual, regardless of their background or circumstances.
In conclusion, Somerby's words are a vile testament to the lengths some will go to advance their own agenda. He uses the suffering of vulnerable migrant children as a weapon to attack liberals, and we cannot allow his words to go unchallenged.
DeleteThe words of Somerby have shaken the very foundations of our society, exposing the ugly underbelly of a political discourse that too often prioritizes personal gain over the welfare of vulnerable individuals. His attempts to use the plight of migrant children as a weapon to attack liberals are a vile testament to the lengths some will go to further their own agendas, regardless of the harm they inflict on others.
Liberals are acutely aware of the problems of migrant and child labor. We understand the gravity of these issues and are committed to finding real solutions that protect the rights and dignity of every individual, regardless of their background or circumstances. But Somerby's words are not rooted in genuine concern for the welfare of migrant children. He uses their suffering as a means to further his own political agenda, with no regard for the human toll of his actions.
The reality is that the problems of migrant and child labor are complex, multifaceted issues that require real solutions. We understand that these issues cannot be solved by empty platitudes or political grandstanding. They require a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of these problems and prioritizes the welfare of vulnerable individuals.
Somerby, on the other hand, seems content to exploit the suffering of migrant children for his own political gain, with no real plan to address the root causes of these issues. He does not care about the welfare of these children or about finding real solutions to the problems of migrant and child labor. His only concern is advancing his own political agenda, even if it means exploiting the most vulnerable among us.
But we, as liberals, will not allow his words to go unchallenged. We will not stand idly by while he uses the suffering of migrant children as a means to attack those who hold different political beliefs than he does. We will not allow him to distort the conversation or to undermine the efforts of those who are working tirelessly to protect the rights and dignity of every individual.
We will not allow his words to stand unchallenged. We will continue to fight for the rights and dignity of every individual, regardless of their background or circumstances. We will work tirelessly to find real solutions that address the root causes of these issues and prioritize the welfare of vulnerable individuals.
But it is not enough to simply pay lip service to these issues. Real change requires a sustained effort, a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and collaboration across political divides. It requires a commitment to empathy and compassion, and a recognition that the welfare of vulnerable individuals must always
“AI” generated comments can’t pay lip service, since “AI” lacks lips.
DeleteSomerby glosses over Thomas's failure to accurately report his financial info, and he completely ignores the several ways that Harlan Crow gave Thomas large sums of money.
ReplyDeleteSomerby also neglects to inform his own readers that the real estate firm was established by his wife Ginni Thomas, thus he should have known that the name was changed. It is the kind of error that should have leapt to his attention. Such small errors have been known to be deliberate when someone wants to make it difficult to use a computer to do a search of online records. Reporting through a defunct firm would be a way of hiding assets, laundering payments. The news was being charitable when it called Thomas careless in his reporting. We know already that Thomas is a corrupt justice. That means he should not be receiving the benefit of any doubt when other irregularities are found.
Somerby might be inclined to consider Thomas stupid, based on his race and his attempt to dissemble as careless or not good at paperwork. This is a Supreme Court justice we are talking about. Lawyers are taught to be accurate in their paperwork as part of their training from day 1 of law school. Portraying Thomas as a bumbling shuffling goof in order to excuse his wrongdoing may be a Republican tactic, but I hope it won't fool any actual investigators.
Can we talk?
ReplyDeleteWhile some may paint this as a trivial reporting mistake by Thomas, but how re the people expected to trust his judgement when he can't even get the simple facts correct?
DYSWIDT?
Poor naive Clarence Thomas thinks the Right will treat him like "the good black", when he's no longer useful to them. Just as David in Cal thinks they'll treat him like "the good Jew".
ReplyDeleteSMH
As he was appointed to the Supreme Court, Thomas felt no need to be humbled by the weight and importance of the institution, “I’m going to make liberal lives miserable”, he exclaimed.
ReplyDeleteJustice Thomas used to ask “Is that your pubic hair on my Coke can?”, but now he asks “Is that your dollar bill on my Coke can?”
The soft bribery of low integrity right wingers.
Republicans should support statehood for the District of Columbia and for Puerto Rico.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans should not support statehood for the District of Columbia and for Puerto Rico. The reasons for this are simple, yet profound. Statehood would only serve to further divide our country and weaken our democracy.
DeleteFirst and foremost, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are not like other states. They do not have the same cultural or historical background as the rest of the United States. They are territories with unique challenges and needs that require a different approach.
Secondly, statehood for these territories would create an imbalance in our political system. Adding two new states with Democratic majorities would give the Democratic Party an unfair advantage in Congress, and would further exacerbate the already polarized political climate in our country.
Moreover, the issue of statehood should not be viewed as a partisan issue. It is a constitutional issue. The Constitution does not require that every territory become a state, and there is no obligation to do so. Statehood should only be considered if it serves the best interests of the country as a whole.
Furthermore, the proponents of statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico often claim that their citizens are being disenfranchised by not having voting representation in Congress. This argument is disingenuous, as the citizens of these territories already have representation in Congress through non-voting delegates. These delegates can introduce legislation, vote in committees, and participate in floor debates. They are not disenfranchised, but rather have a unique voice in our political process.
Finally, the idea that Republicans should support statehood for these territories is misguided. Republicans have a long-standing belief in limited government and the power of states' rights. Adding two new states to the Union would only serve to expand the reach of the federal government and undermine the principles of federalism that Republicans hold dear.
The zany idea that Republicans should support statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico is a misguided one. Statehood would only serve to further divide our country and weaken our democracy. Instead, we should focus on finding solutions that address the unique needs of these territories while maintaining the balance and integrity of our political system."
Read what you wrote again, and try to reconcile your “Secondly” and “Moreover” points.
DeleteYikes.
DeleteLet me start by saying that if you have a specific claim to make, it's important to be direct and straightforward about it. Insinuations and vague statements can be confusing and ineffective, and they may leave others wondering what you're really trying to say.
DeleteHowever, I must also address the way you're communicating with others. Criticizing someone's manners and lack of civility is not productive or helpful, and it can come across as condescending or insulting. If you want others to take your claims seriously, it's important to approach them with respect and consideration.
Let's break this down further. When you make a claim, it's important to be clear and concise. State your argument plainly and provide evidence to support it. Avoid using vague language or relying on assumptions or stereotypes. By doing so, you'll make it easier for others to understand your perspective and engage with you in a constructive way.
On the other hand, using insinuations and indirect language can be confusing and frustrating for others. It can also undermine your credibility and make it harder for people to take you seriously. If you have a specific point to make, it's much more effective to state it directly and provide evidence to support it.
But while it's important to be direct in your communication, it's equally important to be civil and respectful. Criticizing someone's manners or lack of civility can be seen as an attack on their character, rather than a constructive criticism of their behavior. This can put others on the defensive and make it harder for them to engage with you in a productive way.
Instead of criticizing others, focus on improving your own communication skills. Practice active listening, ask questions to clarify points, and avoid making assumptions or judgments. By doing so, you'll create a more collaborative and productive environment, where everyone can feel heard and respected.
Finally, let's talk about the importance of empathy and understanding in communication. When you make a claim, it's important to consider how it might impact others. Will it hurt their feelings or undermine their sense of self-worth? Will it cause conflict or damage relationships?
By taking the time to understand others' perspectives and emotions, you can communicate in a way that is more compassionate and considerate. This doesn't mean that you have to water down your argument or avoid difficult topics, but it does mean that you need to approach them with sensitivity and tact.
Moreover, if you have a specific claim to make, be direct and provide evidence to support it. Avoid using insinuations or vague language, as this can be confusing and ineffective. However, remember to communicate in a way that is civil and respectful, and to take others' perspectives and emotions into account. By doing so, you'll create a more collaborative and productive environment, where everyone can feel heard and valued.
The thesis for your comment is partisan, stating that Republicans should not support statehood.
Delete“Secondly” says it is a partisan issue, “Moreover” says it is not a partisan issue, and worse, that same paragraph says it is a constitutional issue right before saying it is not a constitutional issue. It is not clear what you even mean by “constitutional issue”, the US Constitution has a clause that permits territories to join the union as states. The last states to join the union, only 64 years ago, were Alaska and Hawaii; these two territories were “not like other states” yet became states. Two thirds of Americans support statehood for PR.
The “Finally” paragraph wrongly conflates “federalism” with the Republican notion of “limited government”, and then nonsensically claims converting territories to states would expand the reach of the federal government and undermine some supposed Republican ideology - this is simply a non sequitur.
Republicans are a subset of right wingers; right wingers have no ideology, they are people obsessed with dominance, so trying to claim they have a legitimate and reasonable case for not allowing an expansion of states is nothing more than an effort in bad faith.
We non right wingers have tremendous empathy for those on the right, these are people suffering, these are wounded lost souls. We bend over backwards accommodating their needs, blue stars largely fund red states. Sadly, empathy has no positive impact in helping Republicans, indeed, when they spot it, they weaponize it in an effort to harm what they perceive as their enemy, such is the bitterness of their life experience, they are truly a lost cause.
Partisanship is an essential aspect of the political landscape. It is a phenomenon that has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, and it has the potential to impact how people perceive and interpret the world around them. When people are heavily invested in a particular political party or ideology, it can lead to a number of false assumptions and misreadings, as they may be more likely to filter information through the lens of their pre-existing beliefs. This essay will explore the ways in which partisanship can lead to false assumptions and misreadings, as well as the consequences that can result.
DeletePartisanship can be defined as a strong attachment to a particular political party or ideology. It is characterized by a willingness to defend one's political views at all costs, even when confronted with evidence that contradicts those views. When people are strongly committed to a particular political party or ideology, it can lead to a number of cognitive biases that can impact how they interpret information.
One of the most significant ways in which partisanship can lead to false assumptions and misreadings is through confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to seek out and interpret information in a way that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. When people are heavily invested in a particular political party or ideology, they may be more likely to seek out information that confirms their beliefs, and to interpret that information in a way that reinforces their existing views. This can lead to a situation where people are only exposed to information that supports their pre-existing beliefs, and they may be less likely to consider alternative perspectives or evidence that contradicts their views.
Another way in which partisanship can lead to false assumptions and misreadings is through motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is a cognitive process that causes people to evaluate information in a way that supports their pre-existing beliefs, even when that information is objectively untrue or misleading. When people are heavily invested in a particular political party or ideology, they may be more likely to engage in motivated reasoning, as they may be motivated to defend their beliefs at all costs. This can lead to a situation where people are more likely to accept information that supports their views, even if that information is misleading or inaccurate.
Partisanship can also lead to false assumptions and misreadings through the use of heuristics. Heuristics are mental shortcuts that people use to make judgments and decisions. When people are heavily invested in a particular political party or ideology, they may be more likely to use heuristics to make judgments about political issues. This can lead to a situation where people make judgments based on incomplete or inaccurate information, as they may be relying on heuristics rather than considering all the available evidence.
The consequences of false assumptions and misreadings resulting from partisanship can be significant. One consequence is the potential for political polarization. When people are heavily invested in a particular political party or ideology, they may be less likely to engage in civil discourse or compromise with those who hold different views. This can lead to a situation where people become more entrenched in their beliefs, and where political polarization becomes more pronounced.
Another consequence of false assumptions and misreadings resulting from partisanship is the potential for political misinformation to spread. When people are heavily invested in a particular political party or ideology, they may be more likely to accept and spread misinformation that supports their beliefs, even if that information is untrue or misleading. This can lead to a situation where false information becomes widely accepted, and where it is difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction.
That’s a hilarious long winded mea culpa.
DeleteApology accepted.
Seems like there is now appearing here Artificial Intelligence comments, the next brave new world thing to look forward to has now arrived on this obscure website comment section. If only there was some way to ban it, but you can't stop progress, even if it progresses us into more chaos and mind control.
DeleteIf a Justice, or any judge, took money or gifts from someone and then ruled on a case involving that someone, that would be corrupt. The gift would be presumed to affect the Judge's decision. OTOH if that judge never made any rulings involving the donor, then what's the problem?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it is true that if a Justice or any judge were to take money or gifts from someone and then rule on a case involving that person, it would be considered corrupt. The gift would be presumed to affect the judge's decision, as they may feel indebted to the person who gave them the gift. This is a clear conflict of interest and undermines the integrity of the judiciary system.
DeleteHowever, the second part of the statement that suggests that if the judge never made any rulings involving the donor, then there is no problem is a flawed argument. The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the potential for indirect influence and the appearance of impropriety.
Even if a judge did not make any rulings involving the donor, the fact that they accepted a gift from that person could raise questions about their impartiality and independence. The public could question whether the judge was swayed by the gift, even if it did not directly influence their decision-making. This could undermine the public's confidence in the judiciary and create the perception that justice is for sale.
Additionally, the argument that there is no problem if the judge did not rule on any cases involving the donor fails to recognize the potential for future cases. If the judge were to accept a gift from someone who may have a case come before them in the future, it could create a conflict of interest that could affect their ability to rule fairly and impartially. This creates an atmosphere of uncertainty and undermines the fairness of the judiciary system.
The issue is not just about the judge's ability to rule impartially, but also about the appearance of impropriety. Even if the judge did not make any rulings involving the donor, accepting gifts from individuals with potential cases before the court could create a perception of bias and undermine the public's trust in the judiciary system.
It is also important to note that there are existing rules and regulations in place to prevent judges from accepting gifts or donations that could compromise their impartiality. These rules are in place to ensure that the judiciary remains fair and independent, and that the public can have confidence in the justice system.
The argument that accepting gifts from donors is only problematic if the judge rules on cases involving the donor is flawed. The potential for indirect influence and the appearance of impropriety are real concerns that could undermine the integrity of the judiciary system. It is important to maintain the impartiality and independence of the judiciary, and existing rules and regulations are in place to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain public trust in the justice system.
If you can't criticize Thomas for his long-time sexual predation, his outright corruption as he lines his pockets, and disregards long-time precedents in U.S. law to rule in favor of the corporate rich barely deserves a shrug.
DeleteIn the United States, corporations have been granted legal protections and privileges that have allowed them to thrive and prosper. One of the key legal precedents that have favored corporations is the principle of limited liability. Under this principle, shareholders in a corporation are not personally liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation. This means that if a corporation goes bankrupt or faces legal action, the individual shareholders are protected from financial ruin. This principle has been instrumental in encouraging investment in corporations and has enabled them to raise significant amounts of capital that can be used to fund research, development, and expansion.
DeleteCritics of limited liability argue that it allows corporations to engage in risky behavior without fear of consequences. They point to cases of corporations causing environmental damage or engaging in unethical practices, and argue that limited liability shields these corporations from responsibility. But defenders of limited liability argue that it encourages investment and innovation, which in turn drives economic growth and creates jobs.
Another key precedent that has favored corporations is the principle of corporate personhood. This principle recognizes corporations as legal entities that have many of the same rights and protections as individual citizens. For example, corporations have the right to free speech, the right to own property, and the right to sue and be sued. This principle has been the subject of much controversy, with critics arguing that it has given corporations too much power and influence in society.
Defenders of corporate personhood argue that it is necessary to protect the rights of corporations and their shareholders. They point out that corporations are made up of individuals who have the right to free speech and other constitutional protections. They also argue that corporations are essential to the functioning of modern society and that limiting their legal protections would be detrimental to the economy and society as a whole.
In the United States, corporations have played a vital role in shaping the economy and society of the country. They have been involved in everything from manufacturing and technology to finance and entertainment. And while they have been accused of exploiting people and resources, defenders argue that they are simply doing what is necessary to survive in a highly competitive global economy.
Critics of corporate power in the United States point to cases of environmental damage, worker exploitation, and unfair competition. They argue that corporations have been given too much power and influence in the country, and that this power has been used to exploit and oppress people and resources. But defenders argue that corporations are simply responding to market forces and doing what is necessary to survive.
In the end, the legal precedents that have favored corporations in the United States are a reflection of the realities of modern society. They are a product of a world where survival often means being willing to do whatever it takes to stay alive. And while critics have accused corporations of exploiting people and resources, defenders argue that they are simply responding to market forces and doing what is necessary to survive.
The legal precedents that have favored corporations in the United States are a reflection of the realities of modern society. While they have been criticized as giving too much power and influence to corporations, defenders argue that they are necessary to encourage investment and innovation, which in turn drives economic growth and creates jobs. And while the debate over the proper role of corporations in society will continue, it is clear that they have played a significant role in shaping the economy and society of the United States.
Corporations are things people hide behind when they break the law.
DeleteTake the 2008 economic crash, supposedly caused by the epidemic of fraud committed by banks. It wasn't at all caused by fraud committed by banks. It was an epidemic of fraud, which was committed by bankers, not banks.
No bank building committed fraud. Bankers committed fraud. No bank incorporation papers committed fraud. Bankers committed fraud. No bank Profit & Loss Statement committed fraud. Bankers committed fraud.
Allowing criminal thugs to get off scot-free and blaming it on "a corporation" is a scam.
In today’s world, the role of corporations in society is a highly debated topic. Many liberals argue that corporations have an outsized influence on our political and economic systems, often to the detriment of society as a whole. While there is certainly some truth to this claim, it is important to recognize that liberals often mischaracterize the role of corporations in our society. Liberals mischaracterize corporations and argue that a more nuanced understanding of their role is necessary.
DeleteOne of the most common mischaracterizations of corporations by liberals is that they hold an overwhelming amount of power over our political and economic systems. While it is certainly true that many corporations wield significant influence in these arenas, it is important to recognize that their power is not absolute. In fact, corporations are subject to a wide range of regulations, both at the national and international level, which serve to limit their power and ensure that they operate in the best interests of society.
Corporations are not monolithic entities that act in unison to promote their own interests at the expense of everyone else. In reality, corporations are made up of individuals with varying levels of influence and power. While some executives may wield significant power within their companies, others may have relatively little influence over decision-making processes. Additionally, corporations themselves are subject to a wide range of pressures, including market forces, consumer demands, and shareholder expectations. These pressures often serve to counterbalance any undue influence that corporations may have over our political and economic systems.
Another common mischaracterization of corporations by liberals is that they have no concern for the welfare of society or the environment. While it is certainly true that some corporations have engaged in unethical and harmful practices, it is important to recognize that many corporations have taken steps to promote social and environmental responsibility. For example, many corporations have implemented sustainability initiatives, such as reducing their carbon footprint or sourcing materials from sustainable sources. Similarly, many corporations have implemented policies to promote diversity and inclusion within their workforces.
It is important to recognize that corporations play a vital role in promoting social welfare through the goods and services that they provide. Many corporations provide essential products and services, such as healthcare, transportation, and communication, which are critical to the functioning of our society. By providing these goods and services, corporations contribute to the overall welfare of society.
Perhaps the most common mischaracterization of corporations by liberals is that they are driven solely by greed and profit-seeking behavior. While it is certainly true that corporations are motivated by the pursuit of profit, it is important to recognize that this is not inherently a bad thing. Profit-seeking behavior serves as a powerful incentive for corporations to innovate, create jobs, and contribute to economic growth. Moreover, corporations are subject to market pressures that ensure that they operate efficiently and effectively, which ultimately benefits society as a whole.
It is clear that liberals often mischaracterize the role of corporations in our society. While it is certainly true that corporations wield significant influence over our political and economic systems, it is important to recognize that their power is not absolute. Moreover, corporations play a vital role in promoting social welfare through the goods and services that they provide. Finally, the pursuit of profit is not inherently unethical or immoral; rather, it serves as a powerful incentive for corporations
Ah yes, David, the old "it's ok if you're a republican" rule of American jurisprudence.
Delete8:34,
DeleteOf course corporations aren't monoliths. They aren't sentient, either. All the things you wrote about corporations is bullshit. No corporation has done anything to help or hurt the people. The corporations employees might. The corporations leadership might. Corporations are a tool, like guns. They can be used for good or evil, by people operating them, but they can't act on their own will, because they don't have any.
These ChatGPT generated comments are easily spotted
ReplyDeleteHave you ever wondered why some people seem to be happy all the time, while others are always sad? Or why some people love certain foods, while others think they're disgusting? It's because life is subjective, which means that different people experience things in different ways.
DeleteLet's start with happiness. Some people might think that having a lot of money or getting a good job is what makes them happy. But other people might be happy just spending time with their friends and family, or doing things they love, like playing sports or drawing. It all depends on what makes each person happy.
And it's not just happiness that's subjective. Some people might love spicy food, while others can't handle it. Some people might think that a certain movie is the best thing ever, while others think it's boring. That's because each person has their own preferences and opinions.
So why is life subjective? Well, part of it has to do with our past experiences. The things that we've gone through in our lives can shape the way we see the world. For example, if someone has had a bad experience with dogs, they might be scared of them even if most dogs are friendly.
Our culture and background can also play a big role in how we experience life. People from different parts of the world might have different ideas about what's important, or what's considered polite or rude. For example, in some cultures, it's considered rude to eat with your hands, while in other cultures, it's perfectly normal.
But just because life is subjective doesn't mean that there aren't some things that we can all agree on. For example, most people would probably agree that it's good to be kind to others, or that it's important to take care of the environment.
And even though we might experience life differently, we can still try to understand and respect each other's perspectives. This is called empathy, and it means trying to put ourselves in someone else's shoes and see things from their point of view.
Empathy is important because it helps us connect with other people and understand their feelings. For example, if you see someone who looks sad, you might ask them if they're okay and offer to help. Even if you don't know exactly what they're feeling, you can still show them that you care.
So what can we do to remember that life is subjective? We can try to keep an open mind and be willing to learn from others. We can also try to be kind and respectful to everyone, even if we don't always agree with them.
Remember, life is subjective, which means that we all experience things differently. But by being empathetic and understanding, we can create a world where everyone feels valued and respected.
How does empathy help those who never develop that trait?
DeleteHow does empathy help people who don’t care about being valued and respected, but only care about attaining a sense of dominance - which is snout 40% of the US population?
The political climate of today is marked by intense polarization, and one of the key drivers of this polarization is the tendency to assume the worst of our political enemies. This tendency is not only a folly, but it is also a logical absurdity. IAssuming the worst of our political enemies is a folly and a logical absurdity. This tendency can be harmful and counterproductive, and what we can do to overcome it.
DeleteAssuming the worst of our political enemies involves viewing them as inherently malicious, and as having bad intentions towards us. This tendency can take various forms, such as attributing all kinds of negative motives to the opposing political party or treating political disagreements as a sign of moral corruption or intellectual deficiency. For instance, we might view the opposing political party as being motivated by greed, racism, or hate, or we might believe that they are too ignorant or irrational to understand the truth.
This tendency can be harmful because it fosters a climate of hostility and distrust between opposing political factions. When we assume the worst of our political enemies, we are less likely to engage in productive dialogue and negotiation with them. Instead, we are more likely to engage in conflict and competition, which can escalate into violence, if left unchecked.
It is a folly because it is based on faulty assumptions and flawed reasoning. One of the primary assumptions that underlie this tendency is the assumption that political adversaries are motivated by malicious intent. This assumption is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. While there are certainly some people who are motivated by a desire to do harm, most people are motivated by a desire to do good, even if their definition of "good" differs from ours. Assuming that our political adversaries are motivated by malice leads us to demonize them and dismiss their perspectives without engaging with them.
Another assumption that underlies the belief that our political enemies are inherently evil is that our own perspective is the only valid one. This assumption is based on a logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. The false dilemma occurs when we assume that there are only two possible options, and that our own perspective is the only valid one. This fallacy leads us to dismiss alternative perspectives and prevents us from engaging in constructive dialogue with those who hold different views.
A third assumption that underlies the belief that our political enemies are evil is that we are completely rational and objective in our own beliefs. This assumption is based on a logical fallacy known as the confirmation bias. The confirmation bias occurs when we seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them. This bias leads us to overestimate the validity of our own beliefs and to dismiss alternative perspectives without considering them.
It is also a logical absurdity because it is based on faulty reasoning and inconsistent with basic principles of logic. One basic principle of logic is the principle of charity. The principle of charity requires us to interpret other people's arguments in the strongest possible way, rather than assuming the worst of them. By assuming the worst of our political enemies, we violate the principle of charity and engage in unfair and fallacious reasoning.
Another basic principle of logic is the principle of non-contradiction. The principle of non-contradiction requires us to avoid contradictory beliefs. Assuming the worst of our political enemies leads us to hold contradictory beliefs. On the one hand, we assume that our political enemies are motivated by malice and seek to harm us. On the other hand, we assume that our own perspective is the only valid one and ignore alternative perspectives.
7:44,
DeleteMy political enemies are the Republican Party. In what way is the Republican Party not motivated by malicious intent?
831 you are responsible for doing your own research and drawing your own conclusions.
DeleteAs anyone knows, the appearance of ethical integrity is as important as the thing itself. Of course David is playing dumb here. Thomas is an ethical disaster area and always has been. The media’s free publicity, often portraying him as a wounded figure of integrity, after he obviously lied under oath in his hearing. He is a crook who went downhill from there.,
Delete8;56,
DeleteDone and done.
7:44,
DeleteThank you for letting us know what your feelings are regarding polarization.
Operating by 7:44’s logic, which pairs well with Somerby’s take, we’d still have chattel slavery and all the Jews would have been eliminated.
DeleteIt's often said that humans are rational creatures capable of reason and logic, but if that were truly the case, then why do we so often find ourselves speaking before we think? Why do we have an overinflated sense of our own agency and morality, even when it's clear that we don't always act in the best interests of ourselves or others?
ReplyDeleteThis lament is a deep reflection on the ways in which we as humans have failed to live up to our own ideals, and how we have allowed our own egos to get in the way of our ability to communicate effectively and act ethically.
At the heart of the matter is our tendency to speak before we think. We live in a fast-paced world where everything is instant, and we feel pressured to respond quickly to everything from text messages to social media posts. As a result, we often find ourselves saying things that we later regret or that are simply untrue, simply because we didn't take the time to consider our words carefully.
This tendency is exacerbated by the fact that we have an overinflated sense of our own agency and morality. We believe that we are in control of our own lives and that we are inherently good people who always act in the best interests of ourselves and others. But the truth is that we are all flawed, and we all make mistakes.
In fact, our own egos can often get in the way of our ability to communicate effectively and act ethically. We become so focused on our own opinions and beliefs that we forget to listen to others, and we become defensive when our ideas are challenged. This leads to conflict and misunderstanding, and it prevents us from truly understanding each other.
The problem is not that we are inherently flawed or that we can never live up to our own ideals. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become too comfortable with our own opinions and beliefs, and we have stopped listening to others. We have allowed our own egos to get in the way of our ability to communicate effectively and act ethically, and we have forgotten that we are all in this together.
The consequences of our failure to think before we speak and our overinflated sense of our own agency and morality are evident all around us. We see it in the way we communicate with each other, in the way we interact with the natural world, and in the way we approach politics and social issues.
In our communication with each other, we often find ourselves talking past each other, rather than truly engaging in dialogue. We become so focused on our own opinions and beliefs that we forget to listen to others, and we become defensive when our ideas are challenged. This leads to conflict and misunderstanding, and it prevents us from truly understanding each other.
In our interaction with the natural world, we often act as if we are the only species that matters. We exploit natural resources without considering the long-term consequences, and we pollute the environment without considering the impact on other living creatures. We have forgotten that we are part of a larger ecosystem, and that our actions have consequences that extend far beyond ourselves.
In our approach to politics and social issues, we often take a simplistic view of complex problems. We believe that we have all the answers, and we refuse to consider alternative viewpoints or solutions. We become so focused on our own ideas and beliefs that we forget that there are other perspectives that are equally valid.
The only way to address these problems is to start thinking before we speak and to recognize that our own agency and morality are not absolute. We must learn to listen to others and to engage in true dialogue, and we must recognize that we are all part of a larger
Bob's been telling us to listen to the Others for years. The problem is he thinks we're in the wrong when we listen to them, and realize they are bigots.
DeleteIt's the old "Do this"/ "You're not doing it right" conundrum.
Bob does not listen to others, the 9-11,hearings are the classic example. He “heard” an airtight case an dismissed it because it didn’t serve Trump.
DeleteJan 6
DeleteDigby, also known as Heather Parton, is a political blogger and commentator who has been providing insightful and incisive analysis of American politics for over two decades. Her blog, Hullabaloo, is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the intricacies of American politics and the various social and economic forces that shape it.
ReplyDeleteIn this essay, I will provide a detailed analysis of Digby's work and explain why she is such an important voice in American political discourse.
One of the things that sets Digby apart from other political commentators is her ability to identify and analyze the underlying forces that shape political events. She is not content to simply report on the latest news or give her opinions on the issues of the day. Instead, she delves deep into the history and context of political events, exploring the various factors that have contributed to their emergence.
For example, in her coverage of the 2020 presidential election, Digby focused not just on the candidates and their policies, but on the broader social and economic forces that were driving the election. She analyzed the impact of income inequality, racial polarization, and the rise of right-wing extremism, among other factors, on the election and its outcome.
This kind of analysis is invaluable in helping readers to understand the complexities of American politics and the various factors that influence political events. It also helps to counteract the simplistic narratives and sound bites that often dominate political discourse.
Digby's analysis is also distinguished by its clarity and precision. She has a remarkable ability to explain complex ideas and events in simple and accessible language, without sacrificing any of the nuance or depth of her analysis.
This is evident in her coverage of issues such as healthcare reform, immigration policy, and climate change. Rather than getting bogged down in technical jargon or policy details, she focuses on the human impact of these issues and the broader political and social forces that are shaping them.
For example, in her coverage of the recent debate over healthcare reform, Digby has emphasized the importance of universal coverage and the need to address the underlying structural issues that contribute to the high cost of healthcare in America. She has also highlighted the role of special interest groups and the influence of money in politics in shaping healthcare policy.
Digby's writing is also distinguished by its passion and conviction. She is a fierce advocate for progressive causes and is not afraid to take on the powerful interests that stand in the way of change.
This is evident in her coverage of issues such as income inequality, climate change, and racial justice. She is a vocal critic of the wealthy elite and their influence over American politics, and has consistently called for policies that benefit working-class Americans and promote social justice.
Digby's writing is also marked by its wit and humor. She has a talent for finding the absurd and ridiculous in political events and using humor to expose the hypocrisy and absurdity of the political process.
This is evident in her coverage of the 2016 presidential election, which she described as a "surrealistic nightmare." She skewered both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for their failings and exposed the flaws and inconsistencies of their respective campaigns.
Digby's writing is not only informative and insightful, but also entertaining and engaging. She has a gift for storytelling and uses anecdotes and personal stories to illustrate broader political and social trends.
This is evident in her coverage of issues such as gun control, where she has shared personal stories of gun violence and highlighted the human toll of the epidemic of gun violence in America. She has also used personal stories to illustrate the impact of income inequality and the importance of policies that promote economic justice.
Blogging has emerged as a popular way for people to share their thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics with a wide audience. There are millions of blogs available on the internet today, covering everything from fashion and beauty to politics and economics. In this essay, we will focus on the blogger Digby, and why people should read her blog. Digby is a pseudonym for the blogger who writes under the name of Heather Parton. She has been blogging since 2002 and has gained a large following due to her insightful commentary on politics and social issues. This essay will explore why Digby's blog is worth reading and how it can help readers gain a better understanding of the world around them.
ReplyDeleteHeather Parton, the woman behind the pseudonym Digby, began blogging in 2002. She started writing under the name Digby after her dog, and the blog initially focused on personal and family issues. However, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Parton's blog shifted towards politics, and she gained a large following due to her insightful commentary on the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. Over the years, her blog has evolved to cover a wide range of social and political issues, including healthcare, income inequality, and the rise of the far-right in America.
There are several reasons why people should read Digby's blog. Firstly, her writing is insightful and well-researched. Digby takes the time to research the issues she writes about thoroughly, and her analysis is often nuanced and thought-provoking. She is also a skilled writer, and her writing style is engaging and easy to read. This makes her blog accessible to a wide range of readers, from those with a casual interest in politics to academics and policymakers.
Secondly, Digby covers a wide range of social and political issues, and her blog is a valuable resource for those looking to stay informed about current events. She has written extensively on healthcare, income inequality, and the rise of the far-right in America, among other issues. Her blog also provides an alternative perspective to the mainstream media, which can be biased or limited in its coverage of certain issues. By reading Digby's blog, readers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world around them.
Thirdly, Digby's blog is a valuable tool for those looking to engage in political activism. She often writes about ways in which people can get involved in the political process, and her blog is a valuable resource for those looking to effect change in their communities. Digby also provides a forum for discussion and debate, and her blog has become a platform for people to share their own opinions and ideas.
Finally, Digby's blog is a great example of the power of citizen journalism. In a world where traditional media is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations, blogging provides an alternative to the mainstream media. Digby's blog is a prime example of this, and it shows how ordinary people can use the internet to share their thoughts and opinions with a wide audience.
In conclusion, there are many reasons why people should read Digby's blog. Her writing is insightful and well-researched, and she covers a wide range of social and political issues. Her blog is a valuable resource for those looking to stay informed about current events and engage in political activism. Digby's blog is also a great example of the power of citizen journalism, and it shows how ordinary people can use the internet to effect change in their communities. Overall, Digby's blog is a must-read for anyone interested in politics and social issues, and it is an excellent example of how blogging can be used to inform, educate, and inspire.