Sunday, November 26, 2017
Neon Leon: A Report Card For Donald's First Year Or A Tale of...
Neon Leon: A Report Card For Donald's First Year Or A Tale of...: Maybe he’ll be different from who he was and always is.” ― Stephen Colbert I will not attempt to improve on the endless review...
A Report Card For Donald's First Year Or A Tale of Two Americas
Maybe he’ll be different from who he was and always is.” ― Stephen Colbert
I will not attempt to improve on the endless reviews of The Trump Administration after a year in power, but I will weigh in on what is happening under the radar, while you slept, sub rosa, etc.First, however, let's do the poll thing: As I go to press after Turkey Day, the Gallup poll shows that 37 percent of Americans say they approve of the job performance of President Trump while 56 percent do not. One may quibble about this poll, of course, but it closely parallels some fifty others click here . However, as Fortune magazine notes, "...the most important take-home here is less that Trump’s approval rating is low, than that it remains surprisingly high after an objectively troubled transition. The relative persistence of Trump’s support [reveals]..the polarization of American politics..."
"In particular, the poll found Trump’s approval rating is much higher among white voters, at 46%, than among minority voters, which is at 20% overall. There is an even greater spread between urbanites, 25% of whom approve of the president’s job performance, and rural voters, 52% of whom do. Trump also has higher approval among non-college graduates, though that spread is less dramatic, with about 10% lower approval among those with four-year degrees or more." Further, it should be noted that the Harvard CAPS-Harris survey revealed that "79 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Trump voters approve of the job he is doing. Trump slumps to only 38 percent approval among independents and is...disliked among [virtually all] Democrats, African-Americans and Clinton voters."
This nasty political environment strongly echoes the cultural wars of the 60's and 70's, when "The Silent Majority" wanted to keep abortion illegal, keep women in the kitchen, keep homosexuals in the closet, keep abortion illegal, keep supporting a bloody war in Vietnam, keep black folks segregated and keep Nixon as president. Turns out, the Silent Majority was neither silent or a majority. Americans rose up en masse to support federal laws which eliminated everything the vocal minority wanted to keep. So it was indeed a traumatic shock for me as well as the majority of Americans who did not vote for Trump, to see him in The White House and consequently attacking much of those changes wrought 50 years ago.
As a Journalist, I have always sought to pursue truth with an objective point of view, but it remains difficult for me to find a positive view of the current administration based on hard facts.
While Trump deserves some credit for the continuing economic growth which he inherited, and he has signed a slew of executive orders, but his efforts to pass major legislation have failed. Trump takes credit for how American military might has contributed to the virtual annihilation of ISIS in Iraq, but those efforts began well before his election. Afghanistan enjoyed an increase in American troops by Trump, but recent reports by US military leaders in county say the Taliban is in control of half of the country. He can also take credit for a decrease in border crossings, but nothing even remotely like the 3 million aliens collared by Obama in 7 years.
Readers of my posts have shown they are very well informed about current events, so I will not add to the long list of deeply concerning developments created by Trumpians last year. But here's a partial refresher list, lest we forget: Hundreds of flat out lies, the creation of "fake news", insults and childish rants aimed at dozens of politicians in both parties as well as his own cabinet, a thinly veiled hatred of racial minorities and immigrants, investigations into Russian electoral collusion, the proudful embrace of ignorance, etc.
Enough of the report card. Now let's look at what you may not know about the inner workings of the Trump administration:
OPEN GOVERNMENT
According to the watchdog group Open The Government's recent reports here: In its first nine months
in office, the Trump Administration has shown its antipathy to open government and international
agreements. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the administration has delayed releasing a “National Action Plan”
(NAP) to articulate goals for increasing government transparency and accountability.
"The plan... is required as part of the United States’ participation in
the Open Government Partnership (OGP)...a multinational initiative...to
encourage governments worldwide to commit to using transparency to fight
corruption and empower citizens. Countries that commit to...OGP agree to create National Action Plans that outline reforms and
accountability initiatives the government will take...The United
States—a founding member of OGP—has submitted three national actions plans so far."
"To be fair, a delay in
submitting a country’s NAP does not necessarily mean a country is walking away
from the goals and commitments of OGP...Unfortunately, the
signals from the President suggest it is not the intention of.. this administration to commit to meaningful, measurable goals
that reflect the priorities of open government advocates...This administration has already withdrawn from prior specific transparency
commitments, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – a
corruption-fighting effort involving governments, corporations and civil
society groups [seeking] greater transparency in the oil, gas and mining
sectors. The administration has also rescinded various prior commitments related to law enforcement transparency and accountability efforts. More broadly,
an administration that has been antagonistic to a free press, withheld the presidents’
tax returns, kept secret White House Visitors logs, targeted protesters for surveillance and
monitoring, and backed out of commitments to disclose information about warrantless
surveillance programs, seems unlikely to embrace meaningful
commitments under a voluntary, international agreement.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Herein is a synopsis of multiple sources on the subject which may bore some folks, but it is vitally important to anyone with access to the internet:
Wikipedia defines net neutrality as a principle according to which all Internet traffic should enjoy an equal treatment. Defenders of net neutrality want Internet providers and governments to treat all data equally, without any kind of discrimination...[and no] restrictions to the content, sites, platforms and quantity of data that can be downloaded. Net neutrality is about ensuring a level playing field for all online services and content providers, such as phone and cable companies, can't give preferential treatment to anyone especially in supporting their own network money makers, like Netflix or Amazon.
The Obama administration understood that this preferential treatment was enough of a threat that it passed regulations in 2015 prohibiting internet service companies from interfering with the content streaming over their networks.
The FCC, under Trump's administration, has proposed dramatic changes to those regulations. According to ABC News,
"The action is expected to put more power in the hands of the internet service providers, allowing companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to block or slow certain websites, giving priority to those who pay for it."
FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, said the rules have "depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation." It's a sure bet that the majority will prevail at the FCC meeting on Dec. 14.
According to the LA Times, Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn called Pai's rule change "a cornucopia full of rotten fruit, stale grains and wilted flowers topped off with a plate full of burnt turkey...and would dismantle net neutrality as we know it by giving the green light to our nation's largest broadband providers to engage in anti-consumer practices, including blocking, slowing down traffic, and paid prioritization of online applications and services."
Here's an example: Under current rules, Comcast couldn't provide more reliable access to their service or slow down streaming signals from Hulu or Sling TV, because broadband fast lanes do not exist. After the rule change becomes reality, however, there would be nothing to stop Comcast from messing with your feed, making the prospect of broadband fast lanes — and deliberate traffic jams — very much a reality. They could demand that companies like Netflix pay extra for more reliable signals. It could also charge its own subscribers more for fast-lane access to content.
The telecom industry welcomed Pai's rule change but made no commitment to actually invest in better networks.
Cinnamon Rogers, vice president of government affairs for the Telecommunications Industry Assn., said ditching net neutrality "will improve the business case for deploying next-generation wireline and wireless broadband to meet growing consumer demand for connectivity."
One possible positive outcome--the commission gave its explicit blessing to phone companies blocking robocalls before they can reach customers' landlines or mobile phones. God knows that consumers hate them passionately, so it sounds good until you read the fine print; along with giving phone companies the permission to block calls, the FCC told them they can pass along to customers any costs incurred in stopping robocalls, almost guaranteeing another fee added to your bill.
In my opinion, this proposed change will be met with a bazillion, mad as hell, citizens who will clog the streets in protest in the next few weeks.
WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?
A well known pattern of the Trump administration has emerged in a year: His cabinet choices are largely opposed to the goals of the departments they lead. For exampleRick Perry famously included the Dept. of Energy on a list of departments he would gut if he became the President. Now he heads the department. And who better than Scott Pruitt to head up the Environmental Protection Agency than Scott Pruitt, who as attorney general of Oklahoma, waged an unceasing battle against the EPA's climate and energy goals? The Department of Education is led by Betsy Devos, who has spent years trying to expand charter schools, while attacking public education schools. Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, according to The Nation. "...has a miserable history of aligning with right-wing and corporate interests [against labor].
The pattern exists throughout his cabinet choices, but then I am assuming my readers know that. What is occurring in those agencies which do not require congressional approval for leaders is the rest of the story.
Consider this: According to Politico, "Trump wants to tap Thomas Brunell, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, to serve as the deputy director for the Census Bureau, where he will [oversee] operations for the 2020 census."
"Unlike his predecessors, though, Brunell has little experience working with federal statistics and none managing a big organization, which seems important when your task is to accurately count every single person who lives in the U.S.
His qualifications for the job, then? Brunell has worked with Republicans in support of their gerrymandering efforts and believes that the census over represents black Americans. In fact, Brunell wrote a book advocating the use of gerrymandering, Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections Are Bad for America, published in 2008."
Over at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a major feud has erupted over who will lead the organization, which, under Richard Cordray's leadership, extracted nearly $12 billion in refunds and canceled debts for 29 million consumers. It cracked down on abusive debt collectors, strengthened protections for mortgage borrowers and created a complaints system that helped hundreds of thousands of people resolve disputes with financial companies.
Cordray has said he will step down and allow Deputy Director Leandra English to take over, in accordance to The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which established the deputy director position to lead the bureau between permanent directors. However the Trump administration has moved to appoint budget director Mick Mulvaney for the post, citing the Federal Vacancies Act which allows the president to appoint any official previously confirmed by the Senate. Mulvaney, a staunch conservative who once called the CFPB “a sick, sad joke” would likely freeze or significantly change the agency’s current agenda. As of 11/26, the dispute is headed to court.
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' SCIENTISTS"
On November 15, Snopes fact checkers said that Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, has a new policy barring anyone who receives federal funding from advising the agency on funding decisions. As reported in Science: It marks a major change in who can serve on the committees, which help steer EPA research and regulations by providing input on scientific questions. Snope said "Critics of the move say it is a cynical measure ultimately aimed at increasing industry-backed scientists’ influence on the funding of research related to regulating their industries."
Snopes continues: "During the president’s first sixty days in office, legislators rescinded a number of environmental, health, and safety regulations without the required scientific review. Usually, in order to pass new regulations or repeal old ones... [noting] that 'agencies have to justify it, and that’s where some of the scientific analysis comes from.' Congress has circumvented the required review through what had been (until 2017) an obscure and almost never-used law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), [which] provides a fast track to overturn recently-approved regulations through a joint statement of disapproval by both chambers of Congress. In both the House and the Senate, such a statement requires only a majority vote. Congress used the CRA to rescind both the EPA’s Stream Protection Act, which required coal mining operations not to pollute local waterways, and a Social Security Administration regulation mandating that the agency transfer mental health data on individuals who receive a specific kind of disability insurance benefit to criminal background check agencies."
The legislative branch also used it to block a regulation preventing states from denying funding for women’s health services to facilities that also provided abortions, as well as a regulation that extended the amount of time that employers are required to retain data about workplace injuries."
Snopes correctly noted that top science posts, including the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, remain unfilled. Also noted: "Many of the individuals who have been nominated have a remarkably weak scientific background. Kathleen Hartnett White, whom Trump named to the the top environmental post in the White House... failed to answer extremely basic science questions during her confirmation hearing...Sam Clovis, a former talk show host and political science professor, [became] the chief scientist for the USDA. A 2008 law requires that position to be staffed 'from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.' Clovis meets none of these conditions." (Clovis withdrew his nomination after being informed that he was part of Robert Mueller's investigation.)
For this writer and the vast majority of citizens resisting Trump on the streets, in the press, and in electoral contests in many states, our democracy is alive and fightin' mad. We will prevail.
I will leave you with this century old prophecy from H. L. Mencken, which serves as a warning: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Editor's Note: I will be on vacation through Jan. 5th--Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!
WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?
A well known pattern of the Trump administration has emerged in a year: His cabinet choices are largely opposed to the goals of the departments they lead. For exampleRick Perry famously included the Dept. of Energy on a list of departments he would gut if he became the President. Now he heads the department. And who better than Scott Pruitt to head up the Environmental Protection Agency than Scott Pruitt, who as attorney general of Oklahoma, waged an unceasing battle against the EPA's climate and energy goals? The Department of Education is led by Betsy Devos, who has spent years trying to expand charter schools, while attacking public education schools. Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, according to The Nation. "...has a miserable history of aligning with right-wing and corporate interests [against labor].
The pattern exists throughout his cabinet choices, but then I am assuming my readers know that. What is occurring in those agencies which do not require congressional approval for leaders is the rest of the story.
His qualifications for the job, then? Brunell has worked with Republicans in support of their gerrymandering efforts and believes that the census over represents black Americans. In fact, Brunell wrote a book advocating the use of gerrymandering, Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections Are Bad for America, published in 2008."
Over at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a major feud has erupted over who will lead the organization, which, under Richard Cordray's leadership, extracted nearly $12 billion in refunds and canceled debts for 29 million consumers. It cracked down on abusive debt collectors, strengthened protections for mortgage borrowers and created a complaints system that helped hundreds of thousands of people resolve disputes with financial companies.
Cordray has said he will step down and allow Deputy Director Leandra English to take over, in accordance to The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which established the deputy director position to lead the bureau between permanent directors. However the Trump administration has moved to appoint budget director Mick Mulvaney for the post, citing the Federal Vacancies Act which allows the president to appoint any official previously confirmed by the Senate. Mulvaney, a staunch conservative who once called the CFPB “a sick, sad joke” would likely freeze or significantly change the agency’s current agenda. As of 11/26, the dispute is headed to court.
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' SCIENTISTS"
On November 15, Snopes fact checkers said that Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, has a new policy barring anyone who receives federal funding from advising the agency on funding decisions. As reported in Science: It marks a major change in who can serve on the committees, which help steer EPA research and regulations by providing input on scientific questions. Snope said "Critics of the move say it is a cynical measure ultimately aimed at increasing industry-backed scientists’ influence on the funding of research related to regulating their industries."
Snopes continues: "During the president’s first sixty days in office, legislators rescinded a number of environmental, health, and safety regulations without the required scientific review. Usually, in order to pass new regulations or repeal old ones... [noting] that 'agencies have to justify it, and that’s where some of the scientific analysis comes from.' Congress has circumvented the required review through what had been (until 2017) an obscure and almost never-used law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), [which] provides a fast track to overturn recently-approved regulations through a joint statement of disapproval by both chambers of Congress. In both the House and the Senate, such a statement requires only a majority vote. Congress used the CRA to rescind both the EPA’s Stream Protection Act, which required coal mining operations not to pollute local waterways, and a Social Security Administration regulation mandating that the agency transfer mental health data on individuals who receive a specific kind of disability insurance benefit to criminal background check agencies."
The legislative branch also used it to block a regulation preventing states from denying funding for women’s health services to facilities that also provided abortions, as well as a regulation that extended the amount of time that employers are required to retain data about workplace injuries."
Snopes correctly noted that top science posts, including the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, remain unfilled. Also noted: "Many of the individuals who have been nominated have a remarkably weak scientific background. Kathleen Hartnett White, whom Trump named to the the top environmental post in the White House... failed to answer extremely basic science questions during her confirmation hearing...Sam Clovis, a former talk show host and political science professor, [became] the chief scientist for the USDA. A 2008 law requires that position to be staffed 'from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.' Clovis meets none of these conditions." (Clovis withdrew his nomination after being informed that he was part of Robert Mueller's investigation.)
For this writer and the vast majority of citizens resisting Trump on the streets, in the press, and in electoral contests in many states, our democracy is alive and fightin' mad. We will prevail.
I will leave you with this century old prophecy from H. L. Mencken, which serves as a warning: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Editor's Note: I will be on vacation through Jan. 5th--Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Neon Leon: In Case You Forgot: Congress shall make no law a...
Neon Leon: In Case You Forgot: Congress shall make no law a...: “Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how T...
Sunday, November 12, 2017
In Case You Forgot: Congress shall make no law abridging speech, or of the press.
“Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real scary. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
― Paul Horner 1978--2017
According to Wikipedia, Horner was an American writer, comedian and contributor to "numerous fake news websites whose stories have been said to have had a significant impact on the 2016 U.S. election." Horner was lead writer of the website National Report for two years, and whenever I saw some of his "news stories", I dismissed them as spoofs or political satire worth a chuckle or two. Then I quit laughing when I realized that many of the stories were eagerly absorbed as factual news, by millions of americans, despite their disclaimer that "all news articles contained within National Report are fiction". The small print disclaimer, however, isn't printed on the front page. Instead, the main page proudly states that the website is "America's #1 Independent News Source." Herein is a brief synopsis of how powerful the site has become. Needless to say, you can't make this kind of stuff up:
Due to one of Horner's stories, former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had to insist on live TV that she was not implementing mandatory gay to straight programs in all Arizona K-12 schools. Report is here Fox News did a live broadcast about one of Horner's stories as being factual: Barack Obama had personally funded a Muslim museum so it could stay open during the government shutdown of 2013. Read Fox's apology here.
Fox News was also caught in October 2014 for running a series of fake stories about Ebola outbreaks in the United States. Reuters commented on the debacle, including the false report that the town of Purdon, Texas has been quarantined after an outbreak. The story, according to Reuters et al, "led to a traffic spike of two million unique visitors, and although the story was debunked by other websites, the original National Report story received six times as many 'shares' on social media sites as the debunking stories did."
Perhaps a brief history of fake news and conspiracy theories can provide some insights. While it is true that many "lefties" have also embraced various causes that ignore science based facts (think Autism caused by immunizations or the deathly health threats resulting from eating GMO foods) and conspiracy theories (Bush caused 9/11). However, history has shown that phony news has always been a hot button issue for conservatives, most likely because many on the far right believe that you can’t trust what you read or hear in the establishment media. Donald Trump has used this mistrust to his advantage repeatedly with his base.
Historian Rick Perlstein link is here wrote in 2012 about email scams that have been routine among conservatives for decades. His piece includes excerpts from several solicitations, including promises of curing arthritis in two days or beating cholesterol without dieting or drugs and some sort of miraculous medical-financial breakthrough that was called “an oilfield in the placenta.”
I will not add to the already huge coverage about how Facebook and other social media sites are faring in the current Congressional hearings focused on their roles in the 2016 election. Suffice it to note that Facebook has acknowledged that between 1/15 and 9/17, 146 million users were exposed to Russian lies and half-baked postings on multiple media platforms. Google has admitted to 1,108 Russian linked videos on YouTube and a mind boggling 37, 000 Russian accounts on Twitter. Rather I will examine some of the more prominent (among hundreds) fake news sites who, like National Report, continue to crank out mounds of doo doo daily.
LifeZette is a "news" site created by longtime Trump ally Laura Ingraham which publishes articles of doubtful validity made by the site (pictured) including one which promoted a conspiracy theory in which the Clintons had some role in the plane crash death of John F. Kennedy, Jr. and the deaths of various friends and fellow Democrats. One LifeZette article misleadingly claimed that the UN backed a “secret” Obama administration takeover of local police departments. The source they used for the article was the Justice Department's "Police Misconduct Provision" which is a law that makes it "unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Baltimore, Maryland and Ferguson, Missouri are examples of the application of the law following widespread and well documented cases of police misconduct. It's a practice which predates the Obama presidency by a decade, is certainly no secret, and had no relation to the United Nations. Thanks to views sourced largely to referrals from Facebook, Brown’s websites now outrank web traffic going to news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and NPR, according to data compiled by Alexa. Both Western Journalism and Conservative Tribune are certified by Facebook as bona fide news providers.
But LifeZette is small potatoes when compared to the sites run by
Floyd Brown who produces a flow of reliably pro-Trump Internet content through a company he co-owns with his family called Liftable Media Inc., which operates a number of tabloid news outlets that have exploded in size in the last two years .
Western Journalism is the 81st largest site in the US, with some 13 million unique visitors, according to numerous sites that rank this stuff.Brown’s sites crank out wild headlines devoid of reality. One piece (pictured) said that Obama had redesigned the White House logo by changing the American flag to a white flag, “a common symbol for surrender, which has many people wondering if Obama was trying to secretly signal to America’s enemies that he was surrendering.” Here's another Brown gem: “BREAKING: Muslims Ordered to Vote Hillary,” is the headline for one election post that completely exaggerated a minor article about a Pakistani American activist going door to door for Clinton with the catch- phrase “Obama Urges Illegal Immigrants to Vote Without Fear of Getting Caught” Want more? Western Journalism also said Obama had suggested in an interview, while facing younger Latino voters, that non citizens could vote and “will never get caught if they do.” The article left out the part of the interview in which he said noncitizens “can’t legally vote, but they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard." Thanks to views sourced largely to referrals from Facebook, Brown’s websites now outrank web traffic going to news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and NPR, according to data compiled by Alexa. Both Western Journalism and Conservative Tribune are certified by Facebook as bona fide news providers.
The Family Research Council is a Washington, D.C.-based Religious Right organization that focuses on issues such as abortion rights, homosexuality, stem cell research and the military. The group was founded in 1983 by a group of conservative leaders, led by James Dobson. Between 1988 and 1992, it was the political affiliate of Dobson’s Focus on the Family. The FRC hosts conservative events including the Values Voter Summit and Watchmen on the Wall . The current president of the FRC, Tony Perkins, has lead the organization’s efforts to erode gay rights, abortion and the separation of church and state. Here is a closer look at what he has been preaching, as recorded at numerous speeches and Value Voter Summits link here :
- Linked homosexuality to pedophilia, compared it to alcoholism and said that advances in gay rights encourage ISIS.
- Warned that LGBT rights advocates will launch a holocaust against Christians, placing those who oppose same-sex marriage into “boxcars.”
- Called gay rights activists “intolerant,” “hateful,” “vile,” “spiteful” and “pawns” of Satan.
- Defended Uganda’s “kill-the-gays” bill as a “laudable” effort “to uphold moral conduct.”
- Insisted the government is using the “promotion of same-sex relations” as a means of “population control.”
- Wrote that the anti-bullying “It Gets Better Project” is “immoral,” “disgusting” and promotes “perversion.”
- Denied that there is a correlation between anti-gay bullying and depression and suicide, saying instead that gay and lesbian teens know they are “abnormal” and therefore “have a higher propensity to depression or suicide because of that internal conflict.”
- Warned that lawmakers who voted to repeal the military ban on openly gay service members would have “the blood of innocent soldiers on their hands.”
- Predicted that marriage equality would “create a revolution” that would “break this country apart.” and lead to “the dissolution of the republic.”
- Urged gay people to seek conversion therapy to “escape the homosexual lifestyle.”
- Called Islam “evil.”
- Said Obama is paving the way for the Antichrist .
 |
| Steve Bannon and Breitbart News |
Breitbart News, according to Wikipedia, is "a far right American news, opinion and commentary website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart. The site has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories. Its journalists are ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." Snopes fact check here has dozens of phony stories issued by Breitbart. Here is my short list:
FALSES
For my money however, no person or organization is as dominant or pervasive as Alex Jones and InfoWars. Wikipedia has put together a documented analysis of his long embrace of all things dear to the far right in the world, to wit: Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, film producer and conspiracy theorist.[2][3][4][5] He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin Texas which airs on the Genesis Communications Network[6] and shortwave radio station WWCR[7] across the United States and online.[8][9] His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website.[10][11][12][13]
Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his promotion of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories,[14] and his opposition to gun control.[15] He has accused the U.S. government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing,[16] the September 11 attacks,[17] and the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology.[18][19][20]
He has claimed that several governments and big business have colluded to create a "New World Order" through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and—above all—inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria".[21]
New York magazine described Jones as "America's leading conspiracy theorist",[27] and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America".[28] Thanks to views sourced largely to referrals from Facebook, Brown’s websites now outrank web traffic going to news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and NPR, according to data compiled by Alexa. Western Journalism is certified by Facebook as a bona fide news provider, but stricter rules about what constitutes factual news sources may be forthcoming due to the Congressional inquiries into the widespread use of Russian fake news sites, bots and
Time and space prohibit any additional analysis of fake news outlets in this posting. But it appears to this writer that so many of these sites are so bizarre and so full of pure hokum that I struggle to understand why millions of people find them to be ultimate sources of truth. Does it really boil down to a question of your facts or mine? Why do folks accept the spin that these sources employ to ridicule and dismiss such vital concerns such as climate change, genocide, threats to democracy and the massive loss of workers to robots WITHOUT ANY CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THEIR OWN? We live in an era when access to knowledge of anything and everything is at our fingertips, yet few are willing to do it. People prefer to accept only the information that fits into their own "tribe" or strictly partisan, political and cultural worlds.
In a massive research effort by The University of California and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany they began their report with the following: In 2012, a liberal professor wrote that the Obama administration was stockpiling ammunition...for totalitarian rule. This idea was ignored by liberals. In 2015, conservative bloggers [warned] that the real goal of a military exercise was to occupy Texas and impose martial law. Conservatives [persuaded] the governor of Texas [to order] the Texas State Guard to monitor the exercise. Here are some of their findings:
Those mostly rural workers were generally hard working and honest men (mostly) and women who were patriotic and willing to help out people in need. I do not recall anyone discussing what they read beyond the local paper or Western novels. During the 60's they tended to condemn hippies and black folks, especially those involved in civil rights activities. Few had advanced beyond high school and they more than likely voted for Democrats who backed their unions seeking wage increases and unfair labor laws.
My experience was limited, of course, and certainly never rose to the level of a large scale, scientific review of the labor market. But in a similar vein, I observed that a majority of my past coworker's children followed their parents into work in traditional jobs such as manufacturing, mining, construction, etc. Others, of course, took a different path and found work in white collar professions after finishing college or a trade school. The latter group were more likely to escape the rust belts as the massive transfer of manual labor to places like China, Taiwan, India and Vietnam continued unabated for decades. And now, as my last two posts revealed, millions of blue and white collar workers are being replaced rapidly to artificial intelligence and robots.
To be sure, the cultural revolutions in the 60's and 70's changed the nation dramatically by passing legislation for Civil Rights, the environment and health care for the elderly and poor. But the bloody debacle in a place vets called "The Nam" continued for 20 years. Millions of young college students marched to a different drummer those days and embraced a counter culture that questioned parental ideas about politics, morality, faith and justice. But millions of the young did not; they remained loyal to the values of their parents who defined themselves as members of "The Silent Majority."
In an effort to understand why those cultural norms either remain strong or simply fade away, my research focused on the work of Jonathan Haidt click here , who is a Professor at New York University Stern School of business, where he does research on morality and emotion, and how they vary across cultures. Here is a synopsis of some of his findings: "What makes people vote Republican? Why...do working class and rural Americans...vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have [studied] the origins of ideology ever since [WWII]...and we have long...reported that strict parenting and...personal insecurities [combine]to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: Conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and [overly] afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with [a multitude] of policy options for a complex world."
"This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare,[such as those who said]...the rags might clog the toilet." These...rationalizations illustrate [what I [describe as] the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing...candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.
In several large internet surveys, my collaborators... and I have found that people who...are strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally..."
I will leave you, dear readers, with one of my favorite quotes about newspapers and journalists by Richard Kluger (born 1934), an American author who has won a Pulitzer Prize. "Every time a newspaper dies, even a bad one, the country moves a little closer to authoritarianism; when a great one goes, like the New York Herald Tribune, history itself is denied a devoted witness."
Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his promotion of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories,[14] and his opposition to gun control.[15] He has accused the U.S. government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing,[16] the September 11 attacks,[17] and the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology.[18][19][20]
He has claimed that several governments and big business have colluded to create a "New World Order" through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and—above all—inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria".[21]
New York magazine described Jones as "America's leading conspiracy theorist",[27] and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America".[28] Thanks to views sourced largely to referrals from Facebook, Brown’s websites now outrank web traffic going to news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and NPR, according to data compiled by Alexa. Western Journalism is certified by Facebook as a bona fide news provider, but stricter rules about what constitutes factual news sources may be forthcoming due to the Congressional inquiries into the widespread use of Russian fake news sites, bots and
Time and space prohibit any additional analysis of fake news outlets in this posting. But it appears to this writer that so many of these sites are so bizarre and so full of pure hokum that I struggle to understand why millions of people find them to be ultimate sources of truth. Does it really boil down to a question of your facts or mine? Why do folks accept the spin that these sources employ to ridicule and dismiss such vital concerns such as climate change, genocide, threats to democracy and the massive loss of workers to robots WITHOUT ANY CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THEIR OWN? We live in an era when access to knowledge of anything and everything is at our fingertips, yet few are willing to do it. People prefer to accept only the information that fits into their own "tribe" or strictly partisan, political and cultural worlds.
In a massive research effort by The University of California and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany they began their report with the following: In 2012, a liberal professor wrote that the Obama administration was stockpiling ammunition...for totalitarian rule. This idea was ignored by liberals. In 2015, conservative bloggers [warned] that the real goal of a military exercise was to occupy Texas and impose martial law. Conservatives [persuaded] the governor of Texas [to order] the Texas State Guard to monitor the exercise. Here are some of their findings:
1 When "alternative facts" allege some kind of danger, people whose political beliefs are more conservative are more likely than those who lean liberal to embrace them.
2 Conservatives' vulnerability to accepting untruths didn't apply equally to all false claims: When lies suggested dangerous or apocalyptic outcomes, more conservative participants were more likely to believe them than when the lie suggested a possible benefit.
3 Participants whose views fell further left could be plenty credulous. But they were no more likely to buy a scary falsehood than they were to buy one with a positive outcome. In short, conservatives are more likely to drop their guard against lies when they perceive the possible consequences as being dark. Liberals, less so.
4 The study offers insight into why many Americans embraced fabricated stories about Hillary Clinton that often made outlandish allegations of criminal behavior. And it may shed light on why so many believed a candidate's assertions that were both grim and demonstrably false.
4 The study offers insight into why many Americans embraced fabricated stories about Hillary Clinton that often made outlandish allegations of criminal behavior. And it may shed light on why so many believed a candidate's assertions that were both grim and demonstrably false.
5 Finally, the results [showed that] false claims were more readily embraced by people who endorse conservative political causes than by those whose views are traditionally liberal.
John Jost, co-director of New York University's Center for Social and Political Behavior was not involved in the UC research but his research found similar results into social media and ideology. For years, Jost said, those Americans "have been presented with terrifying messages that are short on reason and openly contemptuous of scholarly and scientific standards of evidence."
Jost, who was not involved with the UC research, said the new findings suggest that when dark claims and apocalyptic visions swirl, many of these anxious voters will cast skepticism aside and instead embrace fearful claims regardless of whether they're true. The result may tilt elections toward politicians who stoke those fears. "We may be witnessing a perfect storm," he said.
I have worked off and on for some 20 years, elbow to elbow, with blue collar workers, beginning in 1960 until the 80's. In the Pacific Northwest, I "pulled chain" (railroad ties, 2x4 studs, veneer, etc,) in lumber mills. I packed Cedar roofing (shakes and shingles). I also ran equipment such as edgers, trimmers, planers, chop saws and fork-lifts. I worked in two copper mines, a metal plating shop, in a few firefighting crews and once owned a remodeling company in Arizona.
My experience was limited, of course, and certainly never rose to the level of a large scale, scientific review of the labor market. But in a similar vein, I observed that a majority of my past coworker's children followed their parents into work in traditional jobs such as manufacturing, mining, construction, etc. Others, of course, took a different path and found work in white collar professions after finishing college or a trade school. The latter group were more likely to escape the rust belts as the massive transfer of manual labor to places like China, Taiwan, India and Vietnam continued unabated for decades. And now, as my last two posts revealed, millions of blue and white collar workers are being replaced rapidly to artificial intelligence and robots.
To be sure, the cultural revolutions in the 60's and 70's changed the nation dramatically by passing legislation for Civil Rights, the environment and health care for the elderly and poor. But the bloody debacle in a place vets called "The Nam" continued for 20 years. Millions of young college students marched to a different drummer those days and embraced a counter culture that questioned parental ideas about politics, morality, faith and justice. But millions of the young did not; they remained loyal to the values of their parents who defined themselves as members of "The Silent Majority."
In an effort to understand why those cultural norms either remain strong or simply fade away, my research focused on the work of Jonathan Haidt click here , who is a Professor at New York University Stern School of business, where he does research on morality and emotion, and how they vary across cultures. Here is a synopsis of some of his findings: "What makes people vote Republican? Why...do working class and rural Americans...vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have [studied] the origins of ideology ever since [WWII]...and we have long...reported that strict parenting and...personal insecurities [combine]to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: Conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and [overly] afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with [a multitude] of policy options for a complex world."
"In [my research], I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags...so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or [consider] a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they [cut it up] and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-olds, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn consistently
...overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog)."
...overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog)."
"This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare,[such as those who said]...the rags might clog the toilet." These...rationalizations illustrate [what I [describe as] the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing...candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.
The second conclusion was that the moral domain varies across cultures. Haidt [refers to] Elliot Turiel's, (a Berkeley Psychologist widely admired during the 80's) description of morality as being about justice, rights, and human welfare worked perfectly for the college students I interviewed at Penn, but it simply did not capture the moral concerns of...the working-class people in both countries who were more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles. ("Your dog is family, and you just don't eat family.") From this study I [found myself in agreement with critics] of Turiel who claim that the moral domain (not just specific rules) varies by culture...I [call this]...the second rule of moral psychology [in which] morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.
...Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions...they err, they alienate, and they earn the label 'elitist.' But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they "regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?"
In several large internet surveys, my collaborators... and I have found that people who...are strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally..."
OK, so I agree that liberal and conservative policies are the result of "deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society." But neither the left or the right can ignore facts. There is no such thing as "alt-facts." Reality is not defined by a choice of your facts or mine. Folks in all parts of the political realm need a steady diet of truth to make a healthy democracy. Bizarre conspiracies and flat out lies may be red meat for a chunk of the electorate who live on it, but can not, in the end, sustain the hunger for truth by the vast majority of us.
If you are wondering whether the latest "news flash" on Facebook or Twitter is from a reliable source, check out Wikipedia's list of fake news sites here. Note the efforts to copy legitimate media sources with a few added letters--NBCnews.com.co, USAtoday.com.co, and Bloomberg.ma are examples.
For a list of truly dangerous sources of hate groups, armed militias, and their associated media programs, no one does it better than the bastion of legal defense to democracy since 1970, The Southern Law Poverty Center. They have forced dozens of radical hate group to pay millions of dollars to those Americans fearing for their very lives. In addition they have successfully brought cases against dozens of companies and organizations engaged in fraudulent wage schemes. Along with immigrant and economic justice they also focus on children's rights and a large "Teaching For Tolerance" program dedicated "to reducing prejudice, improving intergroup relations and supporting equitable school experiences for our nation's children."
NCE
dedicated to reducing prejudice, improving intergroup relations and supporting equitable school experiences for our nation's children.
TEACHING TOLERANCE
We’re dedicated to reducing prejudice, improving intergroup relations and supporting equitable school experiences for our nation's children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)