I wish more people were more afraid of the Empire than Trump. Why is Trump on his way out? Because he messed up the corporate empire. He cut off their slave labor, he messed up their cushy trade deals, he exposed their phony Russiagate nonsense, and he messed up their income stream by bringing boys home from endless wars and created peace in the middle east. Biden is a puppet of the corporate empire, so be afraid of the future.
The funny thing is that Trump did this stuff more or less by accident. I'm sure the analogy has been made already, but he was like Peter Sellers as Chauncey Gardener in "Being There."
It really illustrates how fragile the whole system is and how inept the "Boys at the Top" are. Promoting fear is their last-ditch effort to cow the public and distract us from their greed and ineptitude. Out of quarters, guys.
Yup. They ran the Russia hoax, Ukraine hoax / impeachment, social media bans / censorship, 90% negative media coverage and, last but not least, a ham-fisted ballot stuffing scheme. And even after all that, he expanded his base. This isn't over - not by a long shot.
There is a great deal of evidence publicly available; are you sure you're not asking for proof? Evidence must be judged to become proof. That has yet to be permitted. I also suspect that RAH is using ballot-stuffing as a proxy for the multiple ways in which elections can be manipulated.
Um, whether they colluded or not, he lost the election (fair or fraud). Whomever was stupid enough to believe the MSM or big tech was the reason he lost. You can't collude to convince intelligent people who seek the truth. You can collude with idiots that only believe one part of the story anyway. If they want to hear bullshit, they will hear and see bullshit. You don't have to be a master colluder to convince people of what they want to hear and see. You just have to give it to them.
I can tell you one thing for sure, if the US was rid of all people who believe Trump was their savior AND all people who thought Trump was Hitler, we would have a much happier and more reasonable country.
I just came across a video clip of Dan Bongiorno (on Hannity) cautioning Dems about the censorship issue, and referencing "Coming for you next." The comments section was filled with people vowing to cancel FB and Twitter accounts. I suggest you do the same and spread the word. It's a hopeful idea during these difficult times. F 'em. Btw, I quit FB five years ago and have never joined Twitter.
This morning I can’t believe I live in a country where people can be silenced and ruined for their political views. Hawley and Cruz are being destroyed for asking for a ten day audit. We live in a tyranny of giant corporations. It was a sad day yesterday when America got scolded about freedom of speech by Angela Merkel from a foreign country. Today I am blocked by FaceBook for discussing election problems. These are very dark days.
So let me get this straight. You are more afraid of the Roberts court and the rest of the empire than you are of Donald Trump in his present mentally ill condition? I wonder if you realize how much Trump is compromising national security every day he remains in office. And did you see the pictures from the Capitol? Are you in favor of what that mob did? Trump explicitly sent the crowd there, and even lied and said he would be marching with them. Of course he then went immediately back to the WH.
Yes, I am more afraid of the Empire. Trump is not crazy and he said nothing to incite violence. He said the marchers would walk to the capitol and “greet the Congressmen as they came out”. His security team probably nixed the walk with them idea.
Do not call those protesters a mob. They were there all day peacefully protesting. Time will tell who actually incited or committed the breakin. The FBI said there was a busload of Antifa people there.
Mostly peaceful protest as CNN used to say. Also, CNN pundits kept saying that "rioting is the language of the unheard" all summer long. Wonder why they aren't saying that now?
You get an angry crowd together and it's hard to control them. It just takes a couple of agitators to guide people into doing what they shouldn't. Trump should have figured that out and directed the rally away from any buildings.
I'm so angry that he never learned, even after that mess in 2017 in Virginia. And he knew that the media would be on fire if someone was even rude to a passerby. He destroyed it all just because he wanted to have his ego stroked. What a foolish man.
I guess you get your information from Fox News. They were in no way peaceful. There are photos of them smashing things. If you want to believe that the destructive ones were Antifa under a false flag, I'm sure no one is likely to change your mind.
Yes. I'm also way more afraid of a hidden Tech oligarchy with increasing carte blanche to spy on, censor, and imprison citizens than I am of a dork with bad hair and makeup that may or may not have encouraged a mob that did 1/1000th the total damage and violence than a year of BLM/Antifa did supported by mainstream media blessings and corporate sponsorship.
I can tell you one thing for sure, if the US was rid of all people who believe Trump was their savior AND all people who thought Trump was Hitler, we would have a much happier and more reasonable country.
Lowland civilization is about status signaling and genuflecting before your betters. Highland civilization is about sitting on your porch drinking from a clay jug labeled "XXX" and shooting squirrels. Jim Webb wrote a book about this.
"firey but mostly peaceful." The "firey" part was important, lest one think the media coverage and non-substantive corporate support was somehow biased.
The big takeaway from the last two presidential elections is that democracy is broken under our one party of two factions. Ive taken for granted the democrats rigged the primaries twice and I fully expected the 2016 election to be rigged as well. Was this general election rigged? Maybe, but it doesnt really matter, since its already an established practice and the time for outrage was 4 years ago, but we got anally forcefed russiagate instead. Seems as though there was a long game at play and suffering through the last four years, whipping polarization up to the point of last wednesdays unauthorized tour of the Capitol was all according to plan. Now were prepped to lose the 2nd amendment which is what this is probably all about. And that probably means a lot of people will have their weapons pried from their burnt dead hands once you realize a well armed militia with black rifles has no chance against drone warfare. I watched a couple videos from nagorno karbakh and that was my takeaway from that. If the 20th century is any measure we are overdue for another engineered population reduction event. The bar for survival is the level of ones addiction to rage inducing clickbait agitprop
I do not want to reply to each of your points because your level of paranoia feels exhausting to me. But one or two points: Democrats have absolutely no plan to take away anyone's guns. They might try to restrict semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines, but no more than that. And if the militia has no chance against drones (true, I think) why worry about the guns now? Finally -- and this is significant -- any realistically possible engineered population reduction event would not kill enough people to make a substantive dent in a world of 7.5 billion souls.
Great comment. ) Wall Street, Big Tech, and the military industrial complex jumped off his bandwagon after 2016 because he was a less reliable ally than Bush The Simple, the Clintons, and Obama.
hmm, Biden seems like way more of a Chauncey to me. At least the senile dumbass he is today.
Being fed speeches to just barely recite successfully after days of practice? Also, Trump might joke about grabbing a pussy or three, but Joe is definitely the one with the blank look in his eyes that would cluelessly say to a bunch of women "I... I like to watch!" Doesn't seem far from all of his idiotic hair sniffinz.
Trump at least had some media savvy (and an underrated talent for Improv that would put most Second City alumn to shame), for what he completely lacked in personal and professional wisdom. Trump's just a tantrum and a semi-erect penis, looking for action. It was his vain stubbornness that made him (likely) less manipulateable than Joe, not his stupidity.
I didn't think it could get genuinely worse than Trump but I'm pretty sure we're about to cross the Rubicon on that. God... what a hopeless mess this Republic is, lol.
Props for calling out Trump's improv talent; it's an (if i may pirate the adjective) underrated element of charisma, that deeply-difficult-to-define but all-too-necessary quality for successful politicians.
Speaking rigidly from a script tends to put most people off. Not making a moral judgement; just a thing I've observed.
Bingo. Great improv is a very rare talent, but if you can find it, it's great for making the audience feel engaged and every performance feel novel or even authentic. Obama made fun of disabled people as well, but Trump owning it and refusing to apologize arguably made people feel like anything was possible with him.
Your perspective is valid for Trump as Chauncey, maybe I just find imagining Joe in the place of Sellers more amusing in my head.
I started imagining 2022 when Kamala whispers to a mentally failing Joe that he might be able to walk on water "like in that movie." Then, umbrella in hand, Biden walks out into a lake and quickly falls in and drowns, as the Veep tries to contain her smirk.
That has to be considered at least a plausible end to his life at this point.
It's going to be another completely buffoonish 4 year slog.
I don't think Joe could do improv to save his life.
Scratch that, I'm wrong. When he does improv, it's about fighting Corn Pop with a bicycle chain and his hairy legs getting fondled. I really want 4 years of Off-Script Joe.
lol yep. Joe is the Trustifarian kid that keeps paying for expensive Second City or UCB courses even though they know he's hopeless. Just milking him for all they can get.
Or if he was in Chicago in the old days, an incompetent Joe would have irritated Del Close to the point of rage.
Then Joe would take the stage and somehow get laughs from his r____ed Corn Pop story, get called up to SNL, and cause Del to relapse.
Hey Grisha, I was thinking of another fictional/IRL comparison a week ago and wanted to hear your thoughts:
Jimmy Dore is the current "Lonesome" Rhodes from "Face in the Crowd." Rhodes has always been and was written to be an evergreen character, these fake-populist demagogues constantly pop up, but...
That clip last week of Jimmy going off on how the DSA or whoever "I shouldn't go to them, they should come to ME!" or something like that vibe just made Rhodes pop into my head.
I'd like to be able to give you a better answer, but in truth I've never seen "A Face in the Crowd," a deficit I should probably correct.
I recall Dore having some good insights when he appeared on Useful Idiots and otherwise don't know much about him. I'm not a podcast/YouTube kind of guy (mainly because I'm a monotasker and am trying, although largely failing, to reduce my online time). Me doing my Fukuyama bit; at the end of history, there's too much media to consume.
Sorry, but thanks for asking! Others may have some more useful thoughts.
I'd recommend it if you're looking for a good classic to watch. You'll never look at Andy Griffith shows - especially when he smiles - the same way ever again.
Well, just my thoughts: I'm sorta mixed on Dore. He can be funny and I like that he can get passionate about genuinely fucked up things but he almost always goes too far with his negativity. ex. He's the type that completely shits on Bernie because he didn't meet Jimmy's expectations after nearly a lifetime of public advocacy and service. Meanwhile all Jimmy does is scream in front of a green screen. So it's cheap.
Dore also has an especially bad fan community in my experience. I know that's a tricky criticism, but I think it follows his energy in this case.
He knew what was happening. The breaking up of the US and parceling it out to failing nations which has been happening since Daddy Bush. That's why the first thing Trump did was SQUASH the TPP. That would have been the death knell. And Biden will JOIN because he can be President for ever as there is no longer a need to vote.
Well, I think we need to vote. Even if it is fraud, there will still be 270 electoral votes to stay in office. Republicans need to learn how to cheat better next time if fraud is what you believe happened.
I believe there is no proof of fraud and I believe there is no proof that there wasn't fraud. Both sides saying otherwise are simply idiots with no ability to think logically.
So you're for a banana republic and may the most corrupt win?
I think there probably was fraud and there has been for decades. I find it hard to believe there were so many near 50 50 splits, and how come Joe couldn't pull in a crowd no matter where he went. Even those who voted for him didn't like him. Why so much relaxation on rules? No ID checks, no signature checks, keep changing the deadlines, etc. All this stuff was probably done to facilitate ballot harvesting. Why should driving, flying or operating a drone take more ID than voting.
My personal tin foil hat feeling is that Donald Trump was allowed to win in the same way we know Hillary cheated Bernie out. We flat out know the the DNC cheated to make Hillary the nominee. That fact can't be disputed.
Think about it in big picture form though. Most people aren't able to think about things that way. Donald Trump being elected president did more for the Progressive movement in 4 years than they've been able to achieve in 4 decades. Most of this is actually very good, but you have to look at the next steps of such a situation.
The next 4 years are going to be very interesting, and I hope for all of our sakes, my thoughts are serious tin foil, and not reality. Our Tehnocracy however is taking over in big ways.
If I'm understanding you correctly the powers that be are secretly progressives and let trump win to sway public opinion? Okay then, why did they discard Bernie and friends and shove a Joe and Kamala in the WH? That doesn't seem very progressive.
Agree. Like what about Julian Assange? It's like he doesn't exist anymore - exactly what both Trump and his detractors wanted. I told too many people to remember that he wouldn't be pardoning Assange or anyone else who exposed crimes of the American government.
Assange and Snowden are American heroes and should receive protection under whistle blower laws. It will never happen. The NSA andCIA are excellent at covering their own asses.
Agree again, but Trump could and should have pardoned them or gone public about what forces were preventing him from doing so rather than spend so much time contesting election results.
I am pretty sure he is on his way out because he lost the election. Whether fair or fraud, he lost the election. That is why he is on his way out. They are all puppets of money.
Ok, but Trump would have stayed in power permanently if he had been reelected. I am afraid of the Dems too (Lyndon Johnson was my first political "enemy" in the 1960s), but Trump is worse. And by the way Noam Chomsky says vote for the opponent of the worst candidate if you think that one is dangerous. I think concentrating on hating the Dems under current circumstances is a case of the best becoming an enemy of the good.
It could be many. This delusion that so many have about Trump wanting to be emperor. I scoffed at Republicans when they said Obama was going to do it, it's only fair I scoff at delusional folks that think Trump would have. That is ultimately the issue. We are a totally delusional society now. We seem to be afraid of so many things that aren't real. Thanks to our intelligence agency owned media.
That's a reasonable point, but in this case there is actual evidence suggesting that Trump is trying to become an autocratic leader. As far as I know, there was never any credible evidence that Obama was trying to do that. Have you read any of Masha Gessen's work, including interviews on youtube, about signs of autocracy?
In truth, the presidency of Donald Trump can be summed up fairly simply. A quasi businessman (unsuccessful in my mind) that lives on the loopholes that only 0.25% of American's get to benefit from made his way to the Presidency of the United States where he was completely and totally unprepared for the sheer level of corruption, lying, cheating, scandal, and criminality that takes place on an hourly basis. He was ill prepared for how you have to handle all of that scum through proxy and favor, and back room deals.
Donald's failure is his open mouth nature, and the inability of those around him to take his twitter feed away from him. Donald did nothing that more seasoned Politicians hadn't done before him, he just didn't know how to do it within the system.
Sadly, Donald Trump was one of the least criminal Washington Politicians of my lifetime. He will be the first to face the music for it though, which is irony in a level that defies all logic and reason.
If you truly believe that The Don was working on autocracy, then you must believe that the Biden admin coupled with Democratic control of both chambers is on it's way towards Authoritarianism. There is FAR more evidence (real and imagined) for that outcome over a Trump Dynasty.
Briefly, but Masha is very very biased in all of their writing. Sorry, that is not a reasonable journalist that I would give credence to their evidence. Trump made a trolling remark (mind you, I hate Donald Trump) that the Democrats destroyed his first term, and as a result there was some obscure Constitutional loophole that would allow him to run a 3rd term. His minions gobbled it up, and the left ran around screaming that they were going to die. It's just that. Extreme delusional paranoia. Exactly like the Obama years had in reverse.
It's just like I've said the left today is very much like the Moral Majority of the 80's. It's amazing how when you live long enough and manage to maintain objectivity this shit just all comes around again from a different angle.
Can you back up that with facts? He was the least oppressive President in modern history. Sure, he tried to stop undocumented immigration. But as far as citizens of the US, he was sort of hands off unless there was explicit ressurections like Portland and the DC riots over the summer.
Give one factual thing he did, other than tweeting, that proves he was an authoritarian dictator.
As far as I see it, the media says he was authoritarian and people just go along with that without examining the facts. It's like, right now, they are saying that the capitol riots on the 6th killed five people. That's garbage. One person was shot by LE. The Capitol policeman died, but the three medical emergency people that died passed away because of medical emergencies, not the protest. The only reason those three are included is because five deaths sounds more serious than two, although two deaths is a stain on the day and makes me want to bow my head and cry. But that's not good enough for the media. No. They have to pump up the hatred, by inflating the damage. It's a pure propagandists’ play. Manipulate the emotions. Get people emotional enough and they won't be able to use logic. Makes them all easy to lead around by their noses.
And bringing it full circle. I read some of the documents dumped by Wikileaks. Specifically the ones about keeping Europe engaged in Afghanistan and the war on terror. The bureaucrats planned and printed PR media articles specifically about children and women because they knew their citizens are more easily swayed if one or both of those groups are involved. It was deliberate propaganda used on citizens to manipulate them into approving the continuation of the war. Every time the allied nations began to flag in their support, the women and children articles would flood the media.
1. There is no way I can back up my assertion that Trump would have arranged to amend the Constitution so he could rule indefinitely, because it hasn't happened. That is a prediction, with zero certainty. One might also reasonably call it speculation. I call it plausible speculation.
2. With respect to the number of people killed, if five people died during that event, I certainly want the media to report that. Cause and effect with respect to each death cannot be known without further study.
3. I don't follow what you are getting at with respect to Wikileaks and the other points in your last paragraph.
When an administration manipulates their citizens to continue an unpopular, wasteful, unwarranted war...then that is the embodiment of being an authoritarian. Just because those administrations, both specifically baby Bush and Obama, are using soft power and velvet chains doesn't mean they are not equally as authoritarian as your wildest dreams about Trump.
You didn't mention what actions Trump did to cause you to say it was a plausible speculation. What did he do to make you come to your conclusion? What specific acts?
Sure buddy. And I have a bridge to sell you so please call me. As I said above:
...if the US was rid of all people who believe Trump was their savior AND all people who thought Trump was Hitler, we would have a much happier and more reasonable country.
Sure, Ralph... this goes right along with him being a Russian plant, a dictator, a despot and an authoritarian. Unfortunately for you, and aside from making Twitter rants a daily news item, he's done none of these things. I don't believe him CAPABLE of these things, and believe me when I say that if he had tried it... he'd have been yanked out by his hair.
It's nice to see you here defending your own news programming though, it really shows your devotion to your sad old religion.
Do you at least see there is a possibility that your estimate of what Trump is capable of doing could conceivably be wrong? I mean, how can you or anyone know that? I'm not even sure what I am capable of under stressful circumstances, let alone knowing that about someone else. Maybe you have a clear vision of people's characters and future actions, but if you do, you are the only human in the history of the planet who has ever possessed the power to do so.
If he was going to do that why wait until the second term? The premise is ridiculous: if I lose the election I will concede but if I get reelected I'm going to change the constitution (how exactly?) And appointment myself dictator for life? Lay off Maddow for a bit, man.
Do you think I am stupid? Do you think I am uninformed? Are you really embarrassed on my behalf? If so, please don't worry. I can handle being embarrassed on my own, having done so practically every day of my life.
I know for certain that I could be wrong. Do you realize that you could be wrong?
Have you ever been wrong about anything in the past?
Trump was doing a fantastic job of accumulating the power to run the government unilaterally -- until he lost the election, which has spoiled his bright future as an autocrat. You should try dominating a large militarized technologic country sometime. These things take time! More than four years, for certain.
All I can say is go read on the process of how a constitutional amendment is ratified and then tell me how in the world he would get that to happen.
Here are a couple of alternative takes for you to consider:
1. Trump is a savvy businessman. He is setting the stage for an alternative news network. It's no secret a lot of his fans have been leaving FOX, and there is a business case to be made for another news network to meet their consumption needs.
2. Much like the russia garbage that the D's latched on to, this is something to keep the R base fired up until the next election. And it might even make a case for Trump to run again in 2024.
Matt's whole premise that the Trump is too incimpetent to govern properly. You believe he's an evil genius? Which is it? Trump is the boogey man now, he takes whatever form you fear the most.
"You should try dominating a large militarized technologic country sometime."
I'm sincerely looking forward to Joe Biden's efforts at doing this. I'm sure it will be a vast success, not at all funny (instead sober and serious), and everyone's lives will improve.
You are asking if I believe Trump would install himself as President for life? (maybe not a constitutional amendment, but somehow) -- I cannot, nor can anyone predict the future, but don't you have the thought that after last Wednesday, that is very plausible? Without a crystal ball, one can only try to formulate the best guess of someone's future actions on the basis of past actions. Trump's past actions have disregarded the rules and customs of US government over and over again. I don't see why you should feel so certain Trump would not try to stay in office indefinitely. Naturally I could be wrong, but have you stopped to think that you also could be wrong? Do you have a crystal ball?
Get a grip, Ralph! Trump has NO interest in being an authoritarian, has kept us completely out of war, brought troops home(only one of the last 4 presidents that can say that) and regardless is neutered by the vile progressive Left and gutless turd RINOS in his party...you need to heavily look into your TDS, Sir! Trump isn’t even clever enough to think in ‘dictator’ terms!
You have to be kidding. Republicans, after the riot, still voted to reject electoral college votes! 8 Republican Senators and most of the Republican Representatives. Do you really believe the Republican Senate would have stopped Trump in any way if he had managed to get the election results reversed? That is how you grab power and never let go of it. Fortunately for the rest of us, Trump lost the election and lost his 60 court cases trying to get the election overturned somehow.
Still trying to figure Ralph out; I admit I'm no genius. He seems to have an intense interest in other commenters' personal data and brings it up irrelevantly and awkwardly. Age? Country of origin? Work history? Current employment status? Present location? Ralph wants to know.
I do believe it and if you look over Trump's recent actions with some semblance of objectivity you might start to believe it too. Did you ever hear Masha Gessen talk about surviving autocracy? You might want to try. It's very educational, and you want to learn, don't you?
Yeah I did and I'm not taken in by her shtick. I had some sympathy for her experience and points of view at first, years ago, but she's clearly just coning it in on the new cold war bandwagon.
I completely agree. Vietnam was the first of the “endless wars” where big corporations got rich and the government didn’t have to sell war bonds. They just stole the money from taxpayers.
Thank you, George Hamilton, for pointing that out. That is the part of Lyndon Johnson's career in government that I am most familiar with, and was the reason I called myself an enemy of Lyndon Johnson. I know he also got civil rights legislation passed, so I'm not going to say he was a monster in every respect, but his record with respect to Vietnam still fills me with horror -- as does that of Richard Nixon.
I remember Vietnam, more than you know. LBJ made the mistake of listening to the Joint Chiefs. His wife said the sad struggle with Vietnam killed him. It also killed 60,000 bright young soldiers. What a waste!
Yes and he also warned us to never get involved in a land war in Asia, but we did it twice anyway, once in Korea and once in Vietnam. Both wars were futile and ended for the same reason: because we were afraid of what China might do.
I should not have implied that Trump is worse than LBJ in everything. Johnson ran a horrific war; Trump has done no such thing. I meant to say that Trump is worse than contemporary Democrats, and I think that is the case.
Yes, be very afraid. Maintain maximum fearfulness. Paralyze yourself with panic and fear. Imagine the worst that can happen and worry about it incessantly. Zzzzzz..... 😴
I’m usually impressed with the general level of Taibbi Substack Comments Section commentary, but it seems like the furies are released this morning.
Exactly, Trump is gone now and unlikely to come back so what now? The same jackwads who gave us the Iraq war and the Drone war and slavery in Libya are back in charge (and arguably never lost power)! Sweet. Now we get them with the added power of full blown mainstream media and tech censorship/cancel culture to back them up. Awesome. I can't wait to upload my social credit score and medical history on my global passport. The future is going to suck.
You forgot to add Hollywood & Academia to the wings of the DNC. They’ve infiltrated everywhere. Anywhere in the U.S. where bureaucracy reigns, you will find the DNC lurking nearby.
I think this is due less to DNC operatives being hyper-competent masterminds and due more to Hollywood, academia, and local bureaucracies wanting to hitch their wagons to the perceivedly ascendant star.
I wonder what happens when the magical star doesn't deliver on its promises.
Hollywood will always be in thrall to the DNC for the foreseeable b/c they provide them moral cover for collaborating w/ the ChiComs to market their CGI schlockfests in China. Good movies don’t play well and n China b/c you have to speak English to get them. Marvel Milan vs. Uighur Thanatos-just get the explosions and shiny things right and it will sell tix in Wuhan and Harbin w/out subtitles.
My insurance premiums and deductibles went up 300% after that was passed. Not sure if I would celebrate that. Unless it evolves into universal healthcare then it might be worth it but it’s pretty sucky right now.
This reminds me of the meme going around w/ 2 bombers, the one above is the “republican” which is plain w/ bombs dropping. The one under it is “democrat” which has a rainbow, blm sticker ect... but it’s still dropping bombs. That meme explain so much w/ so little.
This basically sounds correct. Heterosexuality will be frowned on basically. Straight white guys will either fake being gay or trans to fit in. They will start having to keep their straightness in the closet. White women will become the new white straight males as they become the new punching bag for minority men and women and aren’t allowed to defend themselves. (this has already begun, aka Karen, white women tears, ect...). Of course white and some poc lesbians won’t fare much better because trans-women are encroaching on spaces they see as their own. Nothing anyone can do either as the new intersectionality world order says the most “oppressed” wins.
Come on now, that won’t happen because 1) most men would only suck their own wienies (if they could) yet find the idea of doing so amongst others to be revolting and 2) sexual orientation is actually grounded in biology (hence the failure of heteros to exterminate homos despite their best efforts at conversion therapy and violent opposition) and 3) the US and Europe and their experiments with liberalism will be overcome by the sheer numbers from cultures for whom life is not sacred and individuals are not possessed of civil rights.
I will never self-describe as "cis." Just not doing it.
I myself deploy "Karen," but in my understanding it's not intended to be a slur against all white women, just affluent white women who call the manager on you. If these people weren't an identifiable type, it wouldn't have become a trope.
Does anyone really think that the incoming Biden administration is going to magically restore civil liberties and usher in a new golden era of real journalism? The military industrial complex/deep state/Uniparty monster that grew exponentially after 9/11, right through the Obama/Biden administration, is firmly entrenched and overflowing with power and money. The last feeble possible check on this swamp, the fatally flawed Donald Trump, has finally been neutered. You may not want to admit that. You are about to see the State, at the behest of its true masters, unleash a final devastating attack on what remains of our civil liberties and an independent press, all in the name of our safety and security, against what they label to be insurrectionists and seditionists. Why they will even come after you Matt; Glenn, and any other remaining actual journalists. Watch your back.
I am old enough to remember a time when broadcast TV news and a stodgy newspaper syndicate controlled what the public heard. If you didn't like what they were saying, you had to run down to a street corner in the center of town and hand out flyers to random pedestrians. If you were lucky, a few deep-thinkers plus the local crackpots and lonely-souls stopped to talk. Today, substack is the street corner and we're the crackpots, lonely souls, and one-in-a-million deep-thinkers.
Since the rise of the internet and a massive influx of user commentary (and other reasons), the establishment has lost control of their narrative. They are busily trying to re-assert it. As I said on other threads, watch out for an attempt to repeal section 230 which will remove liability protection from internet sites like this one. Without any further protection for public forums, the removal of 230 will leave the little platforms with an enormous, and perhaps impossible, task of allowing this kind of discussion forum. I think there lies a real threat to Matt and Glenn, etc. The can vet their own writing for liability but the costs of the current format might be too high to maintain.
Yes, we are seeing the beginning of the of the internet good old days. Once credit card and other services that make the internet go round start restricting access, we will be back on the actual street corner.
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Substack is a publisher. It isn't using section 230 to avoid being liable for it's content.
I’m referring to substack’s liability for content that is posted here, including Matt’s. Such content is understood legally as not being content that is created or developed by the internet publisher - substack in this case - and is covered by 230.
Content that is created by a platform itself is not covered under 230 and is not protected from the usual liability exposure. Many of the lawsuits that involve 230 turn on the question of whether content is user generated or not.
Substack is now protected from liability arising from us commenters who both pay Matt and in some measure provide a value to him with our comments. That’s why I said the current format might not be sustainable without 230. See, for example, Pornhub’s removal of user generated content to protect itself from liability. Without 230, internet platforms like substack or YouTube or whatever will have to screen all user generated content for liability issues.
The larger platforms probably are already developing algorithms to do so, while the smaller, less well funded ones are going to struggle with this task and probably will be forced to eliminate user generated content like this forum. Whether the elimination of a forum results in a platform no longer being a viable business and therefore shutting down altogether will depend upon how critical user generated content is to that platform.
That's what I'm here for. Can't wait for the permaban!
In all seriousness, I greatly respect Matt's hands-off policy with respect to the comments section. When the "boss" starts "liking" some comments over others, that's the slippery slope to the echo chamber. IMO Greenwald is guilty of this, but everyone has the right to run their own shop as they see fit.
No. I still think you are wrong. FB, Google, Twitter...they don't create their own content. Their whole premise is that they only provide a space for people to comment. They provide a service to those independent people. The users aren't in a contractual economic relationship with the service providers.
Substack is a for-profit company that subcontracts with writers to provide original created content. They are like any other media company. The content here is not a service. It is a product. Since the company was created to provide a product, if doesn't qualify for section 530. Since they provide a product, they can be sued just the same as CNN and any other media company.
"Does anyone really think that the incoming Biden administration is going to magically restore civil liberties and usher in a new golden era of real journalism?"
I'm gonna do an ageism here, but a bunch of dumb kids who spend all day on Twitter?
This is the thing that gets to me in terms of visible power moves. It must have been deeply humiliating for Biden to play second fiddle to Obama after he put more time in, and for career bureaucrats, it's all about putting in the time.
How was Biden the best thing the DNC had to put forward this time around? The cracks are showing.
It really is no longer the Military/Industrial complex. We don't have industry anymore. It's the Democrats super heroes. Banking and Big Tech. Bill Clinton gave up on being the party of the people when he ran, and embraced banking. Now they've embraced Big Tech. This is how you dominate a people. The world is now hooked on Technology like no heroin addict has ever been hooked on that drug. The end is already here. We have been submitted. Just figure out how you can follow along with the herd and still feel somewhat like your own person.
It's not over yet. Individuals can still choose to be moral actors. Your don't have to work for Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon if you don't want to. You can take your talents somewhere else. Or collect unemployment. It's a moral choice.
I'm not judging anyone. I'm just saying that we do have choices. Computer programmers have choices for sure. When the full AI is in place many programmers won't be necessary, so no one should be fantasizing that they will be exempt.
We are building our own endgame, and we can stop anytime.
This "AMWL" message is talking about "Deep State" theories that are right wing in nature.
"You are about to see the State, at the behest of its true masters, unleash a final devastating attack on what remains of our civil liberties and an independent press"
We will see what happens. If Biden does not do any of that stuff, will you admit you made a mistake?
Ralph, The Deep State is simply the set of unelected power brokers and their institutions, which obviously exists. The concept is independent of left or right wing. However, the concept is uncomfortable for the Deep State itself, which is why "belief in a Deep State" is the first accusation you will see being tied to Q-anon in the Mainstream Media.
I went to highschool with a girl who is now a Q-anon member, and I spoke a lot to her at the last reunion. The Deep State thing is only a small part of their world view. And believe it or not, she had some good points, but overall quite insane.
"The Deep State is simply the set of unelected power brokers and their institutions, which obviously exists."
I say again, like a stuck record, "Who elected James Clapper and John Brennan to anything, and why do they have a platform to tell me what to think on national TV?"
Whatever became of Sen. Feinstein's (creditable, if feeble) effort to hold the CIA to account for hacking into Senate computers? What happened and who was punished? Nothing and no one, I believe.
I agree with you on that point. Fortunately, we now have YouTube, so no one has to watch an anchor or a news channel they dislike. You can read and watch other commentators... such as Matt Taibbi. Noam Chomsky. And even grisha koshmarov, if he creates his own youtube channel.
Obviously in a sense there is a "deep state" that confronts every politician in the form of personal cooperation and institutional inertia/strength. However, that phenomenon is, by its nature, not controlled by any one person or group. I certainly believe your friend had some good points. I would be very interested to learn what they were, in your view.
The "controlled by any one person or group" is very misleading and I urge you to try thinking about institutional power instead. Maybe start with Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. (I remember reading his column in Byte.)
Another way of thinking about this is that an organization can exhibit consistent and specific intentional behaviors even if nobody working in the organization seeks or even understands them. And these characteristics (ultimately disposition to behave in power-preserving/expanding ways) are often stable even in the face of turmoil within the organization.
Another way of thinking about it: it's sufficient for every individual to be motivated by career, budgets, org charts, money while the organization appears (and by all epistemological reason does) seek other goals.
I will try to understand your comment overnight, but it's not very promising because, among other problems, I very much disliked Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte -- "Chaos Manor" I think he called his home, and named his computers and put in an insult for Apple in every single column but I guess he was smarter than Steve Jobs, eh?
Pournelle was a tiresome grumpy old fart. I was never even tempted to read his SF given Chaos Manor. And the Iron Law of Bureaucracy is kinda painful since it appears to be premised on his anti-government ideology but I think it's correct.
There's a fashion for referring to something called the Iron Law of Institutions, which sounds more relevant to my point on its surface, but I haven't found its original form or attribution so I didn't want to refer to it myself.
Anyway, it's no big deal. It's simply that there is no need for a person or conspiracy with a specific agenda to be at the center of "the deep state", i.e. the permanent federal bureaucracy. Indeed I believe its ad hoc behavior suggests there isn't one and that the dynamic network of power relationships we have is more stable and robust in the long term than a central command and hierarchy.
Obviously the Deep State is not controlled by any one person or group - I don't think anyone ever implied that it was. But the wealthy and powerful are highly networked with each other, which gives it a collective consciousness.
As for my high school friend's "good points", I just meant that I agreed with her on a lot of things. When she was not talking about a "drop" or a "Q-drop" (some secret message to the followers), we talked about Jeffrey Epstein and how his crimes were covered up by powerful people (deep state). The government-pedophile lore in Q is partly true, the problem is that they are taking it to the nth degree. We also talked about "the swamp" and the corrupt Democratic party and how we both would like to see them out. We talked about how our politicians don't represent us, and spend our tax money on war.
See, they have some of the same gripes that we do about our government. They unfortunately act insane, thinking Trump is some kind of messiah, and all the mystical "drops" and other B.S. that are cult-like. One of their favorite things to say is that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago for hitting on girls, so that proves that he was the good guy, while Clinton et. al. were guilty. I think the whole Epstein scandal fueled the Q movement a lot.
The sad fact is that many children have been sexually abuse, some horribly so (in fact it even happened to me when I was 17 years old). People who have had to keep that pain inside probably remember how the abuse was perpetrated by authority figures (stepfather, priest, teacher and so on) and they not unreasonably assume it might be happening all over.
I'm very sorry to hear that you were abused. It does seem like sexual abuse has happened to many children and your suggestion is very smart. I wonder what Jordan Peterson would think.
I do not believe there is a "Deep State." Rather, I see a confluence of interests. Democrats are the party of government, wanting ever-increasing size, spending and power. Government employees behave rationally, i.e. in their own interests, which includes ever-increasing size, spending and power. Requires no overt nor covert collusion.
Ralph, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 is not a "right wing conspiracy." Nor is that fact that several major Intelligence officials are on the payroll at CNN and other news sources.
AMWL is right on point. The impending state of permanent lockdown with "privileges" granted to those with "social credit" and the proper ideology is being imposed on the US RIGHT NOW, brick by brick.
We can stop this. Businesses like Twitter, Google, and Facebook require employees. All moral actors should resign from these companies and go work somewhere else. Talented programmers from MIT and CalTech can always find a high-paying job.
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but India of 6 billion or so people has state sponsored coding degree holders like America has fat people. Not even to mention the rest of Asia.
They already don’t need or want American workers in big tech. They Dems are happy to align with the Koch bros to accommodate supply for the demand
You visualize permanent lockdown continuing even after the pandemic has subsided; why? Also, can you recommend any site or article that might help me understand your concerns about the the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, or tell me more about it?
It won't be a lockdown. That idea is about as unhinged as you thinking Trump would declare himself emperor. There will be a new Social Credit Score system implemented however. It will be tied to Covid at first. If you want to travel outside the US, or fly? You'll need your health Passport to prove you've had all your vaccinations. It won't be quite as rigorous as the Chinese system, but it may get close in time.
All of this will take year, maybe a decade or more, but it's coming. Gasoline vehicles, and likely personal ownership of transportation will be phased out as well. In fact, I hypothesize that ownership of anything will be gone maybe in my lifetime (I am very middle aged). Subscription based enjoyment of "things" will just be the new way.
That would be bad! Do you have evidence or documentation or any facts suggesting that there will be a social credit score or a health passport, or that personal ownership of transportation or anything else will be phased out?
Ralph, the US Treasury has been systematically looted for 25 years. Please take a look at TARP and other "programs." Also our debt has been sold overseas to China and others, this is common knowledge. The Dollar has been over-sold and over-printed and over-obligated. If I have five Mercedes Benz cars and then sold fifty based on my reputation, I'd have to come up with 45 cars to make good on my agreements. Obviously I could not do this.
So the dollar-based world financial system is in serious trouble. To game China and others we've devalued in various ways. The Global authorities have to come up with something new. This is blockchain.
Put this into Google, and have fun. It'll be a good start for you on your way to reading a lot of stuff that is some bullshit intermixed with events that actually happened, or are in plan.
"you will not own anything and you will be happy"
I'd suggest you start paying attention to things like Davos, and the World Economic Forum, and all the cool meetings that take place around the world with a very select invitation.
As for gasoline vehicles. The UK just passed a law stating no vehicle running on petrol will be permitted to be sold after 2030. That is just the start. Yes, the rest is my surmising. But it isn't that far fetched.
In answer to your last question? Probably not. I mean, Trump was some diabolical Fascist dictator who rounded opposition forces up and publicly executed them, and did all sort of dastardly deeds that sold all of America off to the Russians... None of that actually happened, but most purveyors of Main Stream news media will believe it forever.
No, Trump has not rounded anyone up or had people killed. It is something a bit more indirect that is worrying many of us.
In the 20th center there were a number of historical studies written that followed the steps and changes toward autocratic government in several different countries (it happens all around the world at various times and places).
In those studies, several authors found that they could see a clear historical pattern in how each leader develops his power, and what happens at each step of the process.
What is alarming people is that Trump is following those steps very closely. Not that he is necessarily imitating anyone else's ascent to power (there is no way to know if he is unless he tells someone). But if a leader wants to start an autocratic government, logically a number of things must be done to get the people ready for that drastic change in their society. (That is happening right now in Hong Kong). The ruler ideally wants to find a way to make a substantial portion of the population actually want an autocratic government.
How can a leader accomplish that, when the effects of an autocracy are likely to be bad for most people? The leader has to lie to them and say, in effect, when I am the sole ruler, everything will be beautiful and you will all be rich and very happy. It is quite a trick, and Trump has done that part very skillfully. Remember when he said we would have so much winning, we would be tired of winning?
Did that happen? Did we win a lot? No, that was a lie.
Trump's problem is that persuasion is the only part of autocracy he is good at. Actually running a government is way beyond his education and training. Interestingly, though, even though he has done a terrible job of being the leader, his followers still love him! They are even ready to risk their lives to advance his cause. (And that young woman at the Capitol actually did die.)
I have not been able to figure out which of my comments you are responding to. Could you please write a little more so I will know what you are discussing?
This is a straw man. Biden doesn't need to "final devastating attack on what remains of our civil liberties and an independent press" to be a routinely authoritarian head of the world's most potent military empire ever. And the "deep state" would never have allowed Trump or anyone else to do something so dramatic anyway because -- it's bad for business to do it like that.
I question the potency of our military empire. What's the last unqualified US military success? Grenada? Panama? Iraq v.1? Track record for the last 75 years ain't stunningly great.
I'm sure MT could make a cutting analogy to some bad sports team that is overfunded and underperforms here; I don't follow sports.
Why feed into the ongoing character assassination of a person by saying things like “you don’t have to like him”? Assange is the contemporary Gramsci. Jailed in order to “stop that brain from working for 20 years” as the fascist prosecutor Ingrò said. And that’s precisely what they’re doing to Julian.
>>Why feed into the ongoing character assassination of a person by saying things like “you don’t have to like him”?<<
That's appropriate; Julian Assange, by many reports, is a major asshole on an personal level. He's left behind a long, long trail of embittered former employees and friends. The issue is, however, he doesn't have to be the sweetest thing since sugar to merit free speech protections.
Most people who have achieved the level of success and notoriety he has, leave a trail of « embittered former employees & friends ». Jealousy, competitiveness, etc. Ask any successful business owner. The point is, every story about him does not need to start with a disclaimer on his character.
"Most people who have achieved the level of success and notoriety he has, leave a trail of « embittered former employees & friends »"
They do?!
Well, Assange has an unusually large and embittered crowd of them.
At any rate, given his widely acknowledged reputation of assholishness, I think it's right and proper tor Taibbi and others to stress that even assholes merit free speech protections.
One may like or dislike a person and even if crazy that doesn’t mean they are stupid. Face it. Whatever his story he did nothing that the press hasn’t been doing for years. One can argue that a sworn member of the military or government or even a citizen could be liable ( I would question the latter), but he is none of these things. His beliefs are not the point. He is liable because he is not part of the club-MSM- and what he has done has ruffled everyone’s feathers.
The usual insult mixed with information. When the person being insulted sees the information, s/he is supposed to just let the insult ride. That's how someone like "e.pierce" gets the privilege of insulting people day after day with no complaints from anyone. Don't let him.
Many at the time saw Daniel Ellsberg as a traitor for getting the NYT and WaPo to print the Pentagon Papers. (Could you imagine these rags doing this today?) Now, he's considered a hero.
He was considered a hero then, too. History did not need to vindicate him. The rightness of his cause of informing the public about the crimes and lies of their government are -- and were -- plainly evident. So, too, with Assange. He's a hero, but unlike Ellsberg, he's being crucified for it. It is a disgrace.
Of course they could. If there's a Republican president (as there was), they publish. If there's a Democrat president, they quash it and write an editorial warning that anyone else who publishes it should have their twitter and facebook yanked and, if possible, have Mastercard, Paypal and Patreon stop processing payments for them.
Yes, it’s a form of virtue signalling disclaimer employed by anyone who writes about him. Alan Rusbridger, in his much belated piece on the extradition, did the same thing.
Assange was NEVER accused of rape - he was accused of using "leaky condoms". Accuser withdrew this ludicrous and previously unheard charge and Swedish court dropped the case.
Under US pressure, the strange charge was re-introduced (without accuser !?) and CIA propagandists ever since use the term -- charged for sexual crime...
Note that in Sweden like in all Western countries editors of main newspapers are always paid by CIA. Former chief editor of Germany's "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" wrote a book about this and his own role....
Even if he had sex in public with a porcupine, what has this to do with Wikileaks? Why are we discussing ad hominem attacks? I don’t think he ever posed as a moral leader. Face it; most people only like the truth when it fits their ideological narrative.
I personally love it when the CIA inspects my used condoms to make sure everything was on the up-and-up. We need a trusted authority to ensure the safety of the world.
I wonder what Tara Reade or the other women/girls Biden felt up would think about that. I'd love to know how the women at that D.C. rally in January 2017 rationalize supporting a guy as the "Resistance" who also has a serious problem with strange behavior with women and a VP who started her political career by giving the mayor of SF a bj. (Whether Trump "does it more" than Biden is debatable and not relevant in that both exhibit behavior with women that pass the floor of acceptable behavior.)
Here's an impressively detailed debunking effort by Caitlin Johnstone. She's "fringe" as political commentators go, but she's difficult to disagree with.
The rape charge I was referring to is this accusation: "The following morning, she claims, he had sex with her again while she was still asleep, and this time he did not use a condom. " https://gwynnedyer.com/2010/the-accusations-against-assange/
Your source says she was half-asleep. The article on which we are commenting says Assange was accused of sexual assault. The description above describes rape, we can agree on that, right?
Your source seems to rely heavily on the argument that the FBI has the motive and ability to smear Assange, so that's what happened. Then, it deconstructs AA's behavior to assert that what she describes as assault was consensual. Does it really make sense that international spies conspired to smear Assange by offering him up Swedish femme-fatales who spin ambiguous sex tales that seem to lie on the border between douchebaggery and rape?
How many children does Assange actually have? Considering that both of these women allege he ejaculated inside them without their explicit consent, it would be nice if he would make that as transparent as he wants our governments to be.
For the record, I support wikileaks and I hope that they don't extradite Assange, I just think the man is a piece of shit.
I'll agree with most of that. But here's one thing I want to push back on:
"Does it really make sense that international spies conspired to smear Assange by offering him up Swedish femme-fatales who spin ambiguous sex tales that seem to lie on the border between douchebaggery and rape?"
I'm willing to suppose that SW and AA aren't James Bond–type femme fatales, and Assange simply fell afoul of justified rape/assault charges. Even then, I hope you'd agree that the United States could reasonably be expected to use Assange's charges as an pretext for nabbing him.
SW doesn't seem to act the part of an international spy. But AA's case appears more complicated. She didn't warn SW away from him; and she's the one who convinced SW to speak with police afterward. From an old, archived Counterpunch article:
"She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here."
(The "here"s above lead to further links, whose claims I can't really judge for veracity.)
That's enough evidence for Craig Murray to imply that she's a CIA asset. Though I value his opinion, I also realize he's a friend of Assange's, and more than a little biased.
"Often I sat in large groups and listened to Julian boast about how many children he had fathered in various parts of the world," Domschiet-Berg claimed.
"He seemed to enjoy the idea of lots and lots of Julians, one on every continent. Whether he took care of any of these alleged children, or whether they existed at all, was another question."
According to police documents, another witness claimed that Assange had "at least" four children. It is unknown where the children are located or who their mothers are.
That's an interesting way of describing how he peaced out of the country like Polanski and the statute of limitations expired.
Why can't people just accept this dude is kind of a narcissist? It doesn't mean he needs to be extradited on charges of espionage. One has nothing to do with the other.
He did not rape her. They were sleeping together overnight. She only accused him of omitting the condom. And the charges have now been dropped by the Swedish government.
Were you in the room or something? No one knows what really happened. If the Swedish government dropped the charges, then maybe nothing illegal happened, but who the hell knows...
The accusation was not of rape, only of intercourse without a condom without consent. If it had been rape, they would have charged him with rape, I think.
Of course, it's not just about punishing Assange (or Manning or Snowden or Winner). It's about intimidating all potential whistleblowers and anyone who seeks to practice true confrontational and critical journalism. The US and UK governments are sending a message: air our dirty laundry and we promise to put you in prison and keep you there, no matter how trumped up the charges may be.
As is yours. I know I shouldn't feed trolls like you, but you're an especially pernicious little fucker. Must come from typing with one hand up your ass. Now, kindly fuck off and let the grown-ups have a serious debate.
"Now Trump is on his way out, but the lockdown era is just beginning. You’ll forgive me if I’m more scared of that than the other thing."
Exactly. While the left (I'm not referring to "traditional" liberals, but the socialism-infatuated wackjobs of the present) have been running around in circles with their hair on fire screaming and pointing "Russia! Racist! Orange Man bad!" for the last four years, their handlers in the deep state have quietly been setting the stage for an authoritarian medical-industrial-tech dystopian nightmare far worse than anything Trump could imagine. For all of his failings, and they are many, at least Trump didn't give in to the authoritarian impulse that seduced so many former Presidents, including Clinton and Obama -- starting a new war. Wars abroad lead to civil liberties being curtailed at home, for the sake of "safety" and "the homeland." Any sane person (right, left, or in the middle) who looks at Biden's proposed cabinet members should be quite nervous.
«While the left (I'm not referring to "traditional" liberals, but the socialism-infatuated wackjobs of the present) have been running around in circles with their hair on fire screaming and pointing "Russia! Racist! Orange Man bad!"»
That's not the socialists, it is identity-politics market libertarians, who support globalism and financialization. Trump mostly in the beginning was, while being no socialist, for nationalism and productive industry.
Social Security is paid for by the people who use it. It is an INSUANCE PROGRAM paid BEFORE they use it. An Insurance program is NOT socialism. MEDICAID is Socialism. Not Medicare.
That's actually not how Social Security and Medicare work - the payments to retired people are funded by taxes collected from workers now. If this is difficult for you to see, explain how the first recipients of SS and MC who did not pay into the system got their checks and healthcare. If it were pre-paid insurance, then it would be impossible for it to go bankrupt. The reason that it *is* going bankrupt is our birthrate is too low (and falling). It would be going bankrupt even faster if all those brown people didn't have so many kids. The reason Social Security was marketed as "insurance" is so that conservatives would accept it - you wouldn't be getting it otherwise. I write this as a Gen-Xer who has paid SS taxes my entire life and has zero expectation that I'll receive a penny. Also, for what it's worth, the year I was on Medicaid in grad school was by far the easiest and most hassle-free experience I have had with our healthcare system. The words co-pay, co-insurance, deductible, explanation of benefits vanished into thin air, and I spent exactly zero minutes on hold with insurance companies waiting to fight for reimbursement that I had paid for. Contrast this with the at least 8 hours I have wasted so far this year trying to get new insurances set up and connected to my doctors (and I have a PPO!).
"The reason that it *is* going bankrupt is our birthrate is too low (and falling). It would be going bankrupt even faster if all those brown people didn't have so many kids."
I'm anything but a natalist, but I find your analysis accurate.
The SS system is premised on people reproducing and their kids going to work. I, and may others, don't want to or can't afford to have kids. Many are also out of work. Oopsie.
«Social Security is paid for by the people who use it. It is an INSUANCE PROGRAM paid BEFORE they use it. An Insurance program is NOT socialism. MEDICAID is Socialism. Not Medicare.»
Well, MEDICAID is also insurance: it effectively insures *everybody* against the risk of becoming too poor to pay healthcare premiums. Same as MEDICARE really.
Also Social Security (OASDI) does the same: it gives rather smaller pensions than those earned by contributions to high earners and rather larger pensions than those earned by contributions to low earners.
Therefore it effectively insures *everybody* against the risk of being too poor to get a decent pension.
So if you look at the disproportion between contributions and "returns" all three programs are "socialist", but if you consider that disproportion as insurance against poverty, all three are contributory insurance programs.
They key is that *everybody* gets insured: someone earning $1m/year with children who loses everything gets MEDICAID, when he retires she gets MEDICARE, and she gets OASDI when she retires or becomes disabled. The higher-than-proportional taxes and contributions she made when earning $1m/year insure her against the risk of not being able to contribute later when becomes too poor to do so.
"Any sane person (right, left, or in the middle) who looks at Biden's proposed cabinet members should be quite nervous"
This is crucial. This is an issue on which progressives (leave IP out of it for the moment) and conservatives (leave Trump lunatics out of it for the moment) agree. Let's focus on this. Let's work together on this.
Say what you will but Donald Trump has clearly delineated how the seemingly disparate views of the progressives and deplorables are not that different.
I agree completely - Although I could never vote for him, I had high hopes that he would follow through on the populist policies he advocated during his campaign. I also think his election was "disruptive" to the status quo in ways that awakened the progressive (not IP) left and that I can only hope will benefit us in the long run. I promise you I loathe Hillary Clinton as much as you do.
Actually, Trump lunatics will be surer allies for this than respectable Republicans. Do you seriously think Ross Douthat, David Frum and Lindsey Graham are going to interfere with the expansion of government control? Ben Sasse? Our only hope is people like Cruz limiting the damage, and that's not out of principle as much as spite.
I hear that and agree.... when I typed conservatives I knew that was wrong. How should we distinguish between Trump supporters with principles such as those in this forum, and the lunatics (sorry, Cruz is a lunatic and has no principles)?
Cruz might be the next Trump. He's a complete sociopath and asshole, but he understands that brazenly attacking the shit that sucks is more immediately gratifying for the public than actually fixing anything.
He should keep workin' on the Al Gore beard. It's a good look.
The screws are tightening second by second, but the grand distraction of American political theatre means that heads are turned the other way, as the networks of power splay their adversaries through the grinder - memo to all those who were espousing MBAs and business/computer technical educations as far back as the 80s --- this is what happens we an entire generation fails to read history. It starts with a lack of imagination, and constipated leadership but then quickly evolves into a vacuum of bloviation not seen since the universe was created ---- distraction, hyper-capitalistic paternalism and in the end YOYO (you're on your own) neoliberal dogma erodes the fibers of community/family so much so that anger/fear take over our collective brain stem.
Special thanks to those like Matt, Julian for not bending the knee to American power networks.
It is quite amazing that an australian journalist publishing in Sweden can be accused of breaking an american law on american government secrecy, and regarded as a traitor and a terrorist.
But there are plenty of scared oldies who got theirs and are terrified of any potential disturbance to their tranquility, and don't much care about brown people in far away places or foreign journalists either, and who write with their votes blank cheques to the government as long as their real estate and share prices go up. "Better safer than sorry", "absolute safety at any cost to someone else", "Security is well worth sacrificing somebody else's life", etc.
Looking at the media for the past two days has been an amazing display of ingroup/outgroup thinking.
To the "OMG 5 DEAD AT THE CAPITOL" crowd; how many Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Somalis, etc. ad in., as well as the American soldiers sent to kill them, have died in the last 19 years? You got a count? Is the specific number important? It seems to be important as long as it's a single-digit number.
Thanks for that! Also of the 5 who died at the Capitol, 4 died of natural causes. The only violent death was by the gov't on a Trump supporter. Blaming that on Trump is disingenuous at best.
The United States has always been very good at promoting a special form of sociopathy with its citizens in terms of getting many of us to believe that foreign lives are less valuable than their own... The one exception being when they "need our help" to "free" them from their own leaders, thus justifying deploying our Forever War machine followed by our poisonous consumer products and industry.
Our dog shit leadership - sadly - does reflect what many of us have chosen to become.
Now we're finally closing our long journey toward finally deciding that we're too dangerous to be trusted with our own freedom, liberty, privacy, and power of choice.
You have your Brzezinskis and your Kissingers, who tacitly or openly declare that non-American lives don't matter, and your Albrights and Powers and Rices, who argue for a "responsibility to protect," the soft sell. Two sides of the same bloody coin.
I don't see how that could be the whole of it. Much of Greek Mythology is clearly a metaphor for the inevitable corruption of leadership or anyone with power over the populace. So many of them clearly had to have seen that aspect of it. Am I wrong?
The Greeks had their foibles, but ancient Greece was still a hell of a society. I have always loved that the Pantheon of Olympus was openly corrupt, self-interested, horny, and petty. Hellenics seem to generally have had a more realistic idea about the moral character of their leadership than Abrahamites do.
I know hero worship is dumb, but I still want Yanis Varoufakis to save the world from itself -- when he couldn't even save Greece. The problem with hero worship is that it puts all the burden on the hero and none on the worshiper. The old myths have a thing or two to say about this.
I don't quite agree with that interpretation of "God is dead..." especially with the context of the rest of the statement. I read it as Nietzsche arguing that by not having a mythical being to blame our failures on, humanity was left with a sort of morality vacuum and had to logically accept that we're responsible for our choices and failings also and their consequences.
It has the character of cautioning about something similar to the converse of a power vacuum, to me. We lost the power of blaming God(s) for what we do (scary) but we gain the realization that we are the gods of our own fate (scarier).
To the point about the lack of values as an ideology, I don't see Nietzsche believing that this problem would have been anything new. He may have been against the concept of collectives of any kind, but religious/spiritual is obviously an evergreen collective.
Regarding the Actions for Assange, tbh I and many others (the few REAL socialists left) have been pleading with POTUS (not DNC hacks) for a Pardon, even appealing to him to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I can't travel but some have. Since I already knew that the few Dem's that actually want to help him are unable to do any more, I went to the only miniscule (but most plausible) shot I could take, the President's vanity.
Please consider viewing people as individuals. I am an "oldie" who has preached about the dangers of COVID19 to brown people whose lives will be lost in second- and third-order effects of the illness, such as famine. The toughest sell has been progressive millenials, who never tire of lecturing others about systemic racism, but refuse to believe the risks created by lockdowns. After all, everybody is like me and my acquaintances, just work from home, and if you run out of bread, eat cake.
Okay, it quite clear you are lost and alone. Why else behave like this?
Content is fleeting, but how one treats people (friends and adversaries) is what matters. Lost and alone. Hope you find a person who will listen and care about what you have to say, even the capital letter yelling.
But the actual act was working a source. Charging Assange with espionage is like saying that if the reporters talking to Ellsberg had asked him to try to get them an actual copy of the Pentagon Papers then they were no longer journalists, but participants in the release of classified documents.
All of this shit is intended to blur the line between "journalist" and "spy," which I take as MT's main point. It's intended to establish a legal precedent that a journalist who publishes information the regime doesn't want disclosed can be defined as a spy.
The distinction with Assange is actually much less ambiguous, in my opinion, than the Ellsberg and Manning cases. Both Ellsberg and Manning were ultimately Pentagon functionaries, which is how they got access to the information they got access to. They signed off on the paperwork.
Assange isn't a US citizen, he never worked for DOD, and he never signed off on shit. Manning's in jail, and that's not nothing, but there seems to be an eagerness to burn Assange at the stake to redefine what the Western concept of "law" is -- i.e. it is whatever the biggest dog says it is.
Trump should pardon Assange and Snowden before he leaves. We need whistle blowers. If not for those two we would not have known that all Americans are constantly surveilled, and we would not have known about the misasventures of Hillary and Democrats.
They want to close that loophole and keep it closed forever. And make it clear to any journalist who wants to expose another Gitmo or MiLai massacre that their days as a citizen with Constitutional rights is over. Intimidation by example.
What’s really amazing is the treatment our government is giving an autistic hacker vs. Jonathan Pollard who actually SPIED for Israel AGAINST THE USA and is now being greeted in Israel by Netanyahu himself as a national hero..... We are dupes guys! Where’s the national outrage?
Well, Israel doesn’t bother me and I’m neutral on Zionism but what does bother me is this guy was an American citizen and literally gave our secrets away to a foreign country, he gets released EARLY and gets to fly to the country he sold us out to and is greeted by their leader! The media are crickets!
"This was a death penalty offense, the Brookings Institution noted, not worrying at the oddness of charging a foreigner with such a crime."
This continues to drive me bananas. How does the US government assert the legal right to charge an Australian national under US law? Where is the Australian government here? Does it care about its citizens and their rights or is it out to brunch?
I need a smart lawyer, preferably Australian, to explain it to me.
The Australian government is pretty much in lockstep with the US on all things. It is a bipartisan approach. Hence why we eagerly signed up to invading Iraq based on Cheney-inspired dishonesty all those years ago.
Our government has completely vacated the field with regards Julian Assange just as they did with David Hicks who was incarcerated in Guantanamo and convicted by a US Military Commission under a law that was subsequently found to be invalid as it didn’t exist at the time of the alleged offence.
My local representative at the time Hicks was incarcerated went on to become the recent Australian ambassador to the US. I am not a lawyer but at the time Hicks was incarcerated I wrote to him asking how it was reasonable Hicks could be held in Guantanamo when he had not seemingly actually committed an offence under any law. I received a response which threw Hicks and any notion of the rule of law under a bus. The vibe was Hicks was a bad guy in a bad place thus it was open slather. Due process and legal principle seemed incidental or even unnecessary as applied to Hicks.
I mention this case as it illustrates is the caliber of our politicians and their approach to Assange. They are demagogic, power hungry and opportunistic. Principles and laws are malleable and only applied where expedient.
The power structures have decided the transparency bought by Wikileaks is extremely inconvenient. An example will be made such that the next potential Assange will think twice about such acts unless they want to be hounded to their grave.
The politicians in Australia lean towards secrecy and corruption just like those in the US. We are even prosecuting a whistleblower who revealed our government was electronically eavesdropping on the impoverished, newly independent East Timor when we were bullying/negotiating with them over gas deposits in the waters between our two countries.
You don’t need a lawyer to explain the Australian government’s approach to Assange. Just an understanding of the worst aspects of human nature and the corrupting influence of power.
There's only One Eye to rule them all. The post-WWII USA intelligence consortium was set up with much assistance from the English along English (i.e. class-based) lines.
See... “The Anglo American Establishment” by Carroll Quigley. They’re really was a post WW2 English/American goal to rule the world.(ok, a bit of hyperbole).
Why did the Australian govt donate big $$$$ to the Clinton foundation? Does Australia not have any charitable orgs or do you all believe the Clinton Initiative was the best vehicle for tangible results?
another great piece Matt...very balanced and your point re: focusing on institutions and broad policy rather than personalities/individuals is very apt. I have mixed feelings about Assange and do not feel all of his actions even regarding Wikileaks dumps are defensible...but your points about the implications of the legal actions against him and the underpinning laws and regulations are crucial. As always people need to look beyond their desired outcome in specific cases to broader implications of policy actions. A great example of that is when Harry Reid got rid of the Senate rule that required a super-majority for judicial confirmations.... for the expedient reason that he wanted Obama nominees to be confirmed over Republican obstruction... a few years later that lowered confirmation threshold resulted in the confirmation of, for instance, Brett Kavanagh ..similarly those who cheer FB and Twitter suspended Trump's account are not thinking of the implications of tech corp algorithms or functionaries making decisions on what is false or true and there can be available in the public square....
The empire's mask has already dropped. Patriot Act, round 2, is going to be dazzling in its aggression against citizens, who are now openly recruited to spy on neighbors for infractions of pandemic "policy" and just over the past two days openly recruited to help the corporate press hunt down protesters--not because LE needs help but so people become further accustomed to snitching on each other and to taking pleasure in fellow citizens' social death. It's a short path from gleeful doxxing to Stasi-level surveillance.
The "something" in the War on Terror's "see something, say something"slogan has been greatly expanded and one is tacitly expected to view fellow citizens as sacks of pathogens and terrorists. Citizens number well over 300M, why is this tolerated?
But if all but four lucratively-lobbied politicians are in the pocket of the Elite, who's left to change it?
...and then just as someone points that out, The Distraction:
CNN/MSNBC "A BOMBSHELL! TONIGHT!!!! Former President Donald Trump has just revealed that he wouldn't date a trans woman because QUOTE 'They're kinda icky.' Is this the worstest most horriblest and bigotiest behavior from him yet? We go now live to our trans correspondent Cuntrapoints who is sobbing at this very moment..."
I wish more people were more afraid of the Empire than Trump. Why is Trump on his way out? Because he messed up the corporate empire. He cut off their slave labor, he messed up their cushy trade deals, he exposed their phony Russiagate nonsense, and he messed up their income stream by bringing boys home from endless wars and created peace in the middle east. Biden is a puppet of the corporate empire, so be afraid of the future.
The funny thing is that Trump did this stuff more or less by accident. I'm sure the analogy has been made already, but he was like Peter Sellers as Chauncey Gardener in "Being There."
It really illustrates how fragile the whole system is and how inept the "Boys at the Top" are. Promoting fear is their last-ditch effort to cow the public and distract us from their greed and ineptitude. Out of quarters, guys.
The scary part is how the media, big tech, the Roberts court all colluded to oust Trump. That is empire.
Yup. They ran the Russia hoax, Ukraine hoax / impeachment, social media bans / censorship, 90% negative media coverage and, last but not least, a ham-fisted ballot stuffing scheme. And even after all that, he expanded his base. This isn't over - not by a long shot.
Evidence please for Jan-fisted ness in ballot stuffing? Source? Evidence?
There is a great deal of evidence publicly available; are you sure you're not asking for proof? Evidence must be judged to become proof. That has yet to be permitted. I also suspect that RAH is using ballot-stuffing as a proxy for the multiple ways in which elections can be manipulated.
Thanks for the question.
Regards to Pennsylvania:
http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don’t-Add-Up,-Certification-of-Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error
The Navarro reports provide additional context. You can find those reports here:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dr-peter-navarro-releases-report-on-2020-election-301195191.html
Dr. Peter? And some discredited PA vote totals? Case closed.
Um, whether they colluded or not, he lost the election (fair or fraud). Whomever was stupid enough to believe the MSM or big tech was the reason he lost. You can't collude to convince intelligent people who seek the truth. You can collude with idiots that only believe one part of the story anyway. If they want to hear bullshit, they will hear and see bullshit. You don't have to be a master colluder to convince people of what they want to hear and see. You just have to give it to them.
I can tell you one thing for sure, if the US was rid of all people who believe Trump was their savior AND all people who thought Trump was Hitler, we would have a much happier and more reasonable country.
I am in neither of those groups.
I just came across a video clip of Dan Bongiorno (on Hannity) cautioning Dems about the censorship issue, and referencing "Coming for you next." The comments section was filled with people vowing to cancel FB and Twitter accounts. I suggest you do the same and spread the word. It's a hopeful idea during these difficult times. F 'em. Btw, I quit FB five years ago and have never joined Twitter.
Conservatives should organize a “Dump Twitter Day”.
Everybody should organize a "Dump Twitter Day," including and especially me.
This morning I can’t believe I live in a country where people can be silenced and ruined for their political views. Hawley and Cruz are being destroyed for asking for a ten day audit. We live in a tyranny of giant corporations. It was a sad day yesterday when America got scolded about freedom of speech by Angela Merkel from a foreign country. Today I am blocked by FaceBook for discussing election problems. These are very dark days.
So let me get this straight. You are more afraid of the Roberts court and the rest of the empire than you are of Donald Trump in his present mentally ill condition? I wonder if you realize how much Trump is compromising national security every day he remains in office. And did you see the pictures from the Capitol? Are you in favor of what that mob did? Trump explicitly sent the crowd there, and even lied and said he would be marching with them. Of course he then went immediately back to the WH.
Yes, I am more afraid of the Empire. Trump is not crazy and he said nothing to incite violence. He said the marchers would walk to the capitol and “greet the Congressmen as they came out”. His security team probably nixed the walk with them idea.
Do not call those protesters a mob. They were there all day peacefully protesting. Time will tell who actually incited or committed the breakin. The FBI said there was a busload of Antifa people there.
Mostly peaceful protest as CNN used to say. Also, CNN pundits kept saying that "rioting is the language of the unheard" all summer long. Wonder why they aren't saying that now?
You get an angry crowd together and it's hard to control them. It just takes a couple of agitators to guide people into doing what they shouldn't. Trump should have figured that out and directed the rally away from any buildings.
I'm so angry that he never learned, even after that mess in 2017 in Virginia. And he knew that the media would be on fire if someone was even rude to a passerby. He destroyed it all just because he wanted to have his ego stroked. What a foolish man.
Oh right. Antifa . Source please.
I guess you get your information from Fox News. They were in no way peaceful. There are photos of them smashing things. If you want to believe that the destructive ones were Antifa under a false flag, I'm sure no one is likely to change your mind.
Dang Ralph, I guess anything that doesn't fit your world view and Orange Man bad narrative is all conspiracy theories and craziness, huh?
Yes. I'm also way more afraid of a hidden Tech oligarchy with increasing carte blanche to spy on, censor, and imprison citizens than I am of a dork with bad hair and makeup that may or may not have encouraged a mob that did 1/1000th the total damage and violence than a year of BLM/Antifa did supported by mainstream media blessings and corporate sponsorship.
I hope that you got that straight.
Precisely! 🙌🙌🙌
Are you connected with the FSU?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/09/students-quit-free-speech-campaign-over-role-of-toby-young-founded-group
Nope.
I can tell you one thing for sure, if the US was rid of all people who believe Trump was their savior AND all people who thought Trump was Hitler, we would have a much happier and more reasonable country.
and I'd add that we'd be left with the majority of citizens, as well.
Trump wishes he was hitler.
I do not think Trump is a savior and I do not think he is Hitler.
Whom did the Scots support in the English Civil War-Royalists or Parliament/Roundheads?
Lowland civilization is about status signaling and genuflecting before your betters. Highland civilization is about sitting on your porch drinking from a clay jug labeled "XXX" and shooting squirrels. Jim Webb wrote a book about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_Fighting
You mean the mostly "Peaceful protesters?"
"firey but mostly peaceful." The "firey" part was important, lest one think the media coverage and non-substantive corporate support was somehow biased.
We all know that fire is a tool of peace. Prometheus stole it from the gods to keep us warm in the winter.
The big takeaway from the last two presidential elections is that democracy is broken under our one party of two factions. Ive taken for granted the democrats rigged the primaries twice and I fully expected the 2016 election to be rigged as well. Was this general election rigged? Maybe, but it doesnt really matter, since its already an established practice and the time for outrage was 4 years ago, but we got anally forcefed russiagate instead. Seems as though there was a long game at play and suffering through the last four years, whipping polarization up to the point of last wednesdays unauthorized tour of the Capitol was all according to plan. Now were prepped to lose the 2nd amendment which is what this is probably all about. And that probably means a lot of people will have their weapons pried from their burnt dead hands once you realize a well armed militia with black rifles has no chance against drone warfare. I watched a couple videos from nagorno karbakh and that was my takeaway from that. If the 20th century is any measure we are overdue for another engineered population reduction event. The bar for survival is the level of ones addiction to rage inducing clickbait agitprop
"a well armed militia with black rifles has no chance against drone warfare."
Dunno about that. The Taliban seem to have done pretty well for themselves over the past 19 years. There are other examples.
It's a question of motivation.
I do not want to reply to each of your points because your level of paranoia feels exhausting to me. But one or two points: Democrats have absolutely no plan to take away anyone's guns. They might try to restrict semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines, but no more than that. And if the militia has no chance against drones (true, I think) why worry about the guns now? Finally -- and this is significant -- any realistically possible engineered population reduction event would not kill enough people to make a substantive dent in a world of 7.5 billion souls.
I AM more afraid of the Robert’s court and you would be too if you had any sense.
Great comment. ) Wall Street, Big Tech, and the military industrial complex jumped off his bandwagon after 2016 because he was a less reliable ally than Bush The Simple, the Clintons, and Obama.
hmm, Biden seems like way more of a Chauncey to me. At least the senile dumbass he is today.
Being fed speeches to just barely recite successfully after days of practice? Also, Trump might joke about grabbing a pussy or three, but Joe is definitely the one with the blank look in his eyes that would cluelessly say to a bunch of women "I... I like to watch!" Doesn't seem far from all of his idiotic hair sniffinz.
Trump at least had some media savvy (and an underrated talent for Improv that would put most Second City alumn to shame), for what he completely lacked in personal and professional wisdom. Trump's just a tantrum and a semi-erect penis, looking for action. It was his vain stubbornness that made him (likely) less manipulateable than Joe, not his stupidity.
I didn't think it could get genuinely worse than Trump but I'm pretty sure we're about to cross the Rubicon on that. God... what a hopeless mess this Republic is, lol.
Props for calling out Trump's improv talent; it's an (if i may pirate the adjective) underrated element of charisma, that deeply-difficult-to-define but all-too-necessary quality for successful politicians.
Speaking rigidly from a script tends to put most people off. Not making a moral judgement; just a thing I've observed.
Bingo. Great improv is a very rare talent, but if you can find it, it's great for making the audience feel engaged and every performance feel novel or even authentic. Obama made fun of disabled people as well, but Trump owning it and refusing to apologize arguably made people feel like anything was possible with him.
Your perspective is valid for Trump as Chauncey, maybe I just find imagining Joe in the place of Sellers more amusing in my head.
I started imagining 2022 when Kamala whispers to a mentally failing Joe that he might be able to walk on water "like in that movie." Then, umbrella in hand, Biden walks out into a lake and quickly falls in and drowns, as the Veep tries to contain her smirk.
That has to be considered at least a plausible end to his life at this point.
It's going to be another completely buffoonish 4 year slog.
I don't think Joe could do improv to save his life.
Scratch that, I'm wrong. When he does improv, it's about fighting Corn Pop with a bicycle chain and his hairy legs getting fondled. I really want 4 years of Off-Script Joe.
I'm banking on it getting a lot weirder, and more aggressive. More push-up contest challenges, more hair-sniffy. "Look, fat"
Look fat... you want to talk fitness we'll go out and do some push-ups.
I'm not. His stream of consciousness is pretty creepy. Now to be fair I think his mind is failing and so it may not be his fault.
lol yep. Joe is the Trustifarian kid that keeps paying for expensive Second City or UCB courses even though they know he's hopeless. Just milking him for all they can get.
Or if he was in Chicago in the old days, an incompetent Joe would have irritated Del Close to the point of rage.
Then Joe would take the stage and somehow get laughs from his r____ed Corn Pop story, get called up to SNL, and cause Del to relapse.
If we're all being honest, "Pocahontas" was a minor stroke of genius.
I'd put it in the Major category since it juked Liz into doing the DNA test self-own.
He killed with this stuff. Troll-in-Chief. I'll miss him.
Wasn't that coined during the Scott Brown campaign, along with my fave, Lieawatha?
He knew all right and so did a bunch of US. That's why he stopped the US from signing on to the TPP and said "Make America Great Again".
Hey Grisha, I was thinking of another fictional/IRL comparison a week ago and wanted to hear your thoughts:
Jimmy Dore is the current "Lonesome" Rhodes from "Face in the Crowd." Rhodes has always been and was written to be an evergreen character, these fake-populist demagogues constantly pop up, but...
That clip last week of Jimmy going off on how the DSA or whoever "I shouldn't go to them, they should come to ME!" or something like that vibe just made Rhodes pop into my head.
I'd like to be able to give you a better answer, but in truth I've never seen "A Face in the Crowd," a deficit I should probably correct.
I recall Dore having some good insights when he appeared on Useful Idiots and otherwise don't know much about him. I'm not a podcast/YouTube kind of guy (mainly because I'm a monotasker and am trying, although largely failing, to reduce my online time). Me doing my Fukuyama bit; at the end of history, there's too much media to consume.
Sorry, but thanks for asking! Others may have some more useful thoughts.
I'd recommend it if you're looking for a good classic to watch. You'll never look at Andy Griffith shows - especially when he smiles - the same way ever again.
Well, just my thoughts: I'm sorta mixed on Dore. He can be funny and I like that he can get passionate about genuinely fucked up things but he almost always goes too far with his negativity. ex. He's the type that completely shits on Bernie because he didn't meet Jimmy's expectations after nearly a lifetime of public advocacy and service. Meanwhile all Jimmy does is scream in front of a green screen. So it's cheap.
Dore also has an especially bad fan community in my experience. I know that's a tricky criticism, but I think it follows his energy in this case.
"Dore also has an especially bad fan community in my experience."
"I'm trying to get away from fan communities," I said while posting in Matt Taibbi's comments section.
They say a man has two wolves inside him...
Sam Harris made the comparison between Trump and Chauncey Gardener on one of his podcasts.
Harris has completely lost his mind with TDS!
He knew what was happening. The breaking up of the US and parceling it out to failing nations which has been happening since Daddy Bush. That's why the first thing Trump did was SQUASH the TPP. That would have been the death knell. And Biden will JOIN because he can be President for ever as there is no longer a need to vote.
Well, I think we need to vote. Even if it is fraud, there will still be 270 electoral votes to stay in office. Republicans need to learn how to cheat better next time if fraud is what you believe happened.
I believe there is no proof of fraud and I believe there is no proof that there wasn't fraud. Both sides saying otherwise are simply idiots with no ability to think logically.
So you're for a banana republic and may the most corrupt win?
I think there probably was fraud and there has been for decades. I find it hard to believe there were so many near 50 50 splits, and how come Joe couldn't pull in a crowd no matter where he went. Even those who voted for him didn't like him. Why so much relaxation on rules? No ID checks, no signature checks, keep changing the deadlines, etc. All this stuff was probably done to facilitate ballot harvesting. Why should driving, flying or operating a drone take more ID than voting.
My personal tin foil hat feeling is that Donald Trump was allowed to win in the same way we know Hillary cheated Bernie out. We flat out know the the DNC cheated to make Hillary the nominee. That fact can't be disputed.
Think about it in big picture form though. Most people aren't able to think about things that way. Donald Trump being elected president did more for the Progressive movement in 4 years than they've been able to achieve in 4 decades. Most of this is actually very good, but you have to look at the next steps of such a situation.
The next 4 years are going to be very interesting, and I hope for all of our sakes, my thoughts are serious tin foil, and not reality. Our Tehnocracy however is taking over in big ways.
If I'm understanding you correctly the powers that be are secretly progressives and let trump win to sway public opinion? Okay then, why did they discard Bernie and friends and shove a Joe and Kamala in the WH? That doesn't seem very progressive.
Although I voted, “needing to vote” is the Apostles Creed ofAmerianity ...
Trump did nothing to expose the Russiagate nonsense other than the fact that he was the subject of most of it and they discredited themselves in the process. Also, Trump was worse than Obama when it came to Russia policy and imperialistic (empire) nonsense. https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/11/18/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia/
It is hard to expose something when most media censors it.
Agree. Like what about Julian Assange? It's like he doesn't exist anymore - exactly what both Trump and his detractors wanted. I told too many people to remember that he wouldn't be pardoning Assange or anyone else who exposed crimes of the American government.
Assange and Snowden are American heroes and should receive protection under whistle blower laws. It will never happen. The NSA andCIA are excellent at covering their own asses.
Agree again, but Trump could and should have pardoned them or gone public about what forces were preventing him from doing so rather than spend so much time contesting election results.
I am pretty sure he is on his way out because he lost the election. Whether fair or fraud, he lost the election. That is why he is on his way out. They are all puppets of money.
Ok, but Trump would have stayed in power permanently if he had been reelected. I am afraid of the Dems too (Lyndon Johnson was my first political "enemy" in the 1960s), but Trump is worse. And by the way Noam Chomsky says vote for the opponent of the worst candidate if you think that one is dangerous. I think concentrating on hating the Dems under current circumstances is a case of the best becoming an enemy of the good.
Living with that much fear is unhealthy.
True, but living with no fear probably makes us naive and gullible.
I can't seem to trace your reply back to my prior comment. Which fear are you referring to?
It could be many. This delusion that so many have about Trump wanting to be emperor. I scoffed at Republicans when they said Obama was going to do it, it's only fair I scoff at delusional folks that think Trump would have. That is ultimately the issue. We are a totally delusional society now. We seem to be afraid of so many things that aren't real. Thanks to our intelligence agency owned media.
That's a reasonable point, but in this case there is actual evidence suggesting that Trump is trying to become an autocratic leader. As far as I know, there was never any credible evidence that Obama was trying to do that. Have you read any of Masha Gessen's work, including interviews on youtube, about signs of autocracy?
In truth, the presidency of Donald Trump can be summed up fairly simply. A quasi businessman (unsuccessful in my mind) that lives on the loopholes that only 0.25% of American's get to benefit from made his way to the Presidency of the United States where he was completely and totally unprepared for the sheer level of corruption, lying, cheating, scandal, and criminality that takes place on an hourly basis. He was ill prepared for how you have to handle all of that scum through proxy and favor, and back room deals.
Donald's failure is his open mouth nature, and the inability of those around him to take his twitter feed away from him. Donald did nothing that more seasoned Politicians hadn't done before him, he just didn't know how to do it within the system.
Sadly, Donald Trump was one of the least criminal Washington Politicians of my lifetime. He will be the first to face the music for it though, which is irony in a level that defies all logic and reason.
If you truly believe that The Don was working on autocracy, then you must believe that the Biden admin coupled with Democratic control of both chambers is on it's way towards Authoritarianism. There is FAR more evidence (real and imagined) for that outcome over a Trump Dynasty.
Briefly, but Masha is very very biased in all of their writing. Sorry, that is not a reasonable journalist that I would give credence to their evidence. Trump made a trolling remark (mind you, I hate Donald Trump) that the Democrats destroyed his first term, and as a result there was some obscure Constitutional loophole that would allow him to run a 3rd term. His minions gobbled it up, and the left ran around screaming that they were going to die. It's just that. Extreme delusional paranoia. Exactly like the Obama years had in reverse.
It's just like I've said the left today is very much like the Moral Majority of the 80's. It's amazing how when you live long enough and manage to maintain objectivity this shit just all comes around again from a different angle.
US Presidents can only stay for eight years.
Don't you see that with another four years in power Trump would have arranged to amend the Constitution so he could rule indefinitely?
And in fact he already said that's what he wants.
Can you back up that with facts? He was the least oppressive President in modern history. Sure, he tried to stop undocumented immigration. But as far as citizens of the US, he was sort of hands off unless there was explicit ressurections like Portland and the DC riots over the summer.
Give one factual thing he did, other than tweeting, that proves he was an authoritarian dictator.
As far as I see it, the media says he was authoritarian and people just go along with that without examining the facts. It's like, right now, they are saying that the capitol riots on the 6th killed five people. That's garbage. One person was shot by LE. The Capitol policeman died, but the three medical emergency people that died passed away because of medical emergencies, not the protest. The only reason those three are included is because five deaths sounds more serious than two, although two deaths is a stain on the day and makes me want to bow my head and cry. But that's not good enough for the media. No. They have to pump up the hatred, by inflating the damage. It's a pure propagandists’ play. Manipulate the emotions. Get people emotional enough and they won't be able to use logic. Makes them all easy to lead around by their noses.
And bringing it full circle. I read some of the documents dumped by Wikileaks. Specifically the ones about keeping Europe engaged in Afghanistan and the war on terror. The bureaucrats planned and printed PR media articles specifically about children and women because they knew their citizens are more easily swayed if one or both of those groups are involved. It was deliberate propaganda used on citizens to manipulate them into approving the continuation of the war. Every time the allied nations began to flag in their support, the women and children articles would flood the media.
1. There is no way I can back up my assertion that Trump would have arranged to amend the Constitution so he could rule indefinitely, because it hasn't happened. That is a prediction, with zero certainty. One might also reasonably call it speculation. I call it plausible speculation.
2. With respect to the number of people killed, if five people died during that event, I certainly want the media to report that. Cause and effect with respect to each death cannot be known without further study.
3. I don't follow what you are getting at with respect to Wikileaks and the other points in your last paragraph.
When an administration manipulates their citizens to continue an unpopular, wasteful, unwarranted war...then that is the embodiment of being an authoritarian. Just because those administrations, both specifically baby Bush and Obama, are using soft power and velvet chains doesn't mean they are not equally as authoritarian as your wildest dreams about Trump.
You didn't mention what actions Trump did to cause you to say it was a plausible speculation. What did he do to make you come to your conclusion? What specific acts?
Sure buddy. And I have a bridge to sell you so please call me. As I said above:
...if the US was rid of all people who believe Trump was their savior AND all people who thought Trump was Hitler, we would have a much happier and more reasonable country.
Amen. It seems there are NO good sides here and maybe that's perfectly natural. It would also seem that there are no good outcomes to this.
I dunno, it would be lonely for just 20 people.
That is at least the third time you have inserted that lasts sentence in a comment. Why?
Sure, Ralph... this goes right along with him being a Russian plant, a dictator, a despot and an authoritarian. Unfortunately for you, and aside from making Twitter rants a daily news item, he's done none of these things. I don't believe him CAPABLE of these things, and believe me when I say that if he had tried it... he'd have been yanked out by his hair.
It's nice to see you here defending your own news programming though, it really shows your devotion to your sad old religion.
Do you at least see there is a possibility that your estimate of what Trump is capable of doing could conceivably be wrong? I mean, how can you or anyone know that? I'm not even sure what I am capable of under stressful circumstances, let alone knowing that about someone else. Maybe you have a clear vision of people's characters and future actions, but if you do, you are the only human in the history of the planet who has ever possessed the power to do so.
My sad old religion? I suppose you are devoted to Trump, then. Now there is a religion. Trump the Savior! Only He can fix our country. Sure.
If he was going to do that why wait until the second term? The premise is ridiculous: if I lose the election I will concede but if I get reelected I'm going to change the constitution (how exactly?) And appointment myself dictator for life? Lay off Maddow for a bit, man.
Exactly! Thank you for some sanity in Ralph’s embarrassing morass of stupidity!!!
Do you think I am stupid? Do you think I am uninformed? Are you really embarrassed on my behalf? If so, please don't worry. I can handle being embarrassed on my own, having done so practically every day of my life.
I know for certain that I could be wrong. Do you realize that you could be wrong?
Have you ever been wrong about anything in the past?
Trump was doing a fantastic job of accumulating the power to run the government unilaterally -- until he lost the election, which has spoiled his bright future as an autocrat. You should try dominating a large militarized technologic country sometime. These things take time! More than four years, for certain.
All I can say is go read on the process of how a constitutional amendment is ratified and then tell me how in the world he would get that to happen.
Here are a couple of alternative takes for you to consider:
1. Trump is a savvy businessman. He is setting the stage for an alternative news network. It's no secret a lot of his fans have been leaving FOX, and there is a business case to be made for another news network to meet their consumption needs.
2. Much like the russia garbage that the D's latched on to, this is something to keep the R base fired up until the next election. And it might even make a case for Trump to run again in 2024.
Matt's whole premise that the Trump is too incimpetent to govern properly. You believe he's an evil genius? Which is it? Trump is the boogey man now, he takes whatever form you fear the most.
"You should try dominating a large militarized technologic country sometime."
I'm sincerely looking forward to Joe Biden's efforts at doing this. I'm sure it will be a vast success, not at all funny (instead sober and serious), and everyone's lives will improve.
Are you THAT dense to actually believe that?!?!
I expect far more fro Taibbi readers, c’mon!
Shame on you!
You are asking if I believe Trump would install himself as President for life? (maybe not a constitutional amendment, but somehow) -- I cannot, nor can anyone predict the future, but don't you have the thought that after last Wednesday, that is very plausible? Without a crystal ball, one can only try to formulate the best guess of someone's future actions on the basis of past actions. Trump's past actions have disregarded the rules and customs of US government over and over again. I don't see why you should feel so certain Trump would not try to stay in office indefinitely. Naturally I could be wrong, but have you stopped to think that you also could be wrong? Do you have a crystal ball?
Get a grip, Ralph! Trump has NO interest in being an authoritarian, has kept us completely out of war, brought troops home(only one of the last 4 presidents that can say that) and regardless is neutered by the vile progressive Left and gutless turd RINOS in his party...you need to heavily look into your TDS, Sir! Trump isn’t even clever enough to think in ‘dictator’ terms!
That could not happen. The Congress would not stand for it, especially since Republicans lost the majority.
You have to be kidding. Republicans, after the riot, still voted to reject electoral college votes! 8 Republican Senators and most of the Republican Representatives. Do you really believe the Republican Senate would have stopped Trump in any way if he had managed to get the election results reversed? That is how you grab power and never let go of it. Fortunately for the rest of us, Trump lost the election and lost his 60 court cases trying to get the election overturned somehow.
Do you u understand how constitutional amendments are made?
Do you really believe that Ralph? I mean _really_ believe? Not just a hyperbolic response to someone you disagree with.
Tom... Ralph Dratman is really just Adam Schiff's fake account.
Still trying to figure Ralph out; I admit I'm no genius. He seems to have an intense interest in other commenters' personal data and brings it up irrelevantly and awkwardly. Age? Country of origin? Work history? Current employment status? Present location? Ralph wants to know.
I do believe it and if you look over Trump's recent actions with some semblance of objectivity you might start to believe it too. Did you ever hear Masha Gessen talk about surviving autocracy? You might want to try. It's very educational, and you want to learn, don't you?
Yeah I did and I'm not taken in by her shtick. I had some sympathy for her experience and points of view at first, years ago, but she's clearly just coning it in on the new cold war bandwagon.
I don't know. Maybe.
LBJ got the Civil Rights passed, he cut poverty in half, and created the two best social programs ever. Not a bad record.
I completely agree. Vietnam was the first of the “endless wars” where big corporations got rich and the government didn’t have to sell war bonds. They just stole the money from taxpayers.
Ever hear of Korea ... ... ... ?
Thank you, George Hamilton, for pointing that out. That is the part of Lyndon Johnson's career in government that I am most familiar with, and was the reason I called myself an enemy of Lyndon Johnson. I know he also got civil rights legislation passed, so I'm not going to say he was a monster in every respect, but his record with respect to Vietnam still fills me with horror -- as does that of Richard Nixon.
I remember Vietnam, more than you know. LBJ made the mistake of listening to the Joint Chiefs. His wife said the sad struggle with Vietnam killed him. It also killed 60,000 bright young soldiers. What a waste!
Yes and he also warned us to never get involved in a land war in Asia, but we did it twice anyway, once in Korea and once in Vietnam. Both wars were futile and ended for the same reason: because we were afraid of what China might do.
I should not have implied that Trump is worse than LBJ in everything. Johnson ran a horrific war; Trump has done no such thing. I meant to say that Trump is worse than contemporary Democrats, and I think that is the case.
Sorry to have said what I did and thank you for the additional information, Dir.
Thanks for your reply. I don't think you really have anything to apologize for, certainly not in that message. You raised a good point.
He "messed" up the "corporate empire"???!!! Seems they messed him up. And who knew slave labor was cut off...someone should tell the kids.
Yes, be very afraid. Maintain maximum fearfulness. Paralyze yourself with panic and fear. Imagine the worst that can happen and worry about it incessantly. Zzzzzz..... 😴
I’m usually impressed with the general level of Taibbi Substack Comments Section commentary, but it seems like the furies are released this morning.
Have you all looked into the rumors coming out of Italy?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/09/students-quit-free-speech-campaign-over-role-of-toby-young-founded-group
Exactly, Trump is gone now and unlikely to come back so what now? The same jackwads who gave us the Iraq war and the Drone war and slavery in Libya are back in charge (and arguably never lost power)! Sweet. Now we get them with the added power of full blown mainstream media and tech censorship/cancel culture to back them up. Awesome. I can't wait to upload my social credit score and medical history on my global passport. The future is going to suck.
You forgot to add Hollywood & Academia to the wings of the DNC. They’ve infiltrated everywhere. Anywhere in the U.S. where bureaucracy reigns, you will find the DNC lurking nearby.
I think this is due less to DNC operatives being hyper-competent masterminds and due more to Hollywood, academia, and local bureaucracies wanting to hitch their wagons to the perceivedly ascendant star.
I wonder what happens when the magical star doesn't deliver on its promises.
None of their fans will notice. They'll be too busy sniffing their own farts.
How far did you get in school?
Hollywood will always be in thrall to the DNC for the foreseeable b/c they provide them moral cover for collaborating w/ the ChiComs to market their CGI schlockfests in China. Good movies don’t play well and n China b/c you have to speak English to get them. Marvel Milan vs. Uighur Thanatos-just get the explosions and shiny things right and it will sell tix in Wuhan and Harbin w/out subtitles.
Remember when Martin Scorsese got canceled for expressing his opinion that Marvel CGI schlockfests "weren't cinema?" Good times.
All you need to know about Hollywood is that Three 6 Mafia (whom I actually like) got an Oscar before Scorsese finally did!
We will find out. Normally the Democrats don't do much of anything. Obamacare was one big exception.
My insurance premiums and deductibles went up 300% after that was passed. Not sure if I would celebrate that. Unless it evolves into universal healthcare then it might be worth it but it’s pretty sucky right now.
In fairness, Ralph only claimed that Democrats "did a thing" with Obamacare. He didn't say it was a good thing.
I just don't have health insurance and took the tax hit for it.
Lol, as Nancy Pelosi said at the time “We’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it”. 🙄
Obombneycare.
This reminds me of the meme going around w/ 2 bombers, the one above is the “republican” which is plain w/ bombs dropping. The one under it is “democrat” which has a rainbow, blm sticker ect... but it’s still dropping bombs. That meme explain so much w/ so little.
👏 MORE 👏 INTERSECTIONAL 👏 WAR 👏 CRIMES! 👏
Great, The Hunger Games minus teenagers with flamethrowers on reality TV. We’ll probably start seeing them in Queens and Baltimore tho.....
This basically sounds correct. Heterosexuality will be frowned on basically. Straight white guys will either fake being gay or trans to fit in. They will start having to keep their straightness in the closet. White women will become the new white straight males as they become the new punching bag for minority men and women and aren’t allowed to defend themselves. (this has already begun, aka Karen, white women tears, ect...). Of course white and some poc lesbians won’t fare much better because trans-women are encroaching on spaces they see as their own. Nothing anyone can do either as the new intersectionality world order says the most “oppressed” wins.
Come on now, that won’t happen because 1) most men would only suck their own wienies (if they could) yet find the idea of doing so amongst others to be revolting and 2) sexual orientation is actually grounded in biology (hence the failure of heteros to exterminate homos despite their best efforts at conversion therapy and violent opposition) and 3) the US and Europe and their experiments with liberalism will be overcome by the sheer numbers from cultures for whom life is not sacred and individuals are not possessed of civil rights.
I will never self-describe as "cis." Just not doing it.
I myself deploy "Karen," but in my understanding it's not intended to be a slur against all white women, just affluent white women who call the manager on you. If these people weren't an identifiable type, it wouldn't have become a trope.
Yep. We (and I mean everyone) just lost one of the few willing to stand in the way of inspiring headlines like this. https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/1347247602094534658?s=20
Read the ending of Fahrenheit 451 again if you want to recover some small, shriveled hope.
"You'll stink like a bobcat for a few days, but it'll be all right."
...and control of the house, senate and white house.
What's the worst that could happen?
Does anyone really think that the incoming Biden administration is going to magically restore civil liberties and usher in a new golden era of real journalism? The military industrial complex/deep state/Uniparty monster that grew exponentially after 9/11, right through the Obama/Biden administration, is firmly entrenched and overflowing with power and money. The last feeble possible check on this swamp, the fatally flawed Donald Trump, has finally been neutered. You may not want to admit that. You are about to see the State, at the behest of its true masters, unleash a final devastating attack on what remains of our civil liberties and an independent press, all in the name of our safety and security, against what they label to be insurrectionists and seditionists. Why they will even come after you Matt; Glenn, and any other remaining actual journalists. Watch your back.
I am old enough to remember a time when broadcast TV news and a stodgy newspaper syndicate controlled what the public heard. If you didn't like what they were saying, you had to run down to a street corner in the center of town and hand out flyers to random pedestrians. If you were lucky, a few deep-thinkers plus the local crackpots and lonely-souls stopped to talk. Today, substack is the street corner and we're the crackpots, lonely souls, and one-in-a-million deep-thinkers.
Since the rise of the internet and a massive influx of user commentary (and other reasons), the establishment has lost control of their narrative. They are busily trying to re-assert it. As I said on other threads, watch out for an attempt to repeal section 230 which will remove liability protection from internet sites like this one. Without any further protection for public forums, the removal of 230 will leave the little platforms with an enormous, and perhaps impossible, task of allowing this kind of discussion forum. I think there lies a real threat to Matt and Glenn, etc. The can vet their own writing for liability but the costs of the current format might be too high to maintain.
A buddy of mine saw the future of our internet in China a couple years ago-“Lots and lots of My Pretty Kitty vid”.....
Yes, we are seeing the beginning of the of the internet good old days. Once credit card and other services that make the internet go round start restricting access, we will be back on the actual street corner.
Sorry . . . beginning of the end of the . . .
I think you misunderstand 230.
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Substack is a publisher. It isn't using section 230 to avoid being liable for it's content.
I’m referring to substack’s liability for content that is posted here, including Matt’s. Such content is understood legally as not being content that is created or developed by the internet publisher - substack in this case - and is covered by 230.
Content that is created by a platform itself is not covered under 230 and is not protected from the usual liability exposure. Many of the lawsuits that involve 230 turn on the question of whether content is user generated or not.
Substack is now protected from liability arising from us commenters who both pay Matt and in some measure provide a value to him with our comments. That’s why I said the current format might not be sustainable without 230. See, for example, Pornhub’s removal of user generated content to protect itself from liability. Without 230, internet platforms like substack or YouTube or whatever will have to screen all user generated content for liability issues.
The larger platforms probably are already developing algorithms to do so, while the smaller, less well funded ones are going to struggle with this task and probably will be forced to eliminate user generated content like this forum. Whether the elimination of a forum results in a platform no longer being a viable business and therefore shutting down altogether will depend upon how critical user generated content is to that platform.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
"Substack is now protected from liability arising from us commenters who both pay Matt and in some measure provide a value to him with our comments."
My comments probably provide a detriment to Matt, but otherwise, good post.
You are too modest. You provide a great detriment:)
That's what I'm here for. Can't wait for the permaban!
In all seriousness, I greatly respect Matt's hands-off policy with respect to the comments section. When the "boss" starts "liking" some comments over others, that's the slippery slope to the echo chamber. IMO Greenwald is guilty of this, but everyone has the right to run their own shop as they see fit.
No. I still think you are wrong. FB, Google, Twitter...they don't create their own content. Their whole premise is that they only provide a space for people to comment. They provide a service to those independent people. The users aren't in a contractual economic relationship with the service providers.
Substack is a for-profit company that subcontracts with writers to provide original created content. They are like any other media company. The content here is not a service. It is a product. Since the company was created to provide a product, if doesn't qualify for section 530. Since they provide a product, they can be sued just the same as CNN and any other media company.
Eloquently put!
I rest my case.
Man too much morning coffee lol!
No, he is a disruptor. Whoever is paying him to do this just wants to make sure nothing coherent gets done here.
You were an international terrorist lol
"Does anyone really think that the incoming Biden administration is going to magically restore civil liberties and usher in a new golden era of real journalism?"
I'm gonna do an ageism here, but a bunch of dumb kids who spend all day on Twitter?
No. The kids think they can more easily manipulate Biden. They have no idea yet that they are riding currents and not steering them
Watch Kulinski, Nina Turner, Jimmy Dore’s crew, Gabbard...
Seder is on MSDNC payroll now so...
TYT is on DNC payroll now....
Biden is Obama's surrogate/proxy (albeit unwanted and disdained) so why would anyone expect any interest in civil liberties from him?
Obama is every bit as much the frontman as Biden
This is the thing that gets to me in terms of visible power moves. It must have been deeply humiliating for Biden to play second fiddle to Obama after he put more time in, and for career bureaucrats, it's all about putting in the time.
How was Biden the best thing the DNC had to put forward this time around? The cracks are showing.
It really is no longer the Military/Industrial complex. We don't have industry anymore. It's the Democrats super heroes. Banking and Big Tech. Bill Clinton gave up on being the party of the people when he ran, and embraced banking. Now they've embraced Big Tech. This is how you dominate a people. The world is now hooked on Technology like no heroin addict has ever been hooked on that drug. The end is already here. We have been submitted. Just figure out how you can follow along with the herd and still feel somewhat like your own person.
It's not over yet. Individuals can still choose to be moral actors. Your don't have to work for Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon if you don't want to. You can take your talents somewhere else. Or collect unemployment. It's a moral choice.
I'm not judging anyone. I'm just saying that we do have choices. Computer programmers have choices for sure. When the full AI is in place many programmers won't be necessary, so no one should be fantasizing that they will be exempt.
We are building our own endgame, and we can stop anytime.
This "AMWL" message is talking about "Deep State" theories that are right wing in nature.
"You are about to see the State, at the behest of its true masters, unleash a final devastating attack on what remains of our civil liberties and an independent press"
We will see what happens. If Biden does not do any of that stuff, will you admit you made a mistake?
Ralph, The Deep State is simply the set of unelected power brokers and their institutions, which obviously exists. The concept is independent of left or right wing. However, the concept is uncomfortable for the Deep State itself, which is why "belief in a Deep State" is the first accusation you will see being tied to Q-anon in the Mainstream Media.
I went to highschool with a girl who is now a Q-anon member, and I spoke a lot to her at the last reunion. The Deep State thing is only a small part of their world view. And believe it or not, she had some good points, but overall quite insane.
"The Deep State is simply the set of unelected power brokers and their institutions, which obviously exists."
I say again, like a stuck record, "Who elected James Clapper and John Brennan to anything, and why do they have a platform to tell me what to think on national TV?"
And if you think the CIA (for example) doesn't know how to whip the White House, Congress or Supreme Court into line when necessary, well...
Whatever became of Sen. Feinstein's (creditable, if feeble) effort to hold the CIA to account for hacking into Senate computers? What happened and who was punished? Nothing and no one, I believe.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dianne+feinstein+senate+computers
I agree with you on that point. Fortunately, we now have YouTube, so no one has to watch an anchor or a news channel they dislike. You can read and watch other commentators... such as Matt Taibbi. Noam Chomsky. And even grisha koshmarov, if he creates his own youtube channel.
YouTube is censored.
Youtube certainly does not censor politics, unless perhaps if you advocate violence.
"Deep state" is to stable federal bureaucracy as "conspiracy theory" is to analysis of available facts.
Who is really cool with the likes of Vindman running things?
Vindman is a type; a fat, easily triggered staff officer deeply concerned with their status. The Pentagon is full of them.
Obviously in a sense there is a "deep state" that confronts every politician in the form of personal cooperation and institutional inertia/strength. However, that phenomenon is, by its nature, not controlled by any one person or group. I certainly believe your friend had some good points. I would be very interested to learn what they were, in your view.
The "controlled by any one person or group" is very misleading and I urge you to try thinking about institutional power instead. Maybe start with Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. (I remember reading his column in Byte.)
Another way of thinking about this is that an organization can exhibit consistent and specific intentional behaviors even if nobody working in the organization seeks or even understands them. And these characteristics (ultimately disposition to behave in power-preserving/expanding ways) are often stable even in the face of turmoil within the organization.
Another way of thinking about it: it's sufficient for every individual to be motivated by career, budgets, org charts, money while the organization appears (and by all epistemological reason does) seek other goals.
I will try to understand your comment overnight, but it's not very promising because, among other problems, I very much disliked Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte -- "Chaos Manor" I think he called his home, and named his computers and put in an insult for Apple in every single column but I guess he was smarter than Steve Jobs, eh?
Pournelle was a tiresome grumpy old fart. I was never even tempted to read his SF given Chaos Manor. And the Iron Law of Bureaucracy is kinda painful since it appears to be premised on his anti-government ideology but I think it's correct.
There's a fashion for referring to something called the Iron Law of Institutions, which sounds more relevant to my point on its surface, but I haven't found its original form or attribution so I didn't want to refer to it myself.
Anyway, it's no big deal. It's simply that there is no need for a person or conspiracy with a specific agenda to be at the center of "the deep state", i.e. the permanent federal bureaucracy. Indeed I believe its ad hoc behavior suggests there isn't one and that the dynamic network of power relationships we have is more stable and robust in the long term than a central command and hierarchy.
"I guess he was smarter than Steve Jobs, eh?"
Insofar as Jobs got richer. I'll take Pournelle over Jobs.
Obviously the Deep State is not controlled by any one person or group - I don't think anyone ever implied that it was. But the wealthy and powerful are highly networked with each other, which gives it a collective consciousness.
As for my high school friend's "good points", I just meant that I agreed with her on a lot of things. When she was not talking about a "drop" or a "Q-drop" (some secret message to the followers), we talked about Jeffrey Epstein and how his crimes were covered up by powerful people (deep state). The government-pedophile lore in Q is partly true, the problem is that they are taking it to the nth degree. We also talked about "the swamp" and the corrupt Democratic party and how we both would like to see them out. We talked about how our politicians don't represent us, and spend our tax money on war.
See, they have some of the same gripes that we do about our government. They unfortunately act insane, thinking Trump is some kind of messiah, and all the mystical "drops" and other B.S. that are cult-like. One of their favorite things to say is that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago for hitting on girls, so that proves that he was the good guy, while Clinton et. al. were guilty. I think the whole Epstein scandal fueled the Q movement a lot.
The sad fact is that many children have been sexually abuse, some horribly so (in fact it even happened to me when I was 17 years old). People who have had to keep that pain inside probably remember how the abuse was perpetrated by authority figures (stepfather, priest, teacher and so on) and they not unreasonably assume it might be happening all over.
I'm very sorry to hear that you were abused. It does seem like sexual abuse has happened to many children and your suggestion is very smart. I wonder what Jordan Peterson would think.
I do not believe there is a "Deep State." Rather, I see a confluence of interests. Democrats are the party of government, wanting ever-increasing size, spending and power. Government employees behave rationally, i.e. in their own interests, which includes ever-increasing size, spending and power. Requires no overt nor covert collusion.
Ralph, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 is not a "right wing conspiracy." Nor is that fact that several major Intelligence officials are on the payroll at CNN and other news sources.
AMWL is right on point. The impending state of permanent lockdown with "privileges" granted to those with "social credit" and the proper ideology is being imposed on the US RIGHT NOW, brick by brick.
We can stop this. Businesses like Twitter, Google, and Facebook require employees. All moral actors should resign from these companies and go work somewhere else. Talented programmers from MIT and CalTech can always find a high-paying job.
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but India of 6 billion or so people has state sponsored coding degree holders like America has fat people. Not even to mention the rest of Asia.
They already don’t need or want American workers in big tech. They Dems are happy to align with the Koch bros to accommodate supply for the demand
b-b-but Hillary told me to "learn how to code"
Ha! She told me she wanted fries with her burger
I agree with you overall but their employees consist of a lot of high tech immigrants who won't care.
You visualize permanent lockdown continuing even after the pandemic has subsided; why? Also, can you recommend any site or article that might help me understand your concerns about the the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, or tell me more about it?
It won't be a lockdown. That idea is about as unhinged as you thinking Trump would declare himself emperor. There will be a new Social Credit Score system implemented however. It will be tied to Covid at first. If you want to travel outside the US, or fly? You'll need your health Passport to prove you've had all your vaccinations. It won't be quite as rigorous as the Chinese system, but it may get close in time.
All of this will take year, maybe a decade or more, but it's coming. Gasoline vehicles, and likely personal ownership of transportation will be phased out as well. In fact, I hypothesize that ownership of anything will be gone maybe in my lifetime (I am very middle aged). Subscription based enjoyment of "things" will just be the new way.
Turd, that is a form of lockdown, is it not? Any limitation on travel or personal movement that is enforced by LEOs is lockdown.
There will be more "pandemics" as well and these will include lockdowns.
Even AOC was talking about carbon credits, by which they price combustion engine travel and recreation out of reach for the plebes
That would be bad! Do you have evidence or documentation or any facts suggesting that there will be a social credit score or a health passport, or that personal ownership of transportation or anything else will be phased out?
Ralph, the US Treasury has been systematically looted for 25 years. Please take a look at TARP and other "programs." Also our debt has been sold overseas to China and others, this is common knowledge. The Dollar has been over-sold and over-printed and over-obligated. If I have five Mercedes Benz cars and then sold fifty based on my reputation, I'd have to come up with 45 cars to make good on my agreements. Obviously I could not do this.
So the dollar-based world financial system is in serious trouble. To game China and others we've devalued in various ways. The Global authorities have to come up with something new. This is blockchain.
Put this into Google, and have fun. It'll be a good start for you on your way to reading a lot of stuff that is some bullshit intermixed with events that actually happened, or are in plan.
"you will not own anything and you will be happy"
I'd suggest you start paying attention to things like Davos, and the World Economic Forum, and all the cool meetings that take place around the world with a very select invitation.
As for gasoline vehicles. The UK just passed a law stating no vehicle running on petrol will be permitted to be sold after 2030. That is just the start. Yes, the rest is my surmising. But it isn't that far fetched.
Ralph, please Google it. Here's a solid explanation:
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/smith-mundt-modernization-act-2012
In answer to your last question? Probably not. I mean, Trump was some diabolical Fascist dictator who rounded opposition forces up and publicly executed them, and did all sort of dastardly deeds that sold all of America off to the Russians... None of that actually happened, but most purveyors of Main Stream news media will believe it forever.
No, Trump has not rounded anyone up or had people killed. It is something a bit more indirect that is worrying many of us.
In the 20th center there were a number of historical studies written that followed the steps and changes toward autocratic government in several different countries (it happens all around the world at various times and places).
In those studies, several authors found that they could see a clear historical pattern in how each leader develops his power, and what happens at each step of the process.
What is alarming people is that Trump is following those steps very closely. Not that he is necessarily imitating anyone else's ascent to power (there is no way to know if he is unless he tells someone). But if a leader wants to start an autocratic government, logically a number of things must be done to get the people ready for that drastic change in their society. (That is happening right now in Hong Kong). The ruler ideally wants to find a way to make a substantial portion of the population actually want an autocratic government.
How can a leader accomplish that, when the effects of an autocracy are likely to be bad for most people? The leader has to lie to them and say, in effect, when I am the sole ruler, everything will be beautiful and you will all be rich and very happy. It is quite a trick, and Trump has done that part very skillfully. Remember when he said we would have so much winning, we would be tired of winning?
Did that happen? Did we win a lot? No, that was a lie.
Trump's problem is that persuasion is the only part of autocracy he is good at. Actually running a government is way beyond his education and training. Interestingly, though, even though he has done a terrible job of being the leader, his followers still love him! They are even ready to risk their lives to advance his cause. (And that young woman at the Capitol actually did die.)
You mean Jeb Bush? Yes, probably much better, though I am not a fan of Jeb. I guess he might be ok -- I just don't know.
I have not been able to figure out which of my comments you are responding to. Could you please write a little more so I will know what you are discussing?
Yes.
This is a straw man. Biden doesn't need to "final devastating attack on what remains of our civil liberties and an independent press" to be a routinely authoritarian head of the world's most potent military empire ever. And the "deep state" would never have allowed Trump or anyone else to do something so dramatic anyway because -- it's bad for business to do it like that.
I question the potency of our military empire. What's the last unqualified US military success? Grenada? Panama? Iraq v.1? Track record for the last 75 years ain't stunningly great.
I'm sure MT could make a cutting analogy to some bad sports team that is overfunded and underperforms here; I don't follow sports.
I'm genuinely sorry that I don't understand your comment enough to reply. It is getting late. Maybe tomorrow I'll understand it right away.
Yes I did. Agree with Matt, and was amplifying as a means of therapeutic venting...
Why feed into the ongoing character assassination of a person by saying things like “you don’t have to like him”? Assange is the contemporary Gramsci. Jailed in order to “stop that brain from working for 20 years” as the fascist prosecutor Ingrò said. And that’s precisely what they’re doing to Julian.
>>Why feed into the ongoing character assassination of a person by saying things like “you don’t have to like him”?<<
That's appropriate; Julian Assange, by many reports, is a major asshole on an personal level. He's left behind a long, long trail of embittered former employees and friends. The issue is, however, he doesn't have to be the sweetest thing since sugar to merit free speech protections.
Not being "nice" isn't the issue.
Most people who have achieved the level of success and notoriety he has, leave a trail of « embittered former employees & friends ». Jealousy, competitiveness, etc. Ask any successful business owner. The point is, every story about him does not need to start with a disclaimer on his character.
"Most people who have achieved the level of success and notoriety he has, leave a trail of « embittered former employees & friends »"
They do?!
Well, Assange has an unusually large and embittered crowd of them.
At any rate, given his widely acknowledged reputation of assholishness, I think it's right and proper tor Taibbi and others to stress that even assholes merit free speech protections.
Nice people are merely ineffectual bad people.
I am not ineffectual.
And I'm not nice.
I believe you.
One may like or dislike a person and even if crazy that doesn’t mean they are stupid. Face it. Whatever his story he did nothing that the press hasn’t been doing for years. One can argue that a sworn member of the military or government or even a citizen could be liable ( I would question the latter), but he is none of these things. His beliefs are not the point. He is liable because he is not part of the club-MSM- and what he has done has ruffled everyone’s feathers.
Sorry to hear it. Can you get help or is your brain damage irreversible? Loved your eloquence too. What a vocabulary!!!
He only had a bail hearing. No one even talks about the defense at a Bail hearing.
Go fuck yourself. Your IQ must be room temperature level.
I can't find that anywhere. I thought has not come before a court yet anywhere. Where did he appear in court?
The usual insult mixed with information. When the person being insulted sees the information, s/he is supposed to just let the insult ride. That's how someone like "e.pierce" gets the privilege of insulting people day after day with no complaints from anyone. Don't let him.
"Don't let him."
Unsolicited word of advice: No one is forcing you to either read insults or react to them. That's up to you.
Many at the time saw Daniel Ellsberg as a traitor for getting the NYT and WaPo to print the Pentagon Papers. (Could you imagine these rags doing this today?) Now, he's considered a hero.
He was considered a hero then, too. History did not need to vindicate him. The rightness of his cause of informing the public about the crimes and lies of their government are -- and were -- plainly evident. So, too, with Assange. He's a hero, but unlike Ellsberg, he's being crucified for it. It is a disgrace.
Of course they could. If there's a Republican president (as there was), they publish. If there's a Democrat president, they quash it and write an editorial warning that anyone else who publishes it should have their twitter and facebook yanked and, if possible, have Mastercard, Paypal and Patreon stop processing payments for them.
I can as long as it’s a Republican administration.... like it was in Nixon’s time.
Yes, it’s a form of virtue signalling disclaimer employed by anyone who writes about him. Alan Rusbridger, in his much belated piece on the extradition, did the same thing.
Stay mad, dope.
Insult
Would you still feel the same way if he were guilty of raping a sleeping woman without protection, which was the allegation he fled investigation of?
Assange was NEVER accused of rape - he was accused of using "leaky condoms". Accuser withdrew this ludicrous and previously unheard charge and Swedish court dropped the case.
Under US pressure, the strange charge was re-introduced (without accuser !?) and CIA propagandists ever since use the term -- charged for sexual crime...
Note that in Sweden like in all Western countries editors of main newspapers are always paid by CIA. Former chief editor of Germany's "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" wrote a book about this and his own role....
Even if he had sex in public with a porcupine, what has this to do with Wikileaks? Why are we discussing ad hominem attacks? I don’t think he ever posed as a moral leader. Face it; most people only like the truth when it fits their ideological narrative.
I agree, but it is surprising how many women would like to hang him for that,
without even reading a bit to learn that it was a bogus charge.
I personally love it when the CIA inspects my used condoms to make sure everything was on the up-and-up. We need a trusted authority to ensure the safety of the world.
The CIA is capable of a lot of stupidity, but this reeks of some political E or GG employees sucking up.
^^^^^
I don't think you actually needed to write this...it was pretty clear to anyone with a brain.
All you know how to write is insults.
Insult
I wonder what Tara Reade or the other women/girls Biden felt up would think about that. I'd love to know how the women at that D.C. rally in January 2017 rationalize supporting a guy as the "Resistance" who also has a serious problem with strange behavior with women and a VP who started her political career by giving the mayor of SF a bj. (Whether Trump "does it more" than Biden is debatable and not relevant in that both exhibit behavior with women that pass the floor of acceptable behavior.)
That charge has been debunked.
I disagree, unless by debunked you mean swept under the rug because it was ideologically inconvenient
Here's an impressively detailed debunking effort by Caitlin Johnstone. She's "fringe" as political commentators go, but she's difficult to disagree with.
https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/assange-smear-2-hes-a-rapist-df9effd8b49d
Caitlin maybe be fringe but she has some profound insights and uses sound sources.
"she has some profound insights and uses sound sources."
So what makes her "fringe?"
The rape charge I was referring to is this accusation: "The following morning, she claims, he had sex with her again while she was still asleep, and this time he did not use a condom. " https://gwynnedyer.com/2010/the-accusations-against-assange/
Your source says she was half-asleep. The article on which we are commenting says Assange was accused of sexual assault. The description above describes rape, we can agree on that, right?
Your source seems to rely heavily on the argument that the FBI has the motive and ability to smear Assange, so that's what happened. Then, it deconstructs AA's behavior to assert that what she describes as assault was consensual. Does it really make sense that international spies conspired to smear Assange by offering him up Swedish femme-fatales who spin ambiguous sex tales that seem to lie on the border between douchebaggery and rape?
How many children does Assange actually have? Considering that both of these women allege he ejaculated inside them without their explicit consent, it would be nice if he would make that as transparent as he wants our governments to be.
For the record, I support wikileaks and I hope that they don't extradite Assange, I just think the man is a piece of shit.
I'll agree with most of that. But here's one thing I want to push back on:
"Does it really make sense that international spies conspired to smear Assange by offering him up Swedish femme-fatales who spin ambiguous sex tales that seem to lie on the border between douchebaggery and rape?"
I'm willing to suppose that SW and AA aren't James Bond–type femme fatales, and Assange simply fell afoul of justified rape/assault charges. Even then, I hope you'd agree that the United States could reasonably be expected to use Assange's charges as an pretext for nabbing him.
SW doesn't seem to act the part of an international spy. But AA's case appears more complicated. She didn't warn SW away from him; and she's the one who convinced SW to speak with police afterward. From an old, archived Counterpunch article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120327060410/http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/14/assange-beseiged/
"She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here."
(The "here"s above lead to further links, whose claims I can't really judge for veracity.)
That's enough evidence for Craig Murray to imply that she's a CIA asset. Though I value his opinion, I also realize he's a friend of Assange's, and more than a little biased.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/
"Often I sat in large groups and listened to Julian boast about how many children he had fathered in various parts of the world," Domschiet-Berg claimed.
"He seemed to enjoy the idea of lots and lots of Julians, one on every continent. Whether he took care of any of these alleged children, or whether they existed at all, was another question."
According to police documents, another witness claimed that Assange had "at least" four children. It is unknown where the children are located or who their mothers are.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/julian-assange-kids/
You mean like this being swept under the rug:
Ukraine wants the $13,000,000,000 that Biden and the US government embezzled from the People of the Ukraine.
US Tariff Scam & Embezzlement of International Technical Assistance Funds.
This is what Victor Shokin was Investigating when he was fired, by Biden. (Soloman is redeem)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0PkAuND3S4
That's whataboutism. For the record, I detest Biden.
Do you really believe that tripe? Is there a single responsible journalist or historian anywhere who would agree?
But Sweden has dropped the charges.
That's an interesting way of describing how he peaced out of the country like Polanski and the statute of limitations expired.
Why can't people just accept this dude is kind of a narcissist? It doesn't mean he needs to be extradited on charges of espionage. One has nothing to do with the other.
Sweden dropped the charges. The whole "case" was stupid beyond belief.
He did not rape her. They were sleeping together overnight. She only accused him of omitting the condom. And the charges have now been dropped by the Swedish government.
Were you in the room or something? No one knows what really happened. If the Swedish government dropped the charges, then maybe nothing illegal happened, but who the hell knows...
Texts she sent to a friend say:
• She “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him”
• She was “shocked when they arrested JA"
• That “it was the police who fabricated the charges”
That's according to Assange and his Swedish lawyers, so maybe take with a grain of salt.
https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#sdfootnote110anc
The accusation was not of rape, only of intercourse without a condom without consent. If it had been rape, they would have charged him with rape, I think.
Link please.
Insult
Link please.
Insult
Mighty bold talk for a man who doesn't get English capitalization rules.........
Of course, it's not just about punishing Assange (or Manning or Snowden or Winner). It's about intimidating all potential whistleblowers and anyone who seeks to practice true confrontational and critical journalism. The US and UK governments are sending a message: air our dirty laundry and we promise to put you in prison and keep you there, no matter how trumped up the charges may be.
If the conflict is illegitimate like Iraq War 2, then absolutely.
As is yours. I know I shouldn't feed trolls like you, but you're an especially pernicious little fucker. Must come from typing with one hand up your ass. Now, kindly fuck off and let the grown-ups have a serious debate.
Do I want to? Not necessarily. Do I think a free society can both stay free and eliminate that risk? Definitely not.
"Now Trump is on his way out, but the lockdown era is just beginning. You’ll forgive me if I’m more scared of that than the other thing."
Exactly. While the left (I'm not referring to "traditional" liberals, but the socialism-infatuated wackjobs of the present) have been running around in circles with their hair on fire screaming and pointing "Russia! Racist! Orange Man bad!" for the last four years, their handlers in the deep state have quietly been setting the stage for an authoritarian medical-industrial-tech dystopian nightmare far worse than anything Trump could imagine. For all of his failings, and they are many, at least Trump didn't give in to the authoritarian impulse that seduced so many former Presidents, including Clinton and Obama -- starting a new war. Wars abroad lead to civil liberties being curtailed at home, for the sake of "safety" and "the homeland." Any sane person (right, left, or in the middle) who looks at Biden's proposed cabinet members should be quite nervous.
«While the left (I'm not referring to "traditional" liberals, but the socialism-infatuated wackjobs of the present) have been running around in circles with their hair on fire screaming and pointing "Russia! Racist! Orange Man bad!"»
That's not the socialists, it is identity-politics market libertarians, who support globalism and financialization. Trump mostly in the beginning was, while being no socialist, for nationalism and productive industry.
The word "socialism" is The Bloody Shirt. You're never going to get anywhere using it in American politics. "Social Security" ... maaaaaaaybe.
Social Security is paid for by the people who use it. It is an INSUANCE PROGRAM paid BEFORE they use it. An Insurance program is NOT socialism. MEDICAID is Socialism. Not Medicare.
That's actually not how Social Security and Medicare work - the payments to retired people are funded by taxes collected from workers now. If this is difficult for you to see, explain how the first recipients of SS and MC who did not pay into the system got their checks and healthcare. If it were pre-paid insurance, then it would be impossible for it to go bankrupt. The reason that it *is* going bankrupt is our birthrate is too low (and falling). It would be going bankrupt even faster if all those brown people didn't have so many kids. The reason Social Security was marketed as "insurance" is so that conservatives would accept it - you wouldn't be getting it otherwise. I write this as a Gen-Xer who has paid SS taxes my entire life and has zero expectation that I'll receive a penny. Also, for what it's worth, the year I was on Medicaid in grad school was by far the easiest and most hassle-free experience I have had with our healthcare system. The words co-pay, co-insurance, deductible, explanation of benefits vanished into thin air, and I spent exactly zero minutes on hold with insurance companies waiting to fight for reimbursement that I had paid for. Contrast this with the at least 8 hours I have wasted so far this year trying to get new insurances set up and connected to my doctors (and I have a PPO!).
"The reason that it *is* going bankrupt is our birthrate is too low (and falling). It would be going bankrupt even faster if all those brown people didn't have so many kids."
I'm anything but a natalist, but I find your analysis accurate.
The SS system is premised on people reproducing and their kids going to work. I, and may others, don't want to or can't afford to have kids. Many are also out of work. Oopsie.
«Social Security is paid for by the people who use it. It is an INSUANCE PROGRAM paid BEFORE they use it. An Insurance program is NOT socialism. MEDICAID is Socialism. Not Medicare.»
Well, MEDICAID is also insurance: it effectively insures *everybody* against the risk of becoming too poor to pay healthcare premiums. Same as MEDICARE really.
Also Social Security (OASDI) does the same: it gives rather smaller pensions than those earned by contributions to high earners and rather larger pensions than those earned by contributions to low earners.
Therefore it effectively insures *everybody* against the risk of being too poor to get a decent pension.
So if you look at the disproportion between contributions and "returns" all three programs are "socialist", but if you consider that disproportion as insurance against poverty, all three are contributory insurance programs.
They key is that *everybody* gets insured: someone earning $1m/year with children who loses everything gets MEDICAID, when he retires she gets MEDICARE, and she gets OASDI when she retires or becomes disabled. The higher-than-proportional taxes and contributions she made when earning $1m/year insure her against the risk of not being able to contribute later when becomes too poor to do so.
"Any sane person (right, left, or in the middle) who looks at Biden's proposed cabinet members should be quite nervous"
This is crucial. This is an issue on which progressives (leave IP out of it for the moment) and conservatives (leave Trump lunatics out of it for the moment) agree. Let's focus on this. Let's work together on this.
Say what you will but Donald Trump has clearly delineated how the seemingly disparate views of the progressives and deplorables are not that different.
I agree completely - Although I could never vote for him, I had high hopes that he would follow through on the populist policies he advocated during his campaign. I also think his election was "disruptive" to the status quo in ways that awakened the progressive (not IP) left and that I can only hope will benefit us in the long run. I promise you I loathe Hillary Clinton as much as you do.
Actually, Trump lunatics will be surer allies for this than respectable Republicans. Do you seriously think Ross Douthat, David Frum and Lindsey Graham are going to interfere with the expansion of government control? Ben Sasse? Our only hope is people like Cruz limiting the damage, and that's not out of principle as much as spite.
I hear that and agree.... when I typed conservatives I knew that was wrong. How should we distinguish between Trump supporters with principles such as those in this forum, and the lunatics (sorry, Cruz is a lunatic and has no principles)?
Cruz might be the next Trump. He's a complete sociopath and asshole, but he understands that brazenly attacking the shit that sucks is more immediately gratifying for the public than actually fixing anything.
He should keep workin' on the Al Gore beard. It's a good look.
The screws are tightening second by second, but the grand distraction of American political theatre means that heads are turned the other way, as the networks of power splay their adversaries through the grinder - memo to all those who were espousing MBAs and business/computer technical educations as far back as the 80s --- this is what happens we an entire generation fails to read history. It starts with a lack of imagination, and constipated leadership but then quickly evolves into a vacuum of bloviation not seen since the universe was created ---- distraction, hyper-capitalistic paternalism and in the end YOYO (you're on your own) neoliberal dogma erodes the fibers of community/family so much so that anger/fear take over our collective brain stem.
Special thanks to those like Matt, Julian for not bending the knee to American power networks.
Maybe the Romans were nearly as good as providing Bread and Circuses to the people.
when (missing word)
It is quite amazing that an australian journalist publishing in Sweden can be accused of breaking an american law on american government secrecy, and regarded as a traitor and a terrorist.
But there are plenty of scared oldies who got theirs and are terrified of any potential disturbance to their tranquility, and don't much care about brown people in far away places or foreign journalists either, and who write with their votes blank cheques to the government as long as their real estate and share prices go up. "Better safer than sorry", "absolute safety at any cost to someone else", "Security is well worth sacrificing somebody else's life", etc.
Looking at the media for the past two days has been an amazing display of ingroup/outgroup thinking.
To the "OMG 5 DEAD AT THE CAPITOL" crowd; how many Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Somalis, etc. ad in., as well as the American soldiers sent to kill them, have died in the last 19 years? You got a count? Is the specific number important? It seems to be important as long as it's a single-digit number.
Thanks for that! Also of the 5 who died at the Capitol, 4 died of natural causes. The only violent death was by the gov't on a Trump supporter. Blaming that on Trump is disingenuous at best.
A Capitol police officer died after getting conked w/ a fire extinguisher. Prosecutors are seeing how many federal murder charges they can justify.
Yes he passed some hours before I made my post, I was unaware. RIP Brian Sicknick.
So the attack on the Capitol was benign? Is that your point?
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-8-2021
Everything you post is benign, including your multiple plugs for this substack article.
You did not answer my question. After Trump told the crowd to attack, all that damage and all those fatalities are, what? Nobody's fault?
The United States has always been very good at promoting a special form of sociopathy with its citizens in terms of getting many of us to believe that foreign lives are less valuable than their own... The one exception being when they "need our help" to "free" them from their own leaders, thus justifying deploying our Forever War machine followed by our poisonous consumer products and industry.
Our dog shit leadership - sadly - does reflect what many of us have chosen to become.
Now we're finally closing our long journey toward finally deciding that we're too dangerous to be trusted with our own freedom, liberty, privacy, and power of choice.
Dead accurate.
You have your Brzezinskis and your Kissingers, who tacitly or openly declare that non-American lives don't matter, and your Albrights and Powers and Rices, who argue for a "responsibility to protect," the soft sell. Two sides of the same bloody coin.
We the people get the leadership we deserve.
I don't see how that could be the whole of it. Much of Greek Mythology is clearly a metaphor for the inevitable corruption of leadership or anyone with power over the populace. So many of them clearly had to have seen that aspect of it. Am I wrong?
"Am I wrong?"
No.
The Greeks had their foibles, but ancient Greece was still a hell of a society. I have always loved that the Pantheon of Olympus was openly corrupt, self-interested, horny, and petty. Hellenics seem to generally have had a more realistic idea about the moral character of their leadership than Abrahamites do.
I know hero worship is dumb, but I still want Yanis Varoufakis to save the world from itself -- when he couldn't even save Greece. The problem with hero worship is that it puts all the burden on the hero and none on the worshiper. The old myths have a thing or two to say about this.
y'know, the only reason Hera lost Olympus was due to sexism. It has nothing to do with the fact that she stayed home instead of campaigning in Thebes.
Hera was the First Hillary and the Mother of Karens.
There was a reason why Zeus would fuck literally anybody else, to include animals.
Now I'm imagining some low-information Greeks worshiping Hera with the same cringey zeal of the contemporary Hillary-Stan's.
"Years of directing Zeus' lightning strike attack policy against the populace just shows that she's strong courageous woman who's ready to LEAD."
I don't quite agree with that interpretation of "God is dead..." especially with the context of the rest of the statement. I read it as Nietzsche arguing that by not having a mythical being to blame our failures on, humanity was left with a sort of morality vacuum and had to logically accept that we're responsible for our choices and failings also and their consequences.
It has the character of cautioning about something similar to the converse of a power vacuum, to me. We lost the power of blaming God(s) for what we do (scary) but we gain the realization that we are the gods of our own fate (scarier).
To the point about the lack of values as an ideology, I don't see Nietzsche believing that this problem would have been anything new. He may have been against the concept of collectives of any kind, but religious/spiritual is obviously an evergreen collective.
Regarding the Actions for Assange, tbh I and many others (the few REAL socialists left) have been pleading with POTUS (not DNC hacks) for a Pardon, even appealing to him to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I can't travel but some have. Since I already knew that the few Dem's that actually want to help him are unable to do any more, I went to the only miniscule (but most plausible) shot I could take, the President's vanity.
Please consider viewing people as individuals. I am an "oldie" who has preached about the dangers of COVID19 to brown people whose lives will be lost in second- and third-order effects of the illness, such as famine. The toughest sell has been progressive millenials, who never tire of lecturing others about systemic racism, but refuse to believe the risks created by lockdowns. After all, everybody is like me and my acquaintances, just work from home, and if you run out of bread, eat cake.
DNC computers were not authorized have National Defense Information on them. They have election information and private personal e-mails.
Your analysis is stunningly poor. There is a way to make your points without this kind of 7 year old tantrum.
Okay, it quite clear you are lost and alone. Why else behave like this?
Content is fleeting, but how one treats people (friends and adversaries) is what matters. Lost and alone. Hope you find a person who will listen and care about what you have to say, even the capital letter yelling.
Keep on trollin
Insult
"Insult" -Ralph Dratman 2021
But the actual act was working a source. Charging Assange with espionage is like saying that if the reporters talking to Ellsberg had asked him to try to get them an actual copy of the Pentagon Papers then they were no longer journalists, but participants in the release of classified documents.
All of this shit is intended to blur the line between "journalist" and "spy," which I take as MT's main point. It's intended to establish a legal precedent that a journalist who publishes information the regime doesn't want disclosed can be defined as a spy.
The distinction with Assange is actually much less ambiguous, in my opinion, than the Ellsberg and Manning cases. Both Ellsberg and Manning were ultimately Pentagon functionaries, which is how they got access to the information they got access to. They signed off on the paperwork.
Assange isn't a US citizen, he never worked for DOD, and he never signed off on shit. Manning's in jail, and that's not nothing, but there seems to be an eagerness to burn Assange at the stake to redefine what the Western concept of "law" is -- i.e. it is whatever the biggest dog says it is.
Trump should pardon Assange and Snowden before he leaves. We need whistle blowers. If not for those two we would not have known that all Americans are constantly surveilled, and we would not have known about the misasventures of Hillary and Democrats.
They want to close that loophole and keep it closed forever. And make it clear to any journalist who wants to expose another Gitmo or MiLai massacre that their days as a citizen with Constitutional rights is over. Intimidation by example.
What’s really amazing is the treatment our government is giving an autistic hacker vs. Jonathan Pollard who actually SPIED for Israel AGAINST THE USA and is now being greeted in Israel by Netanyahu himself as a national hero..... We are dupes guys! Where’s the national outrage?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/30/middleeast/jonathan-pollard-israel-arrival-intl/index.html
Pollard and the USS Liberty are straight yuks all the way down. If you're going to be a spy, spy for the right country. It pays dividends.
Well, Israel doesn’t bother me and I’m neutral on Zionism but what does bother me is this guy was an American citizen and literally gave our secrets away to a foreign country, he gets released EARLY and gets to fly to the country he sold us out to and is greeted by their leader! The media are crickets!
At least Julian wasn’t a citizen, he owes no loyalty to our country.
Exactly.
Matt, thanks for this piece.
"This was a death penalty offense, the Brookings Institution noted, not worrying at the oddness of charging a foreigner with such a crime."
This continues to drive me bananas. How does the US government assert the legal right to charge an Australian national under US law? Where is the Australian government here? Does it care about its citizens and their rights or is it out to brunch?
I need a smart lawyer, preferably Australian, to explain it to me.
The Australian government is pretty much in lockstep with the US on all things. It is a bipartisan approach. Hence why we eagerly signed up to invading Iraq based on Cheney-inspired dishonesty all those years ago.
Our government has completely vacated the field with regards Julian Assange just as they did with David Hicks who was incarcerated in Guantanamo and convicted by a US Military Commission under a law that was subsequently found to be invalid as it didn’t exist at the time of the alleged offence.
My local representative at the time Hicks was incarcerated went on to become the recent Australian ambassador to the US. I am not a lawyer but at the time Hicks was incarcerated I wrote to him asking how it was reasonable Hicks could be held in Guantanamo when he had not seemingly actually committed an offence under any law. I received a response which threw Hicks and any notion of the rule of law under a bus. The vibe was Hicks was a bad guy in a bad place thus it was open slather. Due process and legal principle seemed incidental or even unnecessary as applied to Hicks.
I mention this case as it illustrates is the caliber of our politicians and their approach to Assange. They are demagogic, power hungry and opportunistic. Principles and laws are malleable and only applied where expedient.
The power structures have decided the transparency bought by Wikileaks is extremely inconvenient. An example will be made such that the next potential Assange will think twice about such acts unless they want to be hounded to their grave.
The politicians in Australia lean towards secrecy and corruption just like those in the US. We are even prosecuting a whistleblower who revealed our government was electronically eavesdropping on the impoverished, newly independent East Timor when we were bullying/negotiating with them over gas deposits in the waters between our two countries.
You don’t need a lawyer to explain the Australian government’s approach to Assange. Just an understanding of the worst aspects of human nature and the corrupting influence of power.
Thanks for the detailed response.
Remember when the CIA pushed Gough Whitlam out in 1975? A complete gas.
Maybe the Deep State has Five Eyes. Maybe.
There's only One Eye to rule them all. The post-WWII USA intelligence consortium was set up with much assistance from the English along English (i.e. class-based) lines.
See... “The Anglo American Establishment” by Carroll Quigley. They’re really was a post WW2 English/American goal to rule the world.(ok, a bit of hyperbole).
Why did the Australian govt donate big $$$$ to the Clinton foundation? Does Australia not have any charitable orgs or do you all believe the Clinton Initiative was the best vehicle for tangible results?
Good point, but the Aussies probably don't have much more control over their government's actions than we do. I think that's what Olaf's getting at.
another great piece Matt...very balanced and your point re: focusing on institutions and broad policy rather than personalities/individuals is very apt. I have mixed feelings about Assange and do not feel all of his actions even regarding Wikileaks dumps are defensible...but your points about the implications of the legal actions against him and the underpinning laws and regulations are crucial. As always people need to look beyond their desired outcome in specific cases to broader implications of policy actions. A great example of that is when Harry Reid got rid of the Senate rule that required a super-majority for judicial confirmations.... for the expedient reason that he wanted Obama nominees to be confirmed over Republican obstruction... a few years later that lowered confirmation threshold resulted in the confirmation of, for instance, Brett Kavanagh ..similarly those who cheer FB and Twitter suspended Trump's account are not thinking of the implications of tech corp algorithms or functionaries making decisions on what is false or true and there can be available in the public square....
Julian Assange is a hero, and his persecution by the US, UK, et al, is a disgrace.
I'm not a fan of the current or next President. However, I think the "State" will be more punitive under Biden, by a long shot.
He has this weird thing called a legislative record.
What kind of punitive actions are you thinking Biden will take?
He'll go back to the stuff that Snowden narc's on. Also,ci see free speech and assembly tensions
The empire's mask has already dropped. Patriot Act, round 2, is going to be dazzling in its aggression against citizens, who are now openly recruited to spy on neighbors for infractions of pandemic "policy" and just over the past two days openly recruited to help the corporate press hunt down protesters--not because LE needs help but so people become further accustomed to snitching on each other and to taking pleasure in fellow citizens' social death. It's a short path from gleeful doxxing to Stasi-level surveillance.
The "something" in the War on Terror's "see something, say something"slogan has been greatly expanded and one is tacitly expected to view fellow citizens as sacks of pathogens and terrorists. Citizens number well over 300M, why is this tolerated?
"one is tacitly expected to view fellow citizens as sacks of pathogens and terrorists. Citizens number well over 300M, why is this tolerated?"
I might be an incurable optimist, but I think if they push it too hard it won't be tolerated for very long.
But if all but four lucratively-lobbied politicians are in the pocket of the Elite, who's left to change it?
...and then just as someone points that out, The Distraction:
CNN/MSNBC "A BOMBSHELL! TONIGHT!!!! Former President Donald Trump has just revealed that he wouldn't date a trans woman because QUOTE 'They're kinda icky.' Is this the worstest most horriblest and bigotiest behavior from him yet? We go now live to our trans correspondent Cuntrapoints who is sobbing at this very moment..."