Our free press has the responsibility to tell the truth. Without a true assessment of the danger, we are ignorant, some way more than others. It’s not that one failure that brought us here, it is many. Propaganda, Dark money, greedy bastards, Pharisees, haters looking for the “lesser,” and red state confederates. Not an exhaustive list, …
Our free press has the responsibility to tell the truth. Without a true assessment of the danger, we are ignorant, some way more than others. It’s not that one failure that brought us here, it is many. Propaganda, Dark money, greedy bastards, Pharisees, haters looking for the “lesser,” and red state confederates. Not an exhaustive list, BTW. Cult nuts don’t care, and they think minority rule is just fine. The majority cry BULL SCHITT
The corporations or individuals who own media outlets consider it their responsibility to generate profits. If printing the facts and educating the public in a way to promote the general welfare brings in profits, great. If not... In my view, this is why Infotainment and click bait is often what you get. This is why internet literacy and media literacy in general is so crucial. FAIR.ORG is particularly good at calling out media for its weaknesses and bias.
You're not wrong, but I guarantee the media is quaking in their boots, knowing full well that any Fair.org screeching means absolutely squat to the right-wing nuts. Next thing you'll be expecting the police to get out of their cars and read and understand the inscription on the sides of their cars "to protect and serve."
I once got out of jury duty in LA by saying that in 40 years of living here, I had never once been "served" or "protected" by the LAPD. (Of course they didn't like my recounting of unplanned participation in the LAPD's first police riot at Century City either)
I was actually interviewed once as a possible juror in the Abner Louima case. I walked in, took one look at the thuggish, ugly cops and thought "they're fucking guilty as sin and I'm gonna find them guilty, period." I doubt I would have been chosen, but the cops copped a plea within a week. I just checked and the worst of them, Volpe (who wouldn't have been out of place in a fistfucking video) was released last year, six years early. good behavior?
If I get your meaning, I agree that the traditional media are not concerned that fair.org is going to turn the heads of "right-wing nuts." Deep conservatives, MAGA, and/or conspiracy-favoring people are not who promoting the message of FAIR.ORG is for. I am hoping that a better educated independent voter, or a Democrat who is put off by the absence of a more effective response of the U.S. to the epic events in Gaza, even when fully recognizing that the attacks of 10/7 were horrific, may remain motivated to vote against the fascist takeover of government that looms over the country. If more people read the media more incisively, their dissatisfaction with Biden would pale in comparison to their heightened awareness and understanding of the danger to normalcy that the cult-like phenomenon of the deeplly-felt minority popularity of a fraudulent, narcissistic, immature, ignorant, entitled, non-Christian racist hopefully-soon-to-be-convicted criminal represents. I am perfectly happy to advocate to vote AGAINST, rather than FOR, as long as it drives turnout, which is crucial. Just to be clear, I am not expecting, any more than TC is, a fundamental change in the character of the current or future individuals who voluntarily choose to become peace officers, or the culture, legal and social, in which they are conditioned and function, or their behaviors. That is distinct from claiming that is impossible that some degree of progress might occur in policing. Here again, a really well-educated public, which understood overpolicing, discriminatory practices, the racial bias in the court system, etc., such as enumerated in detail in Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow", might make a difference, but not like the dramatic one you describe. Even a small win would be cause for pride. (In my professional work as a physician evaluating workers' compensation claimants, I have interviewed probably a thousand peace officers over 40-years.)
For beginners, "dissatisfaction with Biden" is a completely manufactured umbrage for the intellectually lazy, and we need to point that out at every opportunity. Biden's progressive record already exceeds Obama's, who most of these same people and I happen to think also did a good job considering the Congress he had to work with (Mitch, et al.). As For Biden's handling of the Middle East, there's the single-issue (read self-absorbed) voters sanctimoniously whining about Israel-Hamas who would have us think they have access to all the same intelligence that Biden has, so their judgments are of course morally superior. I think it was Jeff Tiedrich who phrased it as Dunning and Kruger having a baby, then dropping it on its head.
In my professional work as an Oncologist/Hematologist/Internist for 34 years, I have become painfully aware that exponentially, I am unable to help patients understand anything about what's going on with them without first explaining some very basic science, math, and technology, and using little words to do it, while also having to explain why most of the time Dr. Google got it very wrong, or worse. Yeah, they're definitely reading all those books....
But more on these lovely books collecting dust on the left's bookshelves, which the most voters will never even crack open -- thankfully, it seems there's a never-ending parade of wannabe authors-in-the-know who leave office, having sequestered their knowledge for said book$, instead of putting it out where everyone could read for the betterment of our democracy, oh, except newspaper paywalls now also make that inaccessible too. No wonder the masses get their "knowledge" from 30 second sound bites from teevee. We are doomed, but at least we can point at the fabulously appointed bookshelves and say, "See, they told us so."
I agree with you that the reporting of a loss of support for Biden strikes me s overplayed, as well, but it's non non-existent, particularly with younger voters who have experienced the years of ~unopposed climate denial and Israeli support that older voters did. I also agree with you that Biden's record of accomplishments is truly impressive and I certainly hope that the messaging on this strengthens and continues right up to the election. You are again correct that claiming to have the final, unassailable opinion on the MIddle East is tough, even for those with extensive diplomatic experience and/or academic knowledge. I absolutely sympathize with your (and my) need to correct misconceptions that patients develop from looking into things online in an uninformed way, which is usually the case in medicine, since there are so many unscientific sites that are very skilled in locating their websites high up in the match lists. I also find the general level knowledge of medicine (the most basic fundamentals of physiology, pharmacology, anatomy) in the population is quite low. However, I also find that patients come to me not with misconceptions but with ignorance about the most basic nature of their problem, despite having seen multiple physicians (and I don't mean quacks) for some time. And OMG, forget statistics - no idea. It sounds like you take patient education seriously, and I applaud that.
Who do you consider to be an author regarding contemporary political and social analysis that you trust as honest and knowledgeable?
Whoa, big topic. I think most people have a more negative opinion about the workers' compensation system than is warranted. Yes, there is fraud, but that is a relatively small percentage. There is a lot of exaggeration, but that is something that the system itself, at least here in California, promotes. The experience for the claimant, even with a 100% valid claim, is typically one of denial and delay, and just getting a simple claim through the system is difficult. Even basic care for an accepted claim is a giant headache since the claims administrators deny and delay everything. The reason for that is just as much the fault of the demands of the insurers and employers, to save money, as it is the result of efforts by claimants and their attorneys to game the system. As I said, it's a complicated question. Gary
Thank you for this. I can believe that claimants have trouble getting any positive results. Seems the bureaucracy is stacked against so much. Social workers are better at such than I was as a counselor, but still....
Thank you, things sure have changed since Walter’s day. News was not a money maker and I guess shareholders weren’t greedy bastards. Was it Reagan who pointed the way to the trough…
Getting rid of the fairness doctrine was part of it, and general deregulation, which allowed those who were partisan, venal and clever to do whatever worked for them. Right-wing radio and Fox News grew out of it - using repetition and the psychology of resentment and victimhood and fear to literally mine money those people most harmed, financially, from the policies of trickle down (wealth inequality) and deregulation (subprime crisis). Bill Clinton playing Republican lite and working with the business/finance establishment and libertarian interests (Alan Greenspan, his Federal Reserve chairman, was a long-time serious devotee of Ayn Rand's vision that only the elites should run things, with a dismissive, even disgusted view of the average person), with his massive crime bill, trimming of the safety net (e.g., "work-fare" in place of welfare) and the financial deregulation that guaranteed the subprime collapse. Just the Internet itself ,as a phenomenon, contributed to a coarsening of dialog as anonymous people could pose as toughs, as well as unleash the true racists, Trump took advantage of most. The internet is siphoning advertising money away from print media - it's no surprise they are largely failing or choking along. The valuations of Apple and Google are in the stratosphere.
Bill Clinton was way down on my list of who to blame for the messes of the 90’s (zippergate notwithstanding.). Do you remember Rupert, Newt, Tom Delay, Dick Armey and the crew of evil ushered in as Daddy Bush was kicked out? (And don’t forget Dick Morris.) Fox was top dog in a flash and Clinton looked damn good to me. Sort of like today. The repubs brought their worst, the crooks, the sexual predators, the Pharisees, haters, and the greedy bastards. Anything the Dems brought to the table was tastier by a country mile.
after that bullshit crime bill and "welfare reform," I just couldn't vote for Clinton in '96 and did my usual protest vote for the most outrageously left-wing person on the ballot.
I like to refer to him as the best Republican president of the twentieth century.
I didn't vote for that southern-fried piece of shit twice. And the only reason I voted for his wife was because of her opponent. When I read the whole story of how he fucked around with the draft, I realized you couldn't trust the bastard further than you could see him with your eyes closed.
I GOT it. I think I might be fonder of Hilary than you are.
I feel this way because she made three or four "outrageous" charges which the other side mocked merrily until those charges turned out to be entirely true. but I also get that she and Bill were (or are or whatever) a team of sorts.
feels like a wash to me. but we don't have them to kick around anymore.
If Hillary had won in 2016, the Republicans were planning to bring *everything* to a screeching halt. With R majority in House and Senate, they'd likely have impeached her by March of 2017.
Our free press has the responsibility to tell the truth. Without a true assessment of the danger, we are ignorant, some way more than others. It’s not that one failure that brought us here, it is many. Propaganda, Dark money, greedy bastards, Pharisees, haters looking for the “lesser,” and red state confederates. Not an exhaustive list, BTW. Cult nuts don’t care, and they think minority rule is just fine. The majority cry BULL SCHITT
The corporations or individuals who own media outlets consider it their responsibility to generate profits. If printing the facts and educating the public in a way to promote the general welfare brings in profits, great. If not... In my view, this is why Infotainment and click bait is often what you get. This is why internet literacy and media literacy in general is so crucial. FAIR.ORG is particularly good at calling out media for its weaknesses and bias.
You're not wrong, but I guarantee the media is quaking in their boots, knowing full well that any Fair.org screeching means absolutely squat to the right-wing nuts. Next thing you'll be expecting the police to get out of their cars and read and understand the inscription on the sides of their cars "to protect and serve."
I once got out of jury duty in LA by saying that in 40 years of living here, I had never once been "served" or "protected" by the LAPD. (Of course they didn't like my recounting of unplanned participation in the LAPD's first police riot at Century City either)
I was actually interviewed once as a possible juror in the Abner Louima case. I walked in, took one look at the thuggish, ugly cops and thought "they're fucking guilty as sin and I'm gonna find them guilty, period." I doubt I would have been chosen, but the cops copped a plea within a week. I just checked and the worst of them, Volpe (who wouldn't have been out of place in a fistfucking video) was released last year, six years early. good behavior?
If I get your meaning, I agree that the traditional media are not concerned that fair.org is going to turn the heads of "right-wing nuts." Deep conservatives, MAGA, and/or conspiracy-favoring people are not who promoting the message of FAIR.ORG is for. I am hoping that a better educated independent voter, or a Democrat who is put off by the absence of a more effective response of the U.S. to the epic events in Gaza, even when fully recognizing that the attacks of 10/7 were horrific, may remain motivated to vote against the fascist takeover of government that looms over the country. If more people read the media more incisively, their dissatisfaction with Biden would pale in comparison to their heightened awareness and understanding of the danger to normalcy that the cult-like phenomenon of the deeplly-felt minority popularity of a fraudulent, narcissistic, immature, ignorant, entitled, non-Christian racist hopefully-soon-to-be-convicted criminal represents. I am perfectly happy to advocate to vote AGAINST, rather than FOR, as long as it drives turnout, which is crucial. Just to be clear, I am not expecting, any more than TC is, a fundamental change in the character of the current or future individuals who voluntarily choose to become peace officers, or the culture, legal and social, in which they are conditioned and function, or their behaviors. That is distinct from claiming that is impossible that some degree of progress might occur in policing. Here again, a really well-educated public, which understood overpolicing, discriminatory practices, the racial bias in the court system, etc., such as enumerated in detail in Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow", might make a difference, but not like the dramatic one you describe. Even a small win would be cause for pride. (In my professional work as a physician evaluating workers' compensation claimants, I have interviewed probably a thousand peace officers over 40-years.)
For beginners, "dissatisfaction with Biden" is a completely manufactured umbrage for the intellectually lazy, and we need to point that out at every opportunity. Biden's progressive record already exceeds Obama's, who most of these same people and I happen to think also did a good job considering the Congress he had to work with (Mitch, et al.). As For Biden's handling of the Middle East, there's the single-issue (read self-absorbed) voters sanctimoniously whining about Israel-Hamas who would have us think they have access to all the same intelligence that Biden has, so their judgments are of course morally superior. I think it was Jeff Tiedrich who phrased it as Dunning and Kruger having a baby, then dropping it on its head.
In my professional work as an Oncologist/Hematologist/Internist for 34 years, I have become painfully aware that exponentially, I am unable to help patients understand anything about what's going on with them without first explaining some very basic science, math, and technology, and using little words to do it, while also having to explain why most of the time Dr. Google got it very wrong, or worse. Yeah, they're definitely reading all those books....
But more on these lovely books collecting dust on the left's bookshelves, which the most voters will never even crack open -- thankfully, it seems there's a never-ending parade of wannabe authors-in-the-know who leave office, having sequestered their knowledge for said book$, instead of putting it out where everyone could read for the betterment of our democracy, oh, except newspaper paywalls now also make that inaccessible too. No wonder the masses get their "knowledge" from 30 second sound bites from teevee. We are doomed, but at least we can point at the fabulously appointed bookshelves and say, "See, they told us so."
I agree with you that the reporting of a loss of support for Biden strikes me s overplayed, as well, but it's non non-existent, particularly with younger voters who have experienced the years of ~unopposed climate denial and Israeli support that older voters did. I also agree with you that Biden's record of accomplishments is truly impressive and I certainly hope that the messaging on this strengthens and continues right up to the election. You are again correct that claiming to have the final, unassailable opinion on the MIddle East is tough, even for those with extensive diplomatic experience and/or academic knowledge. I absolutely sympathize with your (and my) need to correct misconceptions that patients develop from looking into things online in an uninformed way, which is usually the case in medicine, since there are so many unscientific sites that are very skilled in locating their websites high up in the match lists. I also find the general level knowledge of medicine (the most basic fundamentals of physiology, pharmacology, anatomy) in the population is quite low. However, I also find that patients come to me not with misconceptions but with ignorance about the most basic nature of their problem, despite having seen multiple physicians (and I don't mean quacks) for some time. And OMG, forget statistics - no idea. It sounds like you take patient education seriously, and I applaud that.
Who do you consider to be an author regarding contemporary political and social analysis that you trust as honest and knowledgeable?
George Orwell, it would appear. I would follow Paul Krugman except he's bundled with the fascists.
Correction: "not experienced the decades..." - sorry.
I’m all for small wins. Wouldn’t mind hearing your opinion on worker’s comp claims.
Whoa, big topic. I think most people have a more negative opinion about the workers' compensation system than is warranted. Yes, there is fraud, but that is a relatively small percentage. There is a lot of exaggeration, but that is something that the system itself, at least here in California, promotes. The experience for the claimant, even with a 100% valid claim, is typically one of denial and delay, and just getting a simple claim through the system is difficult. Even basic care for an accepted claim is a giant headache since the claims administrators deny and delay everything. The reason for that is just as much the fault of the demands of the insurers and employers, to save money, as it is the result of efforts by claimants and their attorneys to game the system. As I said, it's a complicated question. Gary
Thank you for this. I can believe that claimants have trouble getting any positive results. Seems the bureaucracy is stacked against so much. Social workers are better at such than I was as a counselor, but still....
Thank you, things sure have changed since Walter’s day. News was not a money maker and I guess shareholders weren’t greedy bastards. Was it Reagan who pointed the way to the trough…
Getting rid of the fairness doctrine was part of it, and general deregulation, which allowed those who were partisan, venal and clever to do whatever worked for them. Right-wing radio and Fox News grew out of it - using repetition and the psychology of resentment and victimhood and fear to literally mine money those people most harmed, financially, from the policies of trickle down (wealth inequality) and deregulation (subprime crisis). Bill Clinton playing Republican lite and working with the business/finance establishment and libertarian interests (Alan Greenspan, his Federal Reserve chairman, was a long-time serious devotee of Ayn Rand's vision that only the elites should run things, with a dismissive, even disgusted view of the average person), with his massive crime bill, trimming of the safety net (e.g., "work-fare" in place of welfare) and the financial deregulation that guaranteed the subprime collapse. Just the Internet itself ,as a phenomenon, contributed to a coarsening of dialog as anonymous people could pose as toughs, as well as unleash the true racists, Trump took advantage of most. The internet is siphoning advertising money away from print media - it's no surprise they are largely failing or choking along. The valuations of Apple and Google are in the stratosphere.
Bill Clinton was way down on my list of who to blame for the messes of the 90’s (zippergate notwithstanding.). Do you remember Rupert, Newt, Tom Delay, Dick Armey and the crew of evil ushered in as Daddy Bush was kicked out? (And don’t forget Dick Morris.) Fox was top dog in a flash and Clinton looked damn good to me. Sort of like today. The repubs brought their worst, the crooks, the sexual predators, the Pharisees, haters, and the greedy bastards. Anything the Dems brought to the table was tastier by a country mile.
Yes, compared to the competition, Clinton looked OK. Which is a sad commentary on the 90s.
Not as sad as today. It's the 90's on steroids.
Indeed.
after that bullshit crime bill and "welfare reform," I just couldn't vote for Clinton in '96 and did my usual protest vote for the most outrageously left-wing person on the ballot.
I like to refer to him as the best Republican president of the twentieth century.
I didn't vote for that southern-fried piece of shit twice. And the only reason I voted for his wife was because of her opponent. When I read the whole story of how he fucked around with the draft, I realized you couldn't trust the bastard further than you could see him with your eyes closed.
I GOT it. I think I might be fonder of Hilary than you are.
I feel this way because she made three or four "outrageous" charges which the other side mocked merrily until those charges turned out to be entirely true. but I also get that she and Bill were (or are or whatever) a team of sorts.
feels like a wash to me. but we don't have them to kick around anymore.
Fortunately.
If Hillary had won in 2016, the Republicans were planning to bring *everything* to a screeching halt. With R majority in House and Senate, they'd likely have impeached her by March of 2017.
Are you happy about that. Guess I have been lucky in knowing that the least disgusting was the better choice in politics.