Jan 01 2020
My YouTube turns up odd things and I’m trying to drive the Klansmen and Neo Nazis who’ve infected it off my History feed.
I try and vet for the most part, but I can’t be expected to examine the whole ouvre and what can I say? I find the Battle of Five Forks fascinating. If I let something slip though I apologize.
Here are some street scenes from around a century ago
1896 – 1901 New York
Late 1890s – Paris
1911 – New York
1912 – Los Angeles
1913 – Stockholm
1913 – 1915 Tokyo
1927 – Paris
Jan 01 2020
Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.
Fidel Castro seizes power in Cuba; Abraham Lincoln signs Emancipation Proclamation; Ellis Island opens; Hank Williams Senior dies.
We cast a shadow on something wherever we stand.
Dec 31 2019
We all sing Auld Lang Syne at midnight on December 31 but what are the lyrics? Most people don’t know that it is a Scottish poem written in 1788 by Robert Burns and later set to the music of a folk song. Here is a you tube with the lyrics and English translation.
Happy New Year
Dec 31 2019
Without Dick Clark who is dead Jim, dead.
Now you might ask why this hoary old chestnut? Well, two reasons. First, I’m a huge fan of Alanis.
Second I’m on strike with CNN and Anderson over Kathy’s termination. She was the whole damn show, the current Co-host is a joke and not in any good or funny way.
Dec 31 2019
Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from> around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Paul Krugman: The Legacy of Destructive Austerity
The deficit obsession of 2010-2015 did permanent damage.
A decade ago, the world was living in the aftermath of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. Financial markets had stabilized, but the real economy was still in terrible shape, with around 40 million European and North American workers unemployed. [..]
But why does this history matter? After all, at this point unemployment rates in both the United States and Europe are near or below pre-crisis levels. Maybe there was a lot of unnecessary pain along the way, but aren’t we O.K. now?
No, we aren’t. The austerity years left many lasting scars, especially on politics.
There are multiple explanations for the populist rage that has put democracy at risk across the Western world, but the side effects of austerity rank high on the list.
Greg Sargent: Trump is openly calling for his trial to be as corrupt as possible
One of the thorniest challenges of this moment is the difficulty of finding language adequate to capturing President Trump’s actual, openly stated positions. They are often so profoundly ridiculous or nakedly corrupt, or so audaciously saturated with bad faith, that we struggle to find ways to clearly convey what he’s genuinely telling us.
Case in point: Trump is now openly calling for his impeachment trial to be converted into something that is purely devoted to serving his own political needs — one that only includes witnesses that will help him keep smearing potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden, but has no meaningful relevance whatsoever to the corrupt conduct for which he has been impeached.
Incredibly, this comes as Senate Republicans push for a trial that features none of the witnesses who actually do have direct knowledge of that very same corrupt conduct.
Trump is again suggesting he wants Biden to testify — he has repeatedly called for testimony from Biden and his son Hunter — and claiming Democrats don’t want a trial because they fear this outcome.
This is utter nonsense: House Democrats have not sent the impeachment articles to the Senate because they first want to see what sort of procedure Trump and his GOP enablers will accept.
The ones who actually fear witnesses are Senate GOP leaders, who are refusing Democratic demands for testimony from those with the most direct knowledge of Trump’s freezing of military aid to extort Ukraine into announcing an investigation of the Bidens. They are doing this to protect Trump — and themselves — because he’s guilty as charged, and they know it.
Catherine Rampell: Here are four suggested New Year’s resolutions for the media
New Year’s resolutions can be hard to keep. At least, they are for this humble columnist. To counteract that, this year I’m proposing some pledges not just for myself but for the entire news media, in the hopes that professional solidarity and peer pressure will keep me (and us) on task.
So, dear fellow producers and consumers of news, here are four suggested New Year’s resolutions for the media. I hope others in my industry will adopt them — and call me out if I don’t.
1. Make sure we’re in the information business, not the disinformation business. [..]
2. Related: Don’t spend more time analyzing an idea that the president proposes than he spent coming up with it. [..]
3. Spend more time talking about the things the government actually does and less time covering what government officials say or who’s ahead in the horse race. [..]
4. Remember that just because the president did (or proposed) it doesn’t mean it’s bad; inversely, just because one of the president’s perceived opponents did (or proposed) it doesn’t mean it’s good. [..]
If journalists are ever to rebuild public trust in our work, we must begin by helping the public evaluate ideas and actions on their own merits, whoever their architects may be.
Doug Jones: Every trial is a pursuit of truth. Will my colleagues in the Senate uphold that?
“Verdict,” from the Latin “veredictum,” means “to say the truth.”
Soon, my colleagues in the Senate and I will be called on to fulfill a solemn constitutional duty: to render verdicts — to say the truth — in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. Our decision will have enormous consequences, not just for President Trump, but for future presidencies and Congresses, and our national security.
For Americans to have confidence in the impeachment process, the Senate must conduct a full, fair and complete trial with all relevant evidence regarding the president’s conduct. I fear, however, that we are headed toward a trial that is not intended to find the whole truth. For the sake of the country, this must change.
Procedures in prior impeachment trials set no precedents because each is unique to its particular set of facts. Unlike what happened during the investigation of President Bill Clinton, Trump has blocked both the production of virtually all relevant documents and the testimony of witnesses who have firsthand knowledge of the facts. The evidence we do have may be sufficient to make a judgment, but it is clearly incomplete. [..]
Every trial is a pursuit of the truth. That’s all I want. It’s all each of us should want. Now that it’s the Senate’s time to fulfill its duty, my final question is: Will a majority of senators pursue the truth over all else?
Glenn Kirschner: Trump tweets that impeachment is a ‘coup.’ He’s almost right — but not in the way he thinks.
We either have three co-equal branches of government or we have something that looks more like a dictatorship and less like a democracy.
President Donald Trump has taken to referring to his impeachment as a “coup.” In October, for example, he tweeted: “As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP intended to take away the power of the……..People.” (That tweet is copied out verbatim, excessive ellipses included.) In his irate letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Dec. 17, Trump echoed the same sentiments: “this [attempted impeachment] is nothing more than an illegal, partisan coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.”
I’m not sure the president is entirely wrong to use the word “coup” to describe what’s taking place. Just not in the way he intends it. [..]
But what happens when one co-equal branch of government is delegitimized by another, not violently or suddenly or even with the vanquished branch putting up much of a fight? It may not look like a traditional overthrowing of a government, but it does feel like a coup of sorts: Call it a partial coup, maybe. Given Trump’s aggressive stonewalling of legislative branch oversight and impeachment hearings, along with Congress’ ineffectiveness in dealing with said stonewalling, it feels like we are in the midst of a slow-moving, intra-governmental takeover.
Dec 31 2019
(A) philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
So called Objective Journalism is the reason why American Politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long. Stockton
It’s not often relevant but I have watched TV “News” in the company of both Richard and Emily, and TMC. I think Dad just likes yelling at the screen because he’s also a sports fan. As a group they tend to be self reinforcing so this is not an observation on Holiday fisticuffs, fascinating as those are they tend to be about different issues.
No, my point is that there is very little difference between TMC’s prescription for improvement and Jennifer Rubin’s. Well, Jennifer is conservative but that’s what she is. Additional corrective actions suggested include demotions, suspensions, firings, and just coating them with Pine Tar, dumping a bag of feathers on them, and riding them out of town on a rail.
It always surprises and gratifies me when someone like Paul Waldman or Rachel, or even Chris or Larry, pick up on a story or theme. You get that “Great Minds and so do ours,” glow.
How mainstream media outlets can defend the truth
By Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post
Dec. 31, 2019
One can always bemoan mainstream media TV (and to some extent, print) outlets’ glacial pace in coming to understand that “balance” in an era of Russian and Trumpian propaganda is nothing more than propaganda itself. If one gives equal weight to what we know to be true (e.g., Russia meddled in the 2016 election) with what we know to be false (e.g., Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election), one has served the propagandists’ aim in creating an equivalence between truth and falsity.
The sole means by which a free and independent media properly can serve a democratic citizenry is by revealing and disseminating the truth with as much accuracy and factual backup as possible. That requires labeling what is untrue as false and what is true as factual. That requires calling out President Trump and his right-wing media allies.
Chuck Todd has been wrestling with this problem.
I’ll break here so you can search the smoking ruins available (not the whole show is on YouTube and I’ve done my best approximation of running order but I didn’t watch live because I never do, A.M. Joy duh).
Russia
Twits
Pravda and Izvestia
To continue-
Here are some entirely provable facts: We have never had a president of the United States willfully and consistently carrying foreign propaganda, attempting to discredit all independent sources of information, entirely indifferent to truth and able to persuade an entire political party and millions of Americans to disregard provable facts to defend his grip on power. We have one party operating with an objective that is antagonistic toward any and all facts unfavorable to its leader and the other trying, however imperfectly, to adhere to the old, normal rules of politics in which spin and self-puffery are permissible but out-and-out lies (especially more than 15,000 of them) are not.
If cable TV news got serious about patrolling the truth, it could screen guests and panelists. Did Russia interfere with the election? Did Ukraine? If the answers are not yes and no, respectively, the person is not put on the air. Period. But I can hear the howls: That would mean most Republicans would not get on the air! Yes, and that’s the result not of media bias but of a party determined to sublimate truth to power. The outlets should explain why they do not have a Republican on air on a certain topic (e.g., We tried but all insisted on lying) and then, as best as possible, attempt to present the universe of known facts, from guests, anchors, experts and reporters. (In print, the solution is easier. One can report, “Cruz lied, again insisting Ukraine. …”)
A second approach would be to end interviews when the guest insists on lying. The next time Sens. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) or Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) start arguing that “Ukraine meddled too,” the host stops the interview cold, asks the senator to correct the record and, if he refuses, end the interview or at the very least ends that part of the interview with an explanation that this is not a platform for misinformation.
Another option is to prerecord interviews, refusing to air propaganda, or, alternatively, annotate the interview in real time to determine where the facts end and the lying begins. This is not a solution, certainly, for breaking news stories but much of what politicians say on Sunday shows can be recorded hours, if not days, earlier.
Finally, whatever approach is taken, it is critical to avoid equating liars with truth tellers and giving “equal time” to fabrications. That may require a full rethinking of the nature of many interview shows, at least in the short term. However, legitimate news organizations need to come to terms with the new reality: One party is an echo chamber for Russian propaganda. Only by telling news consumers what is true and what is not can the mainstream media do their job and retain their credibility.
The other thing I want to emphasize is the name of that Party.
The Republican Party.
And it’s not like they got captured by a mind bending mutant (ever read Foundation by Asimov? You should)…
They are all liars.
They have to be. Their policies are unpopular and bad. They are already a minority and dying at a faster pace. If not at we are rapidly approaching Peak Gerrymander. Without Racism, Bigotry, God, and Guns they have nothing.
And they haven’t for 40 years.
Dec 31 2019
Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.
Thomas Edison demonstrates light bulb; The United States winds down the Marshall Plan; Actor Anthony Hopkins, composer Jule Styne and musician Donna Summer are born.
Violence is like a weed – it does not die even in the greatest drought.
Dec 30 2019
I’m not actually talking about The New York Times here, but I’ll get around to them. No I’m talking about Igor Derysh at Salon.
Stephens’ Saturday column, titled “The Secrets of Jewish Genius,” immediately came under fire after he was accused of “using eugenics talking points” in his piece discussing the alleged superior intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews. (That term refers to Jewish people of predominantly European ancestry.)
“Jewish people of predominantly European ancestry”?
SLAVS AND SPANISH PEOPLE ARE EUROPEAN!
Look at a freaking Map!
As for the NYT…
That they had to remove the reference to the Racist study Bret Stephens cited is not surprising.
He’s a Racist. He cites Racists to reinforce his Racist arguments. It was in fact the only scrap of garbage he bases his Thesis on and its lack of credibility is obvious not only from the very title but the Authors are easily Googled and it was never peer reviewed.
So why did no one at the Times check it?
Or if they did, why do they still have a job? Or Bret Stephens for that matter?
Bret Stephens is proof you can be a never Trumper Republican and a stone cold Racist. It’s not the man, it’s the Party.
Recent Comments