@NYTLiz One problem with mainstream journalists is their stubborn unwillingness to admit that Breitbart is not a legitimate news source and therefore undeserving of the privileges of being treated with anything but contempt.
@NYTLiz Elite journalists have a circle-the-wagons mentality when it comes to protecting freedom of the press. When the media is attacked by government, that is appropriate. But it leaves the media vulnerable to corruption from within by faux media that is just propaganda.
@NYTLiz Journalists know perfectly well that rich people often buy media outlets or set up their own for the sole purpose of blocking inquiries into their own misbehavior, personal ambition, propaganda etc. But these fake media still offer jobs that reporters need. So, no criticism.
@NYTLiz Also, if they start down the road of effectively banning bullshit media operations like Breitbart then it leads them directly to Fox, which is simply a bigger and more sophisticated version of it. That's a line no mainstream media reporter will cross. Raises too many questions.
@NYTLiz Questions about the fundamental nature of the media itself, such as whether a profit-making media company can ever be objective, about the wall between advertising and news, between opinion and reporting, about arrangements between reporters and sources, etc.
I've always thought that Trump's constant misstatements were mainly because he is stupid; really, really stupid. But now I think they may result more from his total inability to tell the truth. The "truth" is simply whatever suits his purpose. nytimes.com/2025/02/23/us/…
This is of course classic sociopathic behavior. The curious question then becomes how and why do so many non-sociopaths follow him, repeat his lies, and rationalize Trump's obvious misstatements of truth.
Many see it as being in the best interest of their career or economic well-being. But there are many, many others who don't stand to benefit at all. It can't be because they share Trump's conservative philosophy because many of his actions are not remotely conservative.
Back when I was a Republican and got my first job in the House of Representatives, the party had like 140 seats and zero power. But every single day I tried to think of something we could do that day to fight. I wrote speeches for the Congressional Record,...
wrote studies that we released to the press, commissioned reports by the Congressional Research Service and General Accounting Office, sent out "Dear Colleague" letters. My boss testified before congressional committees, recorded commentaries distributed to radio stations et al.
This was very hard work in the pre-internet era. Many a night was spent stuffing envelopes by hand to send out reprints to our followers. My boss gave speeches in many places outside his district. The staff drafted amendments to bills on the floor, got cosponsors etc.
There is commonality between Republican attacks on trans people and foreign aid. Trans people are a very, very small percentage of the population, and foreign aid is a very, very small percentage of the budget. Hence, both are vulnerable and essentially defenseless.
Also, the average American, being an ignoramus, thinks there are many, many more trans people than there actually are, and that the foreign aid budget is much, much larger than it actually is.
Finally, Americans completely misperceive the nature of trans people and foreign aid. They think trans people are predators chasing after their children--no that would be priests and ministers; trans people just want to be left alone.
The fundamental division between the two parties isn't right and left, it's between a party that is fundamentally evil and will use any means to win, even if it's immoral or illegal, and a party that is thoroughly inept,
thinks voters will reward good intentions and doesn't seem to understand Politics 101. As I have said many times over the years, Democrats are the class nerds while Republicans are the schoolyard bullies. Once upon a time there were tough Democrats. Where did they go?
My observation as an independent is that Democrats equate being tough with being mean, and they would rather lose than risk being mean. It's why Republicans have no respect for Democrats; they are the party of wusses.
I'm not worried about Harris winning an honest election, but I am worried about Republicans stealing it. Unfortunately, I fear Democrats are just not tough enough to stand up to them--especially our utterly worthless Attorney General. I hope I am wrong.
So I am forced to think about life under fascism. I think it will be a soft form of fascism, like Nazi Germany in the early days before Hitler fully consolidated his power. Ironically, I think those who will suffer most are those on the right that Trump can't trust.
Recall that the first to go in Germany were the "brown shirts" during the "night of the long knives." The "Proud Boys" are the closest American equivalent. Lenin once said "no enemies to the left." Trump will say "no enemies to the right." theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-…
Some people wonder how I went from being a libertarian to being a social democrat. A lot of it has to do with luck. Not my luck, but the concept of luck in society.
Everyone knows what luck is--it hits randomly, both the good and the bad....
However, those blessed with good luck will invariably ascribe it to their own intelligence, hard work etc. because it flatters their ego and justifies their good fortune. From this logic it automatically follows that those suffering bad fortune somehow brought it on themselves,
which justifies ignoring their plight and letting them suffer--perhaps at God's direction. But if you think seriously about luck, it leads logically to redistribution--take some of the gains of the lucky and use them to help the unlucky.