One of Rush Limbaugh's better traits was a certain wry self-awareness: in the 1980's he started calling his loyal fans "ditto heads" because of how many of them would call in just to say they agreed with him or with the previous callers.
(thread)
It's hard to remember in the hyper-fragmented media landscape we live in now, but one of the reasons for that reaction is that many of those listeners really didn't see their views represented in the media landscape of the day, in the big networks and newspapers.
Those establishment sources of news and opinion had a certain sense of gravity and responsibility as the go-to-sources for Americans of all walks of life, but they were indeed pretty reliably liberal, if not especially radical.
Then came talk radio, then cable, then the internet and then social media, and the old landscape was transformed. And now we all have access to our own finely-tailored cocoons of information and opinion.
We've all become ditto-heads in that sense.
There's plenty that's good about the new media landscape, but much of it panders to the worst prejudices of its audience.
Rush did his share of that (some of which he repented of).
And we're seeing some of the same echo-chamber nastiness in responses to his passing.
Death ought to humble us with a recognition of our common humanity, and with how limited it is: "what shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue," as Edmund Burke put it.
Respect for the dead is a recognition of that.
Partisanship is eroding that very humane and very civilized idea. That's just another way it's hurting us, and why we need an ethic of solidarity in this country.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Looks like PragerU didn't catch our thread yesterday.
It's kinda weird, though, that a group that praises Judeo-Christian values so much is also pushing this sort of content, which equates morality with pure liberalism, in the classical sense of the word.
Past a certain point, being unimaginably rich is no longer useful for improving anyone's material comfort. It's a form of power.
Bezos didn't buy the Washington Post so he could make a nice return on his investment and buy another jet.
When you understand this, you can still argue about ways to respond to inequality. But it's an inescapably political question. The problem with billionaires is not how much money they have or have not "earned." It's the unaccountable power they wield over society.
Glad you brought this up. Yes, when you have enormous concentration of economic power, you need government power to regulate it, and that creates its own problems.
This is why we think we need policies that disperse economic power in the first place.
The (apparently former) mayor of Colorado City, TX, got into a little hot water over these remarks directed at his constituents who are without power and water in the middle of a blizzard.
Let's have a fireside chat about this.
Bad Political Cliché #1: It's all about individuals.
Contrary to the famous Margaret Thatcher line (though it is sometimes taken out of context), there is such a thing as society. What is happening in Texas right now is a failure of institutions, first and foremost...
So it's more than a little tin-eared to talk about "laziness" being the problem when the power grid has failed due to lack of preparation and the streets are being ploughed due to lack of resources.
Social justice has always been one of our party's core commitments. Occasionally, however, we hear from people who like our platform but get squirrely about the term.
(Thread)
(The ASP Polandball is unrelated, we just think it's cute.)
Anyway, some people tend to associate social justice with "cancel culture" or with policy positions like abortion-on-demand that we oppose.
(Abortion is a social justice issue, by the way, just not the way its proponents think it is).
Apple doesn't want you to be able to repair your iPhone.
This is a good example of how corporations often look to increase their profit in ways that don't actually create value for consumers, and lobby governments to help them do it.
Aside from costing consumers' extra money, this kind of drive toward endless sale of new products is tremendously wasteful and environmentally costly.
One particularly crazy example: Clothing manufacturers literally shred or burn billions of dollars worth of clothes every year in order to prop up the prices for "fast fashion" lines they churn out every season.
We're getting close to a full tally of the votes the Carroll-Patel campaign received. Nearly half of our votes were write-ins, and those often take a long time to tally as well as, in some cases, some prodding of the election authorities.
Here's what we have:
Here we list our results in each state where we received votes and compare results to 2016.
NR = Not recorded last time.
Wisconsin- 5,259 votes, 0.159%; 284 in 2016 as write-in
Illinois- 9,548 votes, 0.158%; NR in 2016
Rhode Island= 767 votes, 0.148%; 46 in 2016 as write-in
Kansas- 583 votes, 0.042%; 214 in 2016
Minnesota- 1,037 votes, 0.032%; 244 in 2016
Tennessee- 762 votes*, 0.031%; NR in 2016
Indiana- 893 votes, 0.029%; NR in 2016
Texas- 3,207 votes, 0.028%; 1401 in 2016
Maryland- 1,588 votes, 0.026%; 504 in 2016