Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Trump sues niece, NY Times over records behind ’18 tax story

 NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday sued his estranged niece and The New York Times over a 2018 story about his family’s wealth and tax practices that was partly based on confidential documents she provided to the newspaper’s reporters.

Trump’s lawsuit, filed in state court in New York, accuses Mary Trump of breaching a settlement agreement by disclosing tax records she received in a dispute over family patriarch Fred Trump’s estate.

The lawsuit accuses the Times and three of its investigative reporters, Susanne Craig, David Barstow and Russell Buettner, of relentlessly seeking out Mary Trump as a source of information and convincing her to turn over documents. The suit claims the reporters were aware the settlement agreement barred her from disclosing the documents.

The Times’ story challenged Trump’s claims of self-made wealth by documenting how his father, Fred, had given him at least $413 million over the decades, including through tax avoidance schemes.

more on this story:

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-courts-lawsuits-business-newspapers-da4689bcce1e58c15fc909377fa3a450







A political war story: Fascist Republican demagoguery fights against truth in court


A 1951 description of post-truth hell


“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” -- attributed to James R. Schlesinger; this is no longer always true, at least some liars are entitled to use their own lies and are sometimes richly rewarded for doing so 



The stolen election legal war
A successful new legal strategy against defamation lawsuits has spread from a lawsuit against Tucker Carlson by Karen McDougal to other cases. In that case, Carlson argued through his Fox attorneys that he could not be liable for defamation because no reasonable person would believe he was serious. The court accepted that he was an bloviating entertainer who dispenses “non-literal commentary” for a living. Despite the fact that in court and under oath Carlson claimed that he is a liar and blowhard, millions of people still take him seriously.

That strategy has spread to defamation lawsuits by Dominion Voting Systems against attorneys such as Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani for falsely claiming that Dominion somehow helped steal the 2020 election from the ex-president. Powell and others are trying Tucker’s Liar Defense and are claiming they should not have been taken seriously and are thus not liable for defamation. That is despite the fact that tens of millions of people took them seriously and still believe the election was stolen. Powell still claims that although no one should have believed her, she knows the election was stolen. Maybe that reflects the brilliant post-truth, pro-ex-president election rhetorical tactic, “don’t take ’em literally, but take ’em seriously.” That was true propaganda brilliance, leaving people free to believe whatever they want regardless of what someone says. That is true post-truth.[1]

The New York Times now reports that even before Powell and Rudy started spreading stolen election lies, the ex-president's campaign had investigated  the allegations and found them to be false. The NYT writes about documents released in a court filing:
The documents also suggest that the [ex-president’s] campaign sat on its findings about Dominion even as Sidney Powell and other lawyers attacked the company in the conservative media and ultimately filed four federal lawsuits accusing it of a vast conspiracy to rig the election against Mr. Trump.
Even before the lies started flying in lawsuits, the campaign knew that (i) Dominion did not use voting technology it was falsely claimed to be using in the 2020 election, (ii) Dominion had no direct ties to Venezuela or to Mr. Soros as falsely claimed, and (iii) there was no evidence that Dominion had any connections to left-wing Antifa activists as falsely claimed. That is some of what the stolen election liars were claiming in public and in their lawsuits against the stolen election whopper.

The open question is whether such facts will make any difference or not. They may not. If the defense claim is that the liars are not liable for defamation because everyone knows that they are liars, what the liars knew was false should not make any difference. If that legal strategy works, it appears to provide a fun and easy but foolproof defense against defamation liability. The liar just has to assert some lies in public to establish their liar credentials. Then they are shielded and can go on to defame anyone they want, claiming that no one should take them seriously because they are liars and have the evidence to prove it. 

If that legal analysis turns out to be right, and I hope it cannot for legal reasons I am unaware of, the American system of law will have degenerated into stupidity and corruption in political speech related cases. The last small vestige of restraint on lies in politics will have fallen to anti-democratic demagoguery, fascist demagoguery in this case. Even if this defamation defense tactic fails, the fact that it has to be beat down in court exemplifies just how morally degenerate that radical right demagogic political rhetoric has become. Demagogic liars gain public trust by showing tribe or cult loyalty by lying in public. 

We were warned in 1951 about this. Well, here its is again, straight back from the political hell of the ~1930s-1940s.


Questions: 
1. Since demagogues, dictators, kleptocrats and the like always resort to divisive, polarizing  propaganda, what defenses does society have against this kind of anti-democratic attack and moral rot? 

2. Is dark free speech[2] inherently anti-democratic?


Footnotes: 
“.... in its purest form, post-truth is when one thinks that the crowd’s reaction actually does change the facts about the lie .... what seems to be new in the post-truth era is a challenge not just to the idea of knowing reality but to the existence of reality itself. .... [the] post-truth relationship to facts occurs only when we are seeking to assert something that is more important to us than truth itself. Thus, post-truth amounts to a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it or not. .... [post-truth is] a world in which politicians can challenge the facts and pay no political price whatsoever.”

2. Dark free speech: Divisive, polarizing lies, deceit, irrational emotional manipulation, partisan motivated reasoning, defamation, etc. intended and crafted to create, among other things, needless confusion, distractions, and unwarranted distrust, fear, anger, hate, bigotry, etc.

Tuesday, September 21, 2021

The role of morals and morality in modern American religious politics




“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” -- ascribed to traditional conservative Republican, Barry Goldwater, probably sometime in the 1960s



A commenter here recently made these comments regarding Catholic church dogma and teaching:
But [the fact that many Catholics who have abortions, affairs, lie, cheat, or steal defy church indoctrination] does not alter what the Church claims: that no one has the moral agency of conscience and every civil authority, including that of elected governments, is --in all matters concerning morals-- subservient to its claimed spiritual authority.

And that means that, in the Church's view, its word constitutes a higher law. And, because of this, it claims also that people have no right to make laws affecting morals without the Church being in agreement ... which means that everyone is ultimately subject to them rather than the civil authority conferred by self-government in a free and democratic society.

That is what Christian Nationalists want by establishing their theocracy over democracy, and that is why the majority SCOTUS has sided with these Christian Nationalists, for they learned as children that God's law (as interpreted by the Church) was above all human laws, including those which protect and preserve the liberty of all in civil society.
That raised an important but obscure to most (~95% ?) point that puzzled me for years until I figured it out ~10 years ago. By injecting morality into an expanded range of political issues, the Christian nationalist (CN) movement was effectively expanding the scope of issues it could demand in the name of God to have veto power over. By doing that, the CN movement was expanding its claim to sacred power over secular government.[1]

Radical right and CN politicians, religious leaders and elites have worked for decades to inject morals into as many political issues as possible. They have done this knowingly and persistently, but at the same time as quietly and opaquely as they could. 

To be clear, consciously injecting morals into political issues is an intentional and knowing effort to expand the scope of religious power in the CN's relentless quest to bury secular government and society and replace them with an aggressive, non-compromising, intolerant, bigoted fundamentalist Christian government and society.

That is what Barry Goldwater was worried about long ago. He directly experienced the attack of religion on secularism and natural social change. He saw its non-compromising aggression and attacks against secular society, civil liberties and government. The CN movement is hell-bent on literally reversing social change and the expanded civil liberties that have come with it and replacing that with a biblical worldview nation where God has the ultimate power in government, commerce and society.

In my opinion, the CN political power movement is fairly close to getting what it wants. Maybe stopping the movement is already impossible or nearly so. The outcomes of the next two elections should shed enough light to draw conclusions about just how close we are to losing our democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties to the rule of God and greedy CN religious elites and groups. 


Questions: 
1. Has Goldwater's fear that the preachers could control the Republican Party come to pass? 

2. What about some Democrats in congress who have to kiss the Pope's ring, e.g., some American Catholic Bishops want to block Biden from receiving communion, which would amount to ex communicating him? 

3. Based on a (true) belief that money equals power in our pay-to-play two-party system, is it time to revoke all tax privileges for all religious groups, or is it too late because the CN movement already has access to so much tax money that it cannot be stopped, in other words, are we already hosed? 


Footnote:
1. One of the triggers that led to my epiphany that injecting morality into politics was a big part of why politics had IMO become so polarized, divisive, socially damaging and incoherent came from the end stages of the fight over Obamacare. My recollection is that in order to pass Obamacare, some Democratic Catholics in congress demanded buy-in by Catholic Bishops. Without the Bishops' consent, Obamacare could not have been passed. What the Bishops demanded and got was guarantees that limited access to abortions and birth control. 

I recall being outraged and bewildered. In the months after that, it slowly dawned that religion was much more powerful and influential in secular government than I understood, and that I believed was legal without loss of tax breaks for the participating religious groups. As far as I know, no church lost its precious tax break privileges, although they should have. Apparently, federal laws that give the generous tax break privileges do not prohibit a demand of consent by Catholic Bishops to pass federal health care laws or probably any other kind of federal, state, county, city or local law. CN uses those tax dollar subsidies help finance relentless attacks on secular society, secular government, civil liberties, truth and democracy itself  In the eyes of the CN movement, as long as morals can be injected, the law is subordinate to God, not the US Constitution or the will of the majority. CN is a tyranny of the minority political movement.

To be clear, tax breaks for direct participation in politics by any bigoted, mendacious religious organization is a privilege, not any constitutional right. Through its control of the Supreme Court, the CN movement is trying to lay a legal foundation to change that and elevate its fat place at the tax trough to a constitutional right by any sleight of hand that will suffice to create a needed fig leaf. 

Government is about more than just abortion, gay marriage
and birth control, but they are a great place to start!!


That's confined just to the Medieval Church?
Didn't know the Church had pay-to-play and campaign contributions back then
Questionable morals, illegitimate children?? Nah, not possible, fake news!

The next Texas Governor?

Allen West?

Matthew McConaughey?

Greg Abbott?


Beto O’Rourke?

Someone else?