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.

Monday, January 16, 2023

News bit 'n semi-bit: Storms in California, clashing GOP ideologies

California deals with high surf, big snow and mudslides:

Note the seagull at the top


Note the snow shoveler in blue jacket at the bottom


Mudslide in Los Angeles

-------------------------------
-------------------------------

An analysis of clashing ideologies in the GOP: Ezra Klein writes about this in an interesting opinion piece for the NYT: 
So why has the Republican Party repeatedly turned on itself in a way the Democratic Party hasn’t? There’s no one explanation, so here are three.

Money vs. media (roughly, brass knuckles capitalism vs. angry White Christian nationalist populism): For decades, the Republican Party has been an awkward alliance between a donor class that wants deregulation and corporate tax breaks and entitlement cuts and guest workers and an ethnonationalist grass roots that resents the way the country is diversifying, urbanizing, liberalizing and secularizing. The Republican Party, as an organization, mediates between these two wings, choosing candidates and policies and messages that keep the coalition from blowing apart.

At least, it did. “One way I’ve been thinking about the Republican Party is that it’s outsourced most of its traditional party functions,” Nicole Hemmer, author of “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s,” told me. “It outsourced funding to PACS. It outsourced media to the right-wing media.”

Between 2002 and 2014, for example, the share of resources controlled by the Republican Party campaign committees went from 53 percent of the money .... to 30 percent. 

What rose in their place were groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Heritage Action network and the American Legislative Exchange Council — sophisticated, well-financed organizations that began to act as a shadow Republican Party and dragged the G.O.P.’s agenda further toward the wishes of its corporate class.

What were the hallmark Republican economic policies in this era? Social Security privatization. Repeated tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Free trade deals. Repealing Obamacare. Cutting Medicaid. Privatizing Medicare. TARP. Deep spending cuts. “Elected Republicans were following agendas that just weren’t popular, not even with their own voters,” Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard, told me.

But what really eroded the party’s legitimacy with its own voters was that the attention to the corporate agenda was paired with inattention, and sometimes opposition, to the ethnonationalist agenda. This was particularly true on immigration, where the George W. Bush administration tried, and failed, to pass a major reform bill in 2007. In 2013, a key group of Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to make another run at it only to see their bill killed by Republicans in the House. There’s a reason immigration was Trump’s driving issue in 2016: It was the point of maximum divergence between the Republican Party’s elite and its grass roots.

The failure of Bush’s 2007 immigration bill is worth revisiting, because it reveals the pincer the Republican Party was caught in even before the Tea Party’s rise. The bill itself was a priority for the Chamber of Commerce wing of the party. The revolt against that bill was centered in talk radio, which was able to channel the fury of grass-roots conservatives into a force capable of turning Republican officeholders against a Republican president.
Klein discusses two other points that have led to the GOP split.
  • Virulent anti-institutionalism and climate science denial: Decades ago, most Republicans had faith in corporations and the military. But now Fox News routinely vilifies the “extremely woke” military. The powerful American Conservative Union insists that any Republican seeking leadership in congress must promise to support “a new shared strategy to reprimand corporations that have gone woke.” Woke means anti-climate science and anti-secularism and social tolerance, e.g., anti-LGBQT and anti-CRT. Republicans have lost many of the professional, college-educated voters that used to constitute about half the party. Those people are gone and so is their knowledge, experience and respect for institutions. Now the GOP is anti-institutional but is itself an institution. Klein comments: “And so the logic of anti-institutional politics inevitably consumes it, too, particularly when it [Republican anti-institutionalists] is in the majority.”
  • Finding and vilifying an enemy, opens up to extremism: A GOP elite commentator described the GOP like this to Klein: “It’s not the Democratic Party.” In other words, GOP unity is now centered on attacking the Democratic Party and liberalism. Not having political goals other than ruling with power leave the GOP open to extremism. Republican extremism relies on exercising power in anti-democratic, anti-liberal ways. That is fully compatible with the current mainstream GOP mindset. Anti-communism used to be a major unifying issue in the GOP. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, that anti-big government sentiment ‘logically’ morphed into anti-American government sentiment. Really and truly, the GOP needs an enemy to hold itself together. 
So, when I say things like the Republican Party hates government, Democrats, democracy, inconvenient truth and liberalism, there is a lot of evidence and reasoning to support that. The same holds when I say that Republican corporate elites are significantly different from populist the rank and file. Commenting on what he saw as a poor outcome of the 2022 elections, Tucker Carlson recently articulated the mainstream extremist Republican rank and file sentiment that Klein sees:
“That loathing [of liberals] clouded my judgment. I was like, ‘I dislike these people so much. What they’re doing is so wrong. It is helping so few people and hurting so many. It’s so immoral on every level that I just want it to be repudiated.’ And I wanted that so much, not because I like the Republicans — I really dislike them more than I ever have — but I dislike the other side more,” he added, saying, “I did learn that, like, I have no freaking idea what goes on in American politics.”
Carlson being the elite, sophisticated fascist liar that he is, he knows exactly what goes in in American politics. He is prominent in helping to lead it.

Sunday, January 15, 2023

News bits: Recalling James Comey and the 2016 election, Christian nationalist rage, etc.

Lest we forget, Comey really screwed Clintons candidacy and gave us Trump: Comey publicly announced two FBI investigations into Clinton’s unsecured e-mail server in 2016. The second announcement that new documents had been found. That happened on Oct. 28, just a few days before the election. On Nov. 7, one day before the election, Comey announced there was nothing new and ended the investigation.

So, while Comey crapped all over Clinton's election twice at critical times, once when people were already involved in early voting, he never announced that Trump was also under a criminal investigation about Trump’s Russia-related crimes. 

So, why treat Clinton like garbage and leave Trump untouched by the same kind of damaging revelations? The FBI and Comey chose not to announce any FBI investigation into Trump and his sleaze in 2016 because the crimes and stakes were far higher to the FBI. Raw Story writes:
But one thing is certain: when voters went to the polls on Election Day, they did so under the false narrative that only one of the candidates had been the subject of a criminal investigation. In fact, in July 2016, around the same time that Comey originally declined to bring charges against Clinton, the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign’s connection to Russian operatives actively trying to influence the U.S. election. 
.... the FBI declined to inform the U.S. public about ties between Trump and the Russian government for fear of exposing informants and “[jeopardizing] a long-running, ultra-sensitive operation targeting mobsters tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin — and to Trump.”

A two month-long investigation by the publication revealed that FBI agents likely feared exposing an ongoing operation against “an organized crime network headquartered in the former Soviet Union.” This Russian mob “is one of the Bureau’s top priorities,” spans several decades, and is intricately linked with associates of Trump and businesses the president owns.
There we have it, with Trump the FBI acted to protect the FBI’s priority, but in the case of Hillary, Comey claims to have wanted to protect the public. That trashed Hillary’s campaign for president. Comey did not want to see a bad Hillary elected without public knowledge of all her possible horrible crimes. But at the same time, he did not care enough to let the public know about Trump's far worse possible treason and crimes. 

Opinions will differ on this, but in my sincere opinion, Comey should be jailed for the rest of his rotten, Republican partisan hack life. His decisions were not rationally coherent or defensible. He acted as a partisan hack working for the Republican Party by publicly attacking Hillary but not Trump. In view of information like this, one can reasonably conclude like I did long ago that Trump never was a legitimate president. For four years, America had an illegitimate president and all of his official acts in office were illegitimate.

------------------------------
------------------------------

Republican Christofascist attacks on the LGBQT community continue: A central dogma of Christian nationalism is hate of the LGBQT community. Christian nationalist leaders and elites want unfettered power to discriminate and oppress this group who sacred God condemns to hell forever. LGBTQ Nation writes about how this enraged hate movement wrapped in sanctimonious Christianty is lashing out in Arizona:
Republicans say they’ll sue Arizona’s governor 
because she protected LGBTQ+ people

They promise to obstruct her in every step of the process because she banned job discrimination against some LGBTQ+ workers

Arizona Republicans have voiced plans to sue newly elected Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs after she signed an executive order protecting LGBTQ+ state employees from discrimination.

Vitriol over the order (and others) is coming from the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus. The Caucus Chairman, Republican state Rep. Jake Hoffman – a 2020 election denier – recently told reporters the group will work to obstruct Hobbs “in every step of the process” if she “continues to utilize executive orders.”

“If Katie Hobbs wants to legislate, she needs to get her butt out of the Governor’s Office and run for the legislature and come back and join us and do that job,” he said, according to the Arizona Mirror.  
Hoffman called Hobbs’ executive orders “illegal” and said she was using them to advance her “radical woke agenda.” He did not, however, provide details about the timeline of the Freedom Caucus’s lawsuit or who would file it.
Once again, the seething rage, hate, bigotry and intolerance of the Christian nationalist movement is right out in the open. This savagery is what the elites demand. No one can honestly deny the hate and bigotry that animates anti-democratic American Christian nationalism.

As usual, a question or two come to mind. What responsibility, if any, do Arizona voters and non-voters, (or any other voters or non-voters in America) have in empowering bigoted Republican Christian Sharia theocracy? And, is protecting rights of LGBQT people radical wokeness or radical Christian Sharia bigotry? Does the saying, hate the sin, love the sinner have any remaining validity for the Christian nationalist movement?

------------------------------
------------------------------

According to the ex-president, it was very sexy for the woman he raped: An unsealed transcript shows how Trump saw it while he was raping E. Jean Carroll. Get a load of this slime:


Trump: “She fainted with great emotion. She actually indicated that she loved it. Okay? She loved it until commercial break. In fact, I think she said it was sexy, didn’t she? She said it was very sexy to be raped. Didn’t she say that?”

Question: So sir, I just want to confirm. It’s your testimony that E. Jean Carroll said that she loved being sexually assaulted by you?

Trump: Well, based on her interview with Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place. ....
Honestly folks, who can make this stuff up? It has to be true. Right?

One can only wonder what “until commercial break” means. Once again, my ignorance is showing. I suspect it’s something nasty or creepy. But I am not among the cognoscenti when it comes to topics like commercial breaks during rape. Are there any experts in the house?

Given his apparent admission of sexual assault and rape, I think the chances of Trump being found liable are about 0.1%. After all, Trump’s victim liked it. That’s not rape. It’s . . . . . whatever it is between consenting adults before commercial breaks, whatever they are.

About the Joe Biden document scandal.

 Personally, if you are going to wag your finger at other people, you better make sure you have your own shit in order.

So, this steady barrage of document finds on Biden properties is going to hurt and may hurt big time. AS SOON AS the Trump document scandal arose, I would have had my people scour every inch of my properties and lawyer's offices to make sure nothing would come back to bite me. Instead, Biden gloated about the scandal surrounding Trump, and now is eating crow.

My humble opinion aside, there is absolutely NO equivalency, as Biden is co-operating where as Trump was obstructing. That may end up being Biden's saving grace. 

Still, excuses are excuses. Not "knowing" about those documents is not going to fly. Doesn't the buck stop at the top?

Here is a more positive spin on the document story (and yes I take some of the following as "spin")

Why I Am Not Worried About The Biden Document "Scandal" And You Shouldn't Be Either

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/14/2147059/-Why-I-Am-Not-Worried-About-The-Biden-Document-Scandal-And-You-Shouldn-t-Be-Either-Saturday-s-GNR

Key arguments:

First, most people don’t care about this.  Yes, Twitter is having  a meltdown, but as we learn in election after election after election, Twitter is not the real world.

From the author of the article:

Second, I know an awful lot about Biden.  I wrote an entire 100 part series about why he should be our president before the election of 2020.  I read every book there was to read about him and read every interview.  The man is clean.  I have a really hard time believing that he stole those documents on purpose and/or has or had some nefarious purpose for them. 

Third, this just isn’t the same thing as Trump’s case.  Based on what we know, Biden is unlikely to face charges but Trump is likely.

Fourth, the special counsel on this may end up being great for us.  It may protect Biden from GOP witch hunts.

Fifth, this shows that Democrats walk the walk. If there is something that needs to be investigated — whether it is on our side or theirs — it should be investigated.

Sixth, we aren’t near an election and stories have a very very short life.

Do you feel better?  I hope so.

Again, a little too rosy a picture in the comments by the author of the article, but hey, some valid points as well. 

Do you think the author has got it right, or will this end up hurting Biden more than we want to admit?

Saturday, January 14, 2023

From the well duh! Files: Scientists prove ExxonMobil climate denials were lies

ExxonMobile is the foremost giant carbon energy company among brass knuckles capitalists and their ruthless propaganda. The Journal Science published an analysis of what ExxonMobile publicly claimed, what it actually knew and how accurate its knowledge was. Not surprisingly, ExxonMobile lied repeatedly for decades too the public and government. The article blandly comments, as reputable scientists usually do:
For decades, some members of the fossil fuel industry tried to convince the public that a causative link between fossil fuel use and climate warming could not be made because the models used to project warming were too uncertain.  
Climate projections by the fossil fuel industry have never been assessed. On the basis of company records, we quantitatively evaluated all available global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. We find that most of their projections accurately forecast warming that is consistent with subsequent observations. Their projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models. Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp also correctly rejected the prospect of a coming ice age, accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected, and reasonably estimated the “carbon budget” for holding warming below 2°C. On each of these points, however, the company’s public statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific data. 
Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest. What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did their knowledge prove to be?

Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models.

Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming. 
 
Historically observed temperature change (red) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (blue) over time, compared against global warming projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists.

(A) “Proprietary” 1982 Exxon-modeled projections. (B) Summary of projections in seven internal company memos and five peer-reviewed publications between 1977 and 2003 (gray lines). (C) A 1977 internally reported graph of the global warming “effect of CO2 on an interglacial scale.” (A) and (B) display averaged historical temperature observations, whereas the historical temperature record in (C) is a smoothed Earth system model simulation of the last 150,000 years.



Egad!! We have been fibbed to by ExxonMobile (as commented on here before). Worse, most Republican elites still claim to believe and/or actually believe, the lies are truths and truths are lies!