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.

Friday, February 7, 2025

MAGA updates: Authoritarian and kleptocratic intent is crystal clear

The Hill reportsTrump announces task force to ‘eradicate anti-Christian bias’ -- DJT announced plans Thursday to establish a task force and a presidential commission to protect Christians from religious discrimination. “While I’m in the White House, we will protect Christians in our schools, in our military, in our government, in our workplaces, hospitals and in our public squares,” he said. “And we will bring our country back together as one nation under God.” The president also said he would sign an executive order to make Attorney General Pam Bondi the head of a task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias.” The task force will aim to stop “all forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal government,” Trump said. He also said he would create a White House Faith Office, led by the Rev. Paula White, who has served as a religious adviser to Trump for several years.

In my firm opinion, that is undeniably Christian nationalist (CN) theocracy in action. Christians in America are seriously not discriminated against, much less persecuted. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination in employment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 further protects religious practices from government interference. Tax law provides tens of billions/year in tax breaks. On top of all of that, Christians overwhelmingly dominate local, state and federal governments, law enforcement, state and federal courts, state legislatures, congress, governorships, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, and damn-near everything else of significance in American government, society, religion, commerce and public education. Where the hell is all of this alleged discrimination coming from, the Navajo Indian tribe? Lost puppies? A lady bug? 

Yes, yes, we all know that some Christians claim being marginalized or face career limits due to their views on sexual ethics or gender identity. But that does not constitute discrimination or persecution. Instead those are disagreements over differing moral or social values. To say there is serious or even moderate discrimination against Christians in the US is a deeply insulting lie. One can rationally see this move as the another major step toward the rise of Christian Taliban Sharia in American law.

And make no mistake, theocratically-minded CNs are hell bent on discriminating and oppressing individuals and groups that CN elites say God wants to discriminate against and oppress under the rule of law. That includes the LGBQT community, women generally, unacceptable ethnicities and races, and atheists (and this). Reports from organizations like Open Doors International report that over 380 million Christians outside the US face high levels of persecution, with many facing violence, imprisonment, or death for their faith. That is real discrimination and persecution. By comparison to real persecution, America's coddled, legally protected and heavily tax subsidized American Christian nationalist snowflakes face mere dust bunnies of inconvenience and falsely perceived discrimination. 

The cynicism and dishonesty in this theocratic Christian Taliban move is jaw dropping and terrifying. In this regard, the US moves toward some form of a new Dark Ages.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

The Hill reports: Trump: ’60 Minutes’ should be ‘immediately terminated’ after Harris transcript release -- DJT on Thursday suggested CBS News’s “60 Minutes” be taken off the air after the program released a transcript of an interview it aired last fall with former Vice President Harris amid a federal investigation into the broadcast. “CBS and 60 Minutes defrauded the public by doing something which has never, to this extent, been seen before,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social website. “They 100% removed Kamala’s horrible election changing answers to questions, and replaced them with completely different, and far better, answers, taken from another part of the interview.”

DJT is a shameless, insulting pathological liar and hypocrite. His allegations here are false. But this is a predictable authoritarian (dictator) 101 tactic. Tyrants attack and try to kill the professional press whenever they can. Putin did it. So did the Chinese tyrants. They all at least try to do it.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

404 Media reports: DOGE Employees Ordered to Stop Using Slack While Agency Transitions to a Records System Not Subject to FOIA -- Employees working for the agency now known as DOGE have been ordered to stop using Slack while government lawyers attempt to transition the agency to one that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 404 Media has learned. “Good morning, everyone! As a reminder, please refrain from using Slack at the moment while our various general counsels figure out the best way to handle the records migration to our new EOP [Executive Office of the President] component,” a message seen by 404 Media reads. “Will update as soon as we have more information!”

This too is a predictable authoritarian 101 tactic. Authoritarians almost always try to work in as much unwarranted secrecy and opacity as possible. Here, MAGA elites like Musk are openly looking for ways to circumvent the FOIA law to hide from the public what is going on in the federal government. Based on MAGA's public record so far, one can rest assured that two of the things will be going on are authoritarianism and kleptocracy. The three kinds of authoritarianism that will very likely dominate (~95% chance?) are dictatorship, Christian theocracy and capitalist plutocracy.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

According to USAID documents, Ivanka Trump used over $11,000 from the department in 2019 to buy video recording and reproducing equipment for a White House event.

The documents show $11,539 was to used by Trump in November 2019 to purchase software, CDs, tapes and records.

The purchase was approved by Jenifer Healy, who was serving as USAID deputy chief of staff at the time, and the Administrator's Office. It is not clear which White House event the equipment was used for. 

It comes at a time when the Trump administration is making plans to dismantle the agency. The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that nearly all USAID workers would be withdrawn from the field amid the efforts.
So this is a second reason that MAGA elites are furious with USAID. Musk is enrgaed because USAID was looking into shenanigans with how Musk's Starlink technology was being misused in the Ukraine.** Now, we see that Ivanka misappropriated funds for unknown reasons. 

This is kleptocracy in action.

** Some reports suggested that Musk's aggressive actions against USAID were motivated by the agency's investigation into Starlink's contracts in Ukraine. This investigation was looking into the oversight of Starlink Satellite provided to the Ukrainian government and USAID's initiatives to safeguard against sexual exploitation and abuse in Ukraine.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Slate reports: Pam Bondi Instructs Trump DOJ to Criminally Investigate Companies That Do DEI -- On Wednesday evening, newly installed Attorney General Pam Bondi sent staff in several divisions of the Department of Justice more than a dozen memos within a 15-minute span, laying out the agency’s new policies on issues ranging from reviving the death penalty, to targeting sanctuary cities, to enforcing a strict return-to-office policy. One astonishing memo, seen by Slate, puts the DOJ at the center of DJT’s widespread efforts to destroy any traces of initiatives that would create inclusive and diverse workspaces, otherwise known as DEIA. The new memo claims that it will target private-sector diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives for potential “criminal investigation.” It’s hard to overstate both the constitutional wreckage this crusade will leave in its wake and the havoc it could wreak on the American workforce. In the name of protecting constitutional rights, Bondi’s Justice Department is teeing up an all-out assault on fundamental First Amendment rights to speak, organize, and associate.

The astonishing memo, 2 pages:


This too is a predictable authoritarian 101 tactic. Authoritarianism targets groups and policies that undermine authoritarianism or defend democracy. DJT promised to attack and obliterate DEI, which is inherently pro-democracy and anti-MAGA. Proponents of DEI  and DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility) argue that these initiatives are essential for promoting fairness, justice, and equal participation, which are foundational to democratic values. MAGA reverses that reasoning, claiming that DEI and DEIA are authoritarian because they impose a particular ideological framework on organizations, potentially stifling free speech and academic freedom. 

Most of the backlash against DEI has been fueled by misinformation, disinformation and MAGA dark free speech (DFS) generally. Attacks on DEI are almost always based on the sophisticated DFS tactic of pointing to isolated incidents. Those incidents are then falsely claimed to be representative of the entire situation. That is called the hasty generalization fallacy. In its attacks, MAGA does not rely on comprehensive data or understanding of DEI's broader goals. One analysis commented: "In a rebuke to a congressional hearing attacking DEI efforts on university campuses, 12 scholars debunk the politicized misinformation with evidence-based responses. The two-hour hearing overflowed with misinformation, misunderstandings, and reckless mischaracterizations."

A major retraction: Snyder v US did not legalize "gratuities" bribery in the federal government

I made a big mistake. I have been falsely saying that the June 2024 USSC decision in Snyder v US legalized bribery in the federal government by calling after-the-fact payoffs "gratuities." It turns out that the decision applies only to bribery of state and local governments. Once I realized that there are two different federal laws, one for states and one for the US government, I looked a lot deeper.

My mistake was relying on mainstream media reporting and not digging deeper. I slapped Perplexity and by question 4 I finally got confirmation of my suspicion for the basis for my mistake. In response to my Q2, Perplexity falsely or misleadingly asserted this: Clarity on Applicability: Most media outlets have explicitly noted that the decision limits the federal prosecution of state and local officials for accepting gratuities, leaving such regulation primarily to the states 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. ....

Here's how I ferreted out my error:

Q3: Based on citations 1-17 relied on, I conclude that most of the mainstream media reporting on the Snyder decision did not make clear that the decision applied only to states, not the federal government. Just because there are 17 obscure citations of exceptions, that does not come close to widespread mainstream media reporting.

A3: Based on the provided search results, it appears that most media reports on the Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. United States have not explicitly clarified that the decision applies only to state and local officials, not to the federal government. .... In summary, while some media outlets have touched on the decision's implications for state and local officials, the majority of reports have not made it clear that the decision does not apply to the federal government. This lack of explicit clarification might lead to confusion about the decision's scope.

Q4: You assert that the lack of explicit clarification might lead to confusion about the decision's scope. That is nonsense. It absolutely caused a hell of a lot of confusion and false beliefs. You don't understand politics or humans.

A4: You are correct in pointing out that the lack of explicit clarification in media reports about the Snyder v. United States decision has indeed led to significant confusion and false beliefs. .... In summary, the lack of explicit clarification in media reports has indeed caused considerable confusion and false beliefs about the Snyder v. United States decision ....


Here's the basis for my mistake. I looked at the two laws and found a subtle difference. The federal bribery law that applies to the state and localities is 18 U.S.C. § 666. It is silent about after the fact payoffs the USSC called gratuities in Snyder. On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. § 201 applies to the federal government. Here is the critical difference between the two laws. 

§ 201 covers bribes or payoffs given "for or because of" a specific official act. Specifically, § 201(c) addresses after the fact payoffs without using the term gratuity. Instead, it prohibits the giving or receiving of anything of value "for or because of" an official act performed or to be performed by a public official. The difference is the three words "or because of."

§ 666 only covers bribes given "for" a specific official act. 

See the difference? The phrase in § 201 "because of" includes after the fact payoffs, i.e., after the fact gratuities. Thus the Republicans on the USSC held that § 666 does not cover after the fact payoffs. The USSC legalized and softened payoffs by calling them "gratuities."

I was wrong and retract.

Thursday, February 6, 2025

Regarding DJT's $10 billion lawsuit against CBS

A $10 billion loss be a significant blow to CBS. The AP reports:
CBS’ “60 Minutes” posted online Wednesday the unedited transcripts of its October interview with Kamala Harris that sparked a lawsuit by Donald Trump, saying that they proved its broadcast was not “doctored or deceitful.”

That’s what Trump contended in a $10 billion lawsuit he filed against the network in November, reportedly the subject of ongoing settlement talks.

In his lawsuit, filed before Trump won election to his second term, the Republican contended the editing was done to give advantage to Harris, his Democratic opponent.
Yet CBS said that the material it was releasing on Wednesday show “consistent with ”60 Minutes’” repeated assurances to the public, that the “60 Minutes” broadcast was not doctored or deceitful,” CBS said in a statement.

I asked Perplexity to analyze the situation:
Q: Locate and analyze the unedited CBS transcript of the Kamala Harris interview that Trump is suing CBS over, as described in this article https://apnews.com/article/trump-60-minutes-harris-lawsuit-514b0ccbc4a4f120e4db810c6a00e259 . Did CBS alter the aired interview to favor Harris?

A: Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the unedited transcript and the statements from CBS News: CBS did not alter the aired interview to favor Harris in a misleading manner. The network edited the interview for time constraints, which is a common practice in broadcast journalism. The aired segments, while different, were both from the same response to the same question, and they did not change the substance of Harris's answers 1 2 4.

The controversy seems to stem from the choice of which parts of Harris's response were aired, rather than any manipulation of the content itself. Critics, including Trump, argued that the editing was done to shield Harris from criticism, but CBS has consistently denied these allegations, asserting that the editing was done in line with journalistic standards 1 2 4.

The release of the unedited transcript and video by both CBS and the FCC has provided transparency, allowing the public to assess the interview's content and the network's editing practices.
DJT's vicious attacks on the MSM are grounded in hate and revenge, not on any solid legal basis. Nonetheless, CBS probably stands to win far more by losing in a settlement and paying DJT, than in winning in court and facing the relentless, lawless wrath of DJT, MAGA and the US Department of Justice. 

I think that for the MSM, this is the new normal. We're royally screwed.




MAGA update: Things are getting very ugly & angry, very fast

A torrent of info is coming out about tempers flaring and death threats. I do not know how much truth is in it, but I get a really bad feeling from what I have seen so far this morning. r/WhitePeopleTwitter has been shut down for death threats. Even Perplexity is perplexed:
Q: Was there a call on r/WhitePeopleTwitter for the public execution of DOGE software developers?

A: There is no evidence from the provided search results that there was a call on r/WhitePeopleTwitter for the public execution of DOGE software developers. The search results do not mention any such call or related discussions.

Q2: How has the community on r/WhitePeopleTwitter responded to the DOGE software developers controversy?

A2: The community on r/WhitePeopleTwitter has responded to the DOGE software developers controversy with significant backlash and calls for violence against the developers. Here are the key points of their response:

Violent Threats: Users on r/WhitePeopleTwitter have posted comments calling for the public execution of the DOGE software developers. Comments included phrases like "Drag their f**kin bodies, cuz," "This Nazi stooge needs to be shot," and "Pink mist them all," referring to the act of obliterating someone with a rocket or an IED 1 5 7.

Doxing: There were discussions where users revealed the identities of Musk's DOGE employees, which led to accusations of doxing 2 4.

Reddit's Response: Following these posts, Reddit temporarily banned r/WhitePeopleTwitter for 72 hours due to the "prevalence of violent content" and for violating platform-wide rules against inciting violence and doxing 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 14 15.

Legal Implications: Elon Musk responded to these threats by stating that those responsible had "broken the law," and interim US Attorney Ed Martin warned that the Department of Justice would hold individuals accountable for such threats 1 5.

Public Reaction: The situation has sparked a broader debate about content moderation, free speech, and the influence of high-profile individuals like Elon Musk on online platforms 8 9.

This response from the r/WhitePeopleTwitter community has led to significant controversy, legal warnings, and platform actions, highlighting the tension between online discourse, privacy, and the safety of individuals involved in public projects.
TNR is reporting that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee attempted to subpoena Elon Musk on Wednesday (today). The Republicans flew into a rage. "Musk has brought in young and inexperienced software engineers from his own companies with questionable security clearances to not only take control of sensitive government systems but even make substantial changes that aren’t easily tracked or alterable. These actions break the law and even violate the Constitution."



Axios: Democrats' phones bombarded with calls to "fight harder"
One peanut's response:
  1. Democrats warn about the absolute chaos and corruption that Republicans will cause

  2. Voters heavily vote for republicans, so many democrats lose their elections

  3. The republicans cause chaos and corruption

  4. Voters call on democrats to do something to stop it

God it’s annoying.


Another peanut comments:

Lawsuits won't change anything. Voting won't change anything. Peaceful protesting won't do anything. Bills won't do anything. Appeasing Trump won't do anything.

You either fight for your rights or surrender them to Trump. This is what people have been begging you to do for decades, instead you relied on voting and got angry and started blaming everyone that didn't vote. Doesn't matter how many might not have had the chance because they got purged from the voter rolls, they don't exist in many people's mind and they simply just didn't vote.

You have to fight and fight hard. Republicans have told you EXACTLY what they're going to do. They control Congress, the courts, the executive branch, and you bet they'll try and control state militias and national guards and cops (mostly already on their side) and every inch of the military.

You cannot play the legal game anymore. There is no law in Trump land, and if the case is important enough Trump will put his finger on the scale and everyone falls in line.



I am starting to think that the likelihood of significant violence is becoming less improbable, i.e., more probable. The situation feels very sour, unstable and degenerating. People are getting really pissed off.