Right-wing media launch unhinged attacks on Greta Thunberg

Right-wing media figures -- many of whom deny the evidence of human-caused climate change -- have been making deranged attacks on Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg in recent weeks and after she addressed the United Nations.

On Monday, Daily Wire podcaster Michael Knowles attacked Thunberg on the Fox News program The Story with Martha MacCallum as a “mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents.” The segment was widely covered by news outlets after the other guest, Christopher Hahn, immediately shamed Knowles for his “despicable” comment. Although the Fox show’s anchor failed to object to Knowles’ attack as it happened, the network later apologized to Thunberg for his “disgraceful” comment. 

Fox also told The Hollywood Reporter that it likely won’t book Knowles as a guest on its shows again, but many other conservatives have made unhinged attacks on Thunberg in recent weeks as well. Some conservatives have advocated using violence against her; others have likened her to Nazi leaders and propaganda; and more, like Knowles, have denied her agency by smearing her as “mentally ill” and/or controlled by others. Notably, shortly after Knowles used his Fox News appearance to attack Thunberg, Fox host Laura Ingraham broadcast a segment that compared the climate activist to an evil character from the horror film Children of the Corn. 

Here are some of right-wing media figures’ worst attacks:

https://www.mediamatters.org/dinesh-dsouza/right-wing-media-launch-unhinged-attacks-greta-thunberg

The Rationale for Impeachment

Democrats have decided to open an impeachment inquiry based on revelations about the president allegedly trying to extort Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden. They cite the clarity of the case and point to public confusion over existing evidence of possible impeachable actions by the president. The New York Times describes the rationale:

“The sudden embrace of an impeachment inquiry by previously reluctant House Democrats — most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi — is attributable to one fundamental fact: They believe the new accusations against Mr. Trump are simple and serious enough to be grasped by a public overwhelmed by the constant din of complex charges and countercharges that has become the norm in today’s Washington.”

Public confusion and political blowback from that confusion was what held the democrats back. The confusion is a direct result of the power of dark free speech[1] to confuse, polarize and mislead whole societies.

The impeachment process

If enough lawmakers in the House vote to say that a president committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” the president will be impeached and possibly removed from office if enough Senators agree.

The term “high crimes and misdemeanors” originated in British common law. It constituted offenses that Parliament cited in removing crown officials. In essence, it is an abuse of power by a high-level public official and not necessarily a violation of any criminal law.

No president has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. The House impeached Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, but the Senate acquitted both. They went on to complete their time in office. The House impeaches by  a majority vote, but the Senate must convict by a two-thirds vote supermajority.

Although the constitution states that the Senate must hold a trial after the House impeaches, there is no enforcement mechanism. Mitch mcConnell could simply do nothing and the process would die. On the other hand, since the Senate can set the rules for an impeachment trial, they could rig the process to be minimally damaging to the president by limiting what evidence could be considered. It is also important to understand that, even if the Senate did convene a trial, the Republican majority could vote to simply dismiss the case without considering any of the evidence. Regardless of Senate rules or actions, the possibility of 66 Senators voting to impeach the president is nil. That assessment is based on the intense hate and distrust the two parties have for each other.

The important point is that impeachment is a political process more than a legal one. In legal proceedings, most or all relevant evidence and fairly well-defined laws are important. In impeachment, tribe loyalty can negate the evidence and the ill-defined impeachable offenses, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, helps make it easy to simply ignore evidence that the tribe in power in the Senate does not want to consider.

Polarization

In the Federalist Papers in 1788, Alexander Hamilton asserted that the inherently political nature of impeachment proceedings would polarize the country. An impeachment prosecution “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Thus, despite how polarized Americans are now, it is possible that it could get worse. Given the fact that the Senate will not convict, maximum polarization might be avoided.

Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. (my label, my definition)

Trump Administration Was 10 Minutes away from striking Iran (as reported by NYT this weekend)

WASHINGTON — By the time President Trump met with congressional leaders on the afternoon of June 20, he had already decided to retaliate against Iran for shooting down an American surveillance drone. But for once, he kept his cards close to the vest, soliciting advice rather than doing all of the talking.

“Why don’t you go after the launch sites?” a Republican lawmaker asked.

“Well,” Mr. Trump replied with a hint, “I think you’ll like the decision.”

But barely three hours later, Mr. Trump had changed his mind. Without consulting his vice president, secretary of state or national security adviser, he reversed himself and, with ships readying missiles and airplanes already in the skies, told the Pentagon to call off the airstrikes with only 10 minutes to go. When Vice President Mike Pence and other officials returned to the White House for what they expected would be a long night of monitoring a military operation, they were stunned to learn the attack was off.

That about-face, so typically impulsive, instinctive and removed from any process, proved a decision point for a president who has often threatened to “totally destroy” enemies but at the same time has promised to extricate the United States from Middle East wars. It revealed a commander in chief more cautious than critics have assumed, yet underscored the limited options in a confrontation he had set in motion....

Strained by the “maximum pressure” sanctions that Mr. Trump has imposed, Iran this summer acted out aggressively, targeting oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and vowing to reconstitute its nuclear program. The overnight downing of the Global Hawk drone in June seemed to climax a campaign of escalation that would draw in Mr. Trump.

Hours after the drone was destroyed, the president’s team met for breakfast at 7 a.m. in the office of John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were joined by two acting secretaries of defense, Patrick M. Shanahan, who had just announced his resignation and was days away from departing, and Mark T. Esper, his designated replacement.

At the meeting, several strike options were discussed. The Pentagon’s preferred plan was to attack one of the missile-laden Iranian boats that the United States had been tracking in the Gulf of Oman. American forces would warn the Iranians to evacuate the vessel, videotape them doing so, then sink the boat with a bomb or missile strike.

The end result would be zero casualties, which Mr. Shanahan and General Dunford argued would be a proportional response to the downing of a $130 million drone that had itself resulted in no loss of life.

Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo were concerned that would not be decisive enough and pushed for strikes on Iranian soil. Mr. Bolton argued for what was described as a “comprehensive list” of targets, but only so many could be hit if the operation was to be carried out quickly, so the officials settled on three Iranian missile batteries and radars.

The same advisers reconvened along with more officials at 11 a.m. in the Situation Room to brief the president. The meeting lasted for about an hour as various possibilities were discussed.

Four officials said that striking the three targets would result in about 150 casualties, a number derived from Iranian manning doctrine for these particular facilities, including operators, maintenance personnel and security guards.

How much Mr. Trump was paying attention to that part of the briefing or what he absorbed was not clear in hindsight to some officials. But they said the casualty estimates were included as part of the target package presented to the president.

The national security team emerged from that meeting convinced it had a decision from Mr. Trump to strike, and soon the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and other ships and aircraft were on the move, preparing for an attack around 9 p.m. Washington time, or just before dawn in the region.

Still, there continued to be pushback from Pentagon civilians and General Dunford. They argued that killing as many as 150 Iranians did not equate to the shooting down of a drone and could prompt a counterstrike by Iran that would escalate into a broader confrontation.

Read the entire NYT article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/us/politics/trump-iran-decision.html

What is the probative value of a Trump-released transcript?: Shifting the burden of proof

12:20 PST: Bloomberg cable is reporting that tomorrow the president claims he will release a transcript of his phone call to the Ukraine to dispel any criticisms about Ukrainegate -- a sleaze operation directed to extorting a foreign government into helping him discredit Joe Biden.

In view of our president's proven track record of unprecedented lying, including hiding his conversations with foreign dictators, enemies and governments, one question pops right up: will the transcript our president releases be honest?

It is reasonable to believe that whatever the president releases to the public will be a pack of lies. His supporters will cheer his patriotic honesty and transparency. Skeptics like me will demand to hear the phone call and have it confirmed as unadulterated by honest, unbiased experts, not anti-fact and anti-truth operatives working for our corrupt, treasonous liar president.

The fact checkers have made the breadth and depth of the president's lying abundantly clear. Normally I cite my sources, but the liar's track record is easy to find and clear to everyone with an open mind. It is no longer worth my time to cite the fact checkers, just like it is no longer worth it to cite the evidence that climate science deniers are wrong. Some things are just matters of settled fact.

What??

That is what logically happens when a person dedicated to facts, truths and logic (conscious reason), e.g. me, comes to believe that some things are settled matters of fact as best the human species can settle complex things. The loss of trust can be complete, and in my case it is complete for our corrupt, lying, treasonous president.

The burden of rebuttal proof is on people who disagree. I'm done wasting my time showing closed minds counter evidence here. Closed minds are impervious to facts they don't like. The burden of proof is hereby shifted to closed minds to show their evidence.

For smaller things, I'll still show evidence.

If the closed minds don't like being asked for evidence or refuse to provide it, they can get the hell out of here and don't come back.

Fired for “conduct unbecoming a county employee”

This note of bizarre comes from a New York Times article about a country employee in Georgia being fired for bad conduct. The bad conduct was a male employee joining a gay softball league because doing that, and/or maybe something else constituted “conduct unbecoming a county employee.”

The Supreme Court will take up the case to determine if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees nationwide protection from workplace discrimination to gay and transgender people. At present, 27  states do not offer any protections. Employers are free to fire all non-heterosexual employees, possibly for no reason other than being non-heterosexual.

Some commentators argue the court will allow the county to fire the employee, while others argue the court will extend civil rights protection to the employee and save his job. The NYT summarizes the two sides legal thinking: “The question for the justices is whether the landmark 1964 law’s prohibition of sex discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Lawyers for the gay and transgender plaintiffs say it does. Lawyers for the defendants and the Trump administration, which has filed briefs supporting the employers, say it does not.”

As usual, the facts are contested. The county claims that the employees’s sexual orientation had nothing to do with his firing. Instead, the county claims he misused county funds.

In a federal appeals court court ruling in a companion case with similar facts, the NYT comments: “Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann concluded that ‘sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.’” It is possible that the Supreme Court’s decision will turn on acceptance or rejection of this legal rationale. That depends on how much evidence the county has to show misuse of funds. If the evidence is strong, the court could ignore the alleged sex discrimination and rule that the employee was fired for misconduct. That is also a plausible outcome, but that would not affect the companion case where the issue would still be central to a decision.

Does the Rule of Law Apply to Politicians and Elites?

“The lives of the richest people in the world are so different from those of the rest of us, it's almost literally unimaginable. National borders are nothing to them. They might as well not exist. The laws are nothing to them. They might as well not exist.”
-- Sociologist Brooke Harrington commenting on how many very wealthy people see the rule of law

“Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”
-- President Richard Nixon commenting on the law and the president

In an interview on the NPR program Hidden Brain, sociologist Brooke Harrington discussed her experience as a financial advisor to extremely wealthy people. Harrington took classes to train herself as a financial advisor. In the interview, she noted that her clients generally viewed both the rule of law and government differently than most people understand it. In general, the financial advisor works to maintain secrecy about the scope and amount of the client’s wealth above all other considerations. They deal with family problems such as cutting family members out of the will and hiding assets from a spouse in advance of a divorce.

Other common tasks are minimizing taxes legally (tax avoidance) and hiding assets to illegally avoid paying taxes (tax evasion). She did not state if or how financial advisors avoid criminal liability for their help in tax evasion. She did not state if she participated in tax evasion. Presumably, some financial advisors show the client how to evade taxes and then turns a blind eye to the client when he (it is usually men) commits the crime.

The rule of law

At 13:20 of the interview, Harrington comments that one of the beliefs that very wealthy people tend to share is that the laws do not apply to them: “National boundaries and laws are all optional. Taxes are optional. All forms of law are essentially optional at that level of wealth.”

Government and society

At 14:05-15:50, she elaborated on attitudes toward paying taxes: “Some of them actually do sound a lot like Donald Trump. When I heard Donald Trump say that not paying taxes made him smart and if he had paid his taxes, they would have been wasted anyway. That was like, ‘Yup, he’s the voice of a lot of very wealthy people around the world.’ .... [Other financial advisors that Harrington spoke to said their clients] are very committed to neoliberal ideology and very committed to the idea that these elite clients are doing the world a favor as wealth creators and their initiatives should be protected against governments and what they regard as theft by taxation by incompetent governments that would just waste any money they collected anyways. They also by the way, regard redistribution of collected tax as immoral because it creates dependency on the part of the poor. .... There is a strong component of ideology here. You see it in the wealth management training program. ..... About a quarter of the people I interviewed really seemed to believe quite unironically in the justice of protecting the wealth of their clients from taxation. They literally view taxation as theft, and they view government as incompetent at best and corrupt at worst. They are deeply suspicious of any sort of welfare state programs because they see it as destroying initiative.”

How the humans deal with the sleazeball

It is somewhat reassuring that only about a quarter of financial advisors feel that way. What do the others feel? At 16:25-18:00, Harrington commented about financial advisors who work for clients who cheat on taxes, wives and employees, i.e., sleazeballs: “Well, some of them don't [sleep well at night]. And I think that is one of the reasons we’re seeing a wave of leaks recently. Some people are so troubled by what they are seeing that they just can’t stomach it any longer and they blow the whistle, often with dire personal consequences. About a quarter of the people I interviewed I would characterize as being conscience-stricken about the larger impacts of their work.” She went on to comment that some advisors try to assuage their moral concerns by gently raising the problem with depriving the state of revenues by tax cheating, Those people risk losing clients who do not want to hear such things. Sleazeballs really do not care about people living in poverty.

Harrington is not the only one saying these things

A previous discussion based on the work of historian Nancy MacLean and her 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America, focused on the anti-government ideology that drives the modern republican party and populism. That mindset is in accord with how Harrington describes some of the very wealthy: “In the radical right vision, power would flow from the central federal government to authoritarian, oligarchic state governments that are captured by wealthy, powerful capitalists and like-minded individuals. The goal of that form of government is to weaken and then destroy the ability of average citizens, especially minorities to work together to defend their interests using equal protection and due process as their main tool to exert influence. The ultimate goal is to elevate property rights above all other rights, including the rights of people to tax property or otherwise burden it in any way.”

Another discussion based on journalist Jane Mayer and her 2017 book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, sees the same thing: “Essentially no one on the right will accept Mayer's version of events or the authoritarian goal of the radical right to neuter the federal government, gut regulations, quash civil rights and install an oligarchy of billionaires with proclivities to kleptocracy and brass knuckles laissez-faire capitalism. The radical right sees very little room for government spending on social safety nets. Those things just increase their tax burden and they vehemently reject it. Whatever social good may come from that safety net spending, just like contrary public opinion, is of no concern whatever to the radical right. This is crowd has no compassion for anything except the oligarchs at the top.”

Obviously, not all wealthy people or corporations feel the same way about the rule of law, government and taxes. The question is, what portion do feel that way? The entire GOP has fallen to this radical anti-government ideology. The GOP is redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top, e.g., the 2017 tax cut law, where some wealthy people and corporations believe it belongs. Harrington’s comments about financial advisors suggest that at most, about 25% of them feel conscience-stricken, leaving the remaining 75% to be in full or partial accord with neoliberal anti-government ideology. Those people are helping to cheat governments worldwide out of trillions of tax dollars. And, where governments are corrupt, it is usually or always the same wealthy anti-government people and companies who are fully participating in and fomenting the corruption. That includes fomenting corruption in the US government.