Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

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.

Sunday, January 30, 2022

Who Is Baroness Kandy Kaye Horn?

 

The Candidate With All Those Billboards?

The relative unknown has spent $1.4 million on her primary against Greg Abbott—on par with Allen West, a serious challenger. But why?



When Roman Pérez first spotted the Kandy Kaye Horn for Governor billboard looming above a Brownsville cafe that’s a popular political hangout, the conservative podcaster experienced a kind of sensory overload: a mix of curiosity, confusion, and amusement. First, he noted, the entire billboard is a Texas flag, with “SUCCESSFUL CHRISTIAN BUSINESSWOMAN: READY TO SERVE TEXAS” printed in block letters on the white portions. Second, his eye was drawn to the flag’s center, where a sixtysomething woman with hair that looks like it was colored with a burnt sienna crayon—the type of character Pérez said he meets at tea party meetings—wears a big smile. Third, and not least, he was taken aback by her dress, which appears to be made of cash money. 

Pérez, who teaches a Texas history course at Wayland Baptist University and has been immersed in local politics for twenty years, said the billboard scanned immediately as one for a Republican candidate, even though there is no mention of party. But he had never heard of Horn and wasn’t sure why a Republican candidate for statewide office would spend money to advertise in Southmost, the Brownsville neighborhood where the sign looms and where very few residents vote in GOP primaries. “This all went through my mind,” he recounted, “because I’m thinking, what is she trying to tell me, because there is so much in there.”

Later that day, Pérez took a picture of the 14-by-48-foot sign and tweeted it with words of bewilderment. He soon heard from other politicos who had been startled to see similar signs elsewhere—in Alamo, Harlingen, Mercedes, and Mission. Indeed, it turned out, Horn’s Brownsville billboard is one of 160 she paid to erect across the length and breadth of Texas in January, from El Paso to the Rio Grande Valley and from Amarillo to the Louisiana line. Horn’s message, never more than nine words, varies from place to place. In downtown San Angelo, instead of “SUCCESSFUL CHRISTIAN BUSINESSWOMAN,” she’s “A DIFFERENT KIND OF REPUBLICAN: READY TO LEAD TEXAS.”  In Austin, she’s “READY TO DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA: READY TO SERVE TEXAS.” But no one who responded to Pérez had ever heard of Horn, a retired Houston mortgage broker, philanthropist, and “baroness.”

Horn may be a novice candidate running a DIY campaign, but she is a well-funded (and self-funded) one. In an eight-candidate GOP primary field, she is spending on par with former Texas Republican Party chairman Allen West, a serious challenger, and behind only former state senator Don Huffines and Governor Greg Abbott. She’s already poured $1.4 million of her money into the race: a million on the billboards, a quarter million for a February blitz of newsprint ads and digital media with Hearst Newspapers, and $47,000 for T-shirts, fishing shirts, and baseball caps. As for the dress made of cash? No actual bills of hers were harmed in the making. Horn told me last week that she had sewn the dress out of shower curtain material. 

Her rationale behind the billboards—“a big rollout for name recognition”—and her dress was simple. “I thought it was funny because everybody thought that Donald Trump would be a good president because he was wealthy,” Horn said. “Some people don’t really understand who they’re voting for, but they vote for somebody that they know has already been successful.” (She did regret an error on her Austin billboard, however, telling me it should have read she was ready to legalize, and not just decriminalize, marijuana.)

Horn knows how unlikely her candidacy is. It wasn’t until this week that she launched a campaign website, and she has yet to start in-person campaigning for the March 1 primary. She has no paid staff, and told me she won’t hire any unless she makes it to a runoff against Abbott, should he fail to win more than 50 percent of the vote and should she place second in the primary field. Asked if she has a political guru to advise her, she said she did but was not ready to reveal her name. Horn seems comfortable with losing: the way she figures it, if her billboards and media blitz and call for legalizing marijuana gain her some traction, great, and if not, she said, “At least I put myself out there as a different alternative as a different choice. Certainly I have some different ideas than all the men that are on the podium.​​” (The other seven Republican candidates for governor are men.) 

But running a campaign she’s okay with losing has not come without a learning curve and moments of panic. When we talked on January 21, she had not filed campaign finance statements with the Texas Ethics Commission, beginning with the report covering the period from her announcement on November 13 to the end of December that was due three days before our conversation. “Well, I wasn’t told that I needed to since I’m funding myself,” Horn told me. 

I explained to her the potential perils of her missing the cutoff: she might receive a $500 fine for each filing period she missed, and under state election code she could face even bigger consequences. All candidates for statewide office must appoint a campaign treasurer and file that name with the TEC before accepting campaign contributions or authorizing campaign expenditures, which Horn had not done. Under an obscure section of the code (Section 253.131), if she failed to appoint a treasurer, each of her opponents could seek damages from her for twice the value of her expenditures, plus “reasonable attorney’s fees.” That meant, theoretically, that if all seven opponents sued, Horn’s $1.4 million in spending could have left her on the hook for $19.6 million, plus legal fees. “Oh goodness,” Horn said in response to my warning. Hours after our conversation, she had filed some of her paperwork, and did the rest by the following Monday. She had appointed herself treasurer of her campaign, which is permissible under state law. 

In a mean campaign season in American political life, a well-heeled amateur campaign does have its quirky charm. But $1.4 million is an expensive indulgence. So why is Horn running?  

While she may be a political neophyte, Horn is an accomplished philanthropist, with a compelling rags-to-riches story. She grew up 25 miles east of Dallas and was raised by a single mother who worked in the cafeteria at Terrell State Hospital. When she was fifteen, she and her mother were in a car accident. The damage wasn’t serious, but because her mother had a history of heart trouble, an ambulance came to take her to the hospital for assessment. On the way there, the ambulance was T-boned at an intersection. Horn’s mother wasn’t well secured in the gurney and was thrown from it, breaking her neck and killing her. Horn, who was also in the ambulance, was unharmed. 

After Horn was orphaned, Jeremiah 29:11—a bible verse that is referenced, but not quoted, on her billboards—provided her life with meaning and inspiration. “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future,’” the passage reads.

The morning after Horn graduated from high school she left Terrell for Sam Houston State University, starting with a summer session, and paid her way through college on financial aid and a work-study program. She finished her degree at Texas Christian University, and then earned an MBA from the University of Texas at Arlington in 1981. After graduating, she became a successful mortgage broker in Houston. 

Years later, in 2014, she founded the Horn Family Foundation with her second husband, Stephen Horn, who works in the energy industry. They began philanthropic efforts, prominently supporting groups including the Salvation Army, the Houston Food Bank, and Career & Recovery Resources Inc., which helps veterans, and those with histories of drug and alcohol abuse or felony backgrounds, overcome barriers to employment. Over the years, she said, the foundation has given away about $6 million. 

When Kandy Kaye divorced Stephen Horn in 2015, she got the foundation. Two years later, she assumed the title “baroness.” But there is no baron, no castle, and no noble bloodline. “I bought that title from the house of Marlborough, England,” she explained. “That’s Winston Churchill’s family.” She had read about the practice of purchasing baronies in the New York Times, and said hers cost 15,000 pounds sterling (at today’s rate, just more than $20,000). “I just thought it was quirky and might get me some upgrades on hotels, or a cruise ship,” she told me. (Pressed for details about acquiring the title, Horn said the purchase was made on the internet, and that she received a certificate from England attesting to her being the “baroness of Churchill,” but couldn’t vouch for its legitimacy.) She promptly changed the name of the Horn Family Foundation to the Baroness Kandy Kaye Horn Foundation

Horn’s politics seem shaped by her philanthropic philosophy. “She has an unusual combination of empathy, but also follows the bootstrap theory,” said Kelly Young, the CEO of Career and Recovery Resources. “So she cares and she wants things to go well for people, but she also expects people to do what they’re supposed to do to make their lives work.”

Indeed, the baroness appears to have a sense of noblesse oblige to match her aristocratic nomenclature that is guiding her run for governor. “I know you can’t drink diamonds and you can’t chew gold,” she told me. “You can’t digest currency. And you can’t take it with you. There’s not a U-Haul behind the hearse. So you have to decide what the purpose of your life is, and I decided my purpose in my life is to be a cheerleader, to be someone that cares—a caretaker.” 


Horn has been considering running for governor for a couple of years. “I just thought if I can make a change, if I can make a contribution, I could try to do something, because I had the means to do it and I think I have some answers.” 

While she doubts Abbott can be beaten, she believes he merits opposition for what she views as his meanness of spirit. She recalls that when he was running for governor in 2014, he supported tort reform that would make it harder to win the kind of settlement he received after he was hit by a falling tree while jogging in Houston in 1984, leaving him paralyzed. “I thought that was kind of duplicitous of him, to first make money from a lawsuit and then stop other people from having that same privilege and right to justice,” Horn said. (When her mother was killed, Horn noted, she could have brought a wrongful death suit, “but when you’re just suddenly orphaned at fifteen, that’s really not the first thing on your mind.”)

Horn said she has identified mostly as a Republican since the Reagan era, though her voter file shows she has oscillated between casting ballots in GOP and Democratic primaries. She told me she especially admired George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain. But she also noted an affection for Ann Richards, who she said “was funny and good and all of that.” She is not a fan of Donald Trump, and during the 2020 nominating process repeatedly promoted a Mike Bloomberg/Elizabeth Warren ticket on her Facebook page. She also supported Beto O’Rourke in his 2018 bid to unseat Senator Ted Cruz, though she considers her support for the politician now running for the Democratic nomination for governor to have been “short-sighted.” Her pitch to voters leans into her softer conservatism. “I can offer a different type of conservative Republican,” she said. “I’m a woman, I can be compassionate, I can be empathetic, but also I can be strong and make some hard decisions.” 

On many issues, Horn treads familiar GOP ground. She supports an “impenetrable” border wall and an increase in deportations. She complains that “there’s practically no deportation of criminals back to Mexico, I mean real criminals.” But she hits both Trump and Abbott for their responses to the pandemic. She didn’t support the two stimulus packages signed by Trump in 2020. “That’s basically mailing free money to people,” she told me. “Free money is not appreciated or saved.” And although she stayed very close to home from February 2020 to April 2021, she faults Abbott’s early pandemic shelter-in-place order. “Ordering Texans to stay home, I think that was a mistake. We’re kind of in a state of wide-open spaces.” 

Marijuana legalization is her platform’s other linchpin. “It will transform our state in terms of sales tax revenue, enterprise, more businesses,” Horn says. She plans to use the new tax revenue to increase teacher compensation. Legalization might, she noted, also be good for her long-shot candidacy. “Let’s just say all the youngsters come out and the marijuana legalization is a big deal, it’s a big punch item for them and so they say, `Well, let’s go with this Kandy Kaye Horn. We know she’s gonna do that. That’s concrete.’”

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/who-is-baroness-kandy-kaye-horn-the-candidate-with-all-those-billboards/

Another kook, or someone to knock Abbott off of his perch?

Saturday, January 29, 2022

Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich and the rise of Republican all-out political warfare

For context, the comments in this 40 second video from 1980 by radical Christian nationalist Paul Weyrich made clear that the Republican Party knew it was in deep trouble even back then. Most Americans were not buying what the GOP was selling.




In 1991, the New York Times published these comments about and by Lee Atwater, one of the architects of the modern Republican Party's brand of poisonous, no-compromise political warfare. The new Republican politics movement had nothing to do with governing democratically or in good faith. It had everything to do with discrediting the political opposition and winning power. Atwater was then the chairman of the national Republican Party. At the time, he was dying from a brain tumor, which he feared. His comments can reasonably be taken as deathbed confessions.
.... Lee Atwater has apologized to Michael S. Dukakis for the "naked cruelty" of a remark he made about the Democratic Presidential nominee in the 1988 campaign. 

Since being stricken last year, the 39-year-old Mr. Atwater has apologized on several occasions for many of the campaign tactics he once employed and for which he was criticized.  
Mr. Horton, who is black, raped a white woman and stabbed her husband while on a weekend furlough from a Massachusetts prison. The Bush campaign used the case to portray Mr. Dukakis, then Governor of Massachusetts, as a liberal who was soft on crime.

"In 1988," Mr. Atwater said, "fighting Dukakis, I said that I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his running mate.' I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not." 
Reputation as 'Ugly Campaigner' 
"In part because of our successful manipulation of his campaign themes, George Bush won handily," Mr. Atwater said. He conceded that throughout his political career "a reputation as a fierce and ugly campaigner has dogged me."

"While I didn't invent negative politics," he said, "I am one of its most ardent practitioners."

"After the election, when I would run into [Democratic Party national chairman] Ron Brown, I would say hello and then pass him off to one of my aides," he said. "I actually thought that talking to him would make me appear vulnerable.

"Since my illness, Ron has been enormously kind -- he sent a baby present to Sally T.," Mr. Atwater's third child, who was born only weeks after he was stricken. "He writes and calls regularly -- and I have learned a lesson: Politics and human relationships are separate. I may disagree with Ron Brown's message, but I can love him as a man."

After Atwater, Newt Gingrich came on the scene. He made the situation more poisonous than it already was. Gingrich did not care about Atwater's regrets. He was all-in on the GOP's all-out political warfare plan. A November 2018 broadcast on NPR, 'Combative, Tribal, Angry': Newt Gingrich Set The Stage For Trump, Journalist Says, discusses Gingrich and his brand of poison politics. In the podcast below, Terry Gross interviews McKay Coppins, who wrote an article about the rise and tactics of Gingrich, The Man Who Broke Politics, for The Atlantic magazine at the about same time as the NPR broadcast. Coppins commented about Gingrich:
"He set a model for future Republican leaders," Coppins says of Gingrich. "I think that his defining legacy is he enshrined this combative, tribal, angry attitude in politics that would infect our national discourse in Washington and Congress for decades to come."


These are a couple of the comments from the interview transcript:
GROSS: I thought Newt Gingrich had kind of disappeared from the political scene. But apparently, he's very active on Fox News and very influential on Fox News.

COPPINS: Yeah. It's, I think, interesting. If you're not a regular Fox News viewer, I think a lot of people probably forgot about Newt Gingrich. He's very influential with the Republican base, the Fox News audience. He's seen as kind of this iconic figure, this truth teller. And he's also, frankly, influential within the Trump administration. He talks to the White House, he told me, 10 to 15 times a week. He's on the phone with Jared Kushner or Mike Pompeo or, you know, talking to Republican leaders in Congress. He is quite an influential figure. And I think that a lot of people forget about him, but I don't think we should for many reasons.

GROSS: What are the reasons?

COPPINS: Well, for one thing, he's influential in this current Trump administration. But also, his career is important to understand if you want to understand how we got to this point in our politics. He entered Congress in the '70s. And if you kind of trace the last 40 years of his career, you'll really come to understand how our politics has devolved into this kind of zero-sum culture war. You'll see the way that he pioneered a lot of the tactics of partisan warfare that we now take for granted as just a common fixture of our political landscape but were actually important innovations by Newt Gingrich and his allies.

And more than anything, I think that if you look at the way that he gained power in the first place, he did it very deliberately and methodically by undermining the institution of Congress itself from within by kind of blowing up the bipartisan coalitions that had existed for a long time in Washington and then using the kind of populist anger at the gridlock in Congress to then take power. And that's a strategy we've seen replicated again and again all the way up into 2016 when Trump was campaigning on draining the swamp. This is a strategy that may seem kind of commonplace now but that Newt Gingrich was one of the premier architects of.

GROSS: So your new article about Newt Gingrich is titled "The Man Who Broke Politics." And you date his really divisive style of politics to 1978. He was running for Congress as a House representative from Georgia. He was speaking to a gathering of college Republicans. He was 35 years old. And he said, one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics. And he told them that to be successful they need to, quote, "raise hell," to stop being so, quote, "nice" and to realize that politics was, quote, "a war for power." (emphasis added)
In his article in The Atlantic, Coppins wrote about a meeting at the Philadelphia Zoo with Gingrich, who was an animal lover:
“There is,” he explained soon after arriving, “a lot we can learn from the natural world.” 
.... Gingrich has spent much of the day using zoo animals to teach me about politics and human affairs. In the reptile room, I learn that the evolutionary stability of the crocodile (“Ninety million years, and they haven’t changed much”) illustrates the folly of pursuing change for its own sake: “If you’re doing something right, keep doing it.” (CAUTION: Crackpot reasoning alert! -- for example, the climate is changing, so we need to change what we do) 
Outside the lion pen, Gingrich treats me to a brief discourse on gender theory: “The male lion procreates, protects the pride, and sleeps. The females hunt, and as soon as they find something, the male knocks them over and takes the best portion. It’s the opposite of every American feminist vision of the world—but it’s a fact!” (CAUTION: Crackpot reasoning alert! -- for example, in some animal societies, females knock the males over and take the best food)
But the most important lesson comes as we wander through Monkey Junction. Gingrich tells me about one of his favorite books, Chimpanzee Politics, in which the primatologist Frans de Waal documents the complex rivalries and coalitions that govern communities of chimps. De Waal’s thesis is that human politics, in all its brutality and ugliness, is “part of an evolutionary heritage we share with our close relatives”—and Gingrich clearly agrees. (CAUTION: Crackpot reasoning alert! -- this is just plain nuts, e.g., humans invented laws to keep violence down and laws actually do that)

One can reasonably ask why such toxic politics and flawed reasoning resonated then and still resonates now with tens of millions of Americans. One commenter here, PD, postulates
.... in a different era or context, Gingrich's antics really would backfire. Some of this has to do with the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam New Right coalition ( Right Wing Libertarians, White Evangelicals like the Moral Majority, demoralized cold warriors after the Fall of Saigon, disillusioned southern democrats in the wake of the civil rights era, etc.) that emerged in the late 70s, and which was embodied by the "Reagan Revolution." There was (and still is) a lot of anger and frustration out there for someone like Gingrich (or nowadays Trump) to exploit, and understanding some of that anger (whether you agree with it or not) is also important.

That sounds a lot like what I've been arguing here for the last ~3 years. A lot of irrational fear, anger, distrust, intolerance and anti-democratic, pro-authoritarianism is going on here. For the most part, that toxic sentiment has been fomented by mendacious, divisive radical right demagogues. IMO, divisive modern Republican radicalism predates Atwater and Gingrich. 

One can arguably trace the origins of modern poison conservative politics to federal civil rights laws in the 1960s, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court public school desegregation decision, and maybe the US Civil War or even the drafting of the US Constitution. Authoritarian mindsets do not arise from nothing. That is inherent in the human condition, along with all other kinds of mindsets. But sometimes, it takes a few talented demagogues at the right places and times to unleash the full potential of anti-democratic authoritarian politics.

Friday, January 28, 2022

Republican hypocrisy and lies on display, once again

Radical: advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme, progressive or conservative section of a political party; (noun) a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims


Mitch McConnell is warning Biden to not nominate a ‘radical’ supreme court justice because his mandate from the 2020 election was to govern from the middle and unite America. His hypocrisy on all three points is blatant, shameless, insulting and immoral. The New York Times writes:
“The American people elected a Senate that is evenly split at 50-50,” Mr. McConnell said in his first statement since word of the retirement leaked. “To the degree that President Biden received a mandate, it was to govern from the middle, steward our institutions and unite America. The president must not outsource this important decision to the radical left. The American people deserve a nominee with demonstrated reverence for the written text of our laws and our Constitution.”

Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer said he wants to act quickly on Biden’s nomination, but in view of bad faith Republican obstructionism over Merrick Garland’s nomination by Obama, he said “We need to be ready and willing to fight, and fight ferociously.” He is probably right about that. 


Who is the radical here?
What Republicans want is thorough political and social change in American government and society. Along with wealthy special interests and their money, the GOP is dominated by fundamentalist Christian nationalists who openly want to establish Old Testament Biblical law, Christian sharia, on America. Most Americans would oppose that if they were asked, which unfortunately they are not. In Republican propaganda, anyone who is not a radical right authoritarian, is smeared and slandered as a socialist or communist radical. The GOP lies and slander story is that Democrats and Biden are hell bent on establishing a tyranny where racial and ethnic minorities brutally oppress White people, White rights and the practice of Christian religion. The Republican Party is hostile to free and fair elections and has been for decades.




In situations like this, Republicans never, ever mention the fact that the results of elections are skewed to rural states due to our electoral system. Lies of omission are front and center. For the GOP, it does not matter one iota that most Americans often oppose them. Republicans deny, downplay or distort this reality into insignificance. Republicans govern as radical right neo-fascist Christian fundamentalists and brass knuckles laissez-faire capitalists regardless of public opinion. Republicans in power are no more responsive to public opinion than Democrats. And when Democrats try to push forward policies that most Americans support, e.g., environmental regulation, fairer tax policy, etc., the GOP and lobbyists with their vast free speech (campaign contributions) power is always right there to block it.




By contrast, Biden is a neoliberal capitalist who caters to Wall Street special interests at least as much as he wants to cater to the public interest. Democrats tend to want society to progress as it will and government to reflect those changes over time. Democrats what time to pass, while Republicans want to freeze time and re-establish an illusory past at some ill-defined point(s) in time. Polls show that a majority of Americans support many or most major Democratic goals, e.g., health careenvironmental protections and correcting unfair taxation. That includes Democratic Party support for free and fair elections unlike the GOP, which opposes voting rights and free and fair elections, which it has to do in view of its minority status in terms of public support.

Or, are both parties so much alike that significant distinctions are more illusion than reality?

Quota filling...



I like balance.  Balance is good.  I like symmetry.  And I really like that elusive idea of “fairness.”  I know, I know... in these tribal days, call me silly.

For example, I’m glad that Biden promised to nominate a woman on the Supreme Court.  That gives it more balance.  Some might consider that quota-filling:

Definition of quota

1a proportional part or share especially the share or proportion assigned to each in a division or to each member of a body

2the number or amount constituting a proportional share

3a fixed number or percentage of minority group members or women needed to meet the requirements of affirmative action

So, this leads to a couple of questions:

1. Are you for quota-filling, whether it be in government, schools, workplace, etc.?  Give your pro/con reasons.

2. Is the United States the kind of country that needs to have quota-filling mandated, else top (usually) man on totem pole constantly keeps his “side” in power?

Thanks for posting and recommending.

Thursday, January 27, 2022

The deep and bitter the American reality divide

The AP writes:
BENSON, Minn. (AP) — The newspaper hit the front porches of the wind-scarred prairie town on a Thursday afternoon: Coronavirus numbers were spiking in the farming communities of western Minnesota.

“Covid-19 cases straining rural clinics, hospitals, staff,” read the front-page headline. Vaccinate to protect yourselves, health officials urged.

But ask around Benson, stroll its three-block business district, and some would tell a different story: The Swift County Monitor-News, the tiny newspaper that’s reported the news here since 1886, is not telling the truth. The vaccine is untested, they say, dangerous. And some will go further: People, they’ll tell you, are being killed by COVID-19 vaccinations.

It’s another measure of how, in an America increasingly split by warring visions of itself, division doesn’t just play out on cable television, or in mayhem at the U.S. Capitol.

It has seeped into the American fabric, all the way to Benson’s 12th Street, where two neighbors -- each in his own well-kept, century-old home -- can live in different worlds.

Jason Wolter, is a thoughtful, broad-shouldered Lutheran pastor who reads widely and measures his words carefully. He also suspects Democrats are using the coronavirus pandemic as a political tool, doubts President Joe Biden was legitimately elected and is certain that COVID-19 vaccines kill people.

He hasn’t seen the death certificates and hasn’t contacted health authorities, but he’s sure the vaccine deaths occurred: “I just know that I’m doing their funerals.”

He’s also certain that information “will never make it into the newspaper.”

“There are no alternative facts,” Reed Anfinson [publisher, editor, photographer and reporter for the Monitor-News] says. “There is just the truth.”

Wolter’s frustration boils over during a late breakfast in a town cafe. Seated with a reporter, he starts talking as if Anfinson is there.

“You’re lying to people,” Wolter says. “You flat-out lie about things.”

So, there you have it. Anfinson reports facts as best he can, but is nonetheless considered a liar by Wolter for whom the facts must be too inconvenient and psychologically threatening to be accepted. Disbelieving people like this base beliefs on faith, not hard evidence. In the case of alleged COVID vaccine deaths, death certificates would prove that the COVID vaccine kills people. Such evidence does not exist because, with very few exceptions, the vaccines do not kill people. That wonderful Lutheran pastor calls newspaper publisher Anfinson a liar without one shred of evidence. Instead Wolter relies on blind raging faith in his false alt-reality. Unfortunately, reality does not care whether Wolter or anyone else believes something that is true or false. It just doesn't care. Only people can care.

Over 339 million vaccine doses were given to 187.2 million people in the US as of July 19, 2021. The vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective. .... Between December 2020 and July 19th, 2021, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018% of doses) among people who got a vaccine, but this does not mean the vaccine caused these deaths. Doctors and safety monitors carefully review the details of each case to see if it might be linked to the vaccine. There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine. (emphasis added)

This raises some issues. One is how much actual evidence and data is needed to convince a disbeliever that actual facts and true truths are real. Another is how damaging such reality disconnects are to democracy and empowering they are to authoritarianism. If intentional polarization and alt-reality propaganda victimizes people and causes this kind of fantasy about public health, why wouldn't it cause the about same reality disconnects for all other issues that have been propagandized? 


Actually, some don't do any research and 
just rely on propaganda for their blind faith

Your pick...

 


-So, with Justice Stephen Breyer retiring, who is your pick for  his SCOTUS replacement, and why?  Give as many details as possible.


-Do you foresee any interference by the Republicans on Biden's SCOTUS nomination?  If yes, in what way(s) and by whom?


Thanks for posting and recommending.