A thunderbolt of truth: Why the MSM is openly hostile to Biden

NOTE: The veracity of the information in this post is contested. 

Larrymotuz posted this yesterday about the mainstream media:

John C. Varner III (@LilHulkQ) answered the following QUESTION on Threads Net:

Q: ABC,CNN,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,NEW YORK TIMES. WHY AREN'T YOU ASKING THE FELON TO DROP OUT OF THE RACE?

ANS: The media's anti-Biden noise isn't an accident:

CNN: CEO is a Trump donor
ABC: CEO Trump donor
CBS: CEO Trump donor
NBC: CEO Trump donor
MSNBC: CEO Trump donor
Washington Post: owner Jeff Bezo
Wall Street Journal: Owner: Robert Murdoch
New York Times: CEO Trump donor

***

I think THAT answers many a question.

It also answers why President Biden usually is damned with faint praise and gets zero to miniscule coverage for his major achievements as POTUS.

IMHO, that is information worth keeping in mind. It plausibly explains why the MSM is so clearly hostile to Biden and so accommodating to the authoritarian monster DJT.

Update: I am trying to verify the information about Trump donors. So far I have been unable to find the sources of that information. Open Secrets does not have this information in its major donor list.

Perplexity:

Q: What are the political affiliations of major American news executives?

A: 

1. A significant majority of top executives and CEOs of major American companies lean Republican. A study found that 57.7% of CEOs have donated to Republican causes, while only 18.6% consistently supported Democrats.
2. This trend is even more pronounced among America's top executives, with nearly 70% affiliated with the Republican Party and 31% with the Democrats.
3. The political polarization among executives has increased over time. From 2008 to 2020, partisanship in executive teams increased by 7.7 percentage points, which is twice the rate of increase in the general population.
4. This Republican leaning among executives is attributed to conservative policies often being more favorable to corporate interests, such as tax cuts and deregulation.
5. However, it's important to note that political affiliations can vary by industry. For example, the energy sector shows a stronger Republican bias, particularly in the South and Midwest.
6. When it comes to news organizations specifically, there is a mix of political leanings. Some major newspapers and news magazines are perceived to lean liberal (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post), while others are seen as more conservative (e.g., Wall Street Journal, New York Post).
7. The political affiliation of news executives can influence the editorial stance and coverage of their organizations. For instance, Fox News, which is known for its conservative leaning, is the most common source of political news for Republicans.

Some good news for democracy; Biden's letter to congressional Dems

Voters in France unexpectedly rejected the bigoted radical right authoritarian wealth and power movement there. Polling in the days before the election indicated that the authoritarian radicals would lead and would get or come close to getting an outright majority. What happened was that the left got the most votes, while Macron's centrist party came in second and the authoritarian radicals came in third. The WaPo describes it like this:

France’s left-wing New Popular Front alliance and President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist coalition thwarted a far-right victory in legislative elections on Sunday, staging one of the greatest political upsets in recent French history.

The results were a major defeat for Marine Le Pen’s populist, anti-immigrant National Rally party, which had hoped that Sunday would mark the final step in its transformation from a fringe neofascist group into a mainstream political force.  

Instead of ushering in France’s first far-right government since World War II, the French voters who turned out in high numbers on Sunday boosted the left and the center, which unexpectedly came in first and second, even appearing to stun some of their own lawmakers.

One search about the effects, if any, of the rise of America's bigoted radical right authoritarian wealth and power movement included this: 

While Donald Trump was not directly mentioned in the context of these French elections, the rejection of far-right politics and the emphasis on democratic values can be seen as part of a broader global trend of pushback against populist and authoritarian-leaning movements. The French electorate's decision to support more moderate or left-leaning parties over the far-right echoes similar concerns that have been raised about Trump's impact on democratic norms in the United States.

Two points come to mind:

• I still do not put much weight on polls because it is too far out in time from the election in November. The polling data in France was literally from just a few days before the unexpected result.

• In my opinion, this is evidence of increasing global awareness, distrust and fear of bigoted radical right authoritarian wealth and power movements. In places where average people still have some power to push back in elections, they are generally pushing back at least some. My main hope for a Democrat to win the White House in Nov. is that enough American voters will see and understand the threat and vote to reject the bigoted, kleptocratic American authoritarianism that DJT undeniably stands for.  

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

The letter reads in part:

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR

July 8, 2024

Fellow Democrats,

Now that you have returned from the July 4th recess, I want you to know that despite all the speculation in the press and elsewhere, I am firmly committed to staying in this race, to running this race to the end, and to beating Donald Trump.

I have had extensive conversations with the leadership of the party, elected officials, rank and file members, and most importantly, Democratic voters over these past 10 days or so. I have heard the concerns that people have - their good faith fears and worries about what is at stake in this election. I am not blind to them. Believe me, I know better than anyone the responsibility and the burden the nominee of our party carries. I carried it in 2020 when the fate of our nation was at stake. I also know these concerns come from a place of real respect for my lifetime of public service and my record as President, and I have been moved by the expressions of affection for me from so many who have known me well and suppo1ted me over the course of my public life. I've been grateful for the rock-solid, steadfast support from so many elected Democrats in Congress and all across the country and taken great strength from the resolve and determination I've seen from so many voters and grassroots supporters even in the hardest of weeks.

I can respond to all this by saying clearly and unequivocally: I wouldn't be running again if I did not absolutely believe I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in 2024.

We had a Democratic nomination process and the voters have spoken clearly and decisively. I received over 14 million votes, 87% of the votes cast across the entire nominating process. I have nearly 3,900 delegates, making me the presumptive nominee of our party by a wide margin.

This was a process open to anyone who wanted to run. Only three people chose to challenge me. One fared so badly that he left the primaries to run as an independent. Another attacked me for being too old and was soundly defeated. The voters of the Democratic Party have voted. They have chosen me to be the nominee of the party.

Do we now just say this process didn't matter? That the voters don't have a say?

I decline to do that. I feel a deep obligation to the faith and the trust the voters of the Democratic Party have placed in me to run this year. It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any selected group of individuals, no matter how well-intentioned. The voters - and the voters alone - decide the nominee of the Democratic Party.

How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that. I will not do that.

I have no doubt that I - and we - can and will beat Donald Trump. We have an historic record of success to run on. From creating over 15 million jobs (including 200,000 just last month), reaching historic lows on unemployment, to revitalizing American manufacturing with 800,000 jobs, to protecting and expanding affordable health care, to rebuilding America's roads, bridges, highways, ports and airports, and water systems, ....

More importantly, we have an economic vision to run on that soundly beats Trump and the MAGA Republicans. They are siding with the wealthy and the big corporations and we are siding with the working people of America. It wasn't an isolated moment for Trump to stand at Mar-A­ Lago and tell the oil industry they should give him $1 billion and he will do whatever they want. That's whose side Trump and the MAGA Republicans are on. Trump and the MAGA Republicans want another $5 trillion in tax cuts for rich people so they can cut Social Security and Medicare. We will never let that happen. It's trickle-down economics on steroids. We know the way to build the economy is from the middle out and the bottom up, not the top down. We are finally going to make the rich and big corporations pay their fair share of taxes in this country. The MAGA party is also still determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which could throw 45 million Americans off their coverage. ....

The question of how to move forward has been well-aired for over a week now. And it's time for it to end. We have one job. And that is to beat Donald Trump. We have 42 days to the Democratic Convention and 119 days to the general election. Any weakening of resolve or lack of clarity about the task ahead only helps Trump and hurts us. It is time to come together, move forward as a unified party, and defeat Donald Trump.

A new kind of online attack; Biden's arrogant cluelessness; Regarding the prospects of significant civil unrest

Social media just keeps getting more toxic. The NYT reports:

Students Target Teachers in Group TikTok Attack, 

Shaking Their School

Seventh and eighth graders in Malvern, Pa., impersonating their teachers posted disparaging, lewd, racist and homophobic videos in the first known mass attack of its kind in the U.S.

In February, Patrice Motz, a veteran Spanish teacher at Great Valley Middle School in Malvern, Pa., was warned by another teacher that trouble was brewing.

Some eighth graders at her public school had set up fake TikTok accounts impersonating teachers. Ms. Motz, who had never used TikTok, created an account.

She found a fake profile for @patrice.motz, which had posted a real photo of her at the beach with her husband and their young children. “Do you like to touch kids?” a text in Spanish over the family vacation photo asked. “Answer: Sí.”

In the days that followed, some 20 educators — about one quarter of the school’s faculty — discovered they were victims of fake teacher accounts rife with pedophilia innuendo, racist memes, homophobia and made-up sexual hookups among teachers. Hundreds of students soon viewed, followed or commented on the fraudulent accounts.

The biggest fallout has been for teachers like Ms. Motz, who said she felt “kicked in the stomach” that students would so casually savage teachers’ families. The online harassment has left some teachers worried that social media platforms are helping to stunt the growth of empathy in students. Some teachers are now hesitant to call out pupils who act up in class. Others said it had been challenging to keep teaching.

“It was so deflating,” said Ms. Motz, who has taught at the school, in a wealthy Philadelphia suburb, for 14 years. “I can’t believe I still get up and do this every day.”

The Great Valley incident is the first known group TikTok attack of its kind by middle schoolers on their teachers in the United States. It’s a significant escalation in how middle and high school students impersonate, troll and harass educators on social media.  

“Move on. Learn to joke,” [one] student said about a teacher. “I am 13 years old,” she added, using an expletive for emphasis, “and you’re like 40 going on 50.”

Ah yes, insightful wisdom from a foul mouthed 13 year old monster. Learn how to take a joke, you dumbass adults. See what SM-DFS (social media and dark free speech) hook-ups can do to innocents? But of course, these are just children expressing their inner child. For them, SM-DFS hook-ups are fun and easy. For American society and democracy, those toxic hook-ups are harmful.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

I have been arguing that it is probably too late to replace Joe Biden. For example, radical right authoritarians are threatening lawsuits if he is replaced. Those lawsuits and appeals cannot be settled before the election. But Joe's shockingly arrogant comments in the ABC interview got me to dislike him even more:

President Biden indicated in an interview with ABC News Friday that he would be at peace if he lost to former President Trump "as long as I gave it my all."  

"If you stay in and Trump is elected and everything you're warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?" Stephanopoulos asked Biden."I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all, and I did as good a job as I know I can do, that's what this is about," the president responded.

At other points in the interview, Biden repeatedly denied that his approval rating could be as low as 36%, that elected Democrats want him to step aside, and that the presidential race is anything but a "toss-up."

Apparently Joe still doesn't get it. This election isn't about him. It is about democracy, the rule of law and our civil liberties. If he loses, we lose far more than just a bump against his ego and thick skin. We lose everything if he loses. Feeling good about doing one's best and failing to Trump is a total oxymoron for normal people. Our democracy hangs by a thread and arrogant Joe still doesn't get it. 

Update: The news articles calling for Joe to step down are relentless and numerous. It is starting to look like his candidacy is no longer tenable. I'm still not sure that a candidacy by another Democrat is tenable either, but that seems to be a non-issue with the often snotty cognoscenti. The asymmetry in reporting about Biden vs DJT remains galaxy-sized. Everyone is calling for Joe to get out, but almost no one is calling for the far more unfit DJT to get out. The Hill comments:

“I wimped out in today’s column and deleted a line saying he should formulate a plan to transition the presidency to [Vice President] Harris within 30-60 days, but I’m there now,” Silver said. “Something is clearly wrong here.” .... “The most generous way to put it is that he doesn’t seem in command, and that’s an extremely hard sell when you’re Commander in Chief,” Silver said.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

A couple of articles comment on prospects for civil unrest and violence violence. One comments:

Trump's Far-Right Army Is Threatening Bloodshed. 

Believe Them.

We must not only resist, but prevail. If we do not, it will be nearly impossible to reverse the course that America’s right-wing billionaires have set us on

Kevin Roberts, who heads the Heritage Foundation (largely responsible for Project 2025) just implicitly threatened Americans that if we don’t allow him and his hard-right movement to complete their transformation of America from a democratic republic into an authoritarian state, there will be blood in the streets.

“We’re in the process of taking this country back,” he told a TV audience, adding:

“The reason that they are apoplectic right now, the reason that so many anchors on MSNBC, for example, are losing their minds daily is because our side is winning. And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

Another source points out that threats from America's authoritarian radical right wealth and power movement are completely explicit (and just as irrational and unwarranted, IMHO):

MAGA Gov Candidate’s Ugly, Hateful Rant: “Some Folks Need Killing!”

“Some folks need killing!” Mark Robinson, [North Carolina’s] lieutenant governor, shouted during a roughly half-hour-long speech in Lake Church in the tiny town of White Lake, in the southeast corner of the state. “It’s time for somebody to say it. It’s not a matter of vengeance. It’s not a matter of being mean or spiteful. It’s a matter of necessity!”

Robinson’s call for the “killing” of “some folks” came during an extended diatribe in which he attacked an extraordinary assortment of enemies. These ranged from “people who have evil intent” to “wicked people” to those doing things like “torturing and murdering and raping” to socialists and Communists.

Despite Robinson’s contrary claims, what he argues for clearly is a matter of murder and vengeance, and being brutal and spiteful in the process. It is not a matter of necessity.

Analysis of the demise of the Chevron defense

Germaine: When people like Milton here get rid of regulations,

there are no pro-public interest rules of the game, 

only legalized greed, opacity, deception and fraud are left

A week or two ago, the USSC decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo nullified the Chevron defense that the USSC established in 1984. The “Chevron deference,” generally required courts to defer to the expertise of federal experts when regulations were challenged in court. Now after the Loper Bright decision, the USSC pushed federal experts and their regulations out of the picture. The USSC took power for itself to decide what regulations are acceptable and what regulations are invalid. This USSC will decide the fate of regulations in a political framework dedicated to establishing a plutocratic and Christian theocratic authoritarian kleptocracy.

With this radicalized Republican  court, Loper Bright constitutes a massive shift in power from the federal government and the public interest (consumer protections, worker protections, financial regulations, environmental regulations, health care regulations, marketing regulations, etc.) to radical right authoritarian elites and businesses. This USSC decision seriously empowers the rise of kleptocratic authoritarianism. 

Experts are starting to write about the consequences of Loper Bright. The WaPo writes (not paywalled):

Now legal scholars are unsure how much of the U.S.’s administrative framework — decisions made by legions of experts and bureaucrats responsible for the daily operations of the federal government — could fall in the months and years to come.

“It means chaos,” said Dorothy A. Brown, a law professor at Georgetown University. “This is the Supreme Court cutting back on agency power knowing that Congress can never pass a law that will answer all questions. But it limits what government can do to protect people, protect consumers and impose costs on big corporations.”

Items the radical right authoritarian kleptocrats probably intend to target include student loan forgiveness regulations, regulations that protect transgender youth, and worker rights regulations. 

Targeted workers’ rights will include nullifying expanded overtime pay eligibility, requirements for employers to accommodate pregnancy, guidelines on workplace harassment and standards holding franchised brands responsible for labor law violations.

Also likely in the kleptocrats’ crosshairs are (1) federal government help for electric vehicles (the oil companies hate electric cars), (2) a federal crackdown on emissions from gasoline-powered cars and trucks (the oil and car companies hate emissions regulations and gas mileage targets), (3) corporate climate disclosures (most corporations and businesses want to freely pollute in as much secrecy as their pollution will allow, i.e., usually a hell of a lot of polluting), and (4) a new regulation for diagnostic tests that some hospitals develop in-house but are not covered by existing medical laws and regulations (health care providers and insurers hate transparency, regulations and accountability for their disasters and cruel policies).

Regarding the quoted comment about congress not being able to pass laws that answer all questions, these comments in 1949 by former US Attorney General Edward Levy are spot on relevant (my book review is here):

“This is an attempt to describe generally the process of legal reasoning in the field of case law, and in the interpretation of statutes and of the Constitution. It is important that the mechanism of legal reasoning should not be concealed by its pretense. The pretense is that the law is a system of known rules applied by a judge; the pretense has long been under attack. In an important sense legal rules are never clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society would be impossible. The mechanism accepts the differences of view and ambiguities of words. It provides for the participation of the community in resolving the ambiguity by providing a forum for the discussion of policy in the gap of ambiguity. On serious controversial questions it makes it possible to take the first step in the direction of what otherwise would be forbidden ends. The mechanism is indispensable to peace in a community.”

Darts in defense of democracy; Cult language & thinking control tactics; A glimmer of hope?

Each day I send at least one email to an opinionologist or news reporter at a major outlet. One of my darts yesterday was this to reporter Peter Baker at the NYT in the comments section of his article, Varying Treatment of Biden and Trump Puts Their Parties in Stark Relief:

“Yet we hear crickets from Republicans after their presumptive nominee was incoherent, rambling and utterly divorced from the truth. Oh, and also a convicted felon.” 

Finally, someone in the MSM is starting to pay attention. A major omission from the list of DJT's accomplishments like chronic liar, sex predator and convicted felon, is his far more important achievement of kleptocratic dictator status. I mean that seriously. Just consider his blatant corruption, contempt of the emoluments clause and overt hostility to democracy. 

The MSM's failure to grasp the fundamental essence of DJT constitutes a betrayal of the public interest, democracy and the rule of law. Again, I am 100% serious about this. The evidence to back that up is in the public record and undeniable.

That was in response to the NYT article whining about Biden's bad debate performance. This was one of the few NYT articles since the debate that finally started to call out DJT to some extent:

One of America’s political parties has a presidential candidate who is really old and showing it. The other has a presidential candidate who is a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, business fraudster and self-described aspiring dictator for a day. And also really old.

One of the parties is up in arms about its nominee and trying to figure out how to replace him at the last minute. The other is not.

But the distinction of recent weeks has been striking. After Mr. Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies by a Manhattan jury in May — a verdict that came after civil judgments against him for personal and professional misdeeds — there was no significant groundswell within the Republican Party to force him out of the race in favor of a less-tainted candidate. Even though many Republican officeholders and strategists privately loathe him, they fell in line and made clear they would stick with him no matter how many scandals piled up.

“While Biden had the worst debate performance in all of presidential history, Trump’s was likely the second-worst,” said Jeffrey A. Engel, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. “Yet we hear crickets from Republicans after their presumptive nominee was incoherent, rambling and utterly divorced from the truth. Oh, and also a convicted felon.”

Even with some criticism of DJT, one can sense the restraint with which the MSM and most observers treat him. DJT was not called out as the kleptocratic authoritarian he really is. That is was is critically important for the public to come to understand. public knowledge of DJT's kleptocratic authoritarianism is more important than the knowledge of his chronic lying, business frauds, felony convictions, and sexual predator escapades. Kleptocratic authoritarianism (corrupt fascist, etc.) is what the MSM should be harping on every single day. So far very few in the MSM have had the guts to call him out in those terms. 

Update: Gadzooks & Oh My Dog! The NYT banned me! ☹️ They can't handle legit criticism. Or, is it illegit to call DJT and the GOP kleptocratic authoritarian? Hm, wonder how long it will be before the WaPo bans me. Anyway, at least I know know that at least one of my darts got through and pissed at least someone off.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

This 11 minute video discusses the tactics that cults employ to create a sense of belonging, cohesion and group superiority. A common cult rhetoric tactic is to employ us vs. them to help demonize targeted outside groups. A key goal of cult leaders is to distort reality into false narratives.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Salon writes about the possibility that when the kleptocratic radical right authoritarian wealth & power movement published Project 2025, it might be causing a bit of backlash:

Project 2025 was supposed to boost Donald Trump's campaign 

but it may be backfiring instead

Trump's authoritarian game plan is breaking through the post-debate noise and it's starting to scare people

When Project 2025 was released, a number of progressives expressed surprise that Donald Trump's army of authoritarian schemers would boldly publish their plan to destroy American government as we know it. The over 900-page document, commissioned by the people expected to run another Trump White House, is a laundry list of the far-right's most politically toxic ideas, from banning abortion nationwide to mass firing federal officials who believe in protecting public health and safety. One would think that Trump and his allies would try to keep their sinister plans out of public view.

The MAGA right learned years ago the value of hiding their wicked plans in plain sight. Authoritarian thought leader Christopher Rufo is the most prominent example. He frequently speaks loudly of his machinations, such as boldly announcing on Twitter that the right is trying to take away birth control, claiming women should not have "recreational sex." Recently imprisoned Trump ally Steve Bannon gloated openly on his podcast about his schemes. Before going to prison, he bragged to the New York Times, "This is a military headquarters for a populist revolt." Kevin Roberts, whose group Heritage Foundation is helping run Project 2025, recently spoke about how Trump will use violence to force the MAGA agenda on the public.

But the radical right authoritarians will be

happy to shoot people who peacefully protest

On Sunday, actress Taraji P. Henson took a break during the BET Awards, which she was hosting, to speak out about Project 2025. "The Project 2025 plan is not a game. Look it up!" she told viewers. "I’m talking to all the mad people that don’t want to vote. You’re going to be mad about a lot of things if you don’t vote."

"You’re going to be mad about a lot 

of things if you don’t vote."

Hm, that gets the Dissident Politics highly prized Understatement of the Week Award!! Congratulations Taraji! ⭐👏👏 

Good news, or not? 

Q: Is it just me hallucinating or dementating (the act of being demented), or are the wheels coming off the fabulous, luxurious American democracy donkey cart?

Settlers settling Utah in 1993

(well, not really, but whatever)

Settlers settling Gaza in 2024

(really, I think)

Laws influence perceptions of reality and thinking

Humans are social creatures. Most everything non-trivial can affect how we perceive reality and how we think about it. That applies to laws.

Perplexity:

Q: Do any laws influence thinking? 

A: There is evidence that laws can influence thinking and moral attitudes in several ways:

1. Changing perceptions of social norms: Laws can affect how people perceive social norms around certain behaviors. A study found that the introduction of lockdown laws during the COVID-19 pandemic helped correct misperceptions about prevailing social norms regarding social distancing measures.

2. Shaping moral attitudes: Laws can influence moral attitudes by recharacterizing previously harmless behaviors as problematic, signaling moral approval for certain actions, or developing a reputation for justice. For example, anti-discrimination laws can change how people view discriminatory practices.

3. Providing information: Laws can act as a source of information about prevailing social values, which in turn shapes people's thinking about what is socially acceptable or desirable.

4. Affecting personal norms: Some studies have found that laws can shift personal norms and beliefs about the appropriateness of certain behaviors.

5. Impacting thinking skills: One study found that education on the rule of law was associated with increases in students' thinking skills and self-assessment of adherence to the rule of law.

6. Legitimacy and procedural justice: When the legal system is perceived as promoting justice and using fair procedures, people are more likely to internalize its principles and comply with laws in general.

However, it's important to note that the effectiveness of laws in influencing thinking depends on various factors:

• Whether the law targets attitudes central to cultural identities
• The level of underlying consensus or disagreement about the behavior
• Whether the law aims to change the meaning of behaviors or just the behaviors themselves
• How well the law is communicated to the target group

Laws can change social norms in several ways. They can change behavior and norms. Laws that change material payoffs or incentives affect people's behavior, which in turn shifts the descriptive social norms (what people typically do) over time. The same applies to morals. Laws can influence moral attitudes by recharacterizing previously harmless behaviors as problematic or by signaling moral approval or disapproval for targeted behaviors or actions.

Social engineering via changing laws is core strategy for America's radical right authoritarian wealth and power movement. The authoritarian elites intend to completely socially re-engineer the US from a secular, pluralistic democracy operating under the rule of law, to a bigoted, intolerant authoritarian kleptocratic state with limited or no rule of law for the elites. But rest assured, there will be plenty of iron fist law for the rest of us.