An example of flawed reasoning; Cynicism or sincere?

Jeff Bezos published an explanation (not paywalled, I think) for him blocking the WaPo's endorsement of Harris, claiming that was needed to show journalistic "independence":

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose.

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.

Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves. (It wasn’t always this way — in the 1990s we achieved 80 percent household penetration in the D.C. metro area.)

While I do not and will not push my personal interest, I will also not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance — overtaken by unresearched podcasts and social media barbs — not without a fight. It’s too important. The stakes are too high. Now more than ever the world needs a credible, trusted, independent voice, and where better for that voice to originate than the capital city of the most important country in the world? To win this fight, we will have to exercise new muscles. Some changes will be a return to the past, and some will be new inventions. Criticism will be part and parcel of anything new, of course. This is the way of the world. None of this will be easy, but it will be worth it.

Personally, I find Bezos' reasoning to be disingenuous, obviously flawed and unpersuasive, his comments insulting and his plan to make some changes in a return to the past threatening. His assertion that "increasingly we talk only to a certain elite" really pisses me off. Exactly who are these elites? Not me, that's for damn sure. He doesn't have the guts to tell us that by elites he means pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties, pro-rule of law citizens. He sees the handwriting and needs to appeal to authoritarians falsely claiming to be pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties and pro-rule of law.

His plan to go back to the past is a threat against democracy. What changes does Bezos have in mind? He is silent about that. I assume he intends to sink the WaPo to the low level of Faux News so that they can compete for those people listening to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources. 

Bezos is silent as to what he can do to increase the WaPo's credibility. From what I can tell, the most plausible tactic is to resort to what Faux News, crackpot podcasters and toxic social media do. If not that, then exactly what? Truth is truth, facts are facts. How can that possibly be distrust-inducing unless there are well-funded forces claiming that truth and facts are lies? Bezos' "reasoning" is nonsense.

Bezos' claim that he does not and will not push my personal interest is insulting, cynical and disingenuous. By quashing the Harris endorsement, he pushed personal interest. He was afraid of Trump and wanted to protect his wealth. His comments about the uselessness of endorsements is not even close to persuasive. What he did is direct evidence of non-independence from political threat. That is authoritarian, not democratic. 

A final criticism: An outrageous, insulting omission in Bezos' screed about low public trust in the mainstream media points to a critical part of American authoritarian infrastructure. Low public trust came from decades of authoritarian radical right dark free speech that relentlessly criticized the press and professional news media generally. Bezos' lament shifts all blame for low public trust on the media itself, instead of leveling most of the blame (85% ?) where it obviously belongs, namely America's authoritarian radical right propaganda Leviathan. Crackpots, creeps, cranks and cynical, divisive authoritarians from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to Faux News, the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich, Elon Musk, Christian nationalist hate and lies spewers and giant, anti-journalism special business interests (including plutocratic for-profit ownership) are the main reasons for low public trust. 

Bezos knows all of this and has no answer for it. So, instead of calling out the main culprit, he blames the media itself. To me, Bezos is an arrogant authoritarian, self-serving liar.

***************************

NPR reports that about 200,000 subscribers, about 8% of paid subscriptions, have canceled since Bezos was forced by his fear of Trump to publicly go rogue anti-journalism. Over time, my opinion of Bezos could change depending on what he does to the WaPo. But at present, it feels like what Rupert Murdoch did to the Wall Street Journal. That got me to drop my WSJ subscription years ago. I canceled my WaPo subscription but will have access until the end of next April. Between now and then what he does to the WaPo can convince me he is sincere and pro-democracy, or he can reinforce my bad opinion of him. My mind will remain open.

I’m fascinated by the concept of…

…Time.

Other than our perception of the “arrow of time” always moving in the “forward” direction, what is time really, other than a concept (idea) perceived (experienced by way of change)?  

Yes, time is fluid like that.  It’s a variable.  It’s relative.  It’s not really (ultimately) “real.”  It’s just circumstantially real.  It’s the act of perceiving change while being limited to a particular frame of reference.  That means, ultimately, for us, time is an illusion.  These are undisputed facts… unless and until we enter the realm of the philosophical/theoretical.  Then we might be able to worm our humanly-biased ECC way around them. 😁

As Einstein was said to have phrased it, “For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

I like that.  It has also been said that “Time is the fire in which we burn.”  It’s the medium in which our existence takes place.  I like that “waxing philosophical/poetic” idea too.

There is one truth we humans can hang onto, however.  We do, collectively, experience our own little personal slice of the time continuum.  It’s ours, and it’s where we “make our stand.”  But our slice is far from the “be all-end all” of time.  Personally, I suspect ours is not the “end of the time story.”  There has to be more to it… I think. 🤷‍♀️

Where am I going with this?  I’m wondering…

Is it a shortsighted/faulty premise to judge all (so-called) existence and (so-called) universal knowledge, merely based on our little limited slice of the time continuum?  Granted, our judgments and knowledge are valid, but only while in this, our personal time context. 

What about outside our time slice?  Go outside our default context, and conclusions and knowledge may break down in the greater scheme of the time continuum; what we know, or think we know, may no longer be applicable.  Not impossible, true?

So, let’s do some theoretical (outside the box) thinking, just for the fun of it.

1. When you consider time as something focal to our understanding of existence, how can we so easily dismiss the fluidity of time?  Is it because we can’t directly access time’s fluidity, even though it’s really there?  There, but not there, so to speak?  Out of sight, out of mind?  For example, here’s something amazing.  Do you know you are rotating around the earth’s merry-go-round at an incredible 24,000 miles per hour?  It’s true.  Don’t feel a thing, huh? 😉  How about your “Earth Car” racing at 67,000 miles/hour around the sun?  Still not feelin’ it?

2. Since we know for a fact that time is a variable, how might that play into our believed stoppage of time for a dead thing? Is it because they, the dead thing, no longer seemingly share our time slice?  Is it because there is no longer a vehicle (body) (entity) to be able to experience time? But isn’t that our “time slice experience” talking?  For the religious, is that where the idea of a soul comes in, to take care of the "time problem?"

3. How can the claim be made that existence outside our time continuum is invalid, since we have no access to time outside our slice?  Who could make that claim in good conscience?  Do they know they are basing that claim on limited knowledge?  Don’t they even care?

4. How do you think about this concept and precept of time?  Does it ever give you pause; make you think (or the dreaded “overthink”), 😵 like it does me?

Pick and choose among anything here that interests you.  Let your mind wander and wonder.  I know this is a monster tl;dr post and may not get many reads, but for those who do take the time, entertain me, for a change.

Thanks for indulging me and posting your ideas! 😊

(by PrimalSoup)

How the Dems discriminate . . . . against Dems, but in favor of Repubs; How Repubs discriminate

Standard false criticisms that America's authoritarian radical right constantly levels at Dems include constant claims that Dems disrespect, discriminates against and persecutes them. 

A WaPo article (not paywalled) points out how Dem discrimination and oppression plays out two years after the Inflation Reduction Act was passed into law:

Not a single Republican lawmaker voted for the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Since then, many of them have voted to repeal its clean energy provisions and criticized the law as a waste of taxpayer money.

But red districts have emerged as the climate law’s biggest winners. According to The Post’s analysis, congressional districts that favored Trump in the 2020 election received three times as much clean energy and manufacturing investments as those that leaned toward Biden.

Little dot on far right: Kentucky 5th congressional district: $150 million investments

1st big far right dot: Texas 19th district: $4.9 billion in investments

Not a single Republican lawmaker in congress voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, but not a single Republican state or federal lawmaker tried to turn the money down.

But, the authoritarians are right, the Dems do discriminate. Being the rabidly tyrannical socialist, communist pedophiles they are, they discriminate against themselves. Dems are just like the Suicide Squad sent to save Brian.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

CNN reported a few weeks ago:

Trump's attitude about disaster relief to

blue states when he was president

Politico reported a few days ago: ‘Outrageous abuse of power’: Trump spurned disaster pleas amid feud with governor -- Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee had to wait until President Joe Biden took office to get help for a deadly wildfire that occurred during the Trump administration.

See the difference between the two kinds of discrimination?

In Canada...............

 Is conservatism really on the rise in Canada?

(wrong headline btw, should really be asking is extreme rightwing politics on the rise in Canada?)

Make no mistake, New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs lost big on Monday night. The province’s voters delivered a forceful rebuke of Higgs’ Progressive Conservatives similar to the 1995 election, when the party won only six seats against Frank McKenna’s Liberals.

(but that is just one province, yeah but, read on...........)

Historically, the Liberals have had inefficient support that’s been concentrated in safe francophone ridings. This time, they made inroads with anglophones beyond Moncton.

Higgs, among Canada’s most socially conservative premiers, lost his own safe seat of Quispamsis, which was the province’s most Conservative riding in the 2020 election.

Since gaining power in 2018, Higgs embraced a neoconservative social agenda.

Most notably, he triggered a national conversation on trans children’s recognition in schools. Using the language of “parental rights,” Higgs introduced parent consent restrictions for name and pronoun changes for children under 16.

Over time, Higgs supported anti-trans and anti-sex education protesters, even as many advocates, parents and educators raised concerns about the safety and mental well-being of LGBTQ+ youth.

It didn’t end there. Higgs erroneously suggested an Indigenous nation sought to claim most of the province from property owners. In 2021, his government discouraged land acknowledgements by provincial employees. Higgs also argued that Indigenous people had already ceded their land.

Higgs was successful in uniting the right. As a former leadership contender of the linguistic segregationist Confederation of Regions party, Higgs welcomed far-right People’s Alliance representatives to his party.

(now, this is where the rubber meets the road. unlike those south of the border, this kind of conservatism met with backlash - from conservatives)

On the province’s Policy 713, also called the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity policy, six PCs voted with an opposition motion against the proposed changes. Four were cabinet ministers.

Several ministers resigned from cabinet with letters blasting Higgs’ leadership.

Almost half of PC riding associations sought a leadership review. They fell just short of the minimum needed to trigger a review.

(conclusions?)

But his loss is more than a personal rejection. It also seems a rejection of a grievance politics that favours anger over substance.

After repeatedly focusing on social issues over matters like housing, the grievances lost their allure. Even for the most steadfast Conservative voters, Higgs’ targeting of minorities came across as bullying.

While Higgs may be the worst offender, he is not the only practitioner of grievance conservatism. Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith play the same tune. Will their political fates be any different?

https://theconversation.com/is-conservatism-really-on-the-rise-in-canada-blaine-higgs-big-loss-in-new-brunswick-suggests-not-241971

Attacks on anti-corruption laws continue to intensify: The attack on qui tam

Context

Qui tam lawsuit: A qui tam lawsuit is a legal action that allows private individuals, known as whistleblowers or relators, to file lawsuits on behalf of the government against entities that have committed fraud against the government. Qui tam lawsuits are primarily brought under the False Claims Act, a federal law that aims to recover funds lost to fraud against the government. Many states also have similar laws allowing qui tam actions for state-level fraud.

A whistleblower, often an employee or someone with inside knowledge, discovers fraud against the government. The whistleblower hires an attorney to file a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the government. The lawsuit is filed "under seal," meaning it remains confidential initially. The government investigates the allegations and decides whether to intervene in the case. If successful, the fraudster may have to pay up to three times the government's losses plus penalties.

Qui tam lawsuits have existed in the United States legal system for over 240 years. The concept of qui tam lawsuits was first introduced in the United States during the Revolutionary War era. In 1778, the Continental Congress passed the first whistleblower law that included qui tam provisions.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

The LA Times reports:

Column: A Trump judge just overturned the government’s most effective 

anti-fraud tool, which has stood for 160 years

Since 1986, whistleblowers have been in the forefront of the government’s war on fraud, accounting for $53 billion, or more than 70%, of the $75 billion recovered from swindlers on defense contracts, from Medicare and from other federal programs.

There’s no debate over what’s driving this record: It’s a 1986 federal law that awards whistleblowers up to 30% of the recovery. For the federal government, this is a bargain. Without the law, the government might never even know about most of the $75 billion in fraud that was unearthed.

That makes the law “one of the government’s top fraud-fighting tools,” says James King, a spokesman for the Anti-Fraud Coalition, a Washington watchdog group.

So perhaps it’s unsurprising that a Trump-appointed judge in Florida has just declared a key provision of the law unconstitutional. The provision concerns so-called qui tam actions, in which private litigants bring lawsuits on behalf of the government as well as themselves. (The Latin term came to us via old English law.)

The ruling came from federal Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, whom Trump named to the bench in 2020 despite her having been labeled “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn. due to her “lack of meaningful trial experience.” She did, however, boast a sterling right-wing legal pedigree, including service as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

A good example concerned the drug company Biogen, which paid $900 million to the federal and state governments in 2022 to settle a qui tam lawsuit in which a former employee alleged that the company had paid kickbacks to doctors to entice them to prescribe its multiple sclerosis drugs. (The company didn’t admit guilt in the settlement.)

The government had declined to intervene in the lawsuit but praised the relator for having “diligently pursued this matter on behalf of the United States” over a decade. The whistleblower collected about $250 million, or roughly 30% of the federal government’s share of the settlement.

I offer this as more evidence in addition to the already large amount of evidence from federal court decisions that America's authoritarian radical right wealth and power movement is deeply corrupt and openly hostile to anti-corruption laws.  

Whether this decision will be appealed to the USSC and upheld isn't clear to me. Clarence Thomas very likely would vote to uphold it. The other five Repubs on the bench are open questions. The USSC recently legalized bribery in government by requiring payoffs to come only after a judge or politician gets a "gratuity" or "reward", not a bribe, for doing something the donor likes. Given that level of support for legalized corruption, it seems reasonable to think the USSC would be inclined to uphold this decision. But if the egregiousness of tossing out qui tam lawsuits is more than even the six Repub radicals could stomach, maybe they will reverse this blatantly pro-corruption decision. 

Thinking about endorsements and breaking norms

SciAm breaks the norm of silence

A spate of controversy about newspapers endorsing or not endorsing Harris or Trump is making the rounds. Corey Doctorow writing for Medium comments:

Scientific American endorses Harris

“Conservatism never fails, it is only failed.”

If Trump’s norm-breaking is a threat to democracy (and it is), what should Democrats do? Will breaking norms to defeat norms only accelerate the collapse of norms, or do we fight fire with fire, breaking norms to resist the slide into tyranny?

Writing for The American Prospect, Rick Perlstein writes how “every time the forces of democracy broke a reactionary deadlock, they did it by breaking some norm that stood in the way.”

The tactic of bringing a norm to a gun-fight has been a disaster for democracy. Trump wasn’t the first norm-shattering Republican — think of GWB and his pals stealing the 2000 election, or Mitch McConnell stealing a Supreme Court seat for Gorsuch — but Trump’s assault on norms is constant, brazen and unapologetic. Progressives need to do more than weep on the sidelines and demand that Republicans play fair.

Luckily, some institutions are getting over their discomfort with norm-breaking and standing up for democracy. Scientific American the 179 year-old bedrock of American scientific publication, has endorsed Harris for President, only the second such endorsement in its long history.

Predictably, this has provoked howls of outrage from Republicans and a debate within the scientific community. Science is supposed to be apolitical, right?

Wrong. The conservative viewpoint, grounded in discomfort with ambiguity (“there are only two genders,” etc.) is antithetical to the scientific viewpoint. Remember the early stages of the covid pandemic, when science’s understanding of the virus changed from moment to moment? Major, urgent recommendations (not masking, disinfecting groceries) were swiftly overturned. This is how science is supposed to work: a hypothesis can only be grounded in the evidence you have in hand, and as new evidence comes in that changes the picture, you should also change your mind.

Conservatives hated this. They claimed that scientists were “flip-flopping” and therefore “didn’t know anything.” Many concluded that the whole covid thing was a stitch-up, a bid to control us by keeping us off-balance with ever-changing advice and therefore afraid and vulnerable.

This intolerance for following the evidence is a fixture in conservative science denialism. How many times have you heard your racist Facebook uncle grouse about how “scientists used to say the world was getting colder, now they say it’s getting hotter, what the hell do they know?” 

Sometimes, science can triumph over conservativism. But it’s far more common for conservativism to trump science. The most common form of this is “eisegesis,” where someone looks at a “pile of data in order to find confirmation in it of what they already ‘know’ to be true.” Think of those anti-mask weirdos who cling to three studies that “prove” masks don’t work. Or the climate deniers who have 350 studies “proving” climate change isn’t real.

Respecting norms is a good rule of thumb, but it’s a lousy rule. The politicization of science starts with the right’s intolerance for ambiguity — not Scientific American’s Harris endorsement. (emphases in original)

Can fighting norm-breaking fire with norm-breaking return fire be done in principled, good faith, pro-democracy ways? I don't see why not. In the midst of America's authoritarian radical right war on democracy and inconvenient facts and truths, sometimes one needs to do what is needed to mount a good defense. Norm breaking is not necessarily law breaking. 

After all, radical right authoritarians are openly attacking science they dislike. Is SciAm supposed to keep quiet in the name of allegedly apolitical science?  

But at this point in the war, what norms other than a few endorsements are left that can be broken to be meaningfully helpful in defending democracy? Is science supposed to be apolitical as the authoritarian radicals hypocritically claim? American's radical right authoritarian wealth and power movement politicized inconvenient science by weaponizing “bad” science, i.e., science contrary to radical authoritarian ideology.