Now that McTurtle has been blunt about his goal of stopping everything Biden tries to do, can we stop our argument over the filibuster, and can Sen. Manchin give up his expressed desire for “bipartisanship”? It was never going to be.
Senator Manchin and every other hesitant Democrat have just been given a gift from Mitch. They can tell their base they tried very hard to reach out to Republicans, but none of them want to help make his constituents lives better. It also smashes Susan Collins bipartisan argument to bits because it is not allowed in today's Senate. Republicans can no longer have their cake and eat it, too because Mitch has put the all on a diet.
McConnell only understands hardball. If the Democrats can’t , or won’t, play that game they might as well just hand the Congress to the Republicans next year and try to keep the presidency in ‘24. EO’s can help somewhat. The veto can keep control of the worst of Republican legislation.
And I think that finally Ds are, indeed, willing to play hardball, for the most part. Unfortunately, with such a narrow majority, one Senator is all it takes to derail the other 49.
With President Obama, according to Adam Jentleson in his book Kill Switch, a few Republicans were actually negotiating in good faith for a while. Then McC managed to pressure them out of it. Rinse, repeat.
We forget that Russia gave McC a huge factory for impoverished KY and jobs to Mrs. McC and one of his main advisors during the negotiation for the Russian company. I wonder if his stand is directly or indirectly compliant with Putin's plan to disrupt democracy...
That makes absolute sense. Mitch is a master of obstruction and it fits perfectly with the goals set by republicans of the past, the tea party and with the latest version of the Republican Party. Trumpism is a double edged sword for them. Republicans are making gains in making the government more unreliable and smaller in every way but, they are having a harder time looking normal to more of the country every day. Frankly, I get the sense that Mitch wants to have the filibuster fight for two reasons. It gives them more ammunition and cover to rile up the base and, second even if they loose the battle they will win more bigger battles later becasue he is betting on democrats loosing the senate. There is a lot of potential upside for him there.
If I remember correctly, Obama believed that the American public would notice how much better their health care was under the ACA, because it is. Some did, and some didn't. Expecting the American public to notice some laws actually make life better seems to be a risky bet in recent years, where disaffection and a mulitbillion dollar industry of professionally produced media blares hate and disinformation. I truly hope the Biden administration is working on ways to get its accomplishments and goals portrayed in understandable and memorable ways.
I've never counted on anything less than I am right now in regard to the welfare -- the existence -- of my country as a democracy. But if there is anything that will sway voters who still, inexplicably, remain in the grey area of the so called undecided, it is the economy.
Yes. People know when they are happy. The ACA was so important but it didn't register on most people's happiness meter. It doesn't until someone who didn't have insurance because they couldn't afford it or qualify for Medicaid reluctantly signed up for it and then ended up in the hospital and had their life saved. The Biden Plan(s) will make a lot of people very, very happy and it is going to register on the happiness meter in 2022...already has and it's barely begun.
David, I'm talking right now about a contrast, a contrast from this past year plus. But this administration also aspires to more. However, being able to pay their bills is a lot for many people, before and since the pandemic.
I learned early in my career as an HR professional there were some people who were happy only when they were unhappy and it was futile to try to placate them.
To some, “life is cruel, brutal, and short.” And they follow who they perceive as leaders, who seek to make life more brutal, crueler and shorter for the “other”.
In current times tighter government regulation (r.i.p. fairness doctrine) probably won’t be the vehicle that alters our sorry media environment. But collective consumer action could. The far right punditry that has masqueraded and been swallowed as news relies significantly on revenue streams from tv/cable bundling.
Just do the popular vote math from last two elections (and more) and then realize that millions of Biden/Harris voters (and H Clinton and Gore) are paying for Tucker’s and Hannity’s nightly rants. Indeed, as the say, a ‘socialist’ takeover that’s destroying America. But they are the ones on the dole, and you and I are unwittingly paying for them.
We won’t change the climate until we have some influence on the information that people receive. And we can start a change by dropping Xfinity, Comcast, Sling, Philo, etc or any bundle that sends some of our monthly fee to these disinformation sources.
I dropped cable about 3 yrs ago and now pay for what I want: Hulu, Britbox, PBS, etc. I don't quite understand Roku type services. But I'm a happy camper!
Pam, I agree with you: Biden is betting on the enormous economic and social benefits that his legislative agenda--if it does get passed--would bring in order to shift more people to vote Dem. The problem is that the state legislatures dominated by the Grand Old Pfascists are determined to prevent people from voting at all and people rarely pay attention tot he voting record of their local representatives, let alone their federal ones. Biden is hoping that some kind of actual intelligence emerges from the mob. His optimism is adorable, but I feel it is misplaced.
Yes, all politics are local (as Tip O'Neill once said) and this is the reason for Republican dominance of State Legislatures, whose voter repression activities make Democratic optimism misplaced. While local Democrats squabble over local issues, local Republicans stick to the "big lie" and many little ones as well to unify their base.
C'mon. At least the weather in Floriduh is better than that in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Wyoming, the Dakotas or Texas. Things could be worse.
Agreed. As HCR said, the press is all over the Tpublicans doing Tpublican BS. We need to all press the Press to make all our President is going headlines so the simplest of the simple get it.
Amen, Pam Smith. Contrary to cherished Democratic fantasies (and I'm a Dem/progressive), it's not enough to just have the best idea. Always, always, you've got to sell it, sell it, sell it.
Though it is worth noting that in the four years Rs had control of House, Senate, and the presidency, they tried repeatedly to obliterate ACA with on luck (though they gutted certain parts of it). This is a direct result of people noticing.
Just a quick shout out since this is Teacher Appreciation week, thank you, Dr. Heather, for your Letters that educate and inspire us! 💜
A quote:
“The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind.” – Kahlil Gibran
As for current events, the best news today was hearing that 45 would still be locked out from Facebook for another 6 months, and we can only hope that as on Twitter it will become a permanent ban.
There's a good chance that the judge's decision yesterday about the DOJ memo may lead to re-thinking of TFG's liability for a charge of Obstruction of Justice. Bulbous Bozo may yet be on a low-fat diet in an 8X10 cell, with the rest of the idiots wondering how to cut themselves out of the net they crawled into. Let 'em all tie themselves to him, let them sink or swim with him. I'm betting it will be the former.
Just another made-up acronym that hinders intelligent communications when many people do not know what it means and others cannot agree on what it means (That Fooking Guy...or The Former Guy). Why do we sink so low in communication skills?
Personally I am not able to even write the T word without horrible flashbacks. Even writing drumpf, his immigrant name from Germany not Sweden, makes me nauseous. It’s not a communication issue, Andrea H.
Hard to know where to jump in here!! I can just say that using acronyms and such on here does not bother me much. I can let them go just like I let lapses in grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. etc. My own personal opinion is: I am most interested in WHAT someone believes/thinks. If I can get the gist of what they are trying to say then that is what is most important to me rather being caught up in the minutiae of the words, grammar, spelling, etc. they use to express themselves. This is a comments section, not an academic page, people tend to use a more conversational style to get their thoughts across rather than adhering to Turabian, Chicago Manual of Style, or the OED (if you don't know what THAT is you should get out more...), or any other set of "rules" you may live by. I just overlook such lapses in the interest of expression. Meh. If you don't know what something is, ask. I don't tend to use that many acronyms anyway, but if someone doesn't know what one is I've used, then I am not at all put out to inform them. Not everybody will know them and THAT'S OKAY.
I'm less concerned about clear communication; acronyms are quite often used to reinforce tribalism and community, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But I think the name-calling and avoidance of using Trump's name is childish and I don't participate.
Yuck! If we want to be inclusive and encourage dialogue with those who might not share our exact views or who are not college English majors, it would serve this community better if folks were more tolerant. Yes words matter, more because of what they communicate. There is a formidable element of anti-intellectualism in our country and I know because of my communities that the sensitivity about feeling "stupid" is based on plenty of being treated that way. It's a huge learning curve for me to be careful with my words, but I recognize at least how crucial it is. I like that we are here to share ideas and leave the prose contest to the experts.
I do like TFG which is common coin now on LFAA, but prefer to write without explicit swearwords. Many people, including yours truly, are committed to never writing the legal name of 1/45. This requires some creativity in devising alternatives, plus a measure of forbearance from others, thus a modicum of effort.
It's impossible to use "only familiar acronyms" since we do not know what others know. Someone once insisted on that when I simply used a standard state abbreviation. Apparently common knowledge, like common sense or courtesy, isn't all that common.
Acronyms serve good purposes, such as saving time in writing. We swim in lots of different alphabet soups, so looking up acronyms is also a chance to learn. C'mon in, the water's fine!
I see this from context in this post, in hindsight, but the acronym has been in use in political talk for a couple of years. It might not be the best acronym available. This from The Urban Dictionary website: "An abbreviation of "Too Far Gone" or "Too F*****g Gone," coined by Kyle Kulinski, a political commentator and host of Secular Talk. The phrase is used to describe people who are so far right on the political spectrum that there is no hope for changing their mind on anything."
Many thanks Heather. I can barely stand to read the news these days
McConnell 100% dedicated to stopping yet another president's agenda (1st Obama's). Graham telling people to kiss his ass, white trash potty mouthed Senator - nice. Trump stabbing McConnell and Pence in the back yet Pence slobbers all over Donald like a love sick puppy. QTRepublicans ousting Cheney, a traditional Republican, for New Era Nazism. Aren't there any legitimate, non-wingnut, conservatives left in the general population or have the all swallowed the.poison pill of hate and ignorance? The most polite thing I can say at 2:00 a.m. is WTF?!
The longer the prosecutors putz around with regards to Donald & his band of thugs' many sins, including January 6th, the deeper he'll/they'll be able to dig in and latch on to the faithful. What a miserable state of affairs.
Good morning to those who are waking. Sleep well to those retiring. May your Thursday be a good one.
Good morning or sleep well, Daria. Overcast morning here in Paris. Voters in Scotland are having their Assembly elections today and the Scottish Nationalist Parties are vying for an absolute majority of seats and hope thus to be able to force Johnson to allow....and respect.... another Independence referendum........despite the publishing last week of a persistent £40 Billion hole in their annual tax and spending balance (10xs that previuosly allowed by EU regulations!) and which is currently funded 100% by the English! What a perspective!
I was visiting in Scotland another time (2014) they had a "go round" for independence. It was some of the most civilized debate I have ever heard. I do remember one very impassioned person saying how the "true Scotland" would be independent of all other nations. The very reasoned response was (and I paraphrase, this was 6 or so years ago) "I really do understand your position; have you thought about currency and just who or what we will back our currency with? It seems to me that without the UK or the EU, we will have a very hard time establishing something that can compete on the international market."
I was stunned at the respectful tenor and tone of a very emotional disagreement.
Daria, I am as sick of the news as you. It seems that tRump and his band of thugs are trying hard to make Jan 6 go away before the feds catch up with them. We can only hope that once the feds move in, there will be no escape hatch. And, Lindsay Graham will rue the day he he told corporate sponsors to "kiss my ass." He just gave sponsors another reason to spend their money elsewhere. I appreciate your measured response to a situation that is never-ending.
Disgusting. However, I also believe that it is becoming easier and easier for more people to see all the fissures and lies. It is becoming more difficult to maintain the tantrum. Life has gotten better for a lot of people and it will continue to get better. If democrats can just peel off a few more people and Biden doesn’t bite on the republican talking points this country may stumble into some amazing changes. Fingers crossed.
It is so refreshing to see Jen Psaki's press meetings, especially after being subjected to the four years of deceit from DT's various puppet mouthpieces.
Rose, I just read your post while I was drinking my morning coffee. Your words brought images to my mind that made me feel sick to my stomach. Thinking of Psaki cured me.
Liz Chaney is no hero. She is a homophobic Reaganite right wing neoconservative. But in this world of impression management, she can posture as a hero.
Cheer Liz Chaney for the Republican Party split and look for the book, Liz Chaney: Profiles in Gutsy Opportunism.
The opportunity that Chaney and her family of advisors can see is how bad the optics are for a candidate who is the subject of criminal charges and civil lawsuits, particularly from the viewpoint of the 40% of voters who are neither R nor D but independent. She is betting on a longer game than are McCarthy, Graham, Stefanik, and the Sedition Caucus.
It is going to be very interesting to see the AG's tack on revising the DOJ's legal position on Trump's collusion with Russia and obstruction of the Mueller enquiry and the subsequent neutering of its final report. An ongoing case building effort to try Trump on both accounts would be an interesting background for 2022 especially if New York can get their tax and fraud case together by then. At the same time Trump will have $400 million to repay to his Russian "benefactors" and probably a $100 million IRS tax charge to fund....with only his political funds to help him as the Deutsche Bank has dropped him like an offending smell. Of course this will fuel the "political process" chants of the trumpite faithful...but the sight of the Orange blimp's businessman image going down in flames is going to make a lot of them think twice about going through the last 4 years again and thereafter perhaps for ever more with his distinctly dictatorial tastes.
With this in mind I wouldn't give Guiliani much hope for help from Trump for his legal costs. I think his old fixer/lawyer will be told to keep his mouth shut, take his medecine and look for rewards if he is a good boy in 2024. I'll be waiting for the book as Guiliani does a Micheal Cohen and shafts his former partner in crime. Guiliani and his book will not be alone out there on the bookshelves vying for media coverage. The French expression "Sauve qui peut.....(save yourself if you can)" seems appropriate.....and I don't think it will be "women and children first" to the lifeboats as this Titanic goes down.
I couldn’t agree more. The democrats are governing responsibly, and competently. They need to keep their focus on doing that, and to keep telling the American people what they are doing and how it helps them (us). The big “if” here is whether or not the ongoing investigations into the insurrection, state voter suppression legislation (hopefully), and inevitable indictments will make the difference in the midterms.
I agree that Guiliani won't see a dime from Trump, Stuart. He will be like the scores of Trump Organization laborers who got stiffed when his businesses failed. Trump feels loyalty to no one, which is part of his narcissistic personality disorder.
As I wrote, I can't believe I am cheering her on. I know of her beliefs, and they are so very offensive to me. Yet, I cheer her on for her stand against the former president and the current attacks on democracy.
The reality is, Jennifer, that you and I are honest enough to give credit to individuals whose moral values haven't "entirely" dissipated into the sewers of Mar a Pantano.
Sorry folks, I just cannot give Liz Cheney ANY credit for courage. She knows the Trump ship is going down sooner or later and she’s grabbed a lifeboat. Nothing more. She is still Dick Cheney’s daughter, through and through.
You may be absolutely correct, and she may be Dick Cheney's daughter, but she is a human being and I'd like to look upon her as such in this instance, until the facts prove otherwise.
Anything like a re-play of the the Reagan Presidency would send our democracy - what remains of it - down the drain forever, so it is good to know that there is one important Republican leader apparently willing to sacrifice her political career to save us from the likes of Trump. This means that earlier mass media references to "honest Republicans" based on back room contacts between a few journalists and politicians or other unnamed sources is not mere wishful thinking. However, there are moral values and moral values. I'm not sure ready to write Liz Cheney a clean bill of health, and even her credit-worthiness continues to be suspect. By the way, I love Wyoming.
" . . . apparently willing to sacrifice her political career" sent my brain to the conclusion that she's setting up a run for the presidency with all that corporate money and raking in the right-leaning Independents who left the party of Trump. Now, that's a disturbing thought!
Oh, no. She is calculating that this is the beginning of a wonderful peak in her career. She is sacrificing nothing. She is positioned to be the voice and face of a New Republican Party. Presidential run coming right up.
True. In this case Cheney calling Trump a liar in the press doesn't seem as brave as when Nancy told Trump to his face that all roads lead through him to Putin. Yet MSNBC can't shut up about Liz 's and I don't think Fox spent a lot of time talking about Nancy's bravery.
As in all "long games", the trick is not to be pushed off track and thereby cut off at the knees before you get there. She now needs to organize, get a clear story together that is not just that she's anti-Trump and Jan 6th lucid but what she is "for" too so that she provides the basis for a "Reality-based" Republican Party that would draw a great many existing Republican voters. If this represents half their previous tally, then she will have a lot more elected supporters in states and on the Hill and the trumporcs will have less.........and the Democrats will get on with serving the people throughout the land just as long as they can contain their own similar internal divisions.
Cheney is clear enough. She is in favor of all the awful things her party has been doing, having voted with Trump most of the time, with the exception of denying election results and related lying and mob attacks. That's better than Trump, the way being raped is better than being murdered.
Mussolini, who should be counted as an expert on the subject, said fascism should really have been called corporatism. Cheney and her pals want corporatism. They have been working in that direction for the last 40 years at least. What they don't want, is the randomness of mad oligarchy and personality cult.
I'm reading a book now, "Under the Light of the Italian Moon". I quoted a passage to my husband last night: (paraphrased a bit) "An arrogant man, who wrapped his desire for power in the guise of love of his country, under the rallying cry of moving his country back to greatness. Excellent at using bravado to convince masses of fools and bigots." I asked my husband who he thought this described. He said "Donald Trump". Then I told him it was actually Mussolini. We need to get people to realize that this is what TFG and his minions really represent. I so wish my Italian grandparents were alive today to help me spread this message.
shoot! autocorrect! try again: At the moment, the propaganda and Big Lie are our biggest and most imminent threat. The Dems need to be so "pure" are what keeps us all from having nice things. Just because we are grateful and supportive for her very conservative voice calling out the Big Lie for what it is does not mean we need to like her or lay down with her. It's not all or nothing. it just isn't.
I strongly believe in the positive value of two viable political parties to provide a competitive marketplace of ideas surfacing the best of those to govern us. However, it does require both of those parties to have ideas worthy of the competition. Unfortunately one of our two parties at present seemswoefully short of ideas and the few it advances seem very unworthy of consideration or that competition.
Considering this dilemma, I have concluded it is not my job to fix the badly damaged Republican party. Hence I spend little to no time thinking about how to accomplish this or to whom to look to address the challenge. Rather I will do my best to shape and advance the good ideas of the only viable remaining political party. When another competitor worthy of this competition of ideas arrives on the scene, whatever its heritage or origin, I will judge it's merits then. Until that time, I see little use in troubling myself with concern for the future of an unworthy competitor or its leadership.
Even though George Washington spoke out against having political parties, their presence throughout American history has given a voice to those in opposition to the party in power. But that must be a "loyal" opposition, which the Republican Party ain't. Perhaps we will end up with two major parties, one the centrist Democrats and the other, the more progressively minded ones. Having one party, even if only temporarily, is not good.
That almost closely describes the political party structure in Australia.
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is a social-democratic party. It is a progressive-leaning party with policy positions favoring social welfare and government assistance programs. It was founded by the Australian labor movement and broadly represents the urban working and middle classes.
The Liberal Party of Australia is a party of the center-right that broadly represents businesses, the urban middle classes, and many rural people. Its permanent coalition partner at the national level is the National Party of Australia, formerly known as the Country Party, a somewhat more conservative party that represents rural interests. These two parties are collectively known as the Coalition. In Queensland, and more recently in NSW, the two parties have officially merged to form the Liberal National Party, and in the Northern Territory, the National Party is known as the Country Liberal Party.
It should be noted that at present the Australian Labor Party holds 68 seats in the Australian Parliament, the Liberal Party 67, the Country/National Party 10, and the balance of 6 held by minority party and independent members. The Liberal Party would be similar in their views to moderate Democrats in the U.S. Congress and the Labor Party more similar to Progressive Democrats.
What an enlightened pleasant people the Australians are!
True, however one may encounter other challenges. Witness at present the struggles of Israel to form a governing coalition. Additionally for a plethora of reasons the U.S. is unlikely to see the rise of a viable third or multi-party system. The discussion of why is a bit lengthy for this platform, but I believe it to be the case. It is more likely that the two parties evolve or become non-viable and are replaced by a successor.
There again, one dominant leader, who has probably overstayed his welcome and is currently subject to criminal charges, has been getting in the way. His Likud Party rivals are probably going to have a much easier time in the coalition forming business....if not in solving the fundamental problems that the society faces.
In my opinion, the demise of the Republican Party will be unlike the deaths of the Federalist Party and the Whig Party. While remaining Federalists found a temporary home with the Whigs and most of the Whigs ultimately became Republicans,"reality-based" Republicans like Chaney will not find a home in the Democratic Party. Their alternative is a new "reality based" conservative party, probably something like the Lincoln Project. The Trumpublican Party will gradually shrink into history and share the fate of the "Know Nothings" whom they stupidly strive to emulate. But this will not happen overnight. Until it does, the Democrats must hang in there.
I'm not sure, given their demise due to greed and overpayment of their self-indulgent principals, the Lincoln Project is a great example but the rest of your hopeful argument retains its validity.
We have a choice between upward mobility and the lowest common denominator.
We can be a fiscally responsible economy or we can dump trillions in debt on our children. Trump helped people the Democrats traditionally marginalized and used.
Trump also let his ego destroy his presidency. He is not relevant now. That is reality.
Just read it. To Blow: Cheney here and now is advancing honor, decency, integrity. Look around at the swamp creatures attempting to pull her into the mire. Let's give her support.
Mary Cheney is the other daughter. Liz chose pandering to a base for a Senate run over supporting her sister's long time relationship and gay marriage. Dad Cheney took a position that gay marriage is up to the states, not feds.
Bad people can do good things and when such things could take Republicans who believe the Big Lie from 70% to 60%, well that's not nothing when your country is looking at a fascist takeover. We can take help from where ever we can get it without getting dirtied by the morals of the less than stellar helper.
I read her Republican manifesto in her Op-Ed. She is to the right of Ghengis Khan. Unless they come up with a new platform, how do they expect to win without cheating? Even with all the corporate money.
Endorse "election integrity" and voter suppression/barriers to voting/gerrymandering while opposing HR1/S1 For The People Act. And learn the lessons--cheat without getting caught.
P.S. Mum's the word--don't tell the Republicans! Kidding aside, I'd read that a Republican strategist bemoaned the fact that a large number of Republicans liked hearing how billionaires could be kept out of politics, and this is one of the key elements of HR1/S1.
Good question. Genghis Khan established a huge empire and from what I read it was governed well, people were treated well IF they surrendered and paid up when told. Otherwise... Attila the Hun seemed more like a raider but I have not read much about him. When I was young I was to the right of Genghis Khan and having grown old and seen too much of the world and how it works, I am now to the left of Karl Marx.
I think her op-ed was a laser-focused attempt to write a new platform that will appeal to what might be termed "rational conservatives," though I acknowledge the oxymoron there. Sadly, I think this is a winning formula. The quiet majority of conservatives are sick and tired of the Trump circus and looking for any offramp they can find and Cheney is positioning herself to be that.
If that is a winning formula then USA is destined to remain a shithole country. Progressives and Biden can posture all they want with legislation that would bring America into the 21st century, but can sleep at night knowing it ain't going to happen. Because Americans, admit it or not, including so called moderate Democrats, don't want it to happen because their precious tax dollars might help Black and Brown people.
Not really Profiles in Courage material. Doing the correct thing by not perpetuating a lie, or supporting a dictator wanna-be, or an insurrection is hardly courage although with this group of "republicans" in Congress it must seem that way!
Well put, Claudia. The problem being perhaps that her principles may put her in a position to promote her politics. Still, it is kind of refreshing to see a strong woman standing up against the cabal of wanna-be strongmen.
Whether you agree with her politics or not you have to admit she has a spine which is sorely lacking in supporters of the infantile imbecile and the POS himself.
Jennifer, I consider the entire Cheney family to be pretty heinous. But, Ellie, I wouldn't call her homophobic since her sister is a lesbian, out, married, and with children. Liz is not happy about it but the entire Cheney family has rallied around her (she is also hyper conservative). It was weird to see The Dark Lord standing up against the homophobia of the entire Bush administration when they were in power. But I think it was genuine. That's about the only genuine thing about her.
Where the hell is “JEB!”? We’ve heard from his brother who, compared to the recent former president, looks like a wise elder statesman. (Who thought that could be possible?) Why is Liz Cheney the lonely voice of Republican sanity, left to face the wind of The Big Lie by herself? The disaffected Republican corporate sponsors, with vastly deeper pockets than the MAGA crowd, need a place to go. Where are the Old Guard Republicans who have silently held there collective noses while the former president debased every democratic tradition?
There are no longer any Rockefellers, Percys, or Eisenhowers. That strain of socially conscious conservative has withered on the vine, captured by Greedy Obsequious Pariahs. Their last standing camouflaged ‘moderate’ Pariah is a mid-level back bencher, whose father commandeered the invasion and hostile takeover of Iraq, with the argument that the subsequent American occupation would be financed by the coup and the hostile takeover of the Iraqi oil industry. To this, we hold hope?
trump is the logical inheritor of Reagan, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Limbaugh, the Chamber of Commerce, the Klan, and ALL other privileged entities. Their genetic corporate greed and lineage of patriarchal grievances lead directly to trump and trumpism.
good historical perspective in this history-focused site… sadly, Trump is no more outrageous for current times than Reagan was for the 80s… now we’re living in a less regulated, financial trickledown manipulated world that is the outcome of Reagan’s dreams and four decades of Reagan acolyte fervor: Fox, OAN, and Newsmax are considered new sources, Limbaugh wears the highest civilian honor (6 ft under), Gingrich/McConnell obstructionism is considered smart politics.
We just have to hope that the new common sense of Biden’s administration and the work of the DOJ move enough everyday Americans by the midterms. And remind people that, as another poster said yesterday, there is still public service in American politics and Biden and Harris are providing it.
(If you have a Tv/media bundle that includes Fox, OAN, and Newsmax, find a way to drop it and still get what you want. Their getting $3,$4 or $5 from you every month from the majority of Americans who don’t watch them by this “socialistic” cable bundling system. Find a way to kick them off the dole, and let the Trump base pay full price for their viewing.)
dropping cable is not that hard to do. I like paying for only the services I want, like Britbox & Hulu, etc. I no longer am addicted to TV news, weather and inane programming on cable. I pay for a couple news subscriptions online & of course HCR :D
Yes, the Cheneys were complicit in creating the party of Trump. However I think Liz Cheney got the wake-up call and is acting on addressing consequences to her political peril.
The huge stampede of Republicans running from the truth makes lemmings look like individualists! Thanks again, and again, Dr. Richardson, for keeping us apprised!
Understanding the First Amendment Right to Free Speech
In the wake of the controversy regarding social media bans there is a lot of discussion about the right to free speech granted by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Much of this discussion on both sides of the political aisle is misleading, if not actually incorrect.
Let’s start a discussion on this with the actual words of the first amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Note importantly the opening words, “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” That is the entire text of the first amendment with regard to free speech.
“Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.” The first amendment restricts the power of government to regulate speech it does not restrict the power of private enterprise to regulate speech on platforms it may own or control. In fact, quite the opposite. It restricts government from interfering in that right of private enterprise to regulate speech on it's platforms. So publications, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, social media, and other private enterprise have every right to regulate speech on their platforms and in fact do so every day, constantly. Ask anyone who has ever been employed by or supplied content to a media organization if speech or content on that platform was subjected to editing or control by that organization on their platform. Of course it was. Those demanding government regulate or control speech on social media or any other platform in any way need to be reminded of the restrictions of the first amendment.
Now does that mean media platforms have no responsibility for their speech? No, it does not. There remain legal restraints on libel and slander, malicious untruths designed solely to damage others. Both legal constraints and penalties exist to constrain and punish those abuses. There also exist legal constraints on incitement to violence or issuance of violent threats. This still leaves room for irresponsible speech including misinformation, disinformation, lies, untruths, and many other malicious forms of speech by all manner of people and organizations on virtually all platforms and we are all subjected to such irresponsible speech daily.
How do we control such irresponsible speech given the restrictions of the first amendment? Clearly the answer is not government action as the first amendment clearly prohibits that. The answer must be personal and organizational responsibility, both in our speech and in our listening as well. Individuals and private enterprise need to use their own voices responsibly and moral suasion to discourage irresponsible speech. We must choose our sources of information and news carefully with an eye toward selecting those showing consistent allegiance to truth and fact checking. We need to exercise care not to select only those that confirm our own biases without regard for truth and accuracy. But it is important to understand this responsibility to truth is our own and not depend on government to do that for us. Some will and do follow that advice, but many not. That is a consequence of having freedom of speech guaranteed in our Constitution. I argue we not surrender that freedom, which is why I am an over 50 year member of the ACLU.
So progressives who bemoan disinformation on social media need to refrain from calls to shut down those platforms where it regularly appears and instead encourage people to be more responsible consumers and publishers of information. Conservatives also need to refrain from calls on government to restrict platforms and media that do not confirm their own views. All need to take on the task personally of being responsible consumers and publishers of information and pledge allegiance to facts and truth. We cannot relinquish that responsibility to government. That is the meaning and implication of the first amendment.
Does this then suggest to you that Facebook's action as a publicly traded capitalist creation is an appropriate one to monitor discourse that verges not on right to free speech, but social winnowing of appropriate (truthful?) and inappropriate (blatant, seditious lies or fabrications?) That this would be private sector (albeit corporation as citizen) acting responsible in consort with its subscribers (other like-minded citizens?)? I think we get into murky waters when we expect to truth to emerge from the loudest or from vote taking on the facts by subscribers.
I have many objections to Facebook that begin with their business model of monetization of promoting speech that inflames peoples worst emotions and total disregard of personal information and an individual's right to protect that information. However, that does not change my views on their right as a private enterprise to regulate speech on their platform with regard to the first amendment. Do I believe they should be more responsible? Certainly, but that is my effort to exercise moral suasion and argue that they act no illegally but in a morally reprehensible fashion. Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.
'Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.' Bruce this is the time! The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is an agency of the Department of Commerce. 'It serves as the President's principal adviser on telecommunications policies pertaining to the United States' economic and technological advancement and to regulation of the telecommunications industry.' (Wiki) I do not know if the Department of Commerce could be the trigger. Last October, 2020, the 'landmark internet law — Section 230 — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms' was to be addressed. 'Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for years to reform this law, arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become. That’s why the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning.' (Vox, Oct 28, 2020). Bruce, please note that both parties have wanted to reform this law for years and still have not. There is a law, so where's the way?
I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the speech of the platform but rather those who speak on the platform. Would you sue the owner of a stage or theatre for the speech of someone who rents the theatre and its stage? It is a different matter when it is a newspaper or other media where it is the speech of the media or journal owner. The problem with social media is the anonymity and false personas of the speakers making it impossible to identify who is responsible. Let everyone who wishes to speak on those platforms be required to both identify and authenticate themselves and allow for those real identities to be disclosed and held responsible for their speech. I am all for that. They can still be free under the first amendment to speak falsehoods and misinformation, the first amendment does not prevent that. But at least we can hold them accountable for their speech. And, if in fact, they do render slander or libel, incite or threaten violence, they can be held accountable for that as well.
In saying this is not the time or place for this discussion, I was referring only to Dr. Richardson's wonderful forum, which I am loath to monopolize to discuss a topic she did not bring up. Her own thoughts and words are far more important than mine.
Bruce, I will address a serious example of this in comment tomorrow or early next week. Your discussion of this big problem with other subscribers was of great interest to me. There will be more. Thank you.
Perhaps, but one could also argue that society would not be better served by ten morally reprehensible enterprises, than simply one. As I have stated already I have strong objections to Facebook's monetization of inflaming peoples' worst emotions and fears, let alone their shameless allowing promotion of disinformation. But that is a morality question, not a legal issue. I do not believe the government should regulate a private enterprise's right to determine what is published on their platform so long as it does not violate the legal issues I have already discussed. I may abhor what they publish and promote, but I will defend their right to make those decisions. That is why I am an ACLU member and supporter.
Should the government determine for a variety of very legitimate reasons they are behaving in an anti-competitive, monopolistic fashion, wrongly suppressing competition - which may very well be true. Then let them be held responsible for that under the commercial laws regulating such behavior. That has nothing to do with what they choose or not to publish on their platform. That is about their commercial behavior in the marketplace.
That I agree with. The special exemption extended to internet-resident social platforms from which newspapers and other journalism are not exempt is unreasonable. They are publishers of information just as are others. One alternative might be to allow those who use such platforms to disseminate disinformation to be held responsible. This would require relinquishing the anonymity generally afforded on the internet, which I believe is part of the problem. If you wish to step forward and speak, identify and authenticate yourself. By not requiring this identification and authentication on, for the purposes of this discussion, social media, it makes it possible to attain anonymity and thus avoid being held responsible. Let everyone who chooses to speak thus be required to identify and authenticate themselves and thus be available to be held accountable for what they choose to speak. I am all in favor of that.
Note: This is holding the "speaker" accountable, not the platform used for the speech. But it does make the speaker identifiable and accountable. Having said this, I still abhor Facebook for many other reasons I have already stated. It is a cesspool of disinformation and abhorrent swampy creatures, many with no morals or redeeming qualities whatsoever. Facebook's monetization of promoting peoples' worst emotions and fears is, in my view, a pretty shabby business model.
Individual responsibility and accountability for sure. And, if these public platforms for exchange of ideas are to become a public good, as were utilities at one time, then might we hope for some protections for the larger good where the presumption is that something like truth or an ethical responsibility can, hopefully be shared by platforms and subscribers? Maybe more competition might lead to greater protections of freedom of speech versus say a license to shout fire online with abandon.
I'm in favor of a social media colossus regulating or even banning speech, when that speech incites insurrection and treason. That's why 1/45 has been banned repeatedly from Twitter and FB, not because of his political views as Trumpskyites falsely claim. There's also a campaign to ban him from YouTube. That is fine with me.
I agree. I also think the elephant in the room is that with 2.7 billion users it would be literally impossible for Facebook to monitor every post for violations.
Maybe. Social media defies all previous attempts to corral the flow of information. I'm not at all sure the structures exist to do moderation at that scale. Even if you broke FB into ten separate companies, each would still have an unmanageable number of people posting. I truly believe it's the dilemma of our age, particularly considering their responsibility for the spread of disinformation.
Thank you, dear Prof. HCR, for bringing Rep. Liz Cheney's whip to the fore. We must admire her courage, yet remember that she voted for the "orange traffic cone of treason" 93% of the time as opposed to Stefanik's 78%. As the Repugnicants' latest darling, her numbers now count.
Cheney's words reverberate the cowboy's, hence Reagan's, clarion call:
“'History is watching. Our children are watching. We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process.'”
U S. history really IS in the making at this moment in time! Prof. HCR, you must be so excited to be writing about it as it presents itself -- as you are experiencing and living it! On one side, the Repugnicants have become self- destructive, while, on the other, the Demo-cats are showing how to govern with an elder statesman at the helm: ensuring 100% of the time, that the people's best interests are at the forefront of their policies.
And finally, may I apologetically add that I believe that Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and their ilk have made a pact with the forces of evil and should no longer be given the time of day?
Actually Liz Cheney is far to the right of most seditionists. She has seized the moment to take a “moral” stand against overtly overturning democracy. She prefers to work quietly to undermine it. Beware of the lion in sheep’s clothes.
“'History is watching. Our children are watching. We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process.'”
is a fantastic sound bite, but, I think it means something vastly different to me than it does to Liz Cheney.
Respectfully, THIS is my concern, that she’s rebranding herself as a righteous defender of democracy when history tells a different story.
we don't have to like Cheney or agree with a single other thing she does to support her in her will to call the Big Lie what it is, an attempt for a fascist takeover of the United States of America
Here is my letter to the president today: Do with it what you wish. (ps no poker jargon)
In response to Mitch McConnall’s comments re: pure obstruction, White house press sec… “I guess the contrast for people is 100% of our focus is on delivering relief to the people and getting the pandemic under control.”
President Biden Please do not miss the opportunity you have been given. It is painfully clear that none of your policies are going to pass the Senate given the current environment. This environment does not reflect he will of the people but rather a minority in control of social and irresponsible media.
The majority of the American people have been as clear as we can be that we want the policies and changes you have proposed. This cannot stand.
Unlimited debate has not produced reasoned response. Instead it has become THE tool of obstructionism to the extent that the minority senate leader is comfortable stating that his purpose is to obstruct your governing without a single comment of substance toward the actual bills you propose or the effects of doing nothing.
Politics is not a game to me. I doubt it is to you. It clearly has been your life’s pursuit but its footing has changed and has become something none of us even recognize. We are at war Mr. President. In war we the people need constant, consistent, direct contact with the supreme leader. You must personally drown out the voice of irresponsible media. Only you personally can do this because only you are the supreme leader. Fire side chats. Every day. Every day. Every day. Please Mr. President.
Please do something different!
To those who will criticize this saying that this is not in Biden's skill set or that it is not his responsibility I want to preemptively say. We are at war. In war people have to rise above themselves and the battle field has to be dominated by the victor. That has always been a truth.
To those who will say we must write to our representatives, Yes of course, but it is just not going to work this time because our republican reps are not listening to the voice of voters rather they are depending on their mastery of the new playing field of social media. It is like going up against nuclear warheads with pistols. Our country and the world has changed the largest influencers turn to FaceBook not responsible journalism.
Let me get this straight. The Republicans want to remove Liz Cheney, a woman with integrity who thinks for herself and stands up against lies and insurrection. Not to mention the daughter of a former Vice President. That speaks volumes about what the Trumplican party represents. Follow the leader, an ex president, no matter how insane he is. Such a waste. And a pity. I am thankful every single day that trump lost. And that's no lie!
I graduated from HS in May 1970, so my teen years were during a turbulent era for the US. My parents were adamant that college couldn’t be in CA—‘too much unrest!’ ABC, CBS, and NBC (the only channels we had) showed us whole swaths of cities burning during riots, but the unrest was not just in CA. A classmate in one of my freshman courses that fall had been at the Kent State protests when the National Guard opened fire and four students were killed. It was the first time I realized History wasn’t on a TV screen, it was sitting next to me.
Which is a long-winded way of saying: our country has gone through turbulent times before. But thank god Liz Cheney pointed out that the turbulence has never been led, fostered, stoked, and inflamed by the president. So why is Ms Cheney the only R to speak up? Why is the *entire* rest of the party in thrall to such a despicable person?
We are at a crucial turning point and it’s far from obvious how, whether, and IF the dust will settle.
Why? Oh, Facebook, Twitter, FOX news, resurgent racism, Congressional privilege, Citizens-United-SCOTUS-sanctioned corruption, trickle-down economics. It's a long and familiar list.
Ten Republican members of the House voted to impeach after the January 6th insurrection, so there are a few others with principles besides Cheney. I hope they continue to stand for what's right. They've needed security details and body armor since then so it's a hard road they've chosen in today's GOP
Can I just say Jen Psaki is bada$$😎. She is the best Press Secretary ever
I love her too—she’s so smart and savvy and they had to really persuade her to take on the job. So glad she did.
And has a sense of humor!
Great one and she never gets flustered.
First press secretary I set reminders to watch or listen.
And so different from her predecessors: straightforward, intelligent and honest.
Yes Sharon, please do!
What are you trying to say with your use of "$$"?
"ss"
Now that McTurtle has been blunt about his goal of stopping everything Biden tries to do, can we stop our argument over the filibuster, and can Sen. Manchin give up his expressed desire for “bipartisanship”? It was never going to be.
Senator Manchin and every other hesitant Democrat have just been given a gift from Mitch. They can tell their base they tried very hard to reach out to Republicans, but none of them want to help make his constituents lives better. It also smashes Susan Collins bipartisan argument to bits because it is not allowed in today's Senate. Republicans can no longer have their cake and eat it, too because Mitch has put the all on a diet.
I certainly hope they see it that way.
They never really meant it, anyway. Susan Collins is posturing and Joe Manchin is desperately trying to hold on to his seat in a conservative state.
McConnell only understands hardball. If the Democrats can’t , or won’t, play that game they might as well just hand the Congress to the Republicans next year and try to keep the presidency in ‘24. EO’s can help somewhat. The veto can keep control of the worst of Republican legislation.
Be tough or go home.
Nice reminder...there is now a VETO option that is seldom if ever mentioned!
And I think that finally Ds are, indeed, willing to play hardball, for the most part. Unfortunately, with such a narrow majority, one Senator is all it takes to derail the other 49.
Well said.
With President Obama, according to Adam Jentleson in his book Kill Switch, a few Republicans were actually negotiating in good faith for a while. Then McC managed to pressure them out of it. Rinse, repeat.
We forget that Russia gave McC a huge factory for impoverished KY and jobs to Mrs. McC and one of his main advisors during the negotiation for the Russian company. I wonder if his stand is directly or indirectly compliant with Putin's plan to disrupt democracy...
That makes absolute sense. Mitch is a master of obstruction and it fits perfectly with the goals set by republicans of the past, the tea party and with the latest version of the Republican Party. Trumpism is a double edged sword for them. Republicans are making gains in making the government more unreliable and smaller in every way but, they are having a harder time looking normal to more of the country every day. Frankly, I get the sense that Mitch wants to have the filibuster fight for two reasons. It gives them more ammunition and cover to rile up the base and, second even if they loose the battle they will win more bigger battles later becasue he is betting on democrats loosing the senate. There is a lot of potential upside for him there.
The filibuster needs to be much tougher to do, but it is useful to both parties.
While being inherently antidemocratic. Senators representing about 11% of the electorate can effectively block any legislation they choose. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/26/just-how-severe-will-americas-minority-rule-become
Exactly!
If I remember correctly, Obama believed that the American public would notice how much better their health care was under the ACA, because it is. Some did, and some didn't. Expecting the American public to notice some laws actually make life better seems to be a risky bet in recent years, where disaffection and a mulitbillion dollar industry of professionally produced media blares hate and disinformation. I truly hope the Biden administration is working on ways to get its accomplishments and goals portrayed in understandable and memorable ways.
People will notice if they can put food on the table and pay their rent/mortgage.
Don't count on it
I've never counted on anything less than I am right now in regard to the welfare -- the existence -- of my country as a democracy. But if there is anything that will sway voters who still, inexplicably, remain in the grey area of the so called undecided, it is the economy.
But will they associate it with Washington? Same with the ACA, many people did not know it is Obama-Care.
I think the economy is different. I don't want to quote James Carville, but I bet you know the line I'm thinking of.
Yes. People know when they are happy. The ACA was so important but it didn't register on most people's happiness meter. It doesn't until someone who didn't have insurance because they couldn't afford it or qualify for Medicaid reluctantly signed up for it and then ended up in the hospital and had their life saved. The Biden Plan(s) will make a lot of people very, very happy and it is going to register on the happiness meter in 2022...already has and it's barely begun.
Exactly. The economy is a different animal.
You are correct. It will be slow to show in the press and polls because. Outrage and anger sell. But it will happen.
True, but most people aspire to more than that, at least in the US.
David, I'm talking right now about a contrast, a contrast from this past year plus. But this administration also aspires to more. However, being able to pay their bills is a lot for many people, before and since the pandemic.
Thanks Pam. Very astute insight on a core element of Biden's strategy.
I learned early in my career as an HR professional there were some people who were happy only when they were unhappy and it was futile to try to placate them.
Marcy, you see that in sales, and in family counseling, too.
To some, “life is cruel, brutal, and short.” And they follow who they perceive as leaders, who seek to make life more brutal, crueler and shorter for the “other”.
In current times tighter government regulation (r.i.p. fairness doctrine) probably won’t be the vehicle that alters our sorry media environment. But collective consumer action could. The far right punditry that has masqueraded and been swallowed as news relies significantly on revenue streams from tv/cable bundling.
Just do the popular vote math from last two elections (and more) and then realize that millions of Biden/Harris voters (and H Clinton and Gore) are paying for Tucker’s and Hannity’s nightly rants. Indeed, as the say, a ‘socialist’ takeover that’s destroying America. But they are the ones on the dole, and you and I are unwittingly paying for them.
We won’t change the climate until we have some influence on the information that people receive. And we can start a change by dropping Xfinity, Comcast, Sling, Philo, etc or any bundle that sends some of our monthly fee to these disinformation sources.
I dropped cable about 3 yrs ago and now pay for what I want: Hulu, Britbox, PBS, etc. I don't quite understand Roku type services. But I'm a happy camper!
Thank you. Done. I did it a while ago. I use Roku, and only get what I want to support.
Pam, I agree with you: Biden is betting on the enormous economic and social benefits that his legislative agenda--if it does get passed--would bring in order to shift more people to vote Dem. The problem is that the state legislatures dominated by the Grand Old Pfascists are determined to prevent people from voting at all and people rarely pay attention tot he voting record of their local representatives, let alone their federal ones. Biden is hoping that some kind of actual intelligence emerges from the mob. His optimism is adorable, but I feel it is misplaced.
Yes, all politics are local (as Tip O'Neill once said) and this is the reason for Republican dominance of State Legislatures, whose voter repression activities make Democratic optimism misplaced. While local Democrats squabble over local issues, local Republicans stick to the "big lie" and many little ones as well to unify their base.
News alert 8:54 a.m. Governor Ron DeSantis just signed into law Florida’s voting restrictions legislation.
C'mon. At least the weather in Floriduh is better than that in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Wyoming, the Dakotas or Texas. Things could be worse.
Wait until August!
Agreed. As HCR said, the press is all over the Tpublicans doing Tpublican BS. We need to all press the Press to make all our President is going headlines so the simplest of the simple get it.
And those too busy working to watch or read much current events, politics.
Amen, Pam Smith. Contrary to cherished Democratic fantasies (and I'm a Dem/progressive), it's not enough to just have the best idea. Always, always, you've got to sell it, sell it, sell it.
Help is on the way, Help is Here and America is on the Move are everywhere in signs, speeches and I expect to see t shirts!
Though it is worth noting that in the four years Rs had control of House, Senate, and the presidency, they tried repeatedly to obliterate ACA with on luck (though they gutted certain parts of it). This is a direct result of people noticing.
Just a quick shout out since this is Teacher Appreciation week, thank you, Dr. Heather, for your Letters that educate and inspire us! 💜
A quote:
“The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind.” – Kahlil Gibran
As for current events, the best news today was hearing that 45 would still be locked out from Facebook for another 6 months, and we can only hope that as on Twitter it will become a permanent ban.
Agree! ❤️🤍💙
Yay teachers !!! (Profs included.)
There's a good chance that the judge's decision yesterday about the DOJ memo may lead to re-thinking of TFG's liability for a charge of Obstruction of Justice. Bulbous Bozo may yet be on a low-fat diet in an 8X10 cell, with the rest of the idiots wondering how to cut themselves out of the net they crawled into. Let 'em all tie themselves to him, let them sink or swim with him. I'm betting it will be the former.
Who is TFG?
That Fooking Guy
Or more simply "The Former Guy".....but each to their own.
AndreaH just now
Just another made-up acronym that hinders intelligent communications when many people do not know what it means and others cannot agree on what it means (That Fooking Guy...or The Former Guy). Why do we sink so low in communication skills?
Personally I am not able to even write the T word without horrible flashbacks. Even writing drumpf, his immigrant name from Germany not Sweden, makes me nauseous. It’s not a communication issue, Andrea H.
Most people understand the acronym DT.
'fraud-45' works for me.
Tolerance, tolerance...wherefore art thou?
It has nothing to do with tolerance; it is all the new and made-up acronyms that make no sense; A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!
we're not writing for the NYT. I enjoy the personalities here
Hard to know where to jump in here!! I can just say that using acronyms and such on here does not bother me much. I can let them go just like I let lapses in grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. etc. My own personal opinion is: I am most interested in WHAT someone believes/thinks. If I can get the gist of what they are trying to say then that is what is most important to me rather being caught up in the minutiae of the words, grammar, spelling, etc. they use to express themselves. This is a comments section, not an academic page, people tend to use a more conversational style to get their thoughts across rather than adhering to Turabian, Chicago Manual of Style, or the OED (if you don't know what THAT is you should get out more...), or any other set of "rules" you may live by. I just overlook such lapses in the interest of expression. Meh. If you don't know what something is, ask. I don't tend to use that many acronyms anyway, but if someone doesn't know what one is I've used, then I am not at all put out to inform them. Not everybody will know them and THAT'S OKAY.
I'm less concerned about clear communication; acronyms are quite often used to reinforce tribalism and community, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But I think the name-calling and avoidance of using Trump's name is childish and I don't participate.
Acronyms do to prose what a dead cow does to the stream it's lying in. Best to avoid them unless they're in common parlance like DNA and MPG.
Yuck! If we want to be inclusive and encourage dialogue with those who might not share our exact views or who are not college English majors, it would serve this community better if folks were more tolerant. Yes words matter, more because of what they communicate. There is a formidable element of anti-intellectualism in our country and I know because of my communities that the sensitivity about feeling "stupid" is based on plenty of being treated that way. It's a huge learning curve for me to be careful with my words, but I recognize at least how crucial it is. I like that we are here to share ideas and leave the prose contest to the experts.
The former guy works for me.
Meghan McCain just coined "CheetoJesus". Cute.
😅😂🤣
I just refer to him as "trump" since I don't even have enough respect for the man to give him an upper case T. As you say, each to their own.
I do like TFG which is common coin now on LFAA, but prefer to write without explicit swearwords. Many people, including yours truly, are committed to never writing the legal name of 1/45. This requires some creativity in devising alternatives, plus a measure of forbearance from others, thus a modicum of effort.
It's impossible to use "only familiar acronyms" since we do not know what others know. Someone once insisted on that when I simply used a standard state abbreviation. Apparently common knowledge, like common sense or courtesy, isn't all that common.
Acronyms serve good purposes, such as saving time in writing. We swim in lots of different alphabet soups, so looking up acronyms is also a chance to learn. C'mon in, the water's fine!
❤️❤️ I like a good puzzle 😁
TC, from your mouth (mouse?) to the goddess's ear, but I'm a lot more pessimistic.
I think in discussions with large groups it is better not to use abbreviations; a larger audience can understand the discussion this way.
I see this from context in this post, in hindsight, but the acronym has been in use in political talk for a couple of years. It might not be the best acronym available. This from The Urban Dictionary website: "An abbreviation of "Too Far Gone" or "Too F*****g Gone," coined by Kyle Kulinski, a political commentator and host of Secular Talk. The phrase is used to describe people who are so far right on the political spectrum that there is no hope for changing their mind on anything."
Many thanks Heather. I can barely stand to read the news these days
McConnell 100% dedicated to stopping yet another president's agenda (1st Obama's). Graham telling people to kiss his ass, white trash potty mouthed Senator - nice. Trump stabbing McConnell and Pence in the back yet Pence slobbers all over Donald like a love sick puppy. QTRepublicans ousting Cheney, a traditional Republican, for New Era Nazism. Aren't there any legitimate, non-wingnut, conservatives left in the general population or have the all swallowed the.poison pill of hate and ignorance? The most polite thing I can say at 2:00 a.m. is WTF?!
The longer the prosecutors putz around with regards to Donald & his band of thugs' many sins, including January 6th, the deeper he'll/they'll be able to dig in and latch on to the faithful. What a miserable state of affairs.
Good morning to those who are waking. Sleep well to those retiring. May your Thursday be a good one.
Good morning or sleep well, Daria. Overcast morning here in Paris. Voters in Scotland are having their Assembly elections today and the Scottish Nationalist Parties are vying for an absolute majority of seats and hope thus to be able to force Johnson to allow....and respect.... another Independence referendum........despite the publishing last week of a persistent £40 Billion hole in their annual tax and spending balance (10xs that previuosly allowed by EU regulations!) and which is currently funded 100% by the English! What a perspective!
I was visiting in Scotland another time (2014) they had a "go round" for independence. It was some of the most civilized debate I have ever heard. I do remember one very impassioned person saying how the "true Scotland" would be independent of all other nations. The very reasoned response was (and I paraphrase, this was 6 or so years ago) "I really do understand your position; have you thought about currency and just who or what we will back our currency with? It seems to me that without the UK or the EU, we will have a very hard time establishing something that can compete on the international market."
I was stunned at the respectful tenor and tone of a very emotional disagreement.
Unfortunately, the SNP still hasn't thought about the currency question! It is being swept under the rug...politely.
Thanks, Stuart, just woke up. Enjoy your Parisian day. I am jealous! The world is upside down and inside out.
Daria, I am as sick of the news as you. It seems that tRump and his band of thugs are trying hard to make Jan 6 go away before the feds catch up with them. We can only hope that once the feds move in, there will be no escape hatch. And, Lindsay Graham will rue the day he he told corporate sponsors to "kiss my ass." He just gave sponsors another reason to spend their money elsewhere. I appreciate your measured response to a situation that is never-ending.
Albert Einstein said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. ... and I’m not so sure about the universe.”
Perhaps in saying that he had those like Lindsay Graham in mind.
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/sandro-miller-arthur-sasse-slash-albert-einstein-sticking-out-his-tongue-1951-1
Love this!
Disgusting. However, I also believe that it is becoming easier and easier for more people to see all the fissures and lies. It is becoming more difficult to maintain the tantrum. Life has gotten better for a lot of people and it will continue to get better. If democrats can just peel off a few more people and Biden doesn’t bite on the republican talking points this country may stumble into some amazing changes. Fingers crossed.
Thank you, Daria, and to you.
It is so refreshing to see Jen Psaki's press meetings, especially after being subjected to the four years of deceit from DT's various puppet mouthpieces.
And never a hint of contempt.
Rose, I just read your post while I was drinking my morning coffee. Your words brought images to my mind that made me feel sick to my stomach. Thinking of Psaki cured me.
Liz Chaney : Profiles in Courage.
Never thought I'd be cheering her on .
Liz Chaney is no hero. She is a homophobic Reaganite right wing neoconservative. But in this world of impression management, she can posture as a hero.
Cheer Liz Chaney for the Republican Party split and look for the book, Liz Chaney: Profiles in Gutsy Opportunism.
The opportunity that Chaney and her family of advisors can see is how bad the optics are for a candidate who is the subject of criminal charges and civil lawsuits, particularly from the viewpoint of the 40% of voters who are neither R nor D but independent. She is betting on a longer game than are McCarthy, Graham, Stefanik, and the Sedition Caucus.
It is going to be very interesting to see the AG's tack on revising the DOJ's legal position on Trump's collusion with Russia and obstruction of the Mueller enquiry and the subsequent neutering of its final report. An ongoing case building effort to try Trump on both accounts would be an interesting background for 2022 especially if New York can get their tax and fraud case together by then. At the same time Trump will have $400 million to repay to his Russian "benefactors" and probably a $100 million IRS tax charge to fund....with only his political funds to help him as the Deutsche Bank has dropped him like an offending smell. Of course this will fuel the "political process" chants of the trumpite faithful...but the sight of the Orange blimp's businessman image going down in flames is going to make a lot of them think twice about going through the last 4 years again and thereafter perhaps for ever more with his distinctly dictatorial tastes.
With this in mind I wouldn't give Guiliani much hope for help from Trump for his legal costs. I think his old fixer/lawyer will be told to keep his mouth shut, take his medecine and look for rewards if he is a good boy in 2024. I'll be waiting for the book as Guiliani does a Micheal Cohen and shafts his former partner in crime. Guiliani and his book will not be alone out there on the bookshelves vying for media coverage. The French expression "Sauve qui peut.....(save yourself if you can)" seems appropriate.....and I don't think it will be "women and children first" to the lifeboats as this Titanic goes down.
Robert Wilkanowski1 min ago
I couldn’t agree more. The democrats are governing responsibly, and competently. They need to keep their focus on doing that, and to keep telling the American people what they are doing and how it helps them (us). The big “if” here is whether or not the ongoing investigations into the insurrection, state voter suppression legislation (hopefully), and inevitable indictments will make the difference in the midterms.
Agreed Stuart, which is why Liz Chaney grabbed a lifeboat first. She comes from a family who know how to survive.
“Cheney”
Giulani’s penchant for vocal diarrhea should be interesting. Would love to see him turn on Trump, who is not going to life a finger for him.
G already said awhile back that he had the goods (on TFG)
"I'm melting, melting! All my beautiful wickedness -- gone!!"
I agree that Guiliani won't see a dime from Trump, Stuart. He will be like the scores of Trump Organization laborers who got stiffed when his businesses failed. Trump feels loyalty to no one, which is part of his narcissistic personality disorder.
This is exactly what the Republicans don't want us talking about.
I like your thinking, Stuart. Hope you're right.
So do I. 🙏🏻
Well said!!!
“Sedition Caucus”. Very good! Democrats should pick up on that label and pound it home.
As I wrote, I can't believe I am cheering her on. I know of her beliefs, and they are so very offensive to me. Yet, I cheer her on for her stand against the former president and the current attacks on democracy.
The reality is, Jennifer, that you and I are honest enough to give credit to individuals whose moral values haven't "entirely" dissipated into the sewers of Mar a Pantano.
Sorry folks, I just cannot give Liz Cheney ANY credit for courage. She knows the Trump ship is going down sooner or later and she’s grabbed a lifeboat. Nothing more. She is still Dick Cheney’s daughter, through and through.
You may be absolutely correct, and she may be Dick Cheney's daughter, but she is a human being and I'd like to look upon her as such in this instance, until the facts prove otherwise.
Yes she is a fellow human being who I wish no ill will towards. And I abhor her politics. This is why:
http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Liz-Cheney-412732
Anything like a re-play of the the Reagan Presidency would send our democracy - what remains of it - down the drain forever, so it is good to know that there is one important Republican leader apparently willing to sacrifice her political career to save us from the likes of Trump. This means that earlier mass media references to "honest Republicans" based on back room contacts between a few journalists and politicians or other unnamed sources is not mere wishful thinking. However, there are moral values and moral values. I'm not sure ready to write Liz Cheney a clean bill of health, and even her credit-worthiness continues to be suspect. By the way, I love Wyoming.
" . . . apparently willing to sacrifice her political career" sent my brain to the conclusion that she's setting up a run for the presidency with all that corporate money and raking in the right-leaning Independents who left the party of Trump. Now, that's a disturbing thought!
we need to take care of today. and right now she is an ally in the fight for the truth
Oh, no. She is calculating that this is the beginning of a wonderful peak in her career. She is sacrificing nothing. She is positioned to be the voice and face of a New Republican Party. Presidential run coming right up.
With the Republicans it is never what it appears to be.
And for Democrats it is? Politicians lie left, right, and center.
True. In this case Cheney calling Trump a liar in the press doesn't seem as brave as when Nancy told Trump to his face that all roads lead through him to Putin. Yet MSNBC can't shut up about Liz 's and I don't think Fox spent a lot of time talking about Nancy's bravery.
As in all "long games", the trick is not to be pushed off track and thereby cut off at the knees before you get there. She now needs to organize, get a clear story together that is not just that she's anti-Trump and Jan 6th lucid but what she is "for" too so that she provides the basis for a "Reality-based" Republican Party that would draw a great many existing Republican voters. If this represents half their previous tally, then she will have a lot more elected supporters in states and on the Hill and the trumporcs will have less.........and the Democrats will get on with serving the people throughout the land just as long as they can contain their own similar internal divisions.
Cheney is clear enough. She is in favor of all the awful things her party has been doing, having voted with Trump most of the time, with the exception of denying election results and related lying and mob attacks. That's better than Trump, the way being raped is better than being murdered.
Her and her ilk have raped our country, most definitely but her current courage to stand strong may just save our country from fascism. I'll take it.
Mussolini, who should be counted as an expert on the subject, said fascism should really have been called corporatism. Cheney and her pals want corporatism. They have been working in that direction for the last 40 years at least. What they don't want, is the randomness of mad oligarchy and personality cult.
I'm reading a book now, "Under the Light of the Italian Moon". I quoted a passage to my husband last night: (paraphrased a bit) "An arrogant man, who wrapped his desire for power in the guise of love of his country, under the rallying cry of moving his country back to greatness. Excellent at using bravado to convince masses of fools and bigots." I asked my husband who he thought this described. He said "Donald Trump". Then I told him it was actually Mussolini. We need to get people to realize that this is what TFG and his minions really represent. I so wish my Italian grandparents were alive today to help me spread this message.
shoot! autocorrect! try again: At the moment, the propaganda and Big Lie are our biggest and most imminent threat. The Dems need to be so "pure" are what keeps us all from having nice things. Just because we are grateful and supportive for her very conservative voice calling out the Big Lie for what it is does not mean we need to like her or lay down with her. It's not all or nothing. it just isn't.
Spot on!
I strongly believe in the positive value of two viable political parties to provide a competitive marketplace of ideas surfacing the best of those to govern us. However, it does require both of those parties to have ideas worthy of the competition. Unfortunately one of our two parties at present seemswoefully short of ideas and the few it advances seem very unworthy of consideration or that competition.
Considering this dilemma, I have concluded it is not my job to fix the badly damaged Republican party. Hence I spend little to no time thinking about how to accomplish this or to whom to look to address the challenge. Rather I will do my best to shape and advance the good ideas of the only viable remaining political party. When another competitor worthy of this competition of ideas arrives on the scene, whatever its heritage or origin, I will judge it's merits then. Until that time, I see little use in troubling myself with concern for the future of an unworthy competitor or its leadership.
Even though George Washington spoke out against having political parties, their presence throughout American history has given a voice to those in opposition to the party in power. But that must be a "loyal" opposition, which the Republican Party ain't. Perhaps we will end up with two major parties, one the centrist Democrats and the other, the more progressively minded ones. Having one party, even if only temporarily, is not good.
That almost closely describes the political party structure in Australia.
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is a social-democratic party. It is a progressive-leaning party with policy positions favoring social welfare and government assistance programs. It was founded by the Australian labor movement and broadly represents the urban working and middle classes.
The Liberal Party of Australia is a party of the center-right that broadly represents businesses, the urban middle classes, and many rural people. Its permanent coalition partner at the national level is the National Party of Australia, formerly known as the Country Party, a somewhat more conservative party that represents rural interests. These two parties are collectively known as the Coalition. In Queensland, and more recently in NSW, the two parties have officially merged to form the Liberal National Party, and in the Northern Territory, the National Party is known as the Country Liberal Party.
It should be noted that at present the Australian Labor Party holds 68 seats in the Australian Parliament, the Liberal Party 67, the Country/National Party 10, and the balance of 6 held by minority party and independent members. The Liberal Party would be similar in their views to moderate Democrats in the U.S. Congress and the Labor Party more similar to Progressive Democrats.
What an enlightened pleasant people the Australians are!
Oz is largely gun-free, too.
Thanks for the summary of Australian politics, Bruce.
You don't have that problem in a more competitive, multi-party system.
True, however one may encounter other challenges. Witness at present the struggles of Israel to form a governing coalition. Additionally for a plethora of reasons the U.S. is unlikely to see the rise of a viable third or multi-party system. The discussion of why is a bit lengthy for this platform, but I believe it to be the case. It is more likely that the two parties evolve or become non-viable and are replaced by a successor.
There again, one dominant leader, who has probably overstayed his welcome and is currently subject to criminal charges, has been getting in the way. His Likud Party rivals are probably going to have a much easier time in the coalition forming business....if not in solving the fundamental problems that the society faces.
In my opinion, the demise of the Republican Party will be unlike the deaths of the Federalist Party and the Whig Party. While remaining Federalists found a temporary home with the Whigs and most of the Whigs ultimately became Republicans,"reality-based" Republicans like Chaney will not find a home in the Democratic Party. Their alternative is a new "reality based" conservative party, probably something like the Lincoln Project. The Trumpublican Party will gradually shrink into history and share the fate of the "Know Nothings" whom they stupidly strive to emulate. But this will not happen overnight. Until it does, the Democrats must hang in there.
I'm not sure, given their demise due to greed and overpayment of their self-indulgent principals, the Lincoln Project is a great example but the rest of your hopeful argument retains its validity.
I did say "something like" in referring to the Lincoln Project. It had its flaws, but after all, it was composed of Republicans.
"Something like" is a good escape clause; worth remembering, thanks Jacob.
The last part is the key; Democrats seem to think that Will Rodgers' comment about organisation was a compliment.
We have a choice between upward mobility and the lowest common denominator.
We can be a fiscally responsible economy or we can dump trillions in debt on our children. Trump helped people the Democrats traditionally marginalized and used.
Trump also let his ego destroy his presidency. He is not relevant now. That is reality.
Trump helped no one but himself. To believe otherwise is simply a pledge of allegiance to the Big Lie.
Yup, no farther than I can throw her. Charles Blow has a nice column about Liz Cheney in today's (Thu.) NYT.
Just read it. I take back everything good I thought about Liz Cheney.
She could be a useful tool.
Just read it. To Blow: Cheney here and now is advancing honor, decency, integrity. Look around at the swamp creatures attempting to pull her into the mire. Let's give her support.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/opinion/liz-cheney-republicans.html
Here is the link
Great points, and well said, Ellie! Thank you!
Yeah what Ellie sez!
So incredibly sad and nasty:
https://people.com/politics/dick-cheney-gay-daughter-mary-feud-liz-vice/
VP Cheney's only action I approved is when he stood by his lesbian daughter... I thought Liz was that daughter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/11/18/cheney-parents-defend-liz-cheney-in-gay-marriage-feud-with-sister/
Mary Cheney is the other daughter. Liz chose pandering to a base for a Senate run over supporting her sister's long time relationship and gay marriage. Dad Cheney took a position that gay marriage is up to the states, not feds.
When the Cheney who is far to the right of Darth Cheney is the "good one" you know you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
Bad people can do good things and when such things could take Republicans who believe the Big Lie from 70% to 60%, well that's not nothing when your country is looking at a fascist takeover. We can take help from where ever we can get it without getting dirtied by the morals of the less than stellar helper.
I read her Republican manifesto in her Op-Ed. She is to the right of Ghengis Khan. Unless they come up with a new platform, how do they expect to win without cheating? Even with all the corporate money.
Endorse "election integrity" and voter suppression/barriers to voting/gerrymandering while opposing HR1/S1 For The People Act. And learn the lessons--cheat without getting caught.
P.S. Mum's the word--don't tell the Republicans! Kidding aside, I'd read that a Republican strategist bemoaned the fact that a large number of Republicans liked hearing how billionaires could be kept out of politics, and this is one of the key elements of HR1/S1.
Genghis Khan
I also use Genghis Khan as a marker of rightist extremism. Who's farther right, Genghis or Attila the Hun?
Good question. Genghis Khan established a huge empire and from what I read it was governed well, people were treated well IF they surrendered and paid up when told. Otherwise... Attila the Hun seemed more like a raider but I have not read much about him. When I was young I was to the right of Genghis Khan and having grown old and seen too much of the world and how it works, I am now to the left of Karl Marx.
I think her op-ed was a laser-focused attempt to write a new platform that will appeal to what might be termed "rational conservatives," though I acknowledge the oxymoron there. Sadly, I think this is a winning formula. The quiet majority of conservatives are sick and tired of the Trump circus and looking for any offramp they can find and Cheney is positioning herself to be that.
If that is a winning formula then USA is destined to remain a shithole country. Progressives and Biden can posture all they want with legislation that would bring America into the 21st century, but can sleep at night knowing it ain't going to happen. Because Americans, admit it or not, including so called moderate Democrats, don't want it to happen because their precious tax dollars might help Black and Brown people.
And thus has it always been. We are kidding ourselves if we believe we have ever been anything but a white supremacist ethnostate.
Morning laugh here, thx TC. Defeat the Sedition caucus!
You got that right!
TCinLA, I love it! We definitely are not in Kansas anymore
Not really Profiles in Courage material. Doing the correct thing by not perpetuating a lie, or supporting a dictator wanna-be, or an insurrection is hardly courage although with this group of "republicans" in Congress it must seem that way!
Holding the line is courageous.
I disagree with you.
I don't agree with her politics. I do agree with her principles.
Well put, Claudia. The problem being perhaps that her principles may put her in a position to promote her politics. Still, it is kind of refreshing to see a strong woman standing up against the cabal of wanna-be strongmen.
Whether you agree with her politics or not you have to admit she has a spine which is sorely lacking in supporters of the infantile imbecile and the POS himself.
Jennifer, I consider the entire Cheney family to be pretty heinous. But, Ellie, I wouldn't call her homophobic since her sister is a lesbian, out, married, and with children. Liz is not happy about it but the entire Cheney family has rallied around her (she is also hyper conservative). It was weird to see The Dark Lord standing up against the homophobia of the entire Bush administration when they were in power. But I think it was genuine. That's about the only genuine thing about her.
Linda, she is publicly and politically against same sex marriage, and it has caused a rift between her and Mary. So, there’s that.
Well dang--I thought she had finally given up that idiotic stance. Poor Mary.
Yes and yes.
Me neither
Where the hell is “JEB!”? We’ve heard from his brother who, compared to the recent former president, looks like a wise elder statesman. (Who thought that could be possible?) Why is Liz Cheney the lonely voice of Republican sanity, left to face the wind of The Big Lie by herself? The disaffected Republican corporate sponsors, with vastly deeper pockets than the MAGA crowd, need a place to go. Where are the Old Guard Republicans who have silently held there collective noses while the former president debased every democratic tradition?
Well, squeak up!
You ask, "Where are the Old Guard Republicans?”
There are no longer any Rockefellers, Percys, or Eisenhowers. That strain of socially conscious conservative has withered on the vine, captured by Greedy Obsequious Pariahs. Their last standing camouflaged ‘moderate’ Pariah is a mid-level back bencher, whose father commandeered the invasion and hostile takeover of Iraq, with the argument that the subsequent American occupation would be financed by the coup and the hostile takeover of the Iraqi oil industry. To this, we hold hope?
trump is the logical inheritor of Reagan, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Limbaugh, the Chamber of Commerce, the Klan, and ALL other privileged entities. Their genetic corporate greed and lineage of patriarchal grievances lead directly to trump and trumpism.
good historical perspective in this history-focused site… sadly, Trump is no more outrageous for current times than Reagan was for the 80s… now we’re living in a less regulated, financial trickledown manipulated world that is the outcome of Reagan’s dreams and four decades of Reagan acolyte fervor: Fox, OAN, and Newsmax are considered new sources, Limbaugh wears the highest civilian honor (6 ft under), Gingrich/McConnell obstructionism is considered smart politics.
We just have to hope that the new common sense of Biden’s administration and the work of the DOJ move enough everyday Americans by the midterms. And remind people that, as another poster said yesterday, there is still public service in American politics and Biden and Harris are providing it.
(If you have a Tv/media bundle that includes Fox, OAN, and Newsmax, find a way to drop it and still get what you want. Their getting $3,$4 or $5 from you every month from the majority of Americans who don’t watch them by this “socialistic” cable bundling system. Find a way to kick them off the dole, and let the Trump base pay full price for their viewing.)
dropping cable is not that hard to do. I like paying for only the services I want, like Britbox & Hulu, etc. I no longer am addicted to TV news, weather and inane programming on cable. I pay for a couple news subscriptions online & of course HCR :D
Agreed. I havwen't had cable since 2007, and I don't miss it at all.
Yes, the Cheneys were complicit in creating the party of Trump. However I think Liz Cheney got the wake-up call and is acting on addressing consequences to her political peril.
We can only hope.
Counting their money
Apparently, the depth of their conviction is as shallow as a tiny puddle in the street.
Amen, and well said!
The huge stampede of Republicans running from the truth makes lemmings look like individualists! Thanks again, and again, Dr. Richardson, for keeping us apprised!
“Lemmings look like individualists”! Love that. 😂
Understanding the First Amendment Right to Free Speech
In the wake of the controversy regarding social media bans there is a lot of discussion about the right to free speech granted by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Much of this discussion on both sides of the political aisle is misleading, if not actually incorrect.
Let’s start a discussion on this with the actual words of the first amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Note importantly the opening words, “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” That is the entire text of the first amendment with regard to free speech.
“Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.” The first amendment restricts the power of government to regulate speech it does not restrict the power of private enterprise to regulate speech on platforms it may own or control. In fact, quite the opposite. It restricts government from interfering in that right of private enterprise to regulate speech on it's platforms. So publications, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, social media, and other private enterprise have every right to regulate speech on their platforms and in fact do so every day, constantly. Ask anyone who has ever been employed by or supplied content to a media organization if speech or content on that platform was subjected to editing or control by that organization on their platform. Of course it was. Those demanding government regulate or control speech on social media or any other platform in any way need to be reminded of the restrictions of the first amendment.
Now does that mean media platforms have no responsibility for their speech? No, it does not. There remain legal restraints on libel and slander, malicious untruths designed solely to damage others. Both legal constraints and penalties exist to constrain and punish those abuses. There also exist legal constraints on incitement to violence or issuance of violent threats. This still leaves room for irresponsible speech including misinformation, disinformation, lies, untruths, and many other malicious forms of speech by all manner of people and organizations on virtually all platforms and we are all subjected to such irresponsible speech daily.
How do we control such irresponsible speech given the restrictions of the first amendment? Clearly the answer is not government action as the first amendment clearly prohibits that. The answer must be personal and organizational responsibility, both in our speech and in our listening as well. Individuals and private enterprise need to use their own voices responsibly and moral suasion to discourage irresponsible speech. We must choose our sources of information and news carefully with an eye toward selecting those showing consistent allegiance to truth and fact checking. We need to exercise care not to select only those that confirm our own biases without regard for truth and accuracy. But it is important to understand this responsibility to truth is our own and not depend on government to do that for us. Some will and do follow that advice, but many not. That is a consequence of having freedom of speech guaranteed in our Constitution. I argue we not surrender that freedom, which is why I am an over 50 year member of the ACLU.
So progressives who bemoan disinformation on social media need to refrain from calls to shut down those platforms where it regularly appears and instead encourage people to be more responsible consumers and publishers of information. Conservatives also need to refrain from calls on government to restrict platforms and media that do not confirm their own views. All need to take on the task personally of being responsible consumers and publishers of information and pledge allegiance to facts and truth. We cannot relinquish that responsibility to government. That is the meaning and implication of the first amendment.
Bruce, good explanation and food for thought. I hope people read it and understand.
Does this then suggest to you that Facebook's action as a publicly traded capitalist creation is an appropriate one to monitor discourse that verges not on right to free speech, but social winnowing of appropriate (truthful?) and inappropriate (blatant, seditious lies or fabrications?) That this would be private sector (albeit corporation as citizen) acting responsible in consort with its subscribers (other like-minded citizens?)? I think we get into murky waters when we expect to truth to emerge from the loudest or from vote taking on the facts by subscribers.
I have many objections to Facebook that begin with their business model of monetization of promoting speech that inflames peoples worst emotions and total disregard of personal information and an individual's right to protect that information. However, that does not change my views on their right as a private enterprise to regulate speech on their platform with regard to the first amendment. Do I believe they should be more responsible? Certainly, but that is my effort to exercise moral suasion and argue that they act no illegally but in a morally reprehensible fashion. Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.
'Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.' Bruce this is the time! The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is an agency of the Department of Commerce. 'It serves as the President's principal adviser on telecommunications policies pertaining to the United States' economic and technological advancement and to regulation of the telecommunications industry.' (Wiki) I do not know if the Department of Commerce could be the trigger. Last October, 2020, the 'landmark internet law — Section 230 — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms' was to be addressed. 'Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for years to reform this law, arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become. That’s why the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning.' (Vox, Oct 28, 2020). Bruce, please note that both parties have wanted to reform this law for years and still have not. There is a law, so where's the way?
I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the speech of the platform but rather those who speak on the platform. Would you sue the owner of a stage or theatre for the speech of someone who rents the theatre and its stage? It is a different matter when it is a newspaper or other media where it is the speech of the media or journal owner. The problem with social media is the anonymity and false personas of the speakers making it impossible to identify who is responsible. Let everyone who wishes to speak on those platforms be required to both identify and authenticate themselves and allow for those real identities to be disclosed and held responsible for their speech. I am all for that. They can still be free under the first amendment to speak falsehoods and misinformation, the first amendment does not prevent that. But at least we can hold them accountable for their speech. And, if in fact, they do render slander or libel, incite or threaten violence, they can be held accountable for that as well.
In saying this is not the time or place for this discussion, I was referring only to Dr. Richardson's wonderful forum, which I am loath to monopolize to discuss a topic she did not bring up. Her own thoughts and words are far more important than mine.
Bruce, I will address a serious example of this in comment tomorrow or early next week. Your discussion of this big problem with other subscribers was of great interest to me. There will be more. Thank you.
What FB needs is a lot more competition and competition rules that prevent it undermining that competition.
Perhaps, but one could also argue that society would not be better served by ten morally reprehensible enterprises, than simply one. As I have stated already I have strong objections to Facebook's monetization of inflaming peoples' worst emotions and fears, let alone their shameless allowing promotion of disinformation. But that is a morality question, not a legal issue. I do not believe the government should regulate a private enterprise's right to determine what is published on their platform so long as it does not violate the legal issues I have already discussed. I may abhor what they publish and promote, but I will defend their right to make those decisions. That is why I am an ACLU member and supporter.
Should the government determine for a variety of very legitimate reasons they are behaving in an anti-competitive, monopolistic fashion, wrongly suppressing competition - which may very well be true. Then let them be held responsible for that under the commercial laws regulating such behavior. That has nothing to do with what they choose or not to publish on their platform. That is about their commercial behavior in the marketplace.
Let them be made responsible then for the content found on their pages just as other media are open to be sued for damages by all and sundry.
That I agree with. The special exemption extended to internet-resident social platforms from which newspapers and other journalism are not exempt is unreasonable. They are publishers of information just as are others. One alternative might be to allow those who use such platforms to disseminate disinformation to be held responsible. This would require relinquishing the anonymity generally afforded on the internet, which I believe is part of the problem. If you wish to step forward and speak, identify and authenticate yourself. By not requiring this identification and authentication on, for the purposes of this discussion, social media, it makes it possible to attain anonymity and thus avoid being held responsible. Let everyone who chooses to speak thus be required to identify and authenticate themselves and thus be available to be held accountable for what they choose to speak. I am all in favor of that.
Note: This is holding the "speaker" accountable, not the platform used for the speech. But it does make the speaker identifiable and accountable. Having said this, I still abhor Facebook for many other reasons I have already stated. It is a cesspool of disinformation and abhorrent swampy creatures, many with no morals or redeeming qualities whatsoever. Facebook's monetization of promoting peoples' worst emotions and fears is, in my view, a pretty shabby business model.
Individual responsibility and accountability for sure. And, if these public platforms for exchange of ideas are to become a public good, as were utilities at one time, then might we hope for some protections for the larger good where the presumption is that something like truth or an ethical responsibility can, hopefully be shared by platforms and subscribers? Maybe more competition might lead to greater protections of freedom of speech versus say a license to shout fire online with abandon.
It's impossible, though. Facebook can't monitor that many posts. It is the overriding dilemma of social media.
I'm in favor of a social media colossus regulating or even banning speech, when that speech incites insurrection and treason. That's why 1/45 has been banned repeatedly from Twitter and FB, not because of his political views as Trumpskyites falsely claim. There's also a campaign to ban him from YouTube. That is fine with me.
I agree. I also think the elephant in the room is that with 2.7 billion users it would be literally impossible for Facebook to monitor every post for violations.
Time for regulation and competition to cut them down to a "manageable size" so that they can take that responsibilty.
Maybe. Social media defies all previous attempts to corral the flow of information. I'm not at all sure the structures exist to do moderation at that scale. Even if you broke FB into ten separate companies, each would still have an unmanageable number of people posting. I truly believe it's the dilemma of our age, particularly considering their responsibility for the spread of disinformation.
https://www.omnicoreagency.com/facebook-statistics/
This is an excellent reminder. Thank you!
Thank you, dear Prof. HCR, for bringing Rep. Liz Cheney's whip to the fore. We must admire her courage, yet remember that she voted for the "orange traffic cone of treason" 93% of the time as opposed to Stefanik's 78%. As the Repugnicants' latest darling, her numbers now count.
Cheney's words reverberate the cowboy's, hence Reagan's, clarion call:
“'History is watching. Our children are watching. We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process.'”
U S. history really IS in the making at this moment in time! Prof. HCR, you must be so excited to be writing about it as it presents itself -- as you are experiencing and living it! On one side, the Repugnicants have become self- destructive, while, on the other, the Demo-cats are showing how to govern with an elder statesman at the helm: ensuring 100% of the time, that the people's best interests are at the forefront of their policies.
And finally, may I apologetically add that I believe that Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and their ilk have made a pact with the forces of evil and should no longer be given the time of day?
Actually Liz Cheney is far to the right of most seditionists. She has seized the moment to take a “moral” stand against overtly overturning democracy. She prefers to work quietly to undermine it. Beware of the lion in sheep’s clothes.
What did I say above? She reverberates Reagan's Clarion call. And what does that mean?
The clarion call you quoted:
“'History is watching. Our children are watching. We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process.'”
is a fantastic sound bite, but, I think it means something vastly different to me than it does to Liz Cheney.
Respectfully, THIS is my concern, that she’s rebranding herself as a righteous defender of democracy when history tells a different story.
No pi$$ing on Reagan's grave, please, til we're done dancing on it.
we don't have to like Cheney or agree with a single other thing she does to support her in her will to call the Big Lie what it is, an attempt for a fascist takeover of the United States of America
Oust them for obstruction of our democracy.
Question: Isn't her pulling away a good thing in the sense that it will split (at least a portion of) the Republican party?
The Repuglycan cannibal feast is hugely entertaining.
Here is my letter to the president today: Do with it what you wish. (ps no poker jargon)
In response to Mitch McConnall’s comments re: pure obstruction, White house press sec… “I guess the contrast for people is 100% of our focus is on delivering relief to the people and getting the pandemic under control.”
President Biden Please do not miss the opportunity you have been given. It is painfully clear that none of your policies are going to pass the Senate given the current environment. This environment does not reflect he will of the people but rather a minority in control of social and irresponsible media.
The majority of the American people have been as clear as we can be that we want the policies and changes you have proposed. This cannot stand.
Unlimited debate has not produced reasoned response. Instead it has become THE tool of obstructionism to the extent that the minority senate leader is comfortable stating that his purpose is to obstruct your governing without a single comment of substance toward the actual bills you propose or the effects of doing nothing.
Politics is not a game to me. I doubt it is to you. It clearly has been your life’s pursuit but its footing has changed and has become something none of us even recognize. We are at war Mr. President. In war we the people need constant, consistent, direct contact with the supreme leader. You must personally drown out the voice of irresponsible media. Only you personally can do this because only you are the supreme leader. Fire side chats. Every day. Every day. Every day. Please Mr. President.
Please do something different!
To those who will criticize this saying that this is not in Biden's skill set or that it is not his responsibility I want to preemptively say. We are at war. In war people have to rise above themselves and the battle field has to be dominated by the victor. That has always been a truth.
To those who will say we must write to our representatives, Yes of course, but it is just not going to work this time because our republican reps are not listening to the voice of voters rather they are depending on their mastery of the new playing field of social media. It is like going up against nuclear warheads with pistols. Our country and the world has changed the largest influencers turn to FaceBook not responsible journalism.
Well said, sir.
My two senators are members of the Sedition Caucus. It is a complete waste of time to write to them or to call them.
No poker jargon? I'll hedge my bets on that.
Let me get this straight. The Republicans want to remove Liz Cheney, a woman with integrity who thinks for herself and stands up against lies and insurrection. Not to mention the daughter of a former Vice President. That speaks volumes about what the Trumplican party represents. Follow the leader, an ex president, no matter how insane he is. Such a waste. And a pity. I am thankful every single day that trump lost. And that's no lie!
I graduated from HS in May 1970, so my teen years were during a turbulent era for the US. My parents were adamant that college couldn’t be in CA—‘too much unrest!’ ABC, CBS, and NBC (the only channels we had) showed us whole swaths of cities burning during riots, but the unrest was not just in CA. A classmate in one of my freshman courses that fall had been at the Kent State protests when the National Guard opened fire and four students were killed. It was the first time I realized History wasn’t on a TV screen, it was sitting next to me.
Which is a long-winded way of saying: our country has gone through turbulent times before. But thank god Liz Cheney pointed out that the turbulence has never been led, fostered, stoked, and inflamed by the president. So why is Ms Cheney the only R to speak up? Why is the *entire* rest of the party in thrall to such a despicable person?
We are at a crucial turning point and it’s far from obvious how, whether, and IF the dust will settle.
Why? Oh, Facebook, Twitter, FOX news, resurgent racism, Congressional privilege, Citizens-United-SCOTUS-sanctioned corruption, trickle-down economics. It's a long and familiar list.
Ten Republican members of the House voted to impeach after the January 6th insurrection, so there are a few others with principles besides Cheney. I hope they continue to stand for what's right. They've needed security details and body armor since then so it's a hard road they've chosen in today's GOP
Where do we line up to kiss Lindsay Graham's ass. I promise my kiss is a promise with teeth in it.
Grotesque, but incisive.
Such biting humor! 😬
laughing. out. loud.
Take care...I fear his desire to have said ass kissed.
Love your pun!
As long as you have your mouth wash handy
Very funny!!
Ugh!