You have to know how to scream self-righteously to be a member of the contemporary Republic party of domestic terrorism. They must hold auditions or something to get the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, as well as the ever screaming Jim Jordan.ЁЯШЭ
Auditions! There's a GOP Central Casting! Their general heading is whacko, but then they look for specific peculiarities: odd theories; racism; closet nazis; proud white nationalists; anti-immigrant; anti-science; anti-woman's rights; anti-anything-but-straight; pro gun but anti-book..., then they lure them into their service by acting as if they're all sane and endlessly broadcast their "findings" and "evidence" until they become "alternative facts" that filter into the collective consciousness sufficiently to alter the outcome of elections based upon the votes of a gigantic minority of the ignorant but self-assured populace тАФ all for the benefit of a tiny minority of self-serving white, wealthy men; religious zealots; and fabulists of every stripe.
You got THAT right, Russ! It would be funny if it weren't so threatening.
Because that's what THEY'RE doing, It falls to the rest of us to empower one another to speak, and act in accordance with OUR values and to not cede the stage or yield the microphone to the loudest, craziest person in the room. It's been a collective mistake on the part of the media, beginning with Les Moonvess of CBS who shamelessly stated, "Donald Trump may not be good for America but he's good for CBS," to give the orange imposter massive amounts of air-time. Many in the media continue to show clips and repeat the dog-whistle messages he covertly sends to his crazy followers, regarding his need for them to exact revenge on his behalf.
I wish that every time his name was mentioned it was coupled with the word "dangerous," or something similar, e.g. "Is it possible that this dangerous man could still be the Republican nominee for President?" or, "Is it acceptable that a man who told his followers that he loved them after they'd smashed windows, beat police, ransacked the Capitol, and threatened the lives of duly-elected legislators, could still be qualified to run for President?" I realize this is a grey area of journalism but continuing to talk about him and the R's as if they aren't an increasing threat to the safety of all of us, is unwittingly participating in the gaslighting that the R's perpetuate themselves.
Reading your reply again, I realized my follow-up was a more complicated version of everything you wrote and with which I agreed. The whole spectrum of arraignments, trials, the coming election and all that could possibly go wrong have me wired.
"I wish that every time his name was mentioned it was coupled with the word "dangerous," or something similar."
Yes, Madeline! Like the revolving warnings on cigarette packs!
Les Moonvess; I didn't know he said that. There is money-machine journalism and journalism that attempts responsible reportage. It may be that the "grey area" of journalism тАФ where facts' transparency becomes lies' opacity тАФ is represented by organizations that, for profit, intentionally blur the exact location of that divide by claiming "reporting" covers the wide swath of "anything said"; a neat, logical-sounding, workaround to appeal to the greatest swath of readers and listeners that their company's conscience can bear. No doubt feeling righteously smug if not slick, the illustrious NYT went down that path by gradually separating news from opinion while simultaneously cultivating, by invitation, outrageous opinion pieces to achieve "balance"; and to encourage readers to engage in a new category of "news": pointless polemics тАФ which wouldn't exist if fact was given the platform "polemics" now occupies. But to solve that moral quandary, increasingly, the Times designates special columns dedicated to parsing the divide between fact and opinion тАФ giving the publication a veneer of fairness and patina of correctness тАФ as if including fact within its reportage is unnecessary if they provide it elsewhere. Thus, the truth gradually becomes a bridge too far, and by example, the Times engenders a sense of truth's irrelevancy. Progressives' frequent call to action is important: they warn that a passive society relinquishes freedom by disengaging; by not speaking out; and declare that responsible citizens must refuse to equivocate. Failing to include fact within the body of reporting is a form of equivocation. "The whole truth..." ought to be a newspaper's proud banner.
A distant chorus of dead republicans, from Brutus, John Adams and Danton to Sam Ervin, Eliot Richardson, and even Robespierre might be heard lamenting those ignorant spiritual monarchists.
Right, William. It's as serious as a heart attack that democracy is directly under attack by white, mostly male or male identified women who truly know not what they do. Those societies that hand power to sociopathic "strongmen," invariably suffer the silencing of their individuality and all of their rights in order to be obedient to a tyrannical overlord.
Those of us who can see that nightmare approaching are trying to assert the virtues of democracy to wider and wider circles of the voting populous. I cast my lot with people like us who are trying to preserve the right to think for ourselves...the freedom of mind, as Steve Hassan puts it. тЩея╕П
Well this clearly defines the difference between Biden and the GOP. Thanks Heather, history repeats itself.
HCR..Oh how I would love to see you moderate the presidential debates.
Right! And the Republicans would demand Screaming Jim Jordan for "balance".
Right, Russell! ЁЯШВ
You have to know how to scream self-righteously to be a member of the contemporary Republic party of domestic terrorism. They must hold auditions or something to get the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, as well as the ever screaming Jim Jordan.ЁЯШЭ
Auditions! There's a GOP Central Casting! Their general heading is whacko, but then they look for specific peculiarities: odd theories; racism; closet nazis; proud white nationalists; anti-immigrant; anti-science; anti-woman's rights; anti-anything-but-straight; pro gun but anti-book..., then they lure them into their service by acting as if they're all sane and endlessly broadcast their "findings" and "evidence" until they become "alternative facts" that filter into the collective consciousness sufficiently to alter the outcome of elections based upon the votes of a gigantic minority of the ignorant but self-assured populace тАФ all for the benefit of a tiny minority of self-serving white, wealthy men; religious zealots; and fabulists of every stripe.
You got THAT right, Russ! It would be funny if it weren't so threatening.
Because that's what THEY'RE doing, It falls to the rest of us to empower one another to speak, and act in accordance with OUR values and to not cede the stage or yield the microphone to the loudest, craziest person in the room. It's been a collective mistake on the part of the media, beginning with Les Moonvess of CBS who shamelessly stated, "Donald Trump may not be good for America but he's good for CBS," to give the orange imposter massive amounts of air-time. Many in the media continue to show clips and repeat the dog-whistle messages he covertly sends to his crazy followers, regarding his need for them to exact revenge on his behalf.
I wish that every time his name was mentioned it was coupled with the word "dangerous," or something similar, e.g. "Is it possible that this dangerous man could still be the Republican nominee for President?" or, "Is it acceptable that a man who told his followers that he loved them after they'd smashed windows, beat police, ransacked the Capitol, and threatened the lives of duly-elected legislators, could still be qualified to run for President?" I realize this is a grey area of journalism but continuing to talk about him and the R's as if they aren't an increasing threat to the safety of all of us, is unwittingly participating in the gaslighting that the R's perpetuate themselves.
Reading your reply again, I realized my follow-up was a more complicated version of everything you wrote and with which I agreed. The whole spectrum of arraignments, trials, the coming election and all that could possibly go wrong have me wired.
"I wish that every time his name was mentioned it was coupled with the word "dangerous," or something similar."
Yes, Madeline! Like the revolving warnings on cigarette packs!
Les Moonvess; I didn't know he said that. There is money-machine journalism and journalism that attempts responsible reportage. It may be that the "grey area" of journalism тАФ where facts' transparency becomes lies' opacity тАФ is represented by organizations that, for profit, intentionally blur the exact location of that divide by claiming "reporting" covers the wide swath of "anything said"; a neat, logical-sounding, workaround to appeal to the greatest swath of readers and listeners that their company's conscience can bear. No doubt feeling righteously smug if not slick, the illustrious NYT went down that path by gradually separating news from opinion while simultaneously cultivating, by invitation, outrageous opinion pieces to achieve "balance"; and to encourage readers to engage in a new category of "news": pointless polemics тАФ which wouldn't exist if fact was given the platform "polemics" now occupies. But to solve that moral quandary, increasingly, the Times designates special columns dedicated to parsing the divide between fact and opinion тАФ giving the publication a veneer of fairness and patina of correctness тАФ as if including fact within its reportage is unnecessary if they provide it elsewhere. Thus, the truth gradually becomes a bridge too far, and by example, the Times engenders a sense of truth's irrelevancy. Progressives' frequent call to action is important: they warn that a passive society relinquishes freedom by disengaging; by not speaking out; and declare that responsible citizens must refuse to equivocate. Failing to include fact within the body of reporting is a form of equivocation. "The whole truth..." ought to be a newspaper's proud banner.
A distant chorus of dead republicans, from Brutus, John Adams and Danton to Sam Ervin, Eliot Richardson, and even Robespierre might be heard lamenting those ignorant spiritual monarchists.
Right, William. It's as serious as a heart attack that democracy is directly under attack by white, mostly male or male identified women who truly know not what they do. Those societies that hand power to sociopathic "strongmen," invariably suffer the silencing of their individuality and all of their rights in order to be obedient to a tyrannical overlord.
Those of us who can see that nightmare approaching are trying to assert the virtues of democracy to wider and wider circles of the voting populous. I cast my lot with people like us who are trying to preserve the right to think for ourselves...the freedom of mind, as Steve Hassan puts it. тЩея╕П