Fake polling to fuel a talking point

Talking point creation is an industry. No doubt some are paid very well for it. So here's one: Twitter closed down discussion of Hunter Biden's laptop for a week before the 2020 election. It probably wasn't a full lockdown because that would be very hard to do, but the New York Post twitter account was suspended. 

So how much effect could that blackout have? The conservatives have been trying to supersize the effect and actually did some polling to check on it, or to manufacture the data they wanted. 

Here is typical conservative reporting on the poll: 

WaPo reporting on the wording of the poll question. Wow. 

"According to our poll," the organization wrote a few weeks after Trump lost, "full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes."

This is the poll question. Look at how stilted it was:

"At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that evidence exists, including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating, that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to provide the Biden family with tens of millions of dollars in profits?"

So this is more talking point manufacturing. The electorate already knew Hunter was a crackhead and had a cushy job that paid too well. We in the electorate didn't really care. No candidate is perfect--not even close. 

Image: Daily Mail

Extras. Politifact, if it helps any. NBC news from 10/30/20. I guess there was some coverage in MSM. 

Could this be the origin of Dominion accusations?

This is bizarre if true. That's a big if, but I'll discuss that later. What if the accusation against Dominion Systems came from a woman in Michigan who also claimed to be protected by the wind and having other strange powers. 

This revelation comes by way of an article in the Daily Beast and a filing in the Dominion defamation suit. The woman (last name Bourne) sent an email to Sidney Powell. The email isn't that detailed, which works against it being the source of the rumors. However the Daily Beast showed how phrases from the email ended up in the show where Maria Bartimoro discussion of election fraud. 

But could similar rumors be floating around during that time, picked up by various people, not just this odd woman in Michigan? I think I recall that a conservative journalist claimed to get into a conference call by Dominion Systems in the summer of 2020, so well before this. However I didn't record specifics and haven't been able to confirm that. ,By Nov. 6, 2020, accusations were already circulating about Dominion systems. This is before strange lady in Michigan wrote her email. The rumors exploded Nov. 7 to 11. I don't know when Hugo Chavez got linked in, or the server farms in Frankfurt Germany or connections to Italy. 

So there isn't anything definitive here, but I want to hold onto this info because it's so strange, and such a scoop if it's true. 

Image: clipart-library.com

Clown show: The Arizona audit

Running list from the Secretary of State. 

PR/spin from the AZ senate here. 

Made-up numbers in the final report.

Ok, those are the links. Here's the short version and I'll post this very belatedly. The GOP idiots in AZ went with the Trump lies that the election was stolen, and tried to find the evidence of it in their state. Since they don't actually know the safeguards in elections, or they're lying bitches, the GOP state senators voted to confiscate all the ballots from Maricopa Country and recheck them. And since they didn't have a plan about how to forge evidence, they had to report that the numbers from the original count were good--well within the margin of error for counting ballots. 

Lesson 1: It's hard to prove rubbish is true. Or maybe impossible. 

Lesson 2: If you're not willing to totally lie, cheat, and forge evidence, you're going to disappoint the audience that doesn't care about truth and reality. 

Unfortuantely, the GOP in AZ don't seem much smarter for this experience. 

Image: seattletimes.com

Is another wave of covid coming for the unvaccinated?

(Originally July 30) It's been predicted that covid would surge. More than once, this didn't happen, and sometimes it did. When Texas dropped its mask mandate, covid was supposed to surge but didn't. Now maybe we're seeing signs that there is somewhat of a surge in Missouri and Arkansas in areas where there is high resistance to getting the vaccine. Health officials in Missouri are alarmed at the rise of covid cases, but they can't get the governor to take it seriously. Because of the partisan divide, and conservatives have to be against vaccines since libs/progs are for them. This is such stupidity.<---I wrote this originally on 7/10. Now we've had nearly three more weeks of the surge, and it's definitely happening. 

Currently the death toll isn't rising, but it has stopped dropping, which indicates that up is the next direction. Cases are up 400% in the US since July 1. Hospitals are filling up with covid patients.

Not only the unvaccinated are affected. An outbreak centered in Provincetown MA included over 800 vaccinated people. The delta variant is known to been more transmissible. It became the dominant variant in the UK, and has becoming dominant in the US too. The CDC is recommending masks again indoors. 

Republicans are split on whether to encourage vaccination or remain defiant. Too bad for them that even reality of overflowing hospitals doesn't open their eyes. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how did this turn out? Big waves of hospitalizations and deaths in southern states. Much less in the midwest, west, northeast and mid-Atlantic. 

For a long time, the 6 states with the highest deaths per capita were: New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Louisiana. These states were hit hard early on before the lockdown and social distancing responses. 

With the high death tolls from July-September '21, (and still substantial in early November), the 12 states with the highest death rates are Mississippi, Alabama, NJ, Louisiana, NY, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, MA, Georgia, RI, Oklahoma. That's such a different geography from before, and all because of low vaccination rates when the delta variant arrived. 

What happened with the Provincetown, MA outbreak? Not much. Massachusetts was affected by delta, too, but it increased death rates from very low into a low range. Many southern states, on the other hand, had their biggest waves yet since delta was more infectious than the earlier variant. Due to the partisan-tinged anti-vax stubbornness, over 100K Americans died who would be alive today. 

And the divide over how to respond to covid remains bitterly ideological. The conservatives are sticking with their anti-vax stance even with the known visible results from the various US states. Doubling-down unto death is happening too often, which demonstrates the bitterness of the divide. 

Image: worldometer

Don't let a pandemic stop the partisanship

Very few people are letting go of partisanship. Some examples: GOP senators want to increase the quarter-trillion dollar small business loan fund because it was exhausted in about 2 weeks. But they don't want to allow Pelosi any of her projects that would help other sectors, like state governments and hospitals. So no deal. Our way or the highway, I guess.

Republican-leaning folks are protesting lockdowns in various states, and getting encouragement from Trump. Are the protesters considering the implications in terms of life and health? Are they asking for a plan? Or are they stomping their feet was though this was all a hoax? Michigan had the biggest protest so far, and here's the view from a Michigander of the divisions within the state. It's the equivalent of 'Let 'em die.'

Election Looming

So let's strip away the dressing and lay it bare. Republicans are desperate to get the economy back on track because it was looking quite good and greatly helped their chances in the upcoming November elections.

But where are the Democrats in this? Some Republicans suspect that the Dems are gleeful over this disaster if it dooms Trump's chance at reelection, and maybe also hands the Senate to the Dems. That's a suspicion, but would any Dems in office actually try to worsen the epidemic or the economy for the electoral advantage? That's pretty bloodthirsty. However, it's clear from many comments I read that it's exactly what some Republicans think. Good luck trying to prove otherwise. It's a nasty accusation that they won't be able to back up, but they throw it to cause the suspicion and to blacken their opponents.

Dems aren't going to be completely honest either. Most aren't giving Trump credit for closing down a lot of the travel from China. They are giving him a hard time for his lack of leadership, but he richly deserves that. There was a lot of time wasted not getting prepared for this epidemic. There were warnings and information coming in to those paying attention that this virus was spreading quickly around the world, starting with areas with more travel.

This is largely a rant, so I'll follow my rules for rants, whatever they might be today. I haven't seen Dems trying to gain political advantage except for pointing out that the economy might be wrecked and the stock market is way down, so Trump can no longer claim successes with them. That's a bit weak on the causation, but fair on the result. Trump can't claim good things about the economy now because we are in a massively different situation, and it's not one caused by the Dems. It's partially caused by this black swan event, and partially by Trump's poor handling of this black swan event.

I've seen Republicans make all kinds of different arguments trying to avoid the obvious. This is fucking terrible for Trump's reelection prospects. One pundit I read has written for years that presidents will tend to get reelected unless there's a major crisis or a war that's not going well. If there's a crisis, well, the president might well be toast. This appears to be crisis beyond Trump's ability to manage. Maybe not, but probably. So Trump is clearly in trouble. I hope that isn't in dispute among the honest.

Not His Fault!

Some of the ludicrous stuff that Trump supporters have been saying: It's no worse than the flu! Trump was being impeached [so that makes it the Dems fault???]. The Chinese lied to us. Dems attacked Trump for blocking flights. Trump did a lot of things to prevent the spread. It's a lie that the National Security pandemic team was dismantled. It's a bunch of fearmongering. Don't panic. Don't buy up all the toilet paper, you idiots. Dems said we'd have a million people dead by now but it hasn't happened, so they're complete liars. Trump did take it seriously. Lockdowns aren't necessary. Lockdowns will ruin the economy just to save a few lives. Dems don't care about people losing their jobs and businesses. Dems love this, that we're all dependent on the government giving us money to survive. The suicide, murder and abuse rates are already shooting up. People aren't going to be able to take this lockdown for very long. Just wash your hands - no need to shut down the economy. It's only bad in dirty places that have Democratic governors and mayors; the rest of us shouldn't have to shut down. It's because of poor Dem hygiene practices. The governors are happy with Trump's leadership. The governors are in mutiny. This death rate isn't higher at all. Lots of deaths are labeled as covid but that's to get extra money... or make the GOP look bad. Go check your hospital and see if it's overwhelmed, or is it just a hoax? <--- And I didn't even get into the arguments about testing or personal protective equipment (PPE).

Yes, I have seen a conservative saying each one of these. I'm not making up any of them.

Dems are bashing Trump regularly, and not completely honestly either. They don't say that any leader, GOP or Dem, would be facing very difficult circumstances. Decisions have to be made with imperfect information, and not all of them will be right. So the impulse to attack everything Trump does is wrong, but many Dems are still doing that, just today bashing Trump for putting a hold on immigration. If lockdowns make sense, so does a hold on immigration, duh!

So there is reasonable cricism of Trump, and a lot of it, and there is stupid criticism of him.

Anti-News, Anti-Science

A big problem is that a lot of people won't believe information that doesn't come to them except from their stilted media. So if Fox News isn't telling them this pandemic is real, they aren't going to believe it even with the availability of reports from Lombardy, Spain, New York City, Seattle, and New Orleans. It gets even worse than that. They won't believe anyone who says something similar to MSM or experts. They are very effectively vaccinated against believing anything from anyone remotely associated with the suspect media and politicians. So they will never be convinced short of nearly dying or having someone in their family nearly die.

This total resistance to anything from experts or MSM media means that there will always be a cadre who can mutually reinforce each other. They will also fight the most sensible, well-supported information. They will attack good idea, good arguments, and good people simply because they are always on the offense, and think anyone with different ideas is brainwashed. I'm seeing so much of this.

I see Trump supporters who think that anyone who criticizes Trump over his handling of covid-19 is gleeful that people are dying by the thousands. Many people are feeling vindicated that Trump is so clearly out of his depth. I'm among those who thought that Trump would be a disaster if he ever had to handle a major crisis, and now that's exactly what he has to do, and he is handling it as poorly as we always suspected he would. There is no 'rising to the challenge' from him.

Covid flips the campaigns

Sadly, we're in this situation as the US presidential campaign heats up, so the stakes are very high. Prior to this pandemic, it looked like Trump had a very good chance of being reelected based on the economy if nothing else. But this huge crisis and the economic toll, his chances are diminished a lot, and his supporters know this. Trump and his supporters are desperate to reverse the economic losses, which accounts for their push to reduce stay-at-home orders and reopen states as soon as possible, whether it is safe or not, whether there are good plans in place or not. Reopen Now!! is what a lot are saying, and they aren't interested in evaluating the risks and rewards. Are Dems desperately trying to prevent this for electoral advantage? Not that I know of, but GOPers accuse them of this. This is also playing out in the issue of vote-by-mail.

Planning for how to handle a pandemic wouldn't generally be easy, but this one is harder than the last. This virus spreads more easily, kills somewhat more people, is mutating (not unusual), affects several organ systems, is a type of virus that isn't conducive to a vaccine, and perhaps not to immunity through antibodies either. This might be a long slog, like it was with HIV, except that this can affect many more people, but luckily our technology is much more advanced.

Advanced or not, we are in some uncharted territory. We haven't had a pandemic like this in a hundred years, and our expectations have risen very high in terms of the safety we expect. What would it be like, being on the team that has to plan the reopening of a state or country, knowing that there is no cure, no certain prevention, and more danger of death that we're accustomed to?

Image: theweek.com

Extras. A program for small businesses to continue to pay workers ran out of money in just two weeks. The parties in Congress took several extra days to sort out how to provide more funds, partly because Dems wanted to fund other groups and GOPers wanted to limit it. Both stances are based on constituencies. GOPers only want to support businesses, and Dems want to support hospitals, states, and businesses that are very small. Dems were holding the money for business ransom, trying to force Republicans to help broader groups. The GOP mostly won this time. Dems were only able to get aid earmarked for the very small businesses.

Some examples of conservative media and what they are saying about Dems reveling in this pandemic. Most are from Rush Limbaugh  (archive  here). Time series: Limbaugh1, Limbaugh2, Limbaugh3, Limbaugh4, Limbaugh5, Limbaugh6, Limbaugh7. This started with Limbaugh saying it was nothing but Dems hope it will be something  (CHECK), then it's well under control but Dems are going try to spin that Trump lied about it being under control, it's something that isn't in control but it's being weaponized against Trump. It's not just Limbaugh, it's also Townhall. Columbia Journalism Review looks at this.

Aid to red states - Good. Aid to blue states - waste. Same as with hurricane relief.

Opinions about which drug is most effective against covid are based on partisanship. That makes no sense because it should be based on test data, right? But there's the chloroquine and the remdesivir camp, and data be damned!

Opinions on masks could be based on partisanship. <Eye roll> More of that proud animosity to those wimpy scientists, liberals, and SJWs.

April 28, over 59K deaths, and someone is still declaring this a hoax.

Two cases of conservative distortions

Double header!! First up is an article from WaPo detailing how Fox News distorted one news story from January 2018. The New York Times reported that Trump had told the White House counsel (McGahn) to have Mueller fired. The rumor that Trump wanted to fire him was going around like crazy, largely because Trump regularly fed the impression. Also Trump was known for firing people, including the head of the FBI, his chief of staff, communications director, and assorted others. Oh yes, he fired people on his reality show too.

But the NYT doesn't report the odd rumor, and it had details. Fox, however, exists in a separate universe and doesn't believe the stinking NYT, even though they have a much better track record for accuracy.

Trump claimed it was fake news. Hannity repeated that. Then Hannity had to back down as actual news operations at Fox confirmed the report. Then spin took over. Trump has the right... This was six months ago... Who cares anyway. Immigration is more important...

The Mueller report confirmed this, by the way. Eye roll for Fox News.

Fox News Spins DOJ Letters

Fox News, as the defender of the Almighty, Protector of the Faith, etc. had an article on an official letter from the White House counsel complaining about the Mueller report. This was perhaps counterprogramming against a letter from Mueller leaked on 4/30/19 where Mueller complains that summaries of his report are inaccurate so the summaries he wrote himself should be released. (They were leaked.)

The letter from the White House counsel complains that Mueller didn't draw conclusions, and he should have. However, the arguments there completely ignore what the rationale that Mueller plainly gave in his report, which was that DOJ policy didn't allow him to make an indictment against the president, so he was doing what he could legally and ethically do considering those restriction. Mueller cites OLC in the first page of Volume II, concerning obstruction of justice inquiries. The White House counsel just ignores that. Plus it veers into an addition Trump probably requested complaining about leaks and claiming Trump is the highest official in the country so blah blah blah he gets to decide everything within the executive branch -- as though conflict-of-interest doesn't happen.

This isn't exactly a legal clown car because there is some coherence. However, it doesn't touch on the most important points, so the goal of the letter seems to be to blow smoke. Sad.

... but it was true.

Image: thedailybeast.com

October links: too many

GOPers learn to negotiate. The GOPers in Congress learned and managed to fund the government. No shutdown. Trump was out of the loop.

Lying scummy politics. A scummy, lying trick in a campaign ad. Chris Collins, indicted for insider trading, gives a completely false translation of his opponent's words.

A lying scientist. Cornell

Trump outrageous again. I think it's part of his plan. In love with NK dictator.

Revision of a critique on conservatism. Maybe it is a lot of paranoia. This is a very good read--maybe the most important in several months.

Dangers in US-China relations. Link.

Coerced sex is legal. If done by police.

Russia investigation update. A Trump operative considered using phony accounts. Buried in this article: sentencing for Manafort and Flynn. Does that mean the investigation is almost over? I'm guessing yes. You don't sentence your informants until they have fulfilled their side of the bargain.

Famous for 15 minutes. A mom screws up against #metoo. Funny.

California voter registration. Always curious about this black hole.

Climate change links.

Anti-democracy. Georgia puts voter applications on hold.

Antifa and Nazis are still fighting, but I lost the link.

Image: aip.org

Making stuff up

I think there is a lot of fake news floating around, and I suspect conservatives channel a lot of it. Remember the scare about Jade Helm? How Seth Rich was murdered because of the DNC hack? Pizzagate? Ambassador Stevens sodomized before he was killed?

Here's one that I learned today. Peter Strzok grew up in Iran, and then moved to Saudi Arabia. From that snippet, plus a letter signed by Peter Strzok where he is identified as a Section Chief, a fake news generator spins the most marvelous stories.

Peter Strzok didn't work for the FBI but was a deep state guy who slid into whatever position was required, working both for the FBI and CIA. This is all based on Strzok's signature on an FBI letter.

According to another fake news article, Strzok was:

...the key Middle Eastern Intel operative for the Iranian airline Mahan Air’s purchase of United States government planes during the Obama administration from 2011 to 2013. -- Big League Politics

Did this actually happen? I looked into it, and found an article about Iran trying to skirt sanctions and buy planes. 

The fake news article goes on to accuse Strzok of fixing the email investigation and then conveniently getting in on the Mueller investigation. What is this based on? "An insider." Or maybe someone making shit up.

With a quick search, I find that the FBI does indeed have 'section chiefs.' So that conclusion that Strzok really worked for the CIA was nothing but a lie.

I don't know how many people in our country work at fabricating these stories. Or how many more repeat them on youtube, websites, or fake news sites like InfoWars? How many more people then read this trash and believe it? It's insidious, and it should be exposed whenever possible. With extreme prejudice to the purveyors.

Image: bigleaguepolitics.com

This better be my last post about Benghazi!

It sucks that I'm still writing about Benghazi. It sucks that the issues surrounding Benghazi haven't been settled. It sucks that information about  Benghazi hasn't been thoroughly thrashed and set to rest. It's a living demonstration of the partisanship that there hasn't been a clear, concise, thorough, and uncontested report of what happened. It reflects on secrecy and cover-your-ass dissembling by the Obama administration and partisan point-scoring, innuendo, and hyperbole by the GOP.

This latest bout of Benghazi research was prompted by a comment on the stand-down order. Politifact says that the story of a stand-down order is mostly false. It pointed to a report of a House Intelligence Committee, and I decided to read it. It's actually pretty readable, less than 30 pages, and doesn't get bogged down. It seems to be mostly a fact-finding mission--the kind of report I've wanted to see.

From my own research during the summer of 2014, I figured that the stand-down story had some major holes in it, primarily that it was simply a 20-minute delay, not a stand-down. But there's not enough drama with a delay, so the story was juiced up.

The report confirmed what I had suspected (win for me!). There was a delay as the station chief tried to gather more info and more support, but it was a minimal delay, per pages 19-21 of the report.

However, drama sells. Partisan audiences are hungry for scandal that fits their biases. So we get books and even a movie based less on evidence and more for giving the crowd what it wants. Trey Gowdy (GOP representative) is too cowardly to tell the whole truth either:

"The best I can do is tell you what the witnesses say, and then you can decide who you think is more credible."

Let me translate that:

'I don't think the story is credible, but I'll cling to the thin thread of evidence because it's politically expedient.'

He does admit that leaving earlier wouldn't have saved the lives of the two diplomats who died in the compound. I'll be remembering this to refute the yahoos who repeat that specious claim.

But back to the report. It was good to find out about roadblocks, and how the team that flew in from Tripoli was stuck at the Benghazi airport until they found one local group that seemed trustworthy enough. The attack on the CIA annex was unusually precise and coordinated, and deadly, with two more Americans killed there. Then everyone evacuated to the airport, along with the body of the ambassador who had been missing. That mystery was resolved in less than 10 hours, even in dangerous territory like Benghazi.

Some GOPers wouldn't sign on to the report. I guess it blew up too many of the talking points they wanted to clutch. Gowdy was one of those who refused. That guy--sometime he goes up in my estimation, and sometimes he scrapes the bottom.

One final sentiment: it was worth my time to research this and find what seems to me like the actual truths. Truth is worth the effort.

Image: house.gov 

Extras.  National Review declares there's evidence for the stand-down order... and neglects the evidence that refutes it. Convenient omissions? From WaPo: Who is more credible--the Benghazi CIA station chief, or the author of the sensationalist book?

History for Amnesiacs: What Mueller is investigating

The idiotic talking point among some conservatives is that the Mueller investigation is illegitimate, and was from the beginning. There wasn't any real evidence that deserved investigation. It's all been fake news and a conspiracy by the deep state. Many even call it a coup.

I read this so often that I made a list of the evidence that thoroughly justifies an investigation:

1. The Russians hacked the DNC and gave the hacked emails to Wikileaks, thereby affecting the election. It may not have changed the outcome, but it was an attempt to do so, and was criminal activity. 
2. The Russians hacked state voter databases. They probably hacked more than that too. 
3. Trump has had a lot of contacts with Russians over the years.
4. Many Trump advisers have had a lot of contacts with Russians.
5. Trump advisers had contacts with Russians during the campaign. Sessions didn't fully disclose this information.
6. Trump denied the meddling of the Russians and appeared ready to lift sanctions. 
7. Trump fired the FBI director who was overseeing the investigation. 
8. The fired FBI director recounted Trump asking for loyalty and for a pass for one of his former advisers.

That is plenty to warrant an investigation. The Mueller investigation should be happening, and should continue.

Some talking-point parrots trot out lawyer and presumed Democrat Alan Dershowitz as an ally. However, Dershowitz doesn't agree that there isn't evidence. He writes:

But there was plenty of evidence that Russian operatives had tried to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, and perhaps other elections, in the hope of destabilizing democracy. Yet, appointing a special counsel to look for crimes, behind the closed doors of a grand jury, was precisely the wrong way to address this ongoing challenge to our democracy.

Dershowitz follows up with this overstatement:

It [the Mueller investigation] has politicized our justice system beyond repair... In our age of hyperpartisanship, the public has understandably lost confidence in the ability and willingness of our leaders to separate their political views from their law enforcement decisions.

...Let Congress now appoint a nonpartisan commission to conduct a transparent investigation of Russia’s efforts to influence our elections. Let the special counsel suspend his investigation until the nonpartisan commission issues its report. If the report identifies crimes and criminals, there will be time enough to indict and prosecute. Right now, we need the nonpartisan truth, because we aren’t getting it from the special counsel.

Ahem, what is the evidence that Mueller isn't working on providing nonpartisan truth, also known as the truth?

 If anything, Congress has shown that it can't be trusted to seek and share the truth. Remember the dueling memos?

No, I'd much rather that Mueller continue. As for Dershowitz, I saw him described as a publicity whore hound. Wait, that's from 1989. I'm sure he's overcome that tendency by now.

Whatever. Mueller should continue, wrap up as soon as possible, and issue a detailed report of the facts.

Image: cnn.com 

December links

I collected a bunch of links in November but didn't get to write about them. Here they are. As usual, an interesting bunch.

White nationalist bad behavior. I'm not sure why this struck me as important, but it did. It turns out that a white nationalist who was caught on video repeatedly shoving a woman at a Trump rally has also been involved in organizing white rallies. This includes Charlottesville. Maybe this detail will be important sometime, but I hope not. On a related note, extreme violence at neo-Nazi rallies didn't start at Charlottesville. This report from 6/26/16 shows that it started over a year earlier. Seven were stabbed at a rally in Sacramento.

Roy Moore bad behavior. Roy Moore is the notorious judge in Alabama who has twice substituted his superior knowledge of God's will over the judgments of higher courts. Now he's running for Senate, and has been accused by several women of chasing them when they were teenage girls and he was in this 30s. He's called them liars, which is the traditional patriarchal response. This video shows an interview of a worker who knew of Roy Moore being banned from a mall in the 1980s for that behavior. Doesn't look like this guy is lying. Updating--another woman who dated Moore when she was 17 is sharing her story, and a card that looks very much like Roy Moore's writing.

Senator gets fed up. Humorous story about Sen. Orrin Hatch getting tired of being accused of wanting to cut taxes for the rich. Well, if he doesn't like the accusation, maybe he should stop repeatedly performing the action of which he is accused. If you don't want to be called a wife-beater, stop beating your wife. Ever.

Was Trump's election racist? This is a long article, but I liked the last third. That part starts with "History has a way of altering villians..." It argues that perhaps whites in the US can't see their own racism even as it worsens in a very scary way. I don't know if I agree, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind.

Why care about a crime 25 years ago? I started reading this article about the conviction in a genocide trial, and my initial reaction was that European justice is too slow and too weak. Then my focus changed, and I was surprisingly happy that this murderer was forced to face justice. He didn't get to escape justice as so many others have.

Immigrant gangs. No, this isn't just a conservative talking point. This is real. Maybe the MSM is mostly burying this information because it's not a story that fits their political bias.

Congressmen have sex. Joe Barton was getting divorced, but he was still interested in having sex with women. Sounds normal to me. He actually sent some nude selfies to some women (not out of the blue). Sounds like the 21st century, right? However, it's trouble for a congressman. Unfortunately, TMZ scrubbed their copies of the pic. It's what you'd expect for a guy his age. This ought to be a non-story, shouldn't it be?

Conservative sting bad behavior. Project Veritas, an organization that exposes liberal causes in not so honest ways, tried a sting on the Washington Post, but was caught instead. Their operative concocted a lie about Roy Moore, was discovered, videotaped, and written about at length. James O'Keefe, the swarmy head of Project Veritas, of course isn't going to be honest about this.

Deregulation improves economy. According to The Economist, the major decrease in new regulations during the beginning of the Trump administration has been helping the US economy. No shit, Sherlock.

Interesting factoid about Israel. The Greek Orthodox church is one of the major landowners in Israel. I never thought about it, but it makes sense. What if it has owned land there for nearly 18 centuries? What are the implications when the church sells some of its holdings?

Media bias in one picture and two stories. Picture below. Malia Obama, bad girl or embattled?

Image: news.google.com

For and against the Southern Poverty Law Center

What I remember of the Southern Poverty Law Center is that they had a large and scrupulously maintained database of US hate organizations and individuals, so they were always a good resource for reporters, and even for police and the FBI. Their database also made them invaluable to civil actions against hate groups, several of which were sued into bankruptcy.

I hadn't thought much about the SPLC until a conservative commenter with an anything-goes attitude toward argumentation claimed that the SPLC is itself a hate group. The basis for her dubious claim is that the shooter at the Family Research Council in DC used information from SPLC to target an anti-gay group.

I saw several other claims that SPLC is horrible, and decided to look into it. It appeared that most of the claims against SPLC were due its labeling of anti-gay groups as hate groups. The anti-gay groups and their conservative supporters bristled under the label, believing they were unfairly classed in with the KKK and neo-Nazis. Does this smack of claiming their kind of hate is 'a good kind of hate?'

I read what SPLC had to say about one of these anti-gay groups. The SPLC says that it doesn't label groups as hate groups simply for having labeling homosexuality as wrong or sinful. It had the criteria that the group spread lies, false reports or false research, advocate violence, etc. I noted that SPLC doesn't list the Catholic Church as a hate group, so a group can have religious objections to gays without getting the hated 'hate' label. Fair enough. I decided to contribute for the first time in my life. I felt good about it--that I was making up for lost time and supporting a good organization.

That was starting maybe a year ago, and I contributed 4-5 months ago. Now I'm seeing many more attacks on SPLC. Some of the latest:

• SPLC doesn't spend much on legal actions, but has a pile of money in offshore accounts.
• The latest BIG slam is that it mislabels groups and then corporate America cuts off the groups' lifeblood of donations. The Ruth Institute has been cut off in that way, and it has raised a huge amount of attention. (Great PR opportunity!!!!!) I've read 1, 2, 3 articles about the Ruth Institute, the first several weeks ago (no link now) so I was already with familiar with SPLC's rationale for listing it as a hate group. The leader of the Ruth Institute has a long history with anti-gay groups such as the National Organization for Marriage.

My theory is that SPLC is getting notice because of the Charlottesville incidents. Its database provides a lot of information about the white nationalists groups involved, and that makes it look like a strong, helpful, civil-minded organization. Now, if you're a conservative with a chip on your shoulder, you don't like SPLC getting any credit, so you want to attack their credibility. So trot out the old complaints and any current complaints you can find. Call them a far-left group or whatever. The weak-minded will repeat it. For me, I've looked into their explanation for the criteria for listing a hate group, and it's solid. If you support a conservative group labeled as such, maybe you should ask them to cut out the lies and hate, and clear the air on what they actually support. That's my recommendation. Belly-aching that someone is calling you names that you don't deserve doesn't cut it.

A mild message from the progenitor of the Ruth Institute

Image: usnews.com

Extras. SPLC has good reporting on many of the rallies where greater or lesser amounts of violence has broken out. That's helpful too. However, if they are indeed sitting on a pile of money, I may not contribute again. I'll give to other organizations, and give verbal support and clicks to SPLC.

SPLC reports: The rift between the militias and alt-right groups. Many militias want to be open to blacks, particularly military veterans. They share some views with alt-right groups, but not white supremacy. That's why militias will often provide neutral security and stand between alt-right groups and counterprotesters. They support free speech rights, but think a lot of the slogans are rubbish and therefore won't be into the shouting wars and other skirmishes. This is what I've gleaned from reading. Possibly it's wrong.

The killer of two on a Portland train claimed he was protecting free speech. I hope this is wrong and fails as a defense strategy. The killer was outnumbered by three men defending Muslims. Will he claim he feared for his life?

More reporting from in and around Portland. Campus allegations and counter-allegations, protests and counter-protests.

Antifa and the MSM

I don't remember what month I first heard of Antifa, which is a loosely organized anti-fascist organization. I do remember how I heard of it. It was mentioned by some right-wing commenters. They implied Antifa were leftists, so I looked up what Antifa was. I thought it was probably some imaginary conspiracy group, like the elitist pedophile ring Hillary runs.

It turns out that Antifa isn't a figment of a nutjob's imagination. It's real, and my usual news sources (Google News with occasionally visits to American Conservative, National Review, Fox News, and Breitbart) had failed me.

I'm not sure why the MSM had barely reported on Antifa until August. It's not that Antifa didn't make appearances. They were involved in the Berkeley riots, and I was certainly aware of those. They were also involved in property destruction on Inauguration Day, and various other demonstrations.

However, the MSM wasn't mentioning that Antifa was a group, and wasn't emphasizing how protesters were violent and coordinated in dress and action. Was the MSM giving cover to Antifa? We probably won't find out unless reporters and/or editors talk about either their lack of knowledge or their suppression of information.

I've been able to confirm the lack of coverage by the MSM through a Google search. From December 2016 to March 2017, the top mentions of Antifa USA are by (in order): Al-Jazeera,  The Guardian, the BBC, The Nation, and Hot Press. In contrast, the top mentions of Antifa USA today are by: USA Today, Facebook, Wikipedia, CNN, The Daily Wire, and The Atlantic. It's definitely a failure by the MSM that the media sources of right-wingers are faster on the information than the MSM is.

It's not that Antifa was totally unknown in the MSM. Here's an article from the New York Times dated 2/2/17 that reports on Antifa. Yet Antifa wasn't referenced in this WaPo article. I recall arguments about whether the violent protesters were students or not, whether they were outsiders who took an opportunity to vandalize. News organizations didn't seem to know... or perhaps a few reporters did, but the information didn't percolate up to the top editor and anchors.

Right wing media perhaps wanted to pretend the violence was by typical leftists, not a violent fringe. Left wing media perhaps wanted to pretend that it wasn't an organized group of violent anti-fascist protesters. Nor were there organized, violent groups who tried to close down Trump rallies. Those anti-Trumpers were individuals who were concerned about Trump's rhetoric, not an organized violent fringe.

Now Antifa is too well known. The MSM still isn't investigating its ties with BLM organizations. They don't delve too far into their communist views, or how they fight violently even when confronting non-violent opponents, or how they're happy to destroy corporate property. Conservative media is pretending Soros, Antifa, and BLM are all one and all violent. Who can you trust? No one.

By the way, this may be the closest thing to the Antifa motto:

You fight them by writing letters and making phone calls so you don’t have to fight them with fists. You fight them with fists so you don’t have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don’t have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don’t have to fight them with tanks.

They do seem to emphasize the fighting. Let's enjoy some violence for a noble cause... or close enough.

Image: redspark.nu

Extras. According to this video, a lot of Antifa are sociology majors who want to be heroes but don't know much about fighting. That fits with what I've seen. Antifa disrupt a peaceful rally in Berkeley.

A bundle of important stories

Conservative media fabrication revealed. This should be so big. Fox News fell for a peddled fake story about (murdered) Seth Rich and Wikileaks. Now there's a suit, and the papers filed contain a wealth of evidence about how the lies got on the air. Update 8/2/18. The suit was dismissed by the judge for not being egregious enough--not rising to the necessary standard of 'intentional infliction of emotional distress.'

CNN skews its reporting. "Federal investigators ... seized on Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia as one of the most fertile avenues for moving their probe forward... The web of financial ties could offer a more concrete path toward potential prosecution than the broader and murkier questions of collusion..." This is supposed to be an investigation, not a fishing expedition bent on prosecution. CNN seems to have forgotten that.

Sessions skews his condemnation of leaks. Great story with analysis of a logical trick that Sessions uses. He probably does it knowingly.

Lies are the family business. Donald jr. lied about a meeting with a Russian lawyer. Well, lied at first and then told the truth. It turns out Donald sr. lied about it too. Is anyone surprised?

Stats about the cost of tax deduction. This is important hard information. What costs the government more: mortgage interest deduction, 401K's, or the earned income tax credit? It didn't know, and I was a bit surprised.

Trump the wimp. Putin is disrespecting America, and what is Donald doing about it? Why?

Image: thecoldplayer.deviantart.com

So many stories

I didn't publish this when I first started writing, and now there's been a flurry of stories to follow. Someday I may catch up on my writing, but not yet. However, I'm posting this belated piece today. 


Has Obamacare failed? This article shows pretty clearly that the answer depends on where you live. Some places, yes. Some places, the market is still doing well.

What to do in Afghanistan. Trump likes his top national security adviser McMaster, but disagrees with his plan for Afghanistan. So what will happen?

Voter fraud claims turn nasty. Imagine someone claimed you shouldn't be on the voter rolls. Let's say they lied about you, said you didn't live at your address, etc. Unfortunately, this happened statewide. Read about it.

Which states can't meet pension obligations? That's a good question. This article has one of the best graphs I've ever seen to show the answer. My state (Mass) - so-so. Not as bad as I feared.

Conservatives for riots? This article discusses how an associate of video sting con artist James O'Keefe tried to bribe a progressive organizer to arrange riots for Trump's inauguration. Sounds very sinister. Then I realized that she was probably trying to do a video sting, not actually trying to arrange false flag riots.

List of lies. Donald's. I don't want to go through the whole list, but it's good that somebody compiled one. I'm glad it wasn't me.

The 10-Day Diet. How to lose a bad choice for communications chief in 10 days. But before he's completely forgotten, read this hilarious piece about him calling up a reporter and forgetting to say the magic words "off the record" or "background." Some communications chief.

Catching up on even more links

Russian operations. This article states the case that there is some evidence, a bit of evidence, of collusion. So the claim that there's nothing, that this is all a witch hunt, that's not true. As for what Russia has been doing, and the worrisome things Trump has said regarding Russia, here's a round-up.

American political shooter. Here's some background on the man who shot at the Republicans from Congress as they practiced baseball. He fell for propaganda that Trump is destroying the country. Luckily, I haven't seen anyone proclaiming that the shooting was a good thing.

GOP talking points. It's been clear from the political threads I follow that there is a new set of talking points. Comey is a leaker and maybe the leaker. Mueller is no longer a good, honest, decent guy well-respected by both Dems and Repubs. Now he's a chum of the disgraced Comey, a partisan, and shouldn't be allowed to investigate anything. We didn't hear this a month ago when he was appointed, but now it's imperative to bash him. The funniest thing--you can read the talking points!

Image: daybydaycartoon.com

Spin cycle

There is lots of spin in news. Any impeachment speculation that doesn't include a huge dose of "it's not going to happen with the GOP in charge of the House" is spin and completely unrealistic.

This example of spin I normally wouldn't have seen, but I was reading an article with an interesting headline, but that ended up with almost zero content. (Arrggghhh, the horribly low standards for news writing and reporting.) Here is what caught my eye:

Image: insider.foxnews.com

So I'll deconstruct this.

10A - A very important issue of diplomacy going south among the Gulf states. Real news.

2P - Reasonable to cover and analyze Comey's testimony.

8P - Fake news flogging of the trumped up Fast + Furious scandal.

9P - Spin to make conservatives feel superior.

Notice what makes the prime time. Thank you Fox News!

Real massacres versus fake news

Fake massacres should be news for just a short time--as long as it takes to refute, debunk, and search for the origins of the false story. Right now in the news is the story of Kellyanne Conway and her statements (plural) about the 'Bowling Green massacre.' There was no such massacre. She mistook some talking points (spoon-fed to her, most likely) about the arrest of two terrorist/refugees from Iraq in the town of Bowling Green, and erroneously conflated it with some other massacre that did occur. Everyone is fallible, but Conway seems to be quite careless about facts. This was a talking point for her on at least three occasions. I wonder whether she or someone on her staff will fact-check her talking points more carefully from now on. It would be a good idea, but I don't expect it to happen.

In the meantime, fake news entrepreneur Alex Jones (and friend of Trump) has peddled a story that the Sandy Hook school massacre of children and teachers didn't really happen, but was an anti-gun hoax perpetrated by unethical gun control proponents. This is one of the fake news stories I often reference when I make points about fake news not being a new phenomenon. (I also mention birtherism, Jade Helm, and Pizzagate.)

This lowlife purposely peddles lies that anyone with a conscience wouldn't touch. It takes no time at all to find strong evidence of the Sandy Hook massacre, but none of that stops that worm Jones. Nor does it stop his legions of gullible, stupid zipperheads. They regularly make life hell for the families of the victims.

A thread that connects these two massacres, one real and one fake, is the eagerness of right-wingers to embrace false information (that is, LIES) in their pursuit of a narrative supporting their opinions. Truth be damned and run over by a freight train. God, how I hate these liars. I wish I could think of an appropriate punishment severe enough for Alex Jones.

Image: pinterest.com

Extras. Florida prof to be fired for being a stupid lowlife zipperhead. Fake news for liberals, since the right wing nut jobs shouldn't have a monopoly. NYT opinion piece that maybe the Bowling Green massacre will mark the beginning of the end for fake news. I doubt it.

Update 6/18/19. A publisher of a conspiracy theory book about Sandy Hook has apologized to a grieving parent. What the fuck is wrong with these people who will believe such garbage and not take a moment to consider that they could be wrong and vilifying innocent people.

And in news of the scummiest person in American, Alex Jones raged against the lawyers for plaintiffs suing him. The cleaner version and the candid version.

Short: FBI against Clinton

I have to make this short because 1) I have to get rid of some of my browser tabs, and 2) I want to surf other stuff that's a lot more fun.

So, there have been seriously bad leaks from the FBI, and also a lot of dissension over FBI Director Comey's decision not to indict Clinton. It seems that some FBI agents are fairly partisan and are extremely upset that Clinton hasn't been locked up. Can't give them credit for professionalism on this one.

Some agents were so unprofessional and partisan that they said a Clinton indictment was imminent, and leaked it to media franchises that just loved to hear it. The result was that Bret Baier had to retract a story to that effect. Strange how the retraction was bigger news on Politico than on Baier's own network, the estimable Fox News.

Image: patriotpost.us

Media bias check using Powell email hack

So, here was a great opportunity for a quick check on media bias. Colin Powell's emails were leaked this afternoon. Who is reporting what? I did a quick survey of six sources.

1. Drudge Report. Just one link:

Colin Powell Urged Hillary Clinton’s Team Not to Scapegoat Him for Her Private Server, Leaked Emails Reveal

2. Fox News. Just one link:

Powell warned Clinton not to make him fall guy over email scandal, leaked messages reveal

3. Breitbart. Two links:

Hacked Colin Powell Email: Bohemian Grove Attendees Will Vote Against Trump, Some Support Third Party Candidate

Colin Powell Mocks Clintons: Hillary ‘Greedy’ — Bill Home With ’Bimbos’ 

4. NPR. Just one link:

Powell: Trump A 'National Disgrace'; Clinton 'Screws Up' Everything 'With Hubris' 

5. ABC News. Just one link:

Colin Powell Is Not a Fan of Either Presidential Candidate, Hacked Emails Show

6. CNN. Two links:

Powell: Trump is 'an international pariah'

Colin Powell calls Benghazi a 'stupid witch hunt' in DCleaks emails 

So, three out of three conservative sources have skewed links. Two out of three MSM sources have balanced stories, and one is skewed. Which looks more biased, conservative media or MSM?

Image: wikiquote.org