tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post7470001059964652502..comments2024-03-28T20:28:01.733-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Links — 11 Jan 2021mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-4702107961658258922021-01-14T14:30:51.733-05:002021-01-14T14:30:51.733-05:00Again, I will restate the facts:
- There was no t...Again, I will restate the facts:<br /><br />- There was no threat to the transfer of power. That means the probability was zero.<br />- The vote being held on January 6th was a formality.<br />- The process of certification was not being changed in any way.<br />- Laws were not being distorted; rules were not being bent.<br />- The system was/is working as designed.<br /><br />Influencing the vote via noisy protests, taking advantage of flaws in the system, is par for the course. Such activities are rarely punished, even when they're considered abusive. Nor are they extralegal... unless laws are changed, systems are reformed, or when a court renders its conclusion, long after the fact.<br /><br />You seem to want to blame the actors for ruining a movie that was badly written and directed.<br /><br /><i>Don't remember when martial law was declared in Canada, using your archaic legal rules?</i><br /><br />Sure I remember. And it isn't archaic, it's a key feature of most jurisdictions. An escape clause that can be used legitimately or abused. Trump, the so-called "fascist", never abused it.<br /><br />You have no arguments Calgacus. You're defending a piss-poor system that is designed to distract the public, while elites take turns trading power for money. The flaws have been exposed by Trump, mainly because he's a vulgar narcissist. He's obsessed about "winning" and receiving adulation. In reality, politicians always win, laughing all the way to the bank.<br /><br />Without pressure from below, the direction the country takes is up to the elites. I'm not hopeful. Your corrupt leadership and institutions are taking you to a place far worse than the events of January 6th.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29675460634573319902021-01-14T12:55:34.786-05:002021-01-14T12:55:34.786-05:00As for who could have foreseen what happened:
Som...As for who could have foreseen what happened:<br /><br />Some members of Congress did see something might be brewing and reported it on January 5:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/12/mikie-sherrill-capitol-hill-attack-458655" rel="nofollow">Dems demand details of ‘suspicious’ Capitol visitors day before attack</a>Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-16692162689364460162021-01-14T12:47:53.815-05:002021-01-14T12:47:53.815-05:00There was no threat to the transfer of power is a ...<i>There was no threat to the transfer of power is a factual statement.</i><br />It is also false. (A) Do you know what "threat" means? <br />(B) In my estimation, and perhaps in yours - your statements are confused and confusing - there was a small but nonzero probability that this would succeed. It has happened before. Many have argued that the Miami recount disturbance decisively pushed a much, much closer election to Bush. This refutes "It is not plausible that a riot without planning or military support can overthrow the government of the United States."<br /><br /><br /><i>- Elections in the US are non-transparent.<br />- Archaic rules threaten the will of the electorate.<br /><br />Fix your goddamn system instead of whining about those who would take advantage of it.</i><br /><br />Nobody is whining. Trump and the capitol protesters are not trying to take advantage of the system. They are trying to change it to attain and retain power. The idea that this is not extralegal, or that Bush v Gore was not extralegal - when the court itself said it was! - is nonsense. <br /><br />Hard to break it to a "cynic" - but powerful people distort laws to the point of breaking them - and always will - under any system. The only security against it is "the people" defending themselves. It could even take the form of something vaguely like the capitol riot. The difference is that this was a pro-slavery rebellion, a group defending its "right" to break laws, to live in an insane alternate reality.<br /><br /><i>To restore trust in the process, election fraud has to be ruled out.<br />Ruling out election fraud involves a full audit of the machinery and ballots.<br />November 2020 was not the time to do this.</i><br /><br />Trump had his day in court. Probably more days than Gore. He lost, because his claims are insane. Bald faced, ridiculous lies. The basic system is not opaque, and no archaic rules threatened the will of the electorate. He who gets more votes wins. Nobody sane disagrees that Biden got more votes. So he won. This was not a close call. There is no US precedent for Trump's behavior in such a not-close election, where there would have had to have been massive fraud to change the outcome. And all sane observers agree there was not.<br /><br />To restore trust, people who think this election was conspicuously bad, disfavoring Republicans and plutocrats - need to learn what evidence and logic is. It was bad as usual, because of the Republican / plutocrat rigging - for themselves. These idiots are rioting because they want elections to be more opaque and rigged and fraudulent, not less. <br /><br /><i>That could have been the plan, had the Capitol police not allowed protesters into the building. Who could have foreseen that plot twist?</i><br /><br />Anybody? Many people did. Taking people who loudly threaten violence at their word is common sense. Lame. <br /><br /><i>A Canadian Trump could never have orchestrated such a powerplay.</i><br /><br />Hmm. Really? Don't remember when martial law was declared in Canada, using your archaic legal rules? I know a professor who had to flee Canada to the USA because of that. Of course every nation is different. But the Canadian system is not so different. The electoral college is just a second legislature for one purpose. Minorities benefitting from gerrymandering and rotten boroughs can and do elect PMs in most Westminster system countries.<br /><br /><i>but I'm a cynical bastard.</i><br />People who think that and say that of themselves - are usually extremely gullible and just asking for a con man to deceive them. Based on your statements here, you aren't the exception. <br /><br />Again, I suggest people read Zeynep Tufekci.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-90474948179249612412021-01-14T09:16:03.599-05:002021-01-14T09:16:03.599-05:00Humans tend to act as though they will live foreve...<i>Humans tend to act as though they will live forever;</i><br /><br />Dear Joe Biden,<br /><br />As you are nearing the end of your life, I want you to know that America needs you. The American people need you to become far more than the sum of your 50 years in the DC swamp.<br /><br />The politics of business as usual will destroy your country. Another round of "hope and change" won't cut it. Do you want the destruction of America to be your legacy?<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />A concerned Canadian.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-88668805904568711542021-01-14T09:04:15.963-05:002021-01-14T09:04:15.963-05:00I don't think that Trump foresaw the violence ...<i>I don't think that Trump foresaw the violence that would occur. I assume he believed that a large angry crowd on the Capitol steps would be enough create the pressure require to turn the tables his way on the floor.</i><br /><br />That could have been the plan, had the Capitol police not allowed protesters into the building. Who could have foreseen that plot twist?Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-74103012110681569912021-01-14T09:01:02.863-05:002021-01-14T09:01:02.863-05:00This is all irrelevant under the circumstances. Th...<i>This is all irrelevant under the circumstances. The demonstration was not to overthrow the government, rather it was to intimidate certain members of congress to use archaic rules to throw the vote into the House, where under those rules DJT would be president and not Joe Biden.</i><br /><br />Republican senators were doing just, but the break-in interrupted that plan.<br />I agree that if the protest had remained outside, the noise might have helped them win the vote. <b>And that would have been a legal outcome.</b><br /><br /><i>The entire "confusion" was created by DJT big lie that the vote was fixed and that he won in a landslide if proper procedure were followed. There is no evidence that support that claim other than a few minor irregularities that had no substantial influence on the outcome.</i><br /><br />The confusion was caused by an electoral process that is complex and opaque. A Canadian Trump could never have orchestrated such a powerplay.<br /><br /><i>DJT made a big mistake getting in bed with extremists and then not cutting loose from them soon enough. As a result he pissed off a lot of powerful people and he is now suffering the consequences of losing that pissing match.</i><br /><br />I believe Trump's narcissism prevented him from working with anyone. He alienated the powerful and was incapable of following a coherent ideology. In that regard, America was lucky.<br /><br /><i>This was a political show, although something had to be done to enforce accountability and it would be a mistake to just move on as Obama did with torture. In fact, Obama bears some of the blame for this on that account.</i><br /><br />Accountability = jail time. Until Trump does actual time, elites are 100% unaccountable. If Trump is imprisoned, that figure can be revised downward, to 99%.<br /><br />This BS of only punishing non-elites isn't fooling anyone.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-51662771824427708592021-01-13T20:32:09.873-05:002021-01-13T20:32:09.873-05:00I wrote "The demonstration was not to overthr...I wrote "The demonstration was not to overthrow the government, rather it was to intimidate certain members of congress to use archaic rules to throw the vote into the House, where under those rules DJT would be president and not Joe Biden."<br /><br />Donald Trump's favorite m.o. has been exerting "pressure." This attempt at intimidation was part of a plan to exert pressure on GOP representatives and VP Pence to use the rules to overturn the election results and give the presidency to DJT.<br /><br />I don't think that Trump foresaw the violence that would occur. I assume he believed that a large angry crowd on the Capitol steps would be enough create the pressure require to turn the tables his way on the floor. <br /><br />If he thought otherwise about events, it was a huge strategic and tactical blunder. Violence ended up costing him mightily and it is not over yet. This is still unfolding. It also cost his party. And finally, the cost internationally fell on his country. A debacle all around based on a poor choice of who to get in bed with. <br /><br />I feel sorry for a lot of people that got caught up in this, including DJT to some degree. <br /><br />But there were also quite a few "bad apples" involved and now the law is after them and some of them are going to prison for a long time on federal offenses, as they should.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-90257286420583803992021-01-13T19:51:21.725-05:002021-01-13T19:51:21.725-05:00BTW, the charge should have been seditious conspir...BTW, the charge should have been seditious conspiracy rather than inciting to insurrection. DJT could be convicted in the Senate on the former, but it is highly doubtful that the later would stick. <br /><br />But "inciting to insurrection" sounds better politically and removing him before his term expires was not a possibility anyway.<br /><br />This was a political show, although something had to be done to enforce accountability and it would be a mistake to just move on as Obama did with torture. In fact, Obama bears some of the blame for this on that account.<br /><br />There should have been several charges that more Republican representative could sign onto or would have to in good conscience. As it is most, saw this not as an accountability issue as much as a political ploy and the reacted as might be expected.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-77644612562885441952021-01-13T18:39:20.427-05:002021-01-13T18:39:20.427-05:001. There was no threat to the transfer of power is...<i>1. There was no threat to the transfer of power is a factual statement.<br />2. It is not plausible that a riot without planning or military support can overthrow the government of the United States.<br />3. People who believe they can do this or that, when in reality they can't, is sometimes referred to as bravado.</i><br /><br />This is all irrelevant under the circumstances. The demonstration was not to overthrow the government, rather it was to intimidate certain members of congress to use archaic rules to throw the vote into the House, where under those rules DJT would be president and not Joe Biden.<br /><br />The record is clear. There was no unclarity about the vote and its legitimacy and many of the election officials that oversaw it and certified it were Repbulican. All courts case were either rejected or dismissed.<br /><br />The entire "confusion" was created by DJT big lie that the vote was fixed and that he won in a landslide if proper procedure were followed. There is no evidence that support that claim other than a few minor irregularities that had no substantial influence on the outcome.<br /><br />This was an orchestrated plan that was launched immediately upon DJT's realization that he lost. just like the the Democrats launched Russiagate when they lose. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that DJT considered his plan payback for that. <br /><br />DJT made a big mistake getting in bed with extremists and then not cutting loose from them soon enough. As a result he pissed off a lot of powerful people and he is now suffering the consequences of losing that pissing match.<br /><br />Yeah, the whole thing stinks on both sides but that is US politics at this point.<br /><br />Here at MNE was were among the first to pick up on Russiagate as bogus and we stuck to that position all along down to the present. But that doesn't excuse the violence that occurred and there has to be accountability for that as there should have been for CIA-led torture when it was established in fact.<br /><br />That, of course, is just tip of the iceberg of violence when the profusion of US war crimes and enlisting of terrorists as proxies is included.<br /><br />Sorry day for America. The lights have gone out on the shining city on a hill, which burned bright after WWII and the defeat of the Axis powers, due in part to US actions.<br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-5850837439464315922021-01-13T17:18:37.322-05:002021-01-13T17:18:37.322-05:00Why didn't Trump declare a state of emergency ...Why didn't Trump declare a state of emergency last May when there were protests and riots in several cities?<br /><br />The ubiquitous "state of emergency" can be found in virtually every country. As convenient a method of suspending people's rights as one may get.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-87665727115476215952021-01-13T17:14:49.401-05:002021-01-13T17:14:49.401-05:00This ignores the obvious - that this threat was no...<i>This ignores the obvious - that this threat was not coming just from a mob. It was coming from the President of the US and backed by a number of other elected officials. (As well as opposed by all the relevant courts and a number of Republican elected officials, like Brad Raffensperger). The power of the state was divided, which is when mobs can and have made a difference, as they arguably did in the much closer election of 2000.</i><br /><br />These articles should state the obvious:<br /><br />- Elections in the US are non-transparent.<br />- Archaic rules threaten the will of the electorate.<br /><br />Fix your goddamn system instead of whining about those who would take advantage of it.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84937083257310687152021-01-13T17:05:41.704-05:002021-01-13T17:05:41.704-05:00Because increasing economic oppression requires in...<i>Because increasing economic oppression requires increasing political oppression?</i><br /><br />That would be my answer, but I'm a cynical bastard.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-43537678833562278812021-01-13T17:04:11.495-05:002021-01-13T17:04:11.495-05:00The statement '"There was no threat"...<i>The statement '"There was no threat" is absurd' - i.e. "There was threat". AND that the threat was "never plausible" are consistent with each other. Both are true. This and saying that you don't take what people say at face value is just weird bias or a disinclination to understand and speak standard English.</i><br /><br />1. There was no threat to the transfer of power is a factual statement.<br />2. It is not plausible that a riot without planning or military support can overthrow the government of the United States.<br />3. People who believe they can do this or that, when in reality they can't, is sometimes referred to as bravado.<br /><br /><i>It is not propaganda to say it was a coup. It is a probably somewhat overstated position to use that word without qualification. But that is natural and expectable coming shortly after the event from politicians and journalists whose lives were threatened. "Beer Belly Putsch" is the best short description I've seen.</i><br /><br />1. Use of the term coup is inaccurate.<br />2. It will be repeated by the MSM until it is accepted as fact. That makes it propaganda.<br /><br /><i>Some experts say that, some experts don't. Does it really matter? What matters is not what experts say, but what happens or could happen, which is never certain. The decision in Bush vs. Gore was legally absurd, so absurd that the majority said it should not serve as a precedent - since it amounted to "we rule for our guy because he's our guy". That overturned an election, taking it away from the probable victor.</i><br /><br />It matters in the sense that it isn't extralegal. If you're worried that this archaic rule can overturn an election, might be best to get rid of it. I have no criticism for those Republican senators, they were using every means at their disposal. The riot nixed that.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-20345240580184532452021-01-13T16:50:44.045-05:002021-01-13T16:50:44.045-05:00Why do these lines need to be changed? Peter Pan
...<i>Why do these lines need to be changed?</i> Peter Pan<br /><br />Because increasing economic oppression requires increasing political oppression?<br /><br />Btw, this applies to both fascism AND socialism since neither are just economic systems.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-57080616412139459692021-01-13T16:49:14.114-05:002021-01-13T16:49:14.114-05:00As for the first, believing doesn't make thing...<i>As for the first, believing doesn't make things true. Either Russiagate or 2020 steal. Neither happened in the real world, way beyond reasonable doubt. There were some reports, CNN & Consortium News - that Trump had told a friend that of course he knew he lost, but that he was just getting back for the Russiagate nonsense. However he was not to be outdone in insane stupidity and he also fired up a mob to commit acts of deadly political violence. By now, he likely believes his own conscious lies.</i><br /><br />Their belief informs their perception, so you will have to deal with that.<br />They don't believe the results because they don't trust the process.<br />To restore trust in the process, election fraud has to be ruled out.<br />Ruling out election fraud involves a full audit of the machinery and ballots.<br />November 2020 was not the time to do this.<br /><br />Election integrity is an issue that needed to be addressed a long time ago. Americans are now paying the price for inaction.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-5586546975502603962021-01-13T16:34:01.123-05:002021-01-13T16:34:01.123-05:00I read that Saker post when it came up. As you pro...<i>I read that Saker post when it came up. As you probably have noticed, I have not been linking to him lately. His military analysis is excellent, which has been sparse of late. His political analysis shaped by rather eccentric views is not worth linking to, in my view, and lately he appears to have gone bonkers. PCR, too.</i><br /><br />Until we have our old Tom back, I'll continue linking to him and related sites.<br />PCR is off the deep end, yet his analysis has merit.<br /><br /><i>Let's deal with reality. There are always going to be lines because societies demand them.</i><br /><br />Limits to free speech are established by law. This is not a new concept.<br />Why do these lines need to be changed?Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-72771303010795007162021-01-13T15:46:53.297-05:002021-01-13T15:46:53.297-05:00Among the best analyses, and best discussion of la...Among the best analyses, and best discussion of language I've seen is from Zeynep Tufekci. The piece at alternet posted in a later link collection, <a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/trump-coup-2649861274" rel="nofollow">Social scientist on failed pro-Trump coup: 'People are mistaking ridiculous with not serious'</a><br /><br />And a couple of prescient pieces in The Atlantic, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/trumps-farcical-inept-and-deadly-serious-coup-attempt/617309/" rel="nofollow">‘This Must Be Your First’: Acting as if Trump is trying to stage a coup is the best way to ensure he won’t</a> from December 7 and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/gun-was-always-loaded/617560/" rel="nofollow">This Isn’t Just Political Theater: Trump’s threats aren’t performative—he’s pointing a loaded gun at democracy</a> from January 5, the day before the riot.<br /><br />"These are not normal hiccups of a transition," she added. "These are attempts to steal an election." Tufekci said there are a lot of ridiculous coup attempts around the world that fail "the first time or the second time, or the third time and then they succeed." GOP legislators voting to throw out legitimate votes even after an attempted coup, "that should scare us," Tufekci said.<br /><br />Rioters crossed a line in storming the Capitol and so did 65% of Republican legislators who voted to throw out legitimate votes. "It's how we react to that line being crossed that will determine whether they'll try again," Tufekci said. "And there's no reason to assume the next time will be similarly ridiculous or incompetent because this time was very serious." (January 10)<br /><br />"Our focus should not be a debate about the proper terminology. Instead, we should react to the frightening substance of what we’re facing, even if we also believe that the crassness and the incompetence of this attempt may well doom it this time. " from December 7.<br /><br />"This time, there was a Raffensperger on the other end of the line. If next time a few less scrupulous individuals answer the phone, the attempt to steal an election might well succeed. And if the Republican Party’s base is convinced by its leaders that losing an election means it was stolen from them, those voters will go on to elect officials who are properly eager to help get the “correct” results—so that Republicans win regardless of the vote count." from January 5<br /><br /><br />Some of her points are close to the argument involving threat/absurd/plausible/face value above. Returning to that - <br /><br />Peter Pan:<i>When people claim to have power, and it's obvious they don't, I don't take their claims at face value. The threat posed by a mob is no match for the power of the state.</i><br /><br />This ignores the obvious - that this threat was not coming just from a mob. It was coming from the President of the US and backed by a number of other elected officials. (As well as opposed by all the relevant courts and a number of Republican elected officials, like Brad Raffensperger). The power of the state was divided, which is when mobs can and have made a difference, as they arguably did in the much closer election of 2000.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-47337709383477876072021-01-13T13:06:46.051-05:002021-01-13T13:06:46.051-05:00I suggest you replace what you attribute to Trumpi...<i>I suggest you replace what you attribute to Trumpists with Russiagate, and observe how your arguments stand up.</i><br /><br />I more or less have, in everything I have written about Russiagate now and in past years- a hoax, a witchhunt. Trump, never to be exceeded in tit-for-tat insanity, responded to the false Democratic assertion that he stole 2016 with a false assertion that Biden stole 2020. Both assertions were entirely free of evidence.<br /><br /><i>Do I need to remind you that millions of people believe the election was stolen?<br />Would it shock you to discover that such a belief may provoke violence under certain circumstances?</i><br /><br />As for the first, believing doesn't make things true. Either Russiagate or 2020 steal. Neither happened in the real world, way beyond reasonable doubt. There were some reports, CNN & Consortium News - that Trump had told a friend that of course he knew he lost, but that he was just getting back for the Russiagate nonsense. However he was not to be outdone in insane stupidity and he also fired up a mob to commit acts of deadly political violence. By now, he likely believes his own conscious lies.<br /><br />Getting people to stop believing such lunacies is why I am trying to be very even-handed - something which even you implicitly acknowledge in the immediately next question.<br /><br /><i>It's absurd, yet never plausible. Which is it?</i><br /><br />The statement '"There was no threat" is absurd' - i.e. "There was threat". AND that the threat was "never plausible" are consistent with each other. Both are true. This and saying that you don't take what people say at face value is just weird bias or a disinclination to understand and speak standard English. <br /><br /><i>If you believe that censorship is a good idea, I suggest you question that belief.</i> <br /><br />Nothing I wrote promotes censorship. Everything I wrote opposes it; I do not see how anyone could have misunderstood.<br /><br />It is not propaganda to say it was a coup. It is a probably somewhat overstated position to use that word without qualification. But that is natural and expectable coming shortly after the event from politicians and journalists whose lives were threatened. "Beer Belly Putsch" is the best short description I've seen.<br /><br />Just "coup" is like saying "he tried to kill me" - when investigations show that "he" was actually just trying to chop your hand off with a plastic knife, while uttering drunken threats "I'm going to kill you."<br /><br /><i>According to experts, the outcome of that archaic yet legal process, would not have overturned the election.</i><br /><br />Some experts say that, some experts don't. Does it really matter? What matters is not what experts say, but what happens or could happen, which is never certain. The decision in Bush vs. Gore was legally absurd, so absurd that the majority said it should not serve as a precedent - since it amounted to "we rule for our guy because he's our guy". That overturned an election, taking it away from the probable victor. Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7278100245258928102021-01-13T10:41:44.808-05:002021-01-13T10:41:44.808-05:00If you believe that censorship is a good idea, I s...<i>If you believe that censorship is a good idea, I suggest you question that belief.</i><br /><br />Let's deal with reality. There are always going to be lines because societies demand them. Somethings most people agree on like child pornography. But FB takes down pictures of families at the beach when toddlers are not fully clothed. Some people think that is over top.<br /><br />As I have said previously, it's about criteria and their applications. These are, in the end, political and legal issues that are decided differently in different jurisdictions.<br /><br />For example, trying to impose very liberal standards in traditional cultures results in conflict and vice versa.<br /><br />So, it's complicated.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-46377077323600306882021-01-13T10:36:22.282-05:002021-01-13T10:36:22.282-05:00I read that Saker post when it came up. As you pro...I read that Saker post when it came up. As you probably have noticed, I have not been linking to him lately. His military analysis is excellent, which has been sparse of late. His political analysis shaped by rather eccentric views is not worth linking to, in my view, and lately he appears to have gone bonkers. PCR, too. <br /><br />I read them now from the sociological POV rather than for the political commentary. As I see the facts and events, they are living in an alternative reality that doesn't conform to facts as I see them.<br /><br />Each must make up their own mind based on facts, as they see them now that this is a domain of alternate realities. Some of us here apparently inhabit different worlds. <br /><br />This is a consequence of gaslighting, with a many factors and parties involved.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/browse?contentId=24871" rel="nofollow">The Swamp by Bertholt Brecht</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming" rel="nofollow">The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats</a><br /><br /><br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58309366977551343062021-01-13T08:33:15.523-05:002021-01-13T08:33:15.523-05:00Now that Tom has taken leave of his senses, the ta...Now that Tom has taken leave of his senses, the task of posting alternative media links falls to me. H/T Paul Craig Roberts for the link.<br /><br />The Mob Did Not Win! by The Saker<br />https://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-mob-did-not-win/Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-8644196598729179212021-01-13T06:22:20.107-05:002021-01-13T06:22:20.107-05:00https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68
A template f...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68<br /><br />A template for what America needs. You'll have nothing to lose in the long run.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-53159234667844618492021-01-13T06:04:20.724-05:002021-01-13T06:04:20.724-05:00Juan Cole has an interesting comparison I hadn'...<i>Juan Cole has an interesting comparison I hadn't thought of, and a reasonable conclusion:<br /><br />"It was a coup attempt of sorts. It reminds me of the much more successful 1953 CIA coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran. CIA field officer Kermit Roosevelt bought mobs with millions of dollars in the capital to intimidate parliament and encourage anti-democratic forces to depose the prime minister.</i><br /><br />Gee, too bad Trump was such a cheapskate.<br /><br /><i>A drive for censorship is certainly a concern. But so is the size of a violent, extreme right and the many more less active who thoughtlessly swallow Trump's crap about a stolen election - with no evidence or reason at all, calls for the same level of concern. As does the millions on the other side who swallowed the crap of Russiagate, which both empowered Trump and by lowering the bar, made it probable that Trump would act that much worse in response.</i><br /><br />As Orwell wrote: Ignorance is strength.<br />Trump has admitted he likes uneducated people.<br />Unfortunately, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Both sides can play this game. Buying into the propaganda that January 6th was a coup is more of the same.<br /><br />If you believe that censorship is a good idea, I suggest you question that belief.<br /><br />p.s. Are you pretending to be a Poe?Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-82494045418867674442021-01-13T05:49:48.699-05:002021-01-13T05:49:48.699-05:00No, of course Tom hasn't become a conspiracy t...<i>No, of course Tom hasn't become a conspiracy theorist. His or the MSM's narrative may go to far in some respect - it's a matter of judgment.</i><br /><br />Russiagate went too far, which is a matter of judgement.<br />I suggest you replace what you attribute to Trumpists with Russiagate, and observe how your arguments stand up.<br /><br /><i>But the Trump / Right narrative that the election was stolen is insane and the violence based on this idiocy is insanity squared.</i><br /><br />Do I need to remind you that millions of people <b>believe</b> the election was stolen?<br />Would it shock you to discover that such a belief may provoke violence under certain circumstances?<br /><br /><i>PP: <b>The idea that there was no threat to the transfer of power is also absurd.</b> Trump and the rioters certainly did make that threat. Taking people at their word is not a conspiracy theory.<br /><br />--snip--<br /><br />Trump’s was a crackpot conspiracy-theory coup attempt, though. <b>It was never plausible except in very fevered minds like those of Trump, Alex Jones and other exotic flora and fauna.</b></i><br /><br />It's absurd, yet never plausible. Which is it?<br /><br />When people claim to have power, and it's obvious they don't, I don't take their claims at face value. The threat posed by a mob is no match for the power of the state.<br /><br /><i>But over 140 congressmen and 8 senators did join the attempt to overturn the election even after the mob tried to kill or kidnap them, which means it wasn’t as implausible as I wish it was."</i><br /><br />According to experts, the outcome of that archaic yet legal process, would not have overturned the election.<br /><br /><i>And the buy-in Trump has in the Republican Party for this coup attempt signals severe trouble ahead.</i><br /><br />Welcome to adversarial politics in a declining empire.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-14230442070602183402021-01-12T23:33:01.038-05:002021-01-12T23:33:01.038-05:00“Tom has outed himself as a conspiracy theorist,” ...<i>“Tom has outed himself as a conspiracy theorist,” He’s the new Qanon...</i><br /><br />Some good folks have outed themselves as cranks. Hey, nothing wrong with being a crank. It's a choice. :)Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.com