Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[pilowsky]

I just watched the first press briefing in the Brady room from Jen Psakas.

She was asked what I am going to call the 'Kayleigh question' but reframed slightly - Do you promise never to lie to us?

 

It's a strange question -

[pilowsky]

Oh well, US politics is boring again. What next?

[Zelandakh]

Winston, will you start the new thread?

I propose as a title "Will US democracy survive?" Nothing too dramatic, you know.

How about "American Cocoon - When will Biden die on us?"

[Zelandakh]

American movies and Television reflect this: Hunger Games, Lord of the flies, Greed and on and on.

Australian movies are characterised by people overcoming hardship by helping each other: Priscilla queen of the desert, or about how the British f*****d us up.

 

Films that do really well in Australia highlight the way Australians from different backgrounds work cooperatively to overcome adversity. They are particularly successful when this is achieved at the expense of Americans or the British.

I think you are overblowing the differences here. Human nature is the same the world over. The examination of that nature from your list - Lord of the Flies - is actually British, not American (both the book and the 1963 film). Meanwhile, one of the archetypal movies about a disfunctional human nature is arguably Mad Max, which is Australian (only the sequels are American). Meanwhile, the quintessential Australian different cultures survival film, Walkabout, is officially British and was distributed internationally by 20th Century Fox. Lord of the Flies and Hunger Games were made as movies because they were successful books. I am quite sure that if an Australian company could have afforded the rights and production costs of HG, they would have been more than happy to have stepped in. Those big budget movies get made by American companies because that is where the money is.

 

One of the slightly interesting developments in recent times is that writers are increasingly looking away from movies and towards mini-series dramatisations of their work. This allows much more of the book to make it to the screen and since it covers more of the TV schedule, it is a little easier for non-US companies to get involved and coordinate together in partnership. Hopefully this trend will continue and we can get a better mix of styles to choose from. In general though, good TV and film is more or less universal outside of specific cultural elements. That is why series like Game of Thrones become hits internationally and why TV companies import successful formats rather than creating their own. Change the format though and you quickly turn a hit into a flop, without even realising that you have touched a critical element of the appeal. It sounds like this happened in the Australian version of the cooking show.

[kenberg]

How about "American Cocoon - When will Biden die on us?"

 

Trump promises to "be back in some form", furthering the cocoon idea.

 

But WaPo has a headline that captures my thinking in brief "History Made, The Work Begins".

[y66]

The professionals are back.

 

If there’s one thing that’s going to be obvious about the brand-new administration of President Joe Biden, it’s going to be professionalism. Jobs are going to be filled, from the top down and with few exceptions, with people who know how to do them. Many officials will be returning to government after a brief four years on the outside — perhaps a step above their old levels, but well within their competence. Others will move from state government. There will be plenty who are new to government, but most of them are (judging from what we’ve seen so far) well-credentialed, with the expertise that their jobs demand.

 

Competence was on display on Day One. Wednesday’s major inaugural events went off without a hitch (OK, the “virtual parade” made for awful TV, but the evening entertainment extravaganza more than made up for it). Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s first briefing went well, and provided a sharp contrast to the way such things were done in the previous administration. She supplied information that wasn’t immediately discredited by fact-checkers, and did it without smearing the reporters in the room, or anyone else. That’s professionalism. Biden rolled out 17 executive actions, none of which seemed likely to be immediately thrown out by the courts because of sloppy drafting, nor provoke an international incident, nor anger major groups of voters. That’s professionalism, too.

 

This is almost entirely a good thing. Sure, too much reliance on the same people (even if they are individually skilled) can lead to groupthink, a danger in any organization, but there’s enough new blood in the new administration to guard against it. Expertise can also walk hand-in-hand with arrogance, and Team Biden should be alert to that peril. Still, the diversity of the administration’s personnel should help ward off that problem.

 

I should emphasize that political expertise is no less valuable than substantive know-how. Biden isn’t likely to ignore that reality as he tackles big challenges like climate change and the coronavirus pandemic. Public policy requires political judgment. Neither its evident scientific nor political expertise guarantees that the Biden administration’s policy choices will be the best ones in any objective sense, but they will improve the odds of producing policies that accomplish their intended purpose while minimizing strong opposition.

 

Professionalism in government was missing under President Donald Trump, and it’s been missed. Its return won’t automatically deliver sound policy, but it’s likely to clear out some policy-making breathing room. I wouldn’t be surprised to see something of a media honeymoon as reporters react to officials who clearly know how to do their jobs — especially in contrast to the previous gang of bumblers. There’s nothing wrong with that; Indeed, Team Biden probably should treat a grace period as an earned asset in the early days of the presidency. They should know, too, that it won’t last long.

[y66]

Trump promises to "be back in some form", furthering the cocoon idea.

 

But WaPo has a headline that captures my thinking in brief "History Made, The Work Begins".

US only or intergalactic?

[mythdoc]

How about "American Cocoon - When will Biden die on us?"

 

I’d change the first part of this new thread title to “Heart Finesse” or “Heart Stopper”

[pilowsky]

I think you are overblowing the differences here. Human nature is the same the world over. The examination of that nature from your list - Lord of the Flies - is actually British, not American (both the book and the 1963 film). Meanwhile, one of the archetypal movies about a disfunctional human nature is arguably Mad Max, which is Australian (only the sequels are American). Meanwhile, the quintessential Australian different cultures survival film, Walkabout, is officially British and was distributed internationally by 20th Century Fox. Lord of the Flies and Hunger Games were made as movies because they were successful books. I am quite sure that if an Australian company could have afforded the rights and production costs of HG, they would have been more than happy to have stepped in. Those big budget movies get made by American companies because that is where the money is.

 

One of the slightly interesting developments in recent times is that writers are increasingly looking away from movies and towards mini-series dramatisations of their work. This allows much more of the book to make it to the screen and since it covers more of the TV schedule, it is a little easier for non-US companies to get involved and coordinate together in partnership. Hopefully this trend will continue and we can get a better mix of styles to choose from. In general though, good TV and film is more or less universal outside of specific cultural elements. That is why series like Game of Thrones become hits internationally and why TV companies import successful formats rather than creating their own. Change the format though and you quickly turn a hit into a flop, without even realising that you have touched a critical element of the appeal. It sounds like this happened in the Australian version of the cooking show.

 

I think you might enjoy reading The Lucky Country by Donald Horne. Then you may gain a real insight into how Australians view the world.

 

Your assertion that 'human nature' is the same all over the world is obviously untrue.

All people deserve to be treated equally and have certain fundamental rights. Even that apparently reasonable statement is interpreted in different ways by different humans with different 'natures' as you put it.

 

Or are you like the Gentleman in the play by George Bernard Shaw who claimed to know the difference between right and wrong?

[Winstonm]

I think you might enjoy reading The Lucky Country by Donald Horne. Then you may gain a real insight into how Australians view the world.

 

Your assertion that 'human nature' is the same all over the world is obviously untrue.

All people deserve to be treated equally and have certain fundamental rights. Even that apparently reasonable statement is interpreted in different ways by different humans with different 'natures' as you put it.

 

Or are you like the Gentleman in the play by George Bernard Shaw who claimed to know the difference between right and wrong?

 

At the fundamental level, all human nature is probably the same::self-preservation and continuation of the species. In my view, everything after that falls under the broad umbrella of cultural differences.

[Winstonm]

It is interesting that on the first nomination that required Senate approval 10 Republicans out of 50 voted no, or 20%. 29% of registered voters are Republicans and of those about 70% think the last elections was fraudulent. Pretty close to the same 20%. If all we have to worry about is a noisy 20% we should be in decent shape going forward. The big issue is maintaining a majority of independent voters' support.

[johnu]

It is interesting that on the first nomination that required Senate approval 10 Republicans out of 50 voted no, or 20%. 29% of registered voters are Republicans and of those about 70% think the last elections was fraudulent. Pretty close to the same 20%. If all we have to worry about is a noisy 20% we should be in decent shape going forward. The big issue is maintaining a majority of independent voters' support.

Senate confirmed nominations are rarely controversial so for 10 Repugnants to vote no is a sign that the Repug Senators will be working overtime to stop any of Biden's legislation agenda that needs a 60% vote. The Repugs are not ever going to get their preferred pick for any of these picks, and the Dems can always get 50 votes to confirm, so some of the Repugs will vote for most of the nominations so they can claim to be bipartisan. When it comes to voting for things that might actually help the American people, that's when you'll see if they are going to be total obstructionists like McConnell was for 8 years during Obama's presidency.

 

After not caring about the federal budget deficits for 4 years, many Repugs have already signaled that they don't think the US can afford to pay for more Covid relief packages.

[pilowsky]

At the fundamental level, all human nature is probably the same::self-preservation and continuation of the species. In my view, everything after that falls under the broad umbrella of cultural differences.

 

True - that is pretty fundamental though. It's a bit like saying all restaurants are the same because they make food and give to you for money.

Once I wrote a review that wasn't very good (I had to agree) and one reviewer complained about the anodyne phraseology. I love that term.

[PassedOut]

Oh oh! Joe Biden is president now and everything has happened just as we were warned

 

Joe Biden is "following the radical left agenda, take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment, no religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God. He’s against God.”

 

— Donald Trump, during remarks Aug. 6 in Cleveland

 

Well, they were right. Joe Biden is the president and the first thing he did was hurt God, just as they told us he would. He went right up to God and smote God, and now God is crying and Nietzsche has had to clamber back out of Hell to provide comfort. (The thing between God and Nietzsche is very complicated.) Joe Biden knew from the get-go that hurting God was his priority, and that is exactly what he has gone and done. He settled into the West Wing and then he rolled up his sleeve and — pow!

 

All the unfinished business of creation that is usually in God’s hands has been delegated to a series of czars until God recovers, and it is already a big mess. There are a lot of newly constructed birds that just seem very Bad, and something is the matter with the quality of winter sunshine. The only czar who is at all competent is the one who was put in charge of locusts, and that whole situation is going to come home to roost soon. I cannot stress to you how many locusts there are going to be, and all because Joe Biden, immediately upon taking office, hurt God, just as we were warned he would.

Too bad S. C. Johnson, Inc. is privately held. Sales of Raid are about to go through the roof.

[Zelandakh]

Your assertion that 'human nature' is the same all over the world is obviously untrue.

All people deserve to be treated equally and have certain fundamental rights. Even that apparently reasonable statement is interpreted in different ways by different humans with different 'natures' as you put it.

Yes, people often assign themselves to different tribes and accept the world views of those tribes in various different ways. Decisions are more often made on feeling than from deeply thinking through the underlying facts. These processes are part of normal human behaviour. Human nature being fundamentally the same is not the same as everyone being a clone in some Invasion of the Body Snatchers way. But how people react to having their rights restricted, or to being in a position of power over others, or a million other things, is essentially the same the world over, falling into certain groupings and patterns that are predictable and trackable. We can argue about what the term "human nature" means - it has different definitions for different contexts - but at a very simple level there are clear similarities between people the world over over a wide array of different areas and across many different cultures. Culture, environment and circumstance layer differences on top but the fundamentals always remain.

[kenberg]

A few random comments about people being the same and people being different.

 

A. Pilowski speaks of people in Australia. I'll go out on a limb and guess that people in Australia are more interested in the well-being of Australia than they are interested in the well-being of the United States, and people in the United States are more interested in the well-being of the United States than they are in the well-being of Australia. If we grant that this is so, I would say it is not surprising and it illustrates a sameness of people rather than a difference.

 

B. I grew up in Minnesota and I went to both undergrad and grad school at the Univ. of Minn. For some reason we got a fair number of people from New York City at the U of M, especially in grad school. I grouped than into two categories. Some loved it in Minneapolis and could not imagine ever returning to NY. others thought they had somehow inadvertently become lost in a cultural desert. I remember one guy complaining that the women he met were just children rather than adult women like he was used to in NY. A guy might re-think that approach.

 

C. I once went to a dinner sponsored by maybe the Sons of Norway or some such group. Genetically I am Norwegian so might as well try it. Half way through the evening I was thinking "I don't even like Lutefisk, what am I doing here?"

 

Is any of this relevant? Probably not. But some of what I was watching on PBS on inauguration day seemed to suggest we should all have a group sing of "This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land". Maybe I'll skip that. We need to work together for common benefit, we don't need to all be the same, we don't need to all love each other.

[pilowsky]

A few random comments about people being the same and people being different.

 

A. Pilowski speaks of people in Australia. I'll go out on a limb and guess that people in Australia are more interested in the well-being of Australia than they are interested in the well-being of the United States, and people in the United States are more interested in the well-being of the United States than they are in the well-being of Australia. If we grant that this is so, I would say it is not surprising and it illustrates a sameness of people rather than a difference.

 

B. I grew up in Minnesota and I went to both undergrad and grad school at the Univ. of Minn. For some reason we got a fair number of people from New York City at the U of M, especially in grad school. I grouped than into two categories. Some loved it in Minneapolis and could not imagine ever returning to NY. others thought they had somehow inadvertently become lost in a cultural desert. I remember one guy complaining that the women he met were just children rather than adult women like he was used to in NY. A guy might re-think that approach.

 

C. I once went to a dinner sponsored by maybe the Sons of Norway or some such group. Genetically I am Norwegian so might as well try it. Half way through the evening I was thinking "I don't even like Lutefisk, what am I doing here?"

 

Is any of this relevant? Probably not. But some of what I was watching on PBS on inauguration day seemed to suggest we should all have a group sing of "This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land". Maybe I'll skip that. We need to work together for common benefit, we don't need to all be the same, we don't need to all love each other.

 

You are right and wrong all at the same time.

1. Australian's are fascinated with America and everything about it. They are also fascinated by the British. Both groups are considered strange in their own way, and therefore an endless source of fascination. In 1972, Australia elected the Whitlam Government after 23 years of slavish conservative rule. Toadying to the Queen and mocking America a mainstay of how Australia identified itself as an 'ism. Until the advent of Trump (I wanted to write administration, but the word will not roll off my fingers onto the keyboard) farrago, Australians despised the British. Still, they loved the following things: British humour, irony and Cricket.

You ware un-Australian if you skite, dislike sport, and don't look after your mate when he/she is in trouble. The idea that a person's health (an absolutely fundamental human right to an Australian) could depend on their income rather than being an all-of-community responsibility is something that almost all Australians view with disgust. There are no stories in Australian folk-lore about someone taking people hostage to get health-care for their family.

I could write a whole book about it, but I don't have to Horne's updated 'Lucky Country' is out there already.

 

2. Australian knowledge about America is deep and wide. Americans know almost nothing about anything other than America. I know quite a lot about Minnesota. And about many other states, but I am unusual. I have lived in the North and South, the East and West. I felt like an embedded war correspondent. 'Letters from America' were a favourite of many Australians as was Lake Wobegon days. Here I'll pause for a few minutes because that's what people do in Minnesota. Okay, I'm still thinking.

 

3. When Garrison Keillor visited a Norwegian restaurant and starting choking on a fishbone he said that a fellow diner congratulated him on his Norwegian accent. It probably wasn't lutefisk because everyone in Norway knows that lutefisk is disgusting and a trick that they play outsiders.

 

 

Australians know this because the Whitlam government started something called SBS (SBS news) devoted to giving minority and non-English-background cultures a voice.

Our PBS is the ABC, a government-funded media organisation devoted to providing unbiased entertainment to Australians. My only complaint about them is they have too much sport. (which makes me a bit un-Australian).

 

PBS in Australia sounds like it is closer to 'community-radio' - which is like a community Bridge Club and is a place where people starting in the business learn about the work involved.

 

Here are a few things that clearly differentiates British from Americans and Australians.

Australians enjoy British comedies, we don't think American humour is funny. Typical Australian humour is so dry that Bond could stick an olive in it and call it a martini.

Australians love irony and will always prefer to say not quite exactly what they mean. I suspect that this comes from being a prison island - you can think of Australia as Elba or Alcatraz where the guards suddenly said 'stuff it' and left.

In Britain people love titles. Alan Brooke loved being a Lord so much that he changed his name to Alanbrooke. Americans love titles so much that every teacher is called 'Professor' and Presidents are called 'President' even when they aren't. In Australia, everyone - I mean everyone - will call you Ken.

Try to put on airs of any sort and people will think that you are as 'silly as wheel'.

 

Australians were baffled that an obviously stupid illiterate craven failed real-estate agent, could possibly become President. When we hear something as crazy as that we say 'Only in America'.

Mass shootings are incredibly rare in Australia. When the guy went bonkers and murdered people at Port Arthur, the conservative government immediately instituted a gun buyback.

What sort of 'right' is the right to bear arms anyway - is it like the right to wear lycra?

 

So, yes, there are massive cultural differences. We revel in our tolerance of other cultures. Americans do not. In America, everyone must be American. whatever that is and stuff the rest of the world.

 

 

 

[Chas_P]

The following letter was published in our local newspaper today. I didn't write it. I wish I had. I put it here fwiw.

 

Why do some send letters to the editor of this newspaper with strong political and religious views, many rancorous and with vitriol?

 

Surely, opinions of others will not be changed — maybe it is just vanity or to look good to their own group of like-minded friends or simply to degrade and provoke others.

 

The result invariably seems to be a further polarization and inflammation of our citizenry.

 

While not proposing a particular political or pious point of view, I only ask that writers of letters to this editor simply be more civil and respectful to all others, no matter their beliefs.

 

Democrats have been denounced by writers and others as godless Satan worshipers, immoral, radical, insurrectionist, misguided, corrupt, elitist, election-stealing, looting, lazy, welfare dependent, sniveling complainers, squanderers of our tax dollars, socialists — and pernicious people wanting to propel us to Chinese communist rule.

 

Republicans have been castigated locally and elsewhere as intractable, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, ignorant, immature, gun-toting, trigger-happy, baseless-conspiracy-believing, climate-denying, voter-suppressing, white-supremacist-supporting, COVID-refuting, mask-refusing, rich-rewarding, gerrymandering religious zealots.

 

If political ads are to be believed, all politicians are crooks and liars.

 

Words matter, and this language by both sides, including letters to the editor, does not bring our community together. We must do better.

 

While we all have a First Amendment right to express our views; we ought to be able to disagree with dignity, state our policies and positions, explain what can be improved and inspire others, while refraining from attacking, castigating and demonizing those with whom we disagree. At the same time, we can promote our positions without impugning people — if we just try.

 

We should not get the news solely from Fox, Newsmax, OAN or from other far-right sites just to reinforce our preexisting beliefs, nor should we get news only from MSNBC, Huffington Post or other liberal sites. Try listening to the other side; get your news from multiple reputable sources — you just might learn something and better understand others. Vet those conspiracy theories; use some critical, rational thinking. Watch out for far-left and far-right sources. Learn what is “news” and what is “opinion.”

 

Let us not try to criticize and demonize others just because they do not think like us, believe what we do or even look like us.

 

I may be tilting at windmills, but maybe someone, just someone, might be moved to change their behavior and be more civil to others. That would be a good start.

[Zelandakh]

Here are a few things that clearly differentiates British from Americans and Australians.

Australians enjoy British comedies, we don't think American humour is funny. Typical Australian humour is so dry that Bond could stick an olive in it and call it a martini.

This little snippet intrigues me because the description (American humour is not funny; British comedies are great) is one that I have heard from numerous Brits and yet, despite that, Friends - an extremely American format - remains one of the most popular comedy shows of all time. So I looked up the figures in Australia, as compiled by the Sydney Morning Herald. It turns out that Friends has the second highest viewing figures of all time in Australia for a TV series (after Roots, a 1977 mini-series). So perhaps there is not so much difference here as you think.

 

As for

When we hear something as crazy as that we say 'Only in America'.

...this is precisely what was said about Germany in the late 1940s. So a group of psychologists ran tests to see if the German folk were somehow predisposed towards violence. In one famous experiment, the control of ordinary Americans was run first, in which one group was given positions of power over another. Unfortunately for the scientists, the Americans turned out to display traits that were already in excess of what they had hoped to see in the German test subjects and they had to stop the experiment early. This, and numerous follow-up trials that confirmed the results, is one of the key experiments that shows that the underlying human nature cuts across cultures. There are many others showing that much of what we think makes us who we are is a product of normal reactions to the circumstances we find ourselves in. In short, there is no such thing as "Only in X" - put any country through the right circumstances and you could get an unfortunate result.

 

Now I have not as yet seen any scientific papers suggesting Australians are somehow removed from this but am happy to review any evidence that might be available to the contrary.

[pilowsky]

This little snippet intrigues me because the description (American humour is not funny; British comedies are great) is one that I have heard from numerous Brits and yet, despite that, Friends - an extremely American format - remains one of the most popular comedy shows of all time. So I looked up the figures in Australia, as compiled by the Sydney Morning Herald. It turns out that Friends has the second highest viewing figures of all time in Australia for a TV series (after Roots, a 1977 mini-series). So perhaps there is not so much difference here as you think.

 

As for

 

...this is precisely what was said about Germany in the late 1940s. So a group of psychologists ran tests to see if the German folk were somehow predisposed towards violence. In one famous experiment, the control of ordinary Americans was run first, in which one group was given positions of power over another. Unfortunately for the scientists, the Americans turned out to display traits that were already in excess of what they had hoped to see in the German test subjects and they had to stop the experiment early. This, and numerous follow-up trials that confirmed the results, is one of the key experiments that shows that the underlying human nature cuts across cultures. There are many others showing that much of what we think makes us who we are is a product of normal reactions to the circumstances we find ourselves in. In short, there is no such thing as "Only in X" - put any country through the right circumstances and you could get an unfortunate result.

 

Now I have not as yet seen any scientific papers suggesting Australians are somehow removed from this but am happy to review any evidence that might be available to the contrary.

 

You make two points and provide no reference for either.

But, here goes:

1. You seem to be saying that because Friends is popular this means that Australians and Americans have the same general sense of humour. I'm not sure which of the many fallacies that statement falls into, but it certainly doesn't sound quite right.

Given that most of what we discover in 'hard sciences' turns out to be wrong, I would guess that the amount of 'wrongness' in the social sciences is greater. The most valuable thing I learned in my research training was not to believe anything. This is how I learn things - by being sceptical.

It's the reason that I'm happy to appear to be the stupidest person in the room. Testing norms is how I learn.

Regarding Humour, here is a reference for you to look over.

 

You are confusing two issues. People do NOT say American humour is not funny because it is not funny. They say that they find the style of British/Australian humour funnier TO THEM. Understood this way, your comment proves my point.

I have no reason to suspect that there is an objective humour test that renders Americans humourless. That is patently false.

If you want a really good laugh, read this paper by Dunning and Kruger. I draw your attention to experiment 1 where they try to say something about competency-based on how funny people find 'jokes' that are - well - not jokes.

When I googled the six 'professionally funny people' I discovered the following (from a longer piece that I'm writing - want to collaborate? Like me you seem to have a finely honed talent for mockery and scorn? :)).

"Figure 1 seems to be a joke. I'm not kidding. Our intrepid Authors located some riddles and other items of 'humour' (so-called) which they then road-tested on eight 'working comedians'. Of the six comedians, two were women. One of the comedians was deemed not to be funny and was omitted from the screening tool. The comedians used were Bob Crawford (not findable on google). Costaki Economopoulos (he is billed as the biggest name in stand-up comedy because of his long name). Paul Frisbie comments on his website that he may "find himself in front of the 11 people who showed up for the Friday late show" he also mentions that he has "shared the stage with Adam Sandler". This could be code for "I appeared at the same venue." Kathleen Madigan is according to her website, a personality on a public radio show and is famous for throwing hoops and being quite short at the time. Ann Rose (not findable on google). Allan Sitterson (not findable on google but the name is alliterative with 'citizen'). David Spark; Spark invented a charming game called the "Jewish price is right" in which contestants are presented with two objects and must correctly identify the cheapest one. Finally, Dan St Paul is a corporate comedian who trained initially as an actor. None of this gives me great confidence in the testing metric for humour."

If you think that my grasp of statistics is bodgy, wait till you read the Kruger and Dunning paper!

The paper starts by saying it was inspired by a story about a bank robber - this story turns out to have all the hallmarks of an Urban Legend.

I understand that you may not have access to University databases, but most of this stuff is freely available.

 

2. I'm happy to discuss your critique of the second point if you provide an actual reference. On its face, it sounds wrong. Different cultural groups at different times in their history behave differently. The response of various populations around the world to the COVID crisis proves this point.

I do not think that America is a single entity. The problem is that of the many 'groups' in America some have belief systems that can best be characterised as Bizarre idiosyncratic thinking (BIT). Others do not.

The look on Fauci's face and his comments, at his recent Press briefing illustrate this.

 

PS: here's some excellent Australian Humour - I saw this production! http://bit.ly/KeatingTheMusical

Edited January 23, 2021 by pilowsky

[y66]

Had to laugh when reading the wiki article about Jeffrey Clark, the Justice Department lawyer who conspired with Trump to overturn the election results and who previously worked as a hired gun for corporate interests seeking to eviscerate the federal government's authority to regulate carbon emissions. Kenberg's mother was right -- where there's trouble, there is oil.

[kenberg]

Had to laugh when reading the wiki article about Jeffrey Clark, the Justice Department lawyer who conspired with Trump to overturn the election results and who previously worked as a hired gun for corporate interests seeking to eviscerate the federal government's authority to regulate carbon emissions. Kenberg's mother was right -- where there's trouble, there is oil.

 

From time to time I claim

"Our mothers were right. We should be polite and eat our veggies".

Next time I will include the relationship between war and oil.

 

[pilowsky]

I just got a new extension on Chrome that allows (inter alia) me to transcribe voices speaking on the computer. So I went to Fox on Cable to give it a whirl.

Here's Tulsi Gabbard explaining why monitoring of extremist groups in America is bad. I take it that means monitoring them outside America is OK.

Here's the transcript; It's unedited.

 

"An issue that all democrats republicans independents libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don't have to guess about where this goes or how this ends when you have people like former CIA director John Brennan openly talking about how he's spoken with or heard from appointees and nominees in the Biden administration who are already starting to look across our country for these types of movements, similar to the insurgencies they've seen overseas, that in his words he says make up this unholy alliance of religious extremists racist bigots, he lists a few others and adds at the end, even libertarians. So, when you look at their process and they start looking at, okay what characteristics are we looking for as we're building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? religious extremists are we talking about Christians evangelical Christians What is it, what is a religious extremist is it somebody who is pro-life.

 

I mean, what, where do you where do you take this, you start looking at okay well obviously have to be a white person obviously likely male libertarians well if anybody who loves freedom, Liberty maybe has an American flag outside their house or people who, you know, attended a Trump rally. Once you start walking this down the path, you see where it leads to a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution and a targeting of almost half of the country. Ilhan Omar says this, we already have laws in the book sorry but you're just going to have to learn to apply them."

 

 

I am reminded of the moment in Oliver Sacks book when he walks past a room of patients who are laughing at Ronald Reagan speaking on television. After all, it is the President and he sounds very serious. Sack's patients were unable to detect facial expression. They only listened to the content.

Gabbard fails to understand that having a bizarre belief is not dangerous. The question is: Are they a danger to themselves or others? It's the same thing when a psychiatrist (any Doctor) sees a patient. Nobody cares if they think the earth is flat, climate change is fake and Big Bird is funny, but if a group of them get together and threaten to shoot you if you don't agree with them, well, that's different.

I give this app 5 stars!

[Winstonm]

The more that is learned the more egregious the probable crimes that have been committed by the previous administration.

 

I have read that 29% of all registered voters are registered Republican. 70 percent of those say they believe the election was fraudulent, or about 21% of all Republicans. Pixels are being spilled and broadcasters gush about this minority viewpoint.

 

The media is failing us again.

 

If we extrapolate from the 21% of Republicans who think the election was fraudulent to the entire population - voters and non-voters - we end up with about 60 million who think the election was rigged.

 

But me, I am part of the the group that does not believe this Big Lie - and according to my extrapolation, there are 240 million of us - now THAT is a big number.

 

It's time we as a nation stop worrying about the concerns of this noisy minority and go after the criminals who came before - and stop allowing the noisy minority outsized influence over our government and lives. Prosecute where warranted. Convict when proved. Jail when convicted.

 

In no other way can the rule of law be restored.

[kenberg]

I just got a new extension on Chrome that allows (inter alia) me to transcribe voices speaking on the computer. So I went to Fox on Cable to give it a whirl.

Here's Tulsi Gabbard explaining why monitoring of extremist groups in America is bad. I take it that means monitoring them outside America is OK.

Here's the transcript; It's unedited.

 

"An issue that all democrats republicans independents libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don't have to guess about where this goes or how this ends when you have people like former CIA director John Brennan openly talking about how he's spoken with or heard from appointees and nominees in the Biden administration who are already starting to look across our country for these types of movements, similar to the insurgencies they've seen overseas, that in his words he says make up this unholy alliance of religious extremists racist bigots, he lists a few others and adds at the end, even libertarians. So, when you look at their process and they start looking at, okay what characteristics are we looking for as we're building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? religious extremists are we talking about Christians evangelical Christians What is it, what is a religious extremist is it somebody who is pro-life.

 

I mean, what, where do you where do you take this, you start looking at okay well obviously have to be a white person obviously likely male libertarians well if anybody who loves freedom, Liberty maybe has an American flag outside their house or people who, you know, attended a Trump rally. Once you start walking this down the path, you see where it leads to a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution and a targeting of almost half of the country. Ilhan Omar says this, we already have laws in the book sorry but you're just going to have to learn to apply them."

 

 

 

I am reminded of the moment in Oliver Sacks book when he walks past a room of patients who are laughing at Ronald Reagan speaking on television. After all, it is the President and he sounds very serious. Sack's patients were unable to detect facial expression. They only listened to the content.

 

Gabbard fails to understand that having a bizarre belief is not dangerous. The question is: Are they a danger to themselves or others? It's the same thing when a psychiatrist (any Doctor) sees a patient. Nobody cares if they think the earth is flat, climate change is fake and Big Bird is funny, but if a group of them get together and threaten to shoot you if you don't agree with them, well, that's different.

 

I give this app 5 stars!

 

 

 

I have decided, with caution, to attempt entry into the 21st century and I was just today thinking about getting such an app. Is this something you pay for or is it free with Chrome? I use Chrome and I saw a link to https://www.speechtexter.com/help.

Is that the gadget that you are speaking of? I prefer "gadget" to "app" but I will work on my lingo. Or are you speaking of something of greater sophistication?