HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mike 03 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 96 Next »

Mike 03

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Modesto California
Home country: United States
Current location: Arizona
Member since: Mon Oct 27, 2008, 06:14 PM
Number of posts: 16,578

Journal Archives

Yeah, but...

74 million people voted to re-elect Trump after he basically killed a quarter of a million Americans through gross incompetence and wilful negligence.

Why would they do that?

Why would the voters in Texas be any different?

I don't understand it either.

Outstanding post.

I go around and around in circles in my mind trying to figure out how we combat this.

Ezra Klein's book Why We're Polarized is one of a few books to attempts to make sense of what is happening. Timothy Snyder and Anne Applebaum have also approached this from different angles. Cult experts like Steven Hassan and psychiatrists have tried to deal with this too. It all helps contribute to some kind of understanding.

Trump voters, and many other Republicans, make decisions that appear irrational to us, but from their perspective, this behavior is rational and in their self-interest. That's something that is difficult for most people to comprehend.

The collective, or cumulative, radicalization of the supporters and the RW media is self-perpetuating, and people like Klein believe it can only increase in our current political environment. The immediate positive feedback they give to each other makes it self-reinforcing. They shut any information that conflicts with their world view out.

From the perspective of the radicalized politician: there is nothing to be gained by obeying norms or behaving ethically in the current climate.

There is that most important question you pose: What do we do as a party to counter what they are doing?

The trap they've sprung is a trap they laid several decades ago.

I'm bookmarking your post because it asks so many of the questions that need to be asked and answered.

This has been a growing concern, at least since Brenton Tarrant's

mass murder in New Zealand. Jason Wilson at the Guardian may even have been writing about this before that horrendous incident.

JOHN MENADUE. The crazed Brendan (SIC) Tarrant did not operate in a vacuum.
By JOHN MENADUE | On 18 March 2019

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News which influences his newspapers in Australia, has given a megaphone in the US to Islamophobia. The February 2014 issue of the International Communications Gazette said ‘One study that analysed Fox News viewers anti-Muslim feeling reported for example, that 60% of Republicans who most trusted Fox News also believed that Muslims were attempting to establish Sharia law in the US.’

Since that report in 2014 Fox News in association with Donald Trump has stepped up the anti-Muslim rhetoric. As a colony of US media and Fox News in particular, Australian media has ceaselessly carried on the anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Murdoch tabloids in Australia have consistently encouraged bigotry and hostility towards Muslims.


https://johnmenadue.com/john-menadue-the-crazed-brendan-tarrant-did-not-operate-in-a-vacuum/

FACTSHEET: THE MURDOCHS AND NEWS CORP AUSTRALIA

MPACT: News Corp Australia is an Australian media conglomerate of newspapers, magazines, websites, and the cable television channel Sky News. Each month, nearly two out of three Australians consume its media. Headed by Rupert Murdoch, News Corp Australia has strong links to conservative politicians and regularly promotes anti-Muslim views. Institutionally linked to Fox News in the U.S., News Corp Australia media content is readily shared on white nationalist Facebook groups, including those that the Ōtautahi/Christchurch mass killer frequented.

News Corp Australia is an Australian media conglomerate chaired since 1952 by Australia-born American Rupert Murdoch. It is a subsidiary of News Corp, a global media corporation headquartered in the U.S. Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan Murdoch, is co-chairman of News Corp and “heavily involved in the operations of News Corp Australia.” News Corp Australia produces Australia’s only national newspaper The Australian, mass circulation dailies in every state except Western Australia, websites including news.com.au, lifestyle websites and magazines, Sky News TV channel, and over 100 local newspapers. According to its website, more than 16 million Australians — 63% of the population — consume News Corp Australia media each month.

News Corp is widely seen as the world’s most powerful media empire. In April 2019, The New York Times published a series of articles based on interviews with 150 people. It argued News Corp enabled, promoted and profited from right-wing populism, stating, “What we as reporters had not fully appreciated until now is the extent to which these two stories — one of an illiberal, right-wing reaction sweeping the globe, the other of a dynastic media family — are really one … the White House — just like the prime ministers’ offices in Britain and Australia — is just one tool among many that this family uses to exert influence over world events.” In the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003, Murdoch media in Australia, the UK, and the U.S. played a concerted role supporting the war effort. Murdoch newspapers in Australia have also campaigned against climate change, asylum seekers, “African gangs,” and the Safe Schools anti-bullying program for LGBTQIA+ students.


https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-the-murdochs-and-news-corp-australia/

If you dig into the current conflict between Facebook and Australia, many tech specialists and reporters who have studied this issue see it more as a confrontation between Zuckerberg and Murdoch.

Depending on how, or if, Australia handles Murdoch, maybe we can learn some tricks from whatever comes next. So far, it doesn't appear that Australia's current government is going to pick a fight with News Corp Australia.

You're instinct is right. He's not a true germaphobe.

It's something else.

There's a famous producer in Hollywood, and when you go to work for him the first thing you are told is "Don't look him in the eyes or you'll be fired." And he actually has fired assistants for looking him in the eyes, even just to say "Hi" in the hallway. It only applies to people beneath him, though.

I think it really is some strange notion of what makes him feel weak or exposed. And he hates to be touched. It really seems like an excuse not to have to engage with other human beings and risk the feeling of vulnerability during a human encounter.

Based on everything I've read I've concluded he isn't really a germaphobe, just

somebody who hates to be touched, not because of germs but for other psychological reasons.

And it's further validated by a chapter in this book I'm reading now called Blood and Oil: Mohammed Bin Salman's Ruthless Quest for Global Power about the preparation for Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia.

All the planning is only about how not to get Trump into a situation where he might look foolish, and the secondary concern is that he not be touched by a stranger. SA wanted to present him with a medal and a major concern was would he allow someone to put it around his neck. They finally reached a compromise where the medal could be put around his neck but that he wouldn't bow his head.

Not a word about avoiding germs, etc...

Germaphobia is an excuse he's used when needed to avoid touching or being touched, especially by people he doesn't know, or just generally to avoid situations that make him anxious.

Quite interesting

The obfuscation of this issue created by the lack of any discussion of whether he has seen actual
or sample contracts, and the lack of any citation to such contracts, is for us the most egregious
violation of academic integrity in the article. But there are numerous other serious problems:
citations that are wholly unrelated to claims made in the text (just one is noted above); claims in
the text of the article entirely at odds with the documents cited to support those claims; selective
use of documents and other materials to the exclusion of evidence to the contrary. Some of our
historian colleagues, including those far more knowledgeable than we on these issues, are
compiling an extensive list of such problems. They will be shared with the journal in due course,
or may have been shared by the time of this statement, and we believe our colleagues will make
that list public.


How important it is that historians scrutinize the work of others.

WW2 seems to have spawned a lot of "denialistic" "historical" work, but it's definitely not the only event to do so. In researching the Yugoslav wars of the 90s I've also come across a lot of suspicious (or, to be precise, wrong) claims, but never in peer-reviewed papers.

Thank you for posting this. Now I want to learn more about the debate surrounding the Ramseyer article.

I was trying to imagine how to explain why there are so many threads about this

person Rush Limbaugh to the few people who don't understand or don't want to see them.

All I could think is that it might be like when someone who has abused you for 30 years--or cost you friendships, or cost you to lose respect for people who were really important parts of your life--dies, you actually do feel the need to say something, to take stock of the damage that person did to you and your country.

He was on the air for something like THIRTY YEARS. And if you were a person that enjoyed local talk radio, or even serious talk radio, he was the bleeding edge of the movement that totally destroyed talk radio in this country.

So I think that is why people feel a need to speak out. There are a lot of pent up feelings about this person that have not been expressed, and now seems a good time to express them.

Nobody will tear you apart after you're gone because you're a good person.

I very rarely find myself in disagreement with your posts, but this time I gently and respectfully take issue.

His rhetoric irrevocably altered the neuronal structure of tens of millions of American minds, transforming them from free thinkers into lobotomized propagandists.

He attacked good and decent people, some of whom had nothing to do with politics whatsoever, and cultivated actual widespread hatred for them. He practically celebrated the suicide of Kurt Cobain.

There is also strong circumstantial evidence he traveled to the Dominican Republic on sex tours to take advantage of minors. So today I think about those kids too and wonder what has become of them.

And things that may now come to light now that he's dead.

Kurt Cobain belongs on that list...

that "worthless shred of human debris" and "junkie" according to Limbaugh, years before Rush admitted his opiate addiction.

By the way, that's this Rush Limbaugh:

I know that a good establishment liberal would refrain from even discussing the fact that Rush Limbaugh likes to go to one of the underage sex capitals of the world with a bottle of Viagra in one hand and God knows what in the other...

Rush should be urged to share his story with America. Here's [sic] he is, an impotent, thrice divorced, ex-drug addict, conservative, parolee who went on a sex tour in the Caribbean and found himself rudely embarrassed for carrying recreational prescription drugs in his doctor's name. Who can't relate to that?


But polite Dems don't go there.

https://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/06/digby_suggests_.html



Right. He was one of the principle architects who redesigned the Republican Party

from an actual political party that was for a set of ideas into an identitarian party that was only opposed to a set of ideas.

Gingrich probably deserves honorable mention here too.

I could see Limbaugh's influence on people I worked with in the mid 90s, and also on their spouses. I worked for a great guy who complained that his wife had become addicted to Limbaugh and that it was changing her. And he was a conservative Catholic, and even he was worried about it.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 96 Next »