It's The Daddy State

...but (so far) without the usual efficiencies that go along with such evil-doing.

Charlie Pierce:

So, as two frenzied days begin here, we see that the substantial Republican majorities in both Houses of the Congress have completely abdicated their constitutional functions simply because the Republican Party can’t get out of its own way, and because the president* is a grandiose simpleton who could be talked into cutting off his own head. Both McConnell, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from Wisconsin, theoretically could get pretty much anything they want passed. But Ryan has the Freedom Caucus leading him around by the nose, and McConnell is pretending that the White House has to move first, which turns the constitutional order on its head.

What the GOP is doing is not governance - they hate government, remember? What they're doing is called extortion.

They believe if they cause us enough pain and anxiety, we'll knuckle under and go along with whatever Daddy State bullshit they feel like dictating to us - because of course, it's for our own good.

Nobody deserves to feel like they're being forced to live their lives at the broken end of a bottle.

GOP:

The assholes who make my mom cry almost every day because she's scared of the shit they threaten to do.

hat tip = driftglass & Blue Gal

Today's Tweet

Knowing a little something about yesterday helps prevent people like Paul Ryan fucking us over today.

“What’s that you say, statue?”
[silence]
“Starve the poor? Oh gosh...”
[silence]
“AND take their health care? Oh wow...”
[silence]
“Well, if you INSIST.” pic.twitter.com/qLLFimehuz

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) January 15, 2018

 

Jeff Flake

Good, Senator, but y'know what?  Pick a cliché:

• Put up or shut up 
• Step up or step aside 
• Put your money where your mouth is

One of the things that bugs the fuck outa me about this is that it's so little traction. Seems like he's saying some important things, and it also seems like the Press Poodles oughta be picking it up and running with it.

The other thing is that Mr Flake continues to vote for the policies that give 45* the "wins" he needs to let him keep doing the shitty things Mr Flake wants him to stop doing.

So I don't wanna just shit on Flake's attempts (honest, I don't), but if he wants any of it to stick, he has to make it plain - "I'm not going along with that asshole in the White House until  or unless he gets real, and I'm not doing anything the Republican Caucus wants me to do until they stop being the same kinda assholes as that asshole."

Today's Tweet

A little cyberspace justice?

And I wonder if it says anything about the Trump Campaign not having the horsepower to do anything even approaching what happened last year - which would almost certainly mean they had to have gotten help from Uncle Walt.

JUST IN: Trump's #FakeNewsAwards website crashes immediately after the President tweets about it, which is definitely not a metaphor https://t.co/LaZIJwL4l8 pic.twitter.com/FBtVZuEhxM

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) January 18, 2018

 

What We're Looking For

We keep hearing the same old bullshit arguments about how horrible everybody thinks American Press Poodles are - and they are (or have been), but in very different ways.

Straight up criticism comes more vociferously from 'the right'; to the point now that we're all the way into Daddy State fantasy land projections of Fake News. 

But there's plenty of bitching from 'the left' as well - tho' for different reasons.

Conservatives point at the press and yell 'Liberal Bias' while every study for at least the last 25 has found the opposite.

Liberals mostly complain about False Equivalence and The Horse Race.

I come down pretty solidly in the 'liberal' camp these days because I think I detect a brand of rhetoric that's quite a bit less toxic coming from 'the left'.

Of course, there're loonies on the extremes of both ends of the spectrum, but by sheer volume and rate of incidence, 'the right' has way more crazies pimping the bullshit, and way more rubes lapping it up.

Suffice to say we get lots of trouble because we all tend to agree the American Press is kinda fucked up.  

Conservatives bitch about Fake News, and then the studies come out (refuting the bias), but that little tidbit can be safely ignored because the standard narrative is that everybody knows it's all fucked up, so the conservative audience will only hear, "See? Even the liberals agree there's bias in the Mainstream Media."

It works the same way for Congress. Nobody's particularly happy with Congress, but Dems are a lot more likely to think their reps need to be more progressive and push the Repubs harder etc etc etc. The polls come out and because the notion that "everybody thinks Congress is all fucked up" fits the GOP's framing of the issue, once again the Repubs can point and say, "See? The liberals think we're right too - better keep voting for the guys who know what the problem is blah blah blah."

Anyway - back to the point of how we're supposed to go about determining what is and what ain't, here's a golden oldie from FAIR:

How To Detect Bias In News Media

Media have tremendous power in setting cultural guidelines and in shaping political discourse. It is essential that news media, along with other institutions, are challenged to be fair and accurate. The first step in challenging biased news coverage is documenting bias. Here are some questions to ask yourself about newspaper, TV and radio news.

Who are the sources?

Be aware of the political perspective of the sources used in a story. Media over-rely on "official" (government, corporate and establishment think tank) sources. For instance, FAIR found that in 40 months of Nightline programming, the most frequent guests were Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Elliott Abrams and Jerry Falwell. Progressive and public interest voices were grossly underrepresented.

To portray issues fairly and accurately, media must broaden their spectrum of sources. Otherwise, they serve merely as megaphones for those in power

• Count the number of corporate and government sources versus the number of progressive, public interest, female and minority voices. Demand mass media expand their rolodexes; better yet, give them lists of progressive and public interest experts in the community.

Is there a lack of diversity?

What is the race and gender diversity at the news outlet you watch compared to the communities it serves? How many producers, editors or decision-makers at news outlets are women, people of color or openly gay or lesbian? In order to fairly represent different communities, news outlets should have members of those communities in decision-making positions.

How many of the experts these news outlets cite are women and people of color? FAIR's 40-month survey of Nightline found its U.S. guests to be 92 percent white and 89 percent male. A similar survey of PBS's NewsHour found its guestlist was 90 percent white and 87 percent male.

• Demand that the media you consume reflect the diversity of the public they serve. Call or write media outlets every time you see an all-male or all-white panel of experts discussing issues that affect women and people of color.

From whose point of view is the news reported?

Political coverage often focuses on how issues affect politicians or corporate executives rather than those directly affected by the issue. For example, many stories on parental notification of abortion emphasized the "tough choice" confronting male politicians while quoting no women under 18--those with the most at stake in the debate. Economics coverage usually looks at how events impact stockholders rather than workers or consumers.

• Demand that those affected by the issue have a voice in coverage.

Are there double standards?

Do media hold some people to one standard while using a different standard for other groups? Youth of color who commit crimes are referred to as "superpredators," whereas adult criminals who commit white-collar crimes are often portrayed as having been tragically been led astray. Think tanks partly funded by unions are often identified as "labor-backed" while think tanks heavily funded by business interests are usually not identified as "corporate-backed."

• Expose the double standard by coming up with a parallel example or citing similar stories that were covered differently.

Do stereotypes skew coverage?

Does coverage of the drug crisis focus almost exclusively on African Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of drug users are white? Does coverage of women on welfare focus overwhelmingly on African-American women, despite the fact that the majority of welfare recipients are not black? Are lesbians portrayed as "man-hating" and gay men portrayed as "sexual predators" (even though a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a family member than by an unrelated gay adult—Denver Post, 9/28/92)?

• Educate journalists about misconceptions involved in stereotypes, and about how stereotypes characterize individuals unfairly.

What are the unchallenged assumptions?

Often the most important message of a story is not explicitly stated. For instance, in coverage of women on welfare, the age at which a woman had her first child will often be reported—the implication being that the woman's sexual "promiscuity," rather than institutional economic factors, are responsible for her plight.

Coverage of rape trials will often focus on a woman's sexual history as though it calls her credibility into question. After the arrest of William Kennedy Smith, a New York Times article (4/17/91) dredged up a host of irrelevant personal details about his accuser, including the facts that she had skipped classes in the 9th grade, had received several speeding tickets and-when on a date-had talked to other men.

Is the language loaded?

When media adopt loaded terminology, they help shape public opinion. For instance, media often use the right-wing buzzword "racial preference" to refer to affirmative action programs. Polls show that this decision makes a huge difference in how the issue is perceived: A 1992 Louis Harris poll, for example, found that 70 percent said they favored "affirmative action" while only 46 percent favored "racial preference programs."

• Challenge the assumption directly. Often bringing assumptions to the surface will demonstrate their absurdity. Most reporters, for example, will not say directly that a woman deserved to be raped because of what she was wearing.
• Demonstrate how the language chosen gives people an inaccurate impression of the issue, program or community.

Is there a lack of context?

Coverage of so-called "reverse discrimination" usually fails to focus on any of the institutional factors which gives power to prejudice—such as larger issues of economic inequality and institutional racism. Coverage of hate speech against gays and lesbians often fails to mention increases in gay-bashing and how the two might be related.

• Provide the context. Communicate to the journalist, or write a letter to the editor that includes the relevant information.

Do the headlines and stories match?

Usually headlines are not written by the reporter. Since many people just skim headlines, misleading headlines have a significant impact. A classic case: In a New York Times article on the June 1988 U.S.-Soviet summit in Moscow, Margaret Thatcher was quoted as saying of Reagan, "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." The Times headline: "Thatcher Salute to the Reagan Years."

• Call or write the newspaper and point out the contradiction.

Are stories on important issues featured prominently?

Look at where stories appear. Newspaper articles on the most widely read pages (the front pages and the editorial pages) and lead stories on television and radio will have the greatest influence on public opinion.

• When you see a story on government officials engaged in activities that violate the Constitution on page A29, call the newspaper and object. Let the paper know how important you feel an issue is and demand that important stories get prominent coverage.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Politicians

Jennifer Rubin, WaPo:

There is no honor among anti-immigrant advocates and liars, I suppose. After dutifully lying on behalf of the president regarding his abhorrent language (“shithole countries”), Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) were outed by the White House. The Post reports:

Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard “shithouse” rather than “shithole,” allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said.

Not only did these two repeatedly lie, but Cotton also impugned the integrity of Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who told the truth. Asked whether the accusation that Trump spoke the offending words or the sentiment was phony, Cotton lied, “Yes.” He went on to say, “Senator Durbin has misrepresented what happened in White House meetings before, and he was corrected by Obama administration officials by it.”
And there it is.

"If we get 'em arguing over piddling details, then the fact that we said some really heinous shit becomes secondary."

"Plus, by slagging the messenger - he's painted as the real liar - and that means we can claim victimhood."

So the rhetorical attack on Durbin is a good fit for Daddy State Rule #1:

Every accusation is a confession

 

Today's Pix

Today's driftglass

Blog post from driftglass:

As I have might have mentioned in a long-ago post, I became a pariah on many a liberal blog where I was once welcome when I took it into my head to start writing that it was possible that one could simultaneously hold these two ideas:

1 - Mr. Greenwald was the source of many important and consequential stories which he developed thanks to being given Edward Snowden's huge cache of stolen documents.

2 - Mr. Greenwald was also a thin-skinned asshole who routinely derailed his own story by injecting his own brand of radical Both Siderism into them. That he spent an entire year hopping from one teevee network to the next pleading his case, all while complaining bitterly that no one would give him a media platform from which to plead his case. That he would routinely lie to make a point or smash an opponent, automatically dismissed anyone who disagreed with him to any degree as a drooling jackbooted Obot who was obviously arguing in bad-faith, and consistently hijacked every terrorist incident anywhere on Earth as proof that Obama Was Worse Than Boosh.
Toxic Radical Both-Siderism - the politics of purity.

Fake lord save us from those who would punish us in the name of mercy and their own twisted version of forgiveness. Fuck 'em.

A Workplace Lesson

There's gotta be a cute Management Bromide to go with this - something like, "Never implement a solution until you've coordinated with your fellow team members..."

I dunno - sometimes I'm just a little obvious.

Today's Pix

The Prophet Zappa

From Joe's Garage, Acts I, II & III (1979):

Eventually it was discovered
That God
Did not want us to be
All the same
This was
BAD NEWS
For the Governments of The World
As it seemed contrary
To the doctrine of
Portion Controlled Servings
Mankind must be made more uniformly
If THE FUTURE
Was going to work
Various ways were sought
To bind us all together
But, alas SAMENESS was unenforceable
It was about this time
That someone
Came up with the idea of TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
Based on the principle that
If we were ALL crooks
We could at last be uniform
To some degree
In the eyes of THE LAW
Shrewdly our legislators calculated
That most people were
Too lazy to perform a
REAL CRIME
So new laws were manufactured
Making it possible for anyone
To violate them any time of the day or night,
And
Once we had all broken some kind of law
We'd all be in the same big happy club
Right up there with the President,
The most exalted industrialists,
And the clerical big shots
Of all your favorite religions
TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
Was the greatest idea of its time
And was vastly popular
Except with those people
Who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws,
So, of course, they had to be TRICKED INTO IT...
Which is one of the reasons why
Music
Was eventually made
Illegal

Garrett Epps, The Atlantic:

If a citizen speaks at a public meeting and says something a politician doesn’t like, can she be arrested, cuffed, and carted off to the hoosegow?

Suppose that, during this fraught encounter, the citizen violates some law—even by accident, even one no one has ever heard of, even one dug up after the fact—does that make her arrest constitutional?

-and-

He was charged with “disorderly conduct” and “resisting arrest without violence,” but the local prosecutor dropped the charges, saying in essence that no reasonable person would believe them. Lozman then brought a federal lawsuit against the city for “First Amendment retaliation.” A federal judge agreed that Lozman had “compelling” evidence that he’d been arrested as punishment for his protected speech. But the judge then threw out the case, reasoning that he actually could have been charged with the obscure state offense of “willfully interrupt[ing] or disturb[ing] any school or any assembly of people met for the worship of God or for any lawful purpose.”

What this meant, the court decided, was that the officer who arrested Lozman would have had “probable cause” (a reasonable basis to believe a crime had been committed) to arrest him if he had known about “assembly of people” statute and wanted to enforce it. The fact that the officer didn’t know about it was irrelevant—and so was the city’s unconstitutional motive. As long as an officer could have arrested Lozman for something, in other words, the retaliatory motive didn’t matter. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: the existence of probable cause for any offense is an “absolute bar” to a suit for retaliatory arrest, it said.

"You're making trouble, so we'll have you arrested, and we'll charge you with some weird shit later because everybody's guilty of something - all we have to do is smash-fit some bullshit ordnance around what you did".

Today's Tweet

Daddy State Rule #2:
Every boast is an admission of deficiency; often an attempt to take credit where credit has not been earned.

Trump:
My penis is big.
I'm very smart.
I'm not a racist.

Large penised smart men who aren't racists don't need to tell you this every minute.

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) January 15, 2018

 

Today's Today

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

--MLK