HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ck4829 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 20, 2004, 11:37 AM
Number of posts: 32,270

About Me


Journal Archives

"It will just send it back to the states" - And this is what those states will do

Blaming Workers, Hiding Profits in Primetime Inflation Coverage

A FAIR study looking at six months of coverage across six primetime television news shows and NPR‘s All Things Considered found that segments on inflation put far more emphasis on the contributions of labor shortages and social spending—through driving up the cost of labor—than to the role of corporate profit-taking.

This portrays the economy as a zero sum game between workers and consumers, who appear to be intractably at odds if corporate profits are left out of the equation.

During the same period, the shows proved capable of hearing workers’ demands for higher wages when their coverage framed the issue as a “Great Resignation,” or during the shows’ scant coverage of “Striketober,” when a wave of labor militancy swept through much of the country.

This points to an inconsistency in coverage of the same labor market trends: When the shows were covering inflation, the “tight” labor market was mostly treated with the cool and icy calculation of market logic. But on the comparatively rare occasions when the shows covered the grievances of workers and their demands for dignified work—which are widely popular demands, given that most consumers are in fact workers too—the reports showed a more human side to what would otherwise be numbers on a scorecard, and mentioned the record profits of corporations.


Inner workings of the conservative-leaning Supreme Court laid bare for all to see

Is it with great debates?
By poring over massive books and tomes of law?
By citing previous laws and records?

You'd think, right? But no.

In case you needed any further proof that the modern anti-abortion movement is an outgrowth of many centuries of virulent misogyny and violence against women, Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked opinion draft striking down Roe v. Wade relies heavily on a 17th century English jurist who had two women executed for “witchcraft,” wrote in defense of marital rape, and believed capital punishment should extend to kids as young as 14.

“Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale,” Alito wrote in his argument to end legal abortion across America, “described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision.’ See M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown.”


And how did this Sir Matthew Hale decide cases? What evidence did he use to enforce and interpret the law?



Spectral evidence is a form of evidence based on dreams and visions. It was witness testimony that a person’s spirit or specter appeared to the witness in a dream or vision and afflicted them.

In English tradition, spectral evidence was not accepted as evidence in a witchcraft trial, according to an article on the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries blog:

“In the English tradition, although the rules of evidence were vague, legal experts insisted on clear and ‘convincing’ proof of a crime…So-called ‘spectral evidence,’ in which a victim testifies to experiencing an attack by a witch in spirit form, invisible to everyone else, was not accepted as evidence.”

Yet, in 1662, Sir Matthew Hale solidified the legal credibility of spectral evidence in witchcraft cases by allowing it in the Bury St. Edmund case in England, thus setting a precedent to be used at Salem in 1692.


"Falling into a fit" while testifying against a person counted as evidence for the accused's witchcraft in Hale's court.


If this is how the conservative-leaning Supreme Court wants to interpret cases, the SCOTUS might as well decide to get blindfolded and throw darts at boxes containing random legal decisions or decide cases based on the plaintiff and the defendant arm-wrestling each other and who wins.

Those two things would be improvements!

Remembering when "indoctrination of students" was them just not wanting to be shot in school

Before panics about critical race theory, transgender people existing, or pronouns; we witnessed...

While many leaders didn’t acknowledge the students’ demonstrations, some weren’t hesitant to express opposition.

“It appears that these schoolchildren, innocent schoolchildren, are being used as a tool by (this) left-wing group to further their own agenda,” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, told public television network ETV.

Stoneman Douglas student David Hogg, who has been one of the highest profile advocates for gun control, tweeted that McMaster shouldn’t doubt students’ sincerity and that he “can’t wait to see what the history textbooks our generation writes will have to say about people like you.”

Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, said he was “totally against” the walkouts and that any school administrator who participated “will be disciplined to the strongest (degree), with every ounce of the law they will be disciplined,” The Colby Echo, the student-run newspaper of Colby College, reported.


On Saturday night, (Minnesota state Rep. Mary) Franson shared a Facebook post that referred to Hogg as “Supreme Leader.” She then shared a quote, via the conservative site the Daily Wire, from the March for Our Lives speech by Delaney Tarr, a 17-year-old Parkland survivor, who said, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile!” Franson’s commentary above that quote was “And there you have it friends … the anti gunners, the high school students who speak for all, aren’t interested in an ‘inch’. They want the mile. They want your guns. Gone.”

The kicker, though, came about 15 minutes later when she posted a link from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum website titled, “Shaping the Future: Indoctrinating Youth.” Above, she quoted Hitler talking about indoctrination. Later, as she faced criticism over linking Parkland survivors to Nazi youths, she argued that the indoctrination post was unrelated to her earlier posts and denounced the media for making the connection.

If more proof was needed that insults and conspiracy theories have mainstream power, Donald Trump Jr. liked two tweets attacking Hogg. In one, conservative TV host Graham Ledger linked an article from Gateway Pundit and suggested Hogg, whose father is a former FBI agent, was “running cover” for his father because the FBI “botched” tracking down the shooter. Trump Jr. liked another tweet peddling the same conspiracy with a post from a far-right website about the “Outspoken Trump-Hating School Shooting Survivor” that doubted Hogg was an actual victim and blamed the “Deep State media” for giving him a platform.

Given that the Parkland student-activists are still working to encourage more town hall events and more demonstrations, it seems likely these teenagers will face evermore vile personal and public attacks in the months to come. Although we cannot expect any personal responsibility from internet trolls, Americans should expect better from public officials, who have the power to lend legitimacy to the more disgraceful arguments circling around social media. But in the instances above, the public responded by rejecting the hateful arguments, and proved we have the power to hold these politicians to account.


Never forget this dark and disgusting chapter of American conservatism.

The biggest mistake of the "culture wars" is that conservatives get to pretend they are the defense

That amidst all the scary pronouns, different subcultures popping up, immigrants, sexual orientations, etc. they are the force holding back the tide of all these changes, that they are the ones saying "not so fast."

That it is the Democrats, left, or liberals that is this frightening presence forcing all these changes onto the American people and conservatives are merely responding to all these changes.

But how true is it really?

And is this creating a bias that is giving conservatives an unfair advantage? That they get to benefit from things like status quo bias, system justification, and cognitive inertia.

Here are a couple of points...

What exactly are conservatives defending?

And I mean *what* exactly. When conservatives want to keep the clock from going forward or want to turn it back, what does that mean?

Imagine this discussion instead:
"You painted my house blue, I liked it red!"
"Nuh uh, it was never red!"

The person can then present a photo of the red house and have it turned back red. Conservatives want to turn our country's clocks back to an era that never existed. When they say some previous era, like the 50's or the 80's, they don't mean those eras, they mean how they thought that era existed... they thought we had peace and harmony in the 50's or the 80's, and no we didn't.

Case in point:
Fox News panelist claims we have a crime explosion that we wouldn't have had 30 years ago because of all the morals and values that supposedly existed back then - despite crime being higher 30 years ago. This is the past they are defending, not a real thing, but something that only exists in their minds, in their perceptions.

The things they claim to be responding to aren't all that new

If you believe conservatives when they say they are merely responding to the societal changes forced upon them, you might as well believe...

"You wake up one day and BOOM! People have strange pronouns! BOOM! Suddenly you have Muslim neighbors! BOOM! Kids are getting vaccinated! BOOM! People are turning transgender! BOOM! Abortion on demand! Oh my, NOOO!"

But this isn't true.

Gender-neutral pronouns - Wikipedia page on it from 2002

There were Muslims in the US before it was even founded - So there's no Secret Muslim invasion.

The first vaccine - Before 1800

Here's Christine Jorgensen - She transitioned in... 1952! She was celebrated for it, it was considered an achievement by many in the country. There was no massive other side that demanded to be heard that was saying she was some sort of evil wizard who only did it so she could see women changing in locker rooms.

Critical Race Theory - page on it from 2005

Rank-and-file conservatives aren't being agitated into action as a response against liberal activism, no they aren't, they are goaded into action because conservative elites tell them that liberal or leftwing activism is going on and it is somehow hurting them... when that thing or issue was actually going on for years and they didn't notice it until conservative elites told them to notice it.

Defense doesn't automatically mean 'good'

Go back to the 1950's and 1960's and take the definition of "culture war" with you and if you could talk to the people of that time, what would a "culture war" be? Abortion? No. Gay rights? No. It would be the civil rights struggle.

You couldn't really call MLK and other civil rights activists the defense since they were making a change - The defense would be the segregationists hitting people with fire hoses, it would be the KKK bombing churches.

Go back a hundred years from there, and the "culture war" issue of the day would be slavery. Abolitionists would be the renegades and ruffians, the slavers would be the ones "getting their property stolen"

Not necessarily good to be on the "defense", indeed.


We need to call out conservatives, politicians, media, and others that act like this is the case... they don't necessarily have morality or even reality on their side.

Not the defense, just another side.

If you can't spot the "deep state" or the "swamp" in another country, how can you do it for the US?

Putin and his United Russia party is the deep state, it is the swamp in Russia.

There is no getting around that.

Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? 0/4 (No.)

President Putin’s 2018 reelection campaign benefited from advantages including preferential media treatment, numerous abuses of incumbency, and procedural irregularities during the vote count. His most influential rival, Aleksey Navalny, was disqualified before the campaign began due to a politically motivated criminal conviction, creating what the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) called “a lack of genuine competition.” The funding sources for Putin’s campaign were also notably opaque.

Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies? 0/4 (No.)

Russia’s electoral system is designed to maintain the dominance of United Russia. The authorities make frequent changes to electoral laws and the timing of elections in order to secure advantages for their preferred candidates. Opposition candidates have little chance of success in appealing these decisions, or in securing a level playing field. In 2020, Putin signed a law permitting the use of electronic voting across Russia, raising concerns about the security and secrecy of ballots in the 2021 Duma polls and other future elections. Also that year, the president signed a law allowing a three-day voting period in future elections; critics argued that the expanded timeframe increased officials’ ability to manipulate electoral outcomes.

Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections? 0/4 (No.)

Russia has never experienced a democratic transfer of power between rival groups. Putin, then the prime minister, initially received the presidency on an acting basis from the retiring Boris Yeltsin at the end of 1999. He served two four-year presidential terms from 2000 to 2008, then remained the de facto paramount leader while working as prime minister until he returned to the presidency in 2012, violating the spirit if not the letter of the constitution’s two-term limit. A 2008 constitutional amendment extended presidential terms to six years, and a 2020 amendment allowed Putin to run for an additional two terms, meaning he could remain in office until 2036.


How can you look at these things and NOT say "I dunno. Sounds pretty deep state-y to me"?

And yet...

The most generic election ballot ever

What color of socks you are going to wear should be a harder choice than this America.

What's at stake in the 2022 midterm elections summed up in one image

Please don't repeat anything claimed by Russia's govt or state media without additional verification

On DU, any other site, on social media, face to face conversations, etc.

It is pretty much standard operating procedure that Russian state media claims are followed by contradictory claims.

1. Russian state media claim Moscow announces temporary ceasefire to let civilians leave two Ukraine cities
Russia’s state-controlled media claimed Saturday that the country’s Defense Ministry has announced a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine to allow civilians to leave the cities of Mariupol and Volnovakha.
And the subsequent reality:
Russian attacks halt plans to evacuate Ukrainian civilians
A second attempt to evacuate civilians from a besieged city in southern Ukraine collapsed Sunday as Russian attacks stopped plans to create a humanitarian corridor, a Ukrainian government official said, and Pope Francis called for an end to the “rivers of blood and tears” created by the war.

2. Russia added 7k troops near Ukraine border, says US official
Russia actually added another 7,000 troops to the region, according to White House officials on Wednesday as satellite images captured in the last 48 hours seem to bolster skepticism the United States and its NATO allies have about the Russian assertions that it is withdrawing forces surrounding Ukraine.
And the subsequent reality:
Russia-Ukraine war live updates: Russia investigated for war crimes as peace talks stall
The International Criminal Court said Monday that it will open an investigation into whether Russia has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, hours after peace talks in Belarus ended without a clear resolution and shelling continued across Ukraine.

3. Russia denies looking for pretext to invade Ukraine
Russia's top diplomat angrily rejected U.S. allegations that Moscow was preparing a pretext to invade Ukraine, as Russian troops that are amassed near the Ukraine border launched more drills Monday.
And the subsequent reality:
Russia invaded Ukraine

4. Russia says it won't start a war as Ukraine tensions mount
Russia’s top diplomat said Friday that Moscow will not start a war but warned that it wouldn’t allow the West to trample on its security interests amid fears it is planning to invade Ukraine.
And the subsequent reality:
Russia invaded Ukraine

5. Russia says attacks not hitting civilians. Scenes in cities tell a different story.
And the subsequent reality:
Putin and Russian generals served notice by British ambassador they'll be tried for war crimes
Appearing on MSNBC's "The Sunday Show," the British ambassador to the U.S. made it clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin should be held to account for war crimes and send served notice to every Russian general that they will be won't be let off the hook for their actions in Ukraine.
Kremlin defends bombing hospital
A hospital complex in Mariupol bombed Wednesday resulted in at least three deaths, including one child, Ukraine authorities say. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the claim Thursday, saying the hospital had been emptied of patients and was being used as an extremist base.
"This is not the first time when we see pathetic cries about so-called atrocities committed by the Russian armed forces," Lavrov said. "Our delegation presented facts at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council proving that the maternity hospital had long been seized by fighters of the Azov battalion and other radicals. They kicked all patients, all nurses, and all service personnel out."
Later, Russia denied responsibility entirely and claimed the attack was staged to make the Kremlin look bad. Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov denied the strike. He claimed that the two explosions that ravaged the building were caused by explosive devices planted nearby in what he described as a “staged provocation to incite anti-Russian agitation in the West.”

6. Russia Says They Won't Overthrow Zelensky, Occupy Ukraine
Russia was also pursuing the "demilitarization and denazification" of Ukraine, she said, and sought to eliminate the military threat Ukraine posed to Russia due to its ties with NATO.
But also:
Russian Orthodox Church Leader Blames Invasion on Ukraine's 'Gay Pride'
Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, during a Sunday sermon called Russia's "military operation" in Ukraine a conflict over "which side of God humanity will be on" between Russia and Western countries that embrace more progressive values. In particular, he called attention to Ukraine's support of gay rights and the presence of gay pride parades, The Moscow Times reported.

Russian, officially here, has done nothing but lie. A whole country with a government on par with Gateway Pundit.

So unless another country or other reputable third party verifies it, you should consider whatever Russia states to be a lie.

When the Right praises "Daddy Putin", this is what they mean

This is what they want for America.

Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?
Nope. "Constitutional amendments adopted in 2020 allow Putin, but not future presidents, to run for an additional two terms as president, potentially extending his rule to 2036. Like past elections, President Putin’s 2018 reelection campaign benefited from advantages including preferential media treatment, numerous abuses of incumbency, and procedural irregularities during the vote count. His most influential rival, Aleksey Navalny, was disqualified before the campaign began due to a politically motivated criminal conviction, creating what the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) called “a lack of genuine competition.” The funding sources for Putin’s campaign were also notably opaque."
Republicans need the electoral college to win.

Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?
Nope. "the Kremlin, as usual, eliminated any serious opposition candidates before the election took place, and their candidates won all 18 governors’ races and 11 regional legislative elections. In the 22 regional capital city council elections, Navalny’s allies were able to win a few seats in Tomsk and Novosibirsk, preventing the Kremlin from maintaining its majorities and demonstrating Navalny’s influence even outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg."

Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies?
Nope. "Russia’s electoral system is designed to maintain the dominance of United Russia."

Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?
There are... parties besides United Russia, but don't ever expect United Russia to become the minority.

Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?
You will never see a party besides United Russia take the reins of power. It's part of the system.

Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government?

Is there freedom for nongovernmental organizations, particularly those that are engaged in human rights– and governance-related work?

Is there protection from the illegitimate use of physical force and freedom from war and insurgencies?

Do laws, policies, and practices guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the population?
No guarantee of equal treatment of segments of the population? Forget mere interest, right-wingers will ditch their spouses and the people they are having affairs with on their spouses, and want to put a ring on this concept!


Brought to you by the No Trumps and No Flynns Club.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »