#and all of the other people there were selling trump or republican or anti science stuff . honeslty i did get nervous abt

[makedamnsvre]

remembered when me and my mom were ???? somewhere going to little shops and my mom stopped at some place to see if there was a bathroom and i waited in the car and then some old white guy with a bright red hat glared at me through the windshield (i was still wearing my mask but it was pulled down under my chin since i was in the car) and after staring at him for too long trying to see what his hat was even though it was obvious i finally saw "trump" on the front lawl.

[futurebird]

Trump is an adept politician with an innate sense of what will sell. A sense is finely tuned to a portion of the population many of us have not much in-common with-- so it's easy to miss how he is appealing.

I just listened to a rambling word salad from him on abortion. And yet on closer inspection I could see that he managed to give an answer that would be acceptable to both the radical pro-life, to the people who don't care about abortion and to people who think it should be legal "in some cases" (while still being morally uncomfortable with the topic.)

Trump's "base" isn't a monolith, that they seem to exist politically as a monolith is precisely the result of his skill in speaking to their feelings in a relatable and reasonable way ... despite the diversity of opinions in that group.

Trump fans don't have as much in common with each other as we sometimes think. The only real uniting theme is anti-intellectualism.

They were called "Know Nothings" because of the secrecy, but that name's other implications are not an accident.

"anti-intellectual" isn't just a fancy way of saying stupid. Intellectualism can be elitist, corrosive. Productive critique is possible. Such a critique could lead to a more authentic, inclusive (effective) practice in the sciences.

Of course, this isn't what Trump offers. Not an empowering "you can know! You CAN understand the world." but rather "the people who said you didn't know aren't worth respecting (even if they are right, heck BECAUSE they are right)" It's all emotional.

More importantly his answer on abortion, rather than outline policy expressed the way republicans *feel* about abortion. He expressed religious righteousness, but also ambivalence "some women don't know they are pregnant at 5 weeks." He reaffirmed that "we are the good people" by pivoting to how Democrats are evil "HRC wants to rip the baby right out!"

This helps his audience regain a sense of moral clarity on an issue that can be morally difficult for them.

People will know and love people who have had abortions-- people will have had abortions *themselves* and still be anti-choice. They know this isn't a simple issue. The stories about women nearly dying, the little girls forced to have their rapists babies disturb pro-lifers as much as anyone. But if they can imagine that the issue is less complex: if it's about "ripping the baby out at 8 months" the distress caused by the complexity of the issue is gone. It feels good to "know" you are right.

Gotta be exhausting how Democrats keep making it complicated again.

Factually he said nothing. (Worse, he contradicted himself.) Emotionally? Ah! There he said much. He recognized the chaotic spectrum of feelings but then refocused those feelings as narrow white light, a laser-focused pure beam of righteous anger and of disgust. 5 weeks? 7 weeks? Heartbeats? Exceptions? Who knows. (who cares?) What really matters is: the other side is WRONG. We are the good people who know what is right.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Facebook thrives on criticism of "disinformation"

The mainstream critique of Facebook is surprisingly compatible with Facebook’s own narrative about its products. FB critics say that the company’s machine learning and data-gathering slides disinformation past users’ critical faculties, poisoning their minds.

Meanwhile, Facebook itself tells advertisers that it can use data and machine learning to slide past users’ critical faculties, convincing them to buy stuff.

In other words, the mainline of Facebook critics start from the presumption that FB is a really good product and that advertisers are definitely getting their money’s worth when they shower billions on the company.

Which is weird, because these same critics (rightfully) point out that Facebook lies all the time, about everything. It would be bizarre if the only time FB was telling the truth was when it was boasting about how valuable its ad-tech is.

Facebook has a conflicted relationship with this critique. I’m sure they’d rather not be characterized as a brainwashing system that turns good people into monsters, but not when the choice is between “brainwashers” and “con-artists selling garbage to credulous ad execs.”

As FB investor and board member Peter Thiel puts it: “I’d rather be seen as evil than incompetent.” In other words, the important word in “evil genius” is “genius,” not “evil.”

https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1440312271511568393

The accord of tech critics and techbros gives rise to a curious hybrid, aptly named by Maria Farrell: the Prodigal Techbro.

A prodigal techbro is a self-styled wizard of machine-learning/surveillance mind control who has see the error of his ways.

https://crookedtimber.org/2020/09/23/story-ate-the-world-im-biting-back/

This high-tech sorcerer doesn’t disclaim his magical powers — rather, he pledges to use them for good, to fight the evil sorcerers who invented a mind-control ray to sell your nephew a fidget-spinner, then let Robert Mercer hijack it to turn your uncle into a Qanon racist.

There’s a great name for this critique, criticism that takes its subjects’ claims to genius at face value: criti-hype, coined by Lee Vinsel, describing a discourse that turns critics into “the professional concern trolls of technoculture.”

https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5

The thing is, Facebook really is terrible — but not because it uses machine learning to brainwash boomers into iodine-guzzling Qnuts. And likewise, there really is a problem with conspiratorial, racist, science-denying, epistemologically chaotic conspiratorialism.

Addressing that problem requires that we understand the direction of the causal arrow — that we understand whether Facebook is the cause or the effect of the crisis, and what role it plays.

“Facebook wizards turned boomers into orcs” is a comforting tale, in that it implies that we need merely to fix Facebook and the orcs will turn back into our cuddly grandparents and get their shots. The reality is a lot gnarlier and, sadly, less comforting.

There’s been a lot written about Facebook’s sell-job to advertisers, but less about the concern over “disinformation.” In a new, excellent longread for Harpers, Joe Bernstein makes the connection between the two:

https://harpers.org/archive/2021/09/bad-news-selling-the-story-of-disinformation/

Fundamentally: if we question whether Facebook ads work, we should also question whether the disinformation campaigns that run amok on the platform are any more effective.

Bernstein starts by reminding us of the ad industry’s one indisputable claim to persuasive powers: ad salespeople are really good at convincing ad buyers that ads work.

Think of department store magnate John Wanamaker’s lament that “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.” Whoever convinced him that he was only wasting half his ad spend was a true virtuoso of the con.

As Tim Hwang documents brilliantly in his 2020 pamphlet “Subprime Attention Crisis,” ad-tech is even griftier than the traditional ad industry. Ad-tech companies charge advertisers for ads that are never served, or never rendered, or never seen.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/05/florida-man/#wannamakers-ghost

They rig ad auctions, fake their reach numbers, fake their conversions (they also lie to publishers about how much they’ve taken in for serving ads on their pages and short change them by millions).

Bernstein cites Hwang’s work, and says, essentially, shouldn’t this apply to “disinformation?”

If ads don’t work well, then maybe political ads don’t work well. And if regular ads are a swamp of fraudulently inflated reach numbers, wouldn’t that be true of political ads?

Bernstein talks about the history of ads as a political tool, starting with Eisenhower’s 1952 “Answers America” campaign, designed and executed at great expense by Madison Ave giants Ted Bates.

Hannah Arendt, whom no one can accuse of being soft on the consequences of propaganda, was skeptical of this kind of enterprise: “The psychological premise of human manipulability has become one of the chief wares that are sold on the market of common and learned opinion.”

The ad industry ran an ambitious campaign to give scientific credibility to its products. As Jacques Ellul wrote in 1962, propagandists were engaged in “the increasing attempt to control its use, measure its results, define its effects.”

Appropriating the jargon of behavioral scientists let ad execs “assert audiences, like workers in a Taylorized workplace, need not be persuaded through reason, but could be trained through repetition to adopt the new consumption habits desired by the sellers.” -Zoe Sherman

These “scientific ads” had their own criti-hype attackers, like Vance “Hidden Persuaders” Packard, who admitted that “researchers were sometimes prone to oversell themselves — or in a sense to exploit the exploiters.”

Packard cites Yale’s John Dollard, a scientific ad consultant, who accused his colleagues of promising advertisers “a mild form of omnipotence,” which was “well received.”

Today’s scientific persuaders aren’t in a much better place than Dollard or Packard. Despite all the talk of political disinformation’s reach, a 2017 study found “sharing articles from fake news domains was a rare activity” affecting <10% of users.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586

So, how harmful is this? One study estimates “if one fake news article were about as persuasive as one TV campaign ad, the fake news in our database would have changed vote shares by an amount on the order of hundredths of a percentage point.”

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.31.2.211

Now, all that said, American politics certainly feel and act differently today than in years previous. The key question: “is social media creating new types of people, or simply revealing long-obscured types of people to a segment of the public unaccustomed to seeing them?”

After all, American politics has always had its “paranoid style,” and the American right has always had a sizable tendency towards unhinged conspiratorialism, from the John Birch Society to Goldwater Republicans.

Social media may not be making more of these yahoos, but rather, making them visible to the wider world, and to each other, allowing them to make common cause and mobilize their adherents (say, to carry tiki torches through Charlottesville in Nazi cosplay).

If that’s true, then elite calls to “fight disinformation” are unlikely to do much, except possibly inflaming things. If “disinformation” is really people finding each other (not infecting each other) labelling their posts as “disinformation” won’t change their minds.

Worse, plans like the Biden admin’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism lump 1/6 insurrectionists in with anti-pipeline activists, racial justice campaigners, and animal rights groups.

Whatever new powers we hand over to fight disinformation will be felt most by people without deep-pocketed backers who’ll foot the bill for crack lawyers.

Here’s the key to Bernstein’s argument: “One reason to grant Silicon Valley’s assumptions about our mechanistic persuadability is that it prevents us from thinking too hard about the role we play in taking up and believing the things we want to believe. It turns a huge question about the nature of democracy in the digital age — what if the people believe crazy things, and now everyone knows it? — into a technocratic negotiation between tech companies, media companies, think tanks, and universities.”

I want to “Yes, and” that.

My 2020 book How To Destroy Surveillance Capitalism doesn’t dismiss the idea that conspiratorialism is on the rise, nor that tech companies are playing a key role in that rise — but without engaging in criti-hype.

https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59

In my book, I propose that conspiratorialism isn’t a crisis of what people believe so much as how they arrive at their beliefs — it’s an “epistemological crisis.”

We live in a complex society plagued by high-stakes questions none of us can answer on our own.

Do vaccines work? Is oxycontin addictive? Should I wear a mask? Can we fight covid by sanitizing surfaces? Will distance ed make my kind an ignoramus? Should I fly in a 737 Max?

Even if you have the background to answer one of these questions, no one can answer all of them.

Instead, we have a process: neutral expert agencies use truth-seeking procedures to sort of competing claims, showing their work and recusing themselves when they have conflicts, and revising their conclusions in light of new evidence.

It’s pretty clear that this process is breaking down. As companies (led by the tech industry) merge with one another to form monopolies, they hijack their regulators and turn truth-seeking into an auction, where shareholder preferences trump evidence.

This perversion of truth has consequences — take the FDA’s willingness to accept the expensively manufactured evidence of Oxycontin’s safety, a corrupt act that kickstarted the opioid epidemic, which has killed 800,000 Americans to date.

If the best argument for vaccine safety and efficacy is “We used the same process and experts as pronounced judgement on Oxy” then it’s not unreasonable to be skeptical — especially if you’re still coping with the trauma of lost loved ones.

As Anna Merlan writes in her excellent Republic of Lies, conspiratorialism feeds on distrust and trauma, and we’ve got plenty of legitimate reasons to experience both.

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/09/21/republic-of-lies-the-rise-of-conspiratorial-thinking-and-the-actual-conspiracies-that-fuel-it/

Tech was an early adopter of monopolistic tactics — the Apple ][+ went on sale the same year Ronald Reagan hit the campaign trail, and the industry’s growth tracked perfectly with the dismantling of antitrust enforcement over the past 40 years.

What’s more, while tech may not persuade people, it is indisputably good at finding them. If you’re an advertiser looking for people who recently looked at fridge reviews, tech finds them for you. If you’re a boomer looking for your old high school chums, it’ll do that too.

Seen in that light, “online radicalization” stops looking like the result of mind control, instead showing itself to be a kind of homecoming — finding the people who share your interests, a common online experience we can all relate to.

I found out about Bernstein’s article from the Techdirt podcast, where he had a fascinating discussion with host Mike Masnick.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210928/12593747652/techdirt-podcast-episode-299-misinformation-about-disinformation.shtml

Towards the end of that discussion, they talked about FB’s Project Amplify, in which the company tweaked its news algorithm to uprank positive stories about Facebook, including stories its own PR department wrote.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/22/kropotkin-graeber/#zuckerveganism

Project Amplify is part of a larger, aggressive image-control effort by the company, which has included shuttering internal transparency portals, providing bad data to researchers, and suing independent auditors who tracked its promises.

I’d always assumed that this truth-suppression and wanton fraud was about hiding how bad the platform’s disinformation problem was.

But listening to Masnick and Bernstein, I suddenly realized there was another explanation.

Maybe Facebook’s aggressive suppression of accurate assessments of disinformation on its platform are driven by a desire to hide how expensive (and profitable) political advertising it depends on is pretty useless.

Image: Anthony Quintano (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Zuckerberg_F8_2018_Keynote_(41793470192).jpg

Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[lastsonlost]

Oh my God Elon said something we don't agree with. God I hope Apple and Starbucks disagrees with you too.

Owning a Tesla, the luxurious electric car, is a major liberal status symbol. It signals nothing more than good taste — the perfect balance of wealth with care for fossil fuels. But the man behind the brand is crafting a very different persona online that may now prove to be a challenge for his fans.

Elon Musk, the bombastic head of Tesla and SpaceX, exhorted his 34 million Twitter followers on Sunday to “take the red pill.” The comment was quickly embraced by his followers, including Ivanka Trump, President Trump’s elder daughter, who announced that she had taken the pill already.

The exchange referred to a scene from “The Matrix,” the 1999 science fiction action film. But the meaning of “red pill,” and the idea of taking it, have since percolated in online forums and become a deeply political metaphor. And with Mr. Musk and Ms. Trump, the phrase is now lodged more fully into the mainstream.

So Tesla owners are having to grapple with a car that carries a few new connotations.

“Honestly, Musk is becoming a liability and the Tesla board needs to seriously consider ousting him,” wrote Markos Moulitsas, author of “The Resistance Handbook: 45 Ways to Fight Trump.” “And I say that as a proud owner of a Tesla and a SpaceX fanatic who truly appreciates what he’s built.”

So what is the red pill?

[ I hope your fuckings Tesla explodes. You don't have to be in its but you should be forced to walk everywhere.]

In “The Matrix,” the movie’s hero, Neo, played by Keanu Reeves, is given the option to take a pill that lets him see the truth.

The world he thinks is real turns out to be an entertaining lie; his body is actually trapped in a farm where people are being used as human batteries. Taking the blue pill would let him return to living in the ignorant but blissful lie, while taking the red pill would launch him into an arduous journey through a brutal but fulfilling reality.

The idea of taking the red pill later grew to mean waking up to society’s grand lies. It was embraced by the right, especially by members of its youngest cohort who organized and spent their time in online forums like Reddit and 4chan.

The truth to be woken up to varied, but it ended up usually being about gender. To be red-pilled meant you discovered that feminism was a scam that ruined the lives of boys and girls. In this view, for a male to refuse the red pill was to be weak.

Red Pill forums were often filled with deeply misogynistic and often racist diatribes. The more extreme elements splintered into groups like involuntary celibates (“incels”) or male separatists (Men Going Their Own Way, or MGTOWs). Conferences like the 21 Convention and its sister convention, Make Women Great Again, sprang up to gather red-pilled men. Being red-pilled became a sort of umbrella term for all of it.

As these conversations seeped into the mainstream, pulled along by a host of other internet language from message boards to establishment Republican conversations on sites like Breitbart, the meaning broadened and got watered down. To be red-pilled can now mean being broadly skeptical of experts, to be distrustful of the mainstream press or to see hypocrisy in social liberalism.

What’s going on with Elon Musk?

Mr. Musk has been pretty wild online for years now, which has made him a major internet celebrity with devoted fans who call themselves Musketeers. There are fan pages like Musk Memes with nearly 100,000 followers, and a Reddit page with 200,000 members in constant, extremely active conversation.

Most recently, Mr. Musk has been a prominent skeptic online of the coronavirus, calling the response to it a “panic” and “dumb” and wrongly predicting close to zero new cases by the end of April. As of Tuesday, there were more than 90,000 deaths from the virus and more than 1.5 million cases in the United States alone.

The night before Tesla’s earnings were released last month, Mr. Musk tweeted an anti-lockdown rallying cry: “FREE AMERICA NOW.” He had a showdown with local lawmakers, threatening to move Tesla headquarters out of California and deciding to reopen a Tesla factory in Fremont, Calif., despite the local county’s restrictions to prevent the virus from spreading.

When State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez objected on May 9 with an obscene tweet, Mr. Musk responded, “Message received.”

Defending his reopening of the Tesla factory, Mr. Musk wrote on Twitter that he would be on the factory floor and offered himself up to authorities. “I will be on the line with everyone else,” he posted on May 11. “If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.”

This month, he and his girlfriend, Claire Boucher, the musician known as Grimes, had a child and named him X Æ A-12. And Mr. Musk announced that Tesla shares were too high and that he was selling almost all his possessions to the point of owning no house.

“We have a phrase, it’s E.M.M. — Elon Moves Markets,” said Bill Selesky, an analyst at Argus Research who tracks how Mr. Musk’s messages impact Tesla’s stock price. “People want to listen to him no matter what he says. He tends to be thought of as a great visionary.”

Mr. Selesky said even Mr. Musk’s detractors parsed every tweet and utterance. “Plus, if you have a Tesla, nobody can ever complain about you because you’re good for society,” he added.

This leads back to Mr. Musk’s message on Sunday, telling his followers to take the red pill.

Do ‘The Matrix’ creators like this?

No. Lilly Wachowski, a “Matrix” co-creator, told Mr. Musk and Ms. Trump in colorful language on Twitter that they could take a hike.

Is ‘red pill’ a Silicon Valley thing?

To some extent.

There has long been a strain of men’s rights activism in Silicon Valley, exemplified by James Damore, a former Google engineer who was fired after writing a memo arguing that the reason there are fewer female engineers is biological differences rather than discrimination.

Mr. Damore became a folk hero for a simmering movement in the technology industry of people who thought the efforts toward 50/50 representation at tech companies were absurd. Cassie Jaye, who calls herself a former feminist, made a 2016 documentary about the Red Pill community and said it had flourished in the tech world.

But the more common phrase in Silicon Valley to signal contrarian thinking is “narrative violation,” which is often used to describe an event that cuts against the mainstream media’s consensus on a topic. The idea is that there is a story being told about the world and how it works, but that the story is too simplistic to be entirely true and an event occasionally pops up to remind people of that.

Why does any of this matter?

Few products today are as deeply entwined with a person’s brand as Tesla is with Mr. Musk, and so his comments can feel personal for Tesla drivers.

“As a Tesla owner, a 47-year-old male recovering from Covid-19, and someone very concerned simultaneously about the environment, the economy, my kids’ and my parents’ future, this ain’t great,” said Jeff Guilfoyle, a product manager at FireEye in San Diego. “This disease is no joke, and the long-term health impacts are unknown for survivors.”

Many have implored Mr. Musk online to stop.

Raja Sohail Abbas, the chief executive of an outpatient psychiatric clinic in Allentown, Pa., wrote: “I am a Tesla owner and love the company. You have to stop being an idiot about this.”

“Tesla owner and Fan here, but this was a disappointing tweet despite the frustrations of and holdups,” added Alex Goodchild, a D.J. in Brooklyn. “Words are weapons especially when used during situations like the one we’re currently experiencing. You sound just like Trump in this tweet.”

The debate has riven the Tesla community.

“The last two months, there’s been this polarization in the Elon Musk fan club,” said Paula Timothy-Mellon, a technology consultant who moderates that LinkedIn-based fan club, which has 22,000 members. “There are those who are believers in these California guidelines and there are those in favor of his push to re-open Tesla.”

“As a Tesla owner, a 47-year-old male recovering from Covid-19, and someone very concerned simultaneously about the environment, the economy, my kids’ and my parents’ future, this ain’t great,” said Jeff Guilfoyle, a product manager at FireEye in San Diego. “This disease is no joke, and the long-term health impacts are unknown for survivors.”

Many have implored Mr. Musk online to stop.

Raja Sohail Abbas, the chief executive of an outpatient psychiatric clinic in Allentown, Pa., wrote: “I am a Tesla owner and love the company. You have to stop being an idiot about this.”

“Tesla owner and Fan here, but this was a disappointing tweet despite the frustrations of and holdups,” added Alex Goodchild, a D.J. in Brooklyn. “Words are weapons especially when used during situations like the one we’re currently experiencing. You sound just like Trump in this tweet.”

The debate has riven the Tesla community.

“The last two months, there’s been this polarization in the Elon Musk fan club,” said Paula Timothy-Mellon, a technology consultant who moderates that LinkedIn-based fan club, which has 22,000 members. “There are those who are believers in these California guidelines and there are those in favor of his push to re-open Tesla.”

Driving a Tesla often carries great symbolism for the owner (and observers).

“If you own a Tesla, you feel you are directly connected to Elon Musk and people think that Tesla owners are directly connected to the politics of the C.E.O.,” said Sam Kelly, a Tesla owner and investor based in Spain who posts under the name SamTalksTesla.

He added that he did not think the red pill comment meant any big new political awakening from Mr. Musk.

Asked to explain his thinking, Mr. Musk pasted an image of the Urban Dictionary definition of red pill in an email. It read:

“‘Red pill’ has become a popular phrase among cyberculture and signifies a free-thinking attitude, and a waking up from a ‘normal’ life of sloth and ignorance. Red pills prefer the truth, no matter how gritty and painful it may be.”

Seriously get a refund, buy a prius and

GET THE FUCKS OVER IT!

[evechan90]

Democracy under siege, and the brainwashing of the algorithm on our society: how American social events influence the world

We’ve all seen the disturbing images from the Capitol building in Washington D.C. from January 6th this year. It’s a terrifying idea that an enormous group of people were willing to go this far to overturn a democratic decision. Though it is frightening, we should really ought to learn from this event. Because, what frightens me even more, is the possible effect it will gradually or even directly have on our worldwide democratic societies, ideas and policies.

It is no news to you, when I say that the influence events in the United States of America has had the past centuries are without doubt big. Some were good, some were less. In any case, we’ve seen the effect it’s had on the world.

Somehow, America is the big brother we all look up to. Which seems weird if you look closer to some of its policies or political systems. They are flawed. And probably not easily repaired or mend.

The last 4 years seemed to even magnify the influence that the USA has towards other countries. And I don’t mean a political influence, which they also have, but a deep cultural and social influence. President Trump has been a big pawn in this. But we cannot only blame him, we must also blame the political system in America, the media, the lack of interference from social media, and above all the lack of knowledge about what I can only refer to as ‘the brainwashing of the algorithm on our society”. I will talk more about that later.

It’s not hard to see where some of the events in the last 4 years have influenced behavior in other countries. Myself, a Dutch, have seen disturbing images of people behaving like pro-trump protesters. It disturbs me deeply to hear Dutch people yelling to their government “lock her up” and to hear people distrusting our media calling it “the regular media”. And above that, some even turn violent against ministers of our government or even against the news crew, covering a story. And these are just a few examples. The distrust against governments, media and science is spreading more and more. And then there is the whole conspiracy theories problem which has rooted itself in our society in The Netherlands. These things are not just by any chance popping up here and there, they are clearly coming from a country where these things are more and more becoming normalized. Of course we cannot only look at the bad stuff. I was moved to see how the black lives matter movement influenced so many people around the world to protest, in the middle of a pandemic.

But after seeing the images of the Capitol in Washington D.C. I am scared to the bone about what this event, and perhaps the following events the next few weeks, will have for consequences for our own country and our democracy. It would not surprise me if in March this year, when our elections will be held, there will be a mirror image of what happened in the USA. I beg to be wrong about this, but I’m afraid that I’m not. Only time will tell.

But I do think we need to learn from the mistakes that were made in the USA. We need to look harder for the signs, the omens. And we clearly need to find a way to overcome these illusions of conspiracy, of hate and distrust. There is no longer time to look away, as we have seen in the USA, people who were looking away, gave room for the events occurring on the 6th. The republican senators and other politicians who have been blindly following whatever Trump was doing (or rather, not doing), are really to blame also for what happened in D.C. Should they have not been so naïve, so tolerable to what happened the past 4 years, they could have probably put it to a halt. But they didn’t.

When the pandemic broke out, I was hopeful. Hopeful that our world as a whole would come together, and would share the load. That we might together find a way to overturn this event, and stand up to it. I couldn’t have been more wrong. It polarized even further what was already polarizing. It magnified distrust, in people who were already distrusting. It kindled a hatred for each other, and we all turned to ourselves first. We closed borders, thinking only of ourselves. No, this pandemic would not be the one thing to unite us all.

We need to talk about ‘the brainwashing of the algorithm on our society”. It sounds a bit extreme, doesn’t it? Maybe it is. But I think it sums up the problems we face these days, using social media.

If you want a deeper dive in the problem, I suggest you watch “the social dilemma” and “The great hack” on Netflix. They perfectly explain what’s wrong with these social media and the algorithms it uses. For those of you who are not familiar with it: it creates what we call “bubbles”. Whenever you are on the internet, on let’s say Facebook for example, you are, probably unaware, in a bubble.

Remember when Facebook was just becoming ‘a thing’ in the world? You would have friends who’d post things about what they did that day. You didn’t have a lot of friends yet, so all you saw, was mostly all there was. But after years went by, they added advertisement, you added more friends, and suddenly what you see on your timeline is in no way everything there is. The amount of posts becomes so large, that Facebook starts using a system to guess which posts are the most relevant for you. This means an algorithm is now deciding what you see, and most importantly, what you not see.

This is what we call “the bubble”. It is in no way a representation of what is really posted on facebook. This leads to people only seeing one perspective, or to use Muse’s lyrics from ‘blockades’ which I think is fitting here, “trapped in a maze of unseen walls”. For example, one of your friends posts a video about anti-vaxxing. You like the video, even though you may not in fact be an anti-vaxxer yourself. The next time you open Facebook, it will think you like video’s about anti-vaxxing. So it pushes more posts from friends who post or like things about this subject. Slowly your timeline will fill itself with the subject. Then what’s even more a problem, is that the algorithm will try to find other content for you that it thinks you will like because you clicked on the anti-vaxx video. Then suddenly your timeline will show posts about conspiracies, for example. And since you were using Facebook years ago, when all you saw, was mostly all there was, you will think the same way as then, and suddenly you are in the middle of a bubble about a subject you wouldn’t even think about at first. It’s ‘brainwashing’ you to think that what you see is all there is and it shows you confirmation because it will probably only show you friends in your timeline that think the same.

This leads to more problems than we could imagine, but I think what we saw on the 6th at the Capitol, is a clear example of it. It is easy to blame the ignorance of those people. But you have to know, that these people truly believe what they think is the truth. Of course, Trump easily puts fuel on the fire, and this is a problem in itself. I believe we have to stop blaming each other, and start looking at the problems this world is creating for itself by a fast growing artificial intelligence being used for the personal, and above all, financial interest of millions of companies.

Which leads me of course, to the problem with the advertisements on social media. Advertisements on social media are a great way to precisely target audiences, or buyers. Since facebook has all this information about you, it thinks it knows what you like, dislike, what kind of person you are or are not. This information is used to target specific advertisements to you. As someone said in “The social dilemma”. ‘Whenever something is free to use, you are the product they sell’.

I believe companies such as Facebook created all these things out of good intention. And in a way, they work, since you’ll only see things that you relate to. But they must confess that the thing has become a monster. It controls everything people see on their social media, it filters out other important things. The last couple of years there have been plenty of trials, and other initiatives to try and force some of these big corporations, like Facebook, to change the way these algorithms are in play, to make them own their mistakes and do right by it. But it seems to have little to no influence. The damage is done. As we can clearly see in Washington D.C. So what can we do?

We need to educate ourselves and others. We need to make people understand how the algorithms in social media create these harmful bubbles. Because, as soon as you see it, you can prick through the bubble and look beyond. We need to talk to each other about all the problems that have polarized us. Instead of yelling and screaming, instead of safely but rudely commenting on an online post, tearing each other down to the ground, we need to talk in open and safe spaces, whether this means online or offline.

I own Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and other social media accounts, and I have not yet closed them down. Because they also give hope and support. They can make people come together and they can educate us. They can make us as a human being stronger, better and more open minded. But only if we take off these blindfolds that the algorithms have put over our eyes.

America, as you well know, we look up to you. Use it to show how change can be made for the better. Show you can overcome the greatest of threats. Be the example we all need to see.

And to everyone else: be thoughtful, check your sources, burst your bubble!

[aalt-ctrl-del]

so you want to vote third-party?

Im gonna go ahead and put it out there, and put it into file, for future reference. My predictions based on behavioral studies, herd theory, psychographics, mass Values, and environmental, geographic conditions, have been thus far exceptionally accurate. The science and mathematical estimations behind the pandemic is super basic, not hard at all, which is most frustrating of all.

If you get to vote come Election day - given that you are all still alive by that point with no medical complications - and you choose to vote Republican. Or worse, third party, if you do not vote Democratic.

There is a high probability that you or those of your close relations will contract Corona Virus.

This is not scare tactic or alarmist, this is a loose estimation based on our current political climate and rising trends. I made a post predicting June to be a hard hitting month, that comes from our behavior in May - specifically, the dates 13-17 range. I checked the calendar, those dates are high weekends for a lot of people. It is also Graduations for seniors of high school and college. Classes end for more, finals come to a close.

So, those days were not random. This is a very important time for people. It is also the most lethal. Thus, given the incubation time of the virus, or its capacity for dormancy, we will see results of this May 13-17 spike within 2 weeks, and in June. If, y’know, you disregard stuff that the CDC is cautioning us to do.

Back to voting. By the time elections roll around, and you decide who to vote for, let me reiterate, if you vote anything other than Democratic, you have taken a mediocre percentage I have calculate - lets say 30% possible encounter with the virus. And you do the thing like, vote third party - there is a Risk Factor which bumps your probable encounter with the virus up to 43%. By then, we should have shot past 100,000 deaths. It is estimated that yearly, at least a minimum of 12,000 people will die of the flu, and in the year 2017-2018, source at least 61,000 people died in that year. We have only been exposed to Corona Virus for 3 months, and already have watched a documented 70,000+ die. With quarantine measures in place and state-wide shut downs.

So what is the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, which factor into my Risk Equation? Simply put, the Republican as of current is inadequate and a joke. They are actively expediting the spread of the Corona Virus. I mean, we have protesters outraged by Quarantine. Science deniers, anti-vaxxers. Sure, there is a high ratio of recovery compared to those who have died, but even the people who have suffered mild symptoms are developing post complications such as organ failure, scarring of the lung tissue, and my favorite, liver failure.

You can’t live without your liver. Its an essential organ. You have only one liver. Its not on the the same turf as the appendix. Your liver blows up, you die a pleasantly painful death source. I really didn’t read this article, I only know that we’re finding these things, like strokes, haunting people in the age bracket 30-40. I mean, you survive Corona Virus like a champ? Awesome. I hope that doesn’t dump a whole aneurysm on you.

Okay, back to voting once more. The Democrat party, is not much more better prepared than the Republican at this point. But, the Democrats and Joe Biden will listen to the scientists and doctors, like Dr. Fauci, and Dr. Birx. They will look into the process of stimulating the economy, while minimizing the trauma and destruction the inadequate and soft trump group is going through. Our chances of getting through this lay with the Democratic group, especially in the fall out from this pandemic. The economic strain businesses are so frightened by, will shatter with trump doing his usual thing of ignoring problems until the problem is way out of control. Which Corona Virus is right now. No exaggeration, its hit full momentum; you’re only options right now are rigorous sanitation practices.

Everybody protesting quarantine would’ve been the type to launch them self out a window when the Stock Market crashed. That’s the sort of people they are. If you want to get through this, you’re going to have to survive first. We can always pick up the pieces and rebuild from the wreckage, but if there’s no one to rebuild, then the tragedy remains a mystery.

And if you’re one of those Russian a-holes “But the sexual harassment allegations”. Omg, you absolute blunt tool. trump is a walking PSA of pedo-incest-creepy-uncle. “Grab her by the pussy,” - trump. “I can go in there and start kissing them, and no one can do anything” bragging trump, about walking into a dressing room for one of those American models programs - idek. trump is a misogynistic creepy bastard, that objectifies his daughter. You reason that thing is gonna be your salvation in these trying times?

And I do vibe with the #metoo movement. I don’t dismiss or discredit Tara Reade, about these sexual allegations, but I question a lot of what she’s doing and saying. For context, we’re in the middle of a pandemic, and Joe Biden has the clout and experience to wipe the floor with trump. And the Democratic party will be the only faction to get us through this crisis with minimal casualties. The infection is beyond controlling at this point, but we will be ruined financially and physically, our economic infrastructure is edging toward a collapse the likes we haven’t seen in 50 years. But this Tara lady, makes allegations at this point in time of this specific year, when it would’ve have been more pertinent to do so at the time Biden was elected Vice-President. EVEN BETTER, DURING THE #METOO movement. 

If those allegations are true and do exist, then she has been paid by someone named trump - or an affiliate to trumps clan - to speak up. Right now. “BECAUSE OF THE EMAILS” I mean, allegations. I’m not saying Democrats are saints, but the parties interests and motives align far better with your chances of survival, and this Tara lady is trying to convince you to tie a noose for you to hang from. I mean, she could have as easily come forward after Biden was elected, or when his election campaign had more steam - that would have been appropriate. But she chose now, because of the pandemic, because people are dying so fast. At an alarming exponential rate. Tara isn’t doing this to be nobEL or help people, she’s been paid, she’s on someone’s salary. You’re gonna die, because you didn’t think this through. Because you think trump, in all his infinite wisdom, and poor business choices, cares about you? He doesn’t. He’s petty, spiteful, he took the landing gear from the plane and he’s trying to sell it back to the highest bidder, which isn’t you.

Right at this time trump is digging graves, and he’s nailing the coffin lid down. Each and every one of us is a statistic in this mess - you are either uncontaminated, infected-asymptomatic, recovered, or dead. And when you recover, there is strong evidence to show that the virus can still infect you once more. trump doesn’t care. He’s tossing out the pandemic team, we’re gonna get a whole new set of people in to lead us through this; unqualified people. Beautiful people, the sort of people trump likes to surround himself with. Yes people. Group think. People dumber than a blender with a massage feature.

so in conclusion, if you think voting third party is a good idea. 43% higher chance of encountering that virus. The infected and carriers is spreading, corporate businesses and franchises are forcing their GMs not to report those that have been infected, and they sure as hell are not closing their doors to decontaminate. No contact tracing, we have no test kits. No idea the actual statistics. And best of all, no idea if you have truly recovered, if you survive an infection with Corona Virus.

Did I mention the 43% will exponentially increase as we come near the election date? Yeah, it has a variable ( .43y ), it will fluctuate. Unfortunately, it does not and cannot go down. It only goes up. And 100% chance of an encounter with Corona Virsu, is not the highest number. Because you can get the virus twice, and it can stack with the flu or pneumonia.

August will be interesting :)

[egutierrez0512-blog]

Climate Change the Great Human Injustice

Climate change is the biggest social injustice in human history. Climate change does not affect one race or one class of people it affects all people. Since industrialization air pollution from humans has created a chain reaction that is changing the climate. Hence the term climate change. The change in the weather is so alarming that other countries have created a climate change summit where they have made accords and agreements to decrease their carbon emissions. Climate is real, and it comes in the form of global temperature rise which leads to desertification of farmlands all over the world, the melting of polar ice caps which leads to the rising of the ocean, and extreme weather events.

Since the industrial revolution developed countries have emitted tons of harmful chemicals and gases into the atmosphere. It has created what is called greenhouse gases, and it is the destruction of the ozone layer in Earth’s atmosphere. After industrialization climate scientists understood that the earth is changing for the worse. “What makes climate scientists worried now is how fast and high it has risen. Global temperatures in 2018 were 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean,” according to scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for space studios. Since the general temperature of the globe has risen it has changed the climate in many regions of the world. A consequence of global temperature rising is desertification. Desertification is a process happening because of hotter weather and unsustainable farming practices turns farmable land rich with nutrients into a desert like environment where nothing can grow or sustain themselves. Farmers in third world countries are the poorest in society steadily relying in what they grow to sell to survive from. It is what the Public Health community calls a snowball effect. To elaborate a snowball effect is one incidence that leads to a bigger incidence and so forth. For example, farmers cannot grow food because of desertification, they are not able to make money and in return they are not able to provide for their families. It is called intergenerational poverty where generations of families are stuck in poverty because there is no economic help to get them out of their state of living and climate change is one cause of many that keep the poorest among society at the very bottom.

The rise of the sea level has left the West Coast of the United States scuttled. Glaciers and Ice sheets are melting due to rising global temperatures and that is leading to the rise of the sea level not just only in the West Coast but all around the world. “Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rise in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year,” according to NASA vital signs for the planet. Cities like San Francisco are trying to combat climate change, but sea levels are still rising. The rising sea levels can displace hundreds of people from their homes and create billions of dollars in damage. The social injustice of rising sea levels does not just affect the Bay Brea of California, but poorer nations like the Philippines and Vietnam. The sea level rising is a social injustice because it is displacing families and people out of their homes. The psychological and emotional distress caused by the displacement of one’s home can be detrimental to people’s health, wellbeing, and self-esteem. Thousands of people would be displaced with nowhere to go and they would become internally displaced people. Internally displaced people are people that must migrate to another part of their country in order to escape a tragedy in their hometown.

Leaders all over the world are trying to create awareness and educate the public about the dangers of climate change and how it is affecting the poorest among us. An inconvenient truth is an Oscar winning award documentary/movie where ex – Vice President AL ‘Gore speaks about climate change. This movie is directed by ​Davis Guggenheim. He is an American director and producer that has received an Academy Award for best documentary Feature and many more awards. The director uses slides, a stage, and a very important political leader like Al ‘Gore to demand the audience’s attention. The director uses different angles of the center stage to create a different feel to the room for the audience. The slides that are presented are graphs and evidence on how climate change has rapidly progressed over the last thirty years. ​Al ‘Gore speaks with urgency of the problem of global warming and climate change and how governments, businesses, and individual communities need to create change in order to save the planet.

This movie was politicized immediately and created an anti-climate change movement with the Republican Party. Many defenders of anti-climate change argue that humans have no effect on the climate at all and that the climate has always been changing. Scientist after scientist has debunked their arguments, but because it is a political issue it has created a divide in Washington D.C. and the United States of America has pulled out of the climate accords under the Trump administration. The bigotry and ignorance on the findings just to gain some political points is absolutely an abuse of power. It does not benefit anyone and ultimately the United States is part of the demise of the Earth because it has pulled out of the climate accords.

Extreme events are occurring more and more all over the United States. Huge hurricanes have hit the US and areas around it badly. “For the seasonal straight year, extreme weather took a heavy toll on the United States. Weather costs for 2018 are anticipated to top $155 billion, down only slightly from 2017,” according to Ian Livingston from the Washington Post. The effects are not only in monetary value, but also the personal grief that individual families must go through after the extreme event happening. One major event that touched the lives of many was Hurricane Harvey. Hurricane Harvey was the deadliest hurricane ever known to Texas. Hurricane Harvey killed 107 confirmed deaths and is costing the United States government 125 billion dollars in repair. Extreme weather events are signs of climate change. Not to mention the thousands of people that were displaced because of the flooding. Extreme events just like Hurricane Harvey are more likely to happen because of climate change. One research team’s results, ​accepted for publication in ​Geophysical Research Letters (GRL),​ found that “In comparison to a typical 1950s hurricane, ​climate change​ likely increased Harvey’s seven-day rainfall by at least 19 percent. A separate study, ​published today in ​Environmental Research Letters (ERL)​, found similar results, showing that climate change boosted Harvey’s three-day rainfall by about 15 percent. Both studies also found that climate change roughly tripled the odds of a Harvey-type storm.” Climate change mostly due to air pollution caused by humans and it is causing demise to planet Earth.

Climate change is happening rather quickly, and the signs are everywhere. Climate change is creating extreme events, the temperature of the globe is steadily rising causing the polar ice caps to melt and in return that creates the sea levels to rise. Climate change is the biggest human injustice in history because of all the displacement of people from their homes, and economic loss of Earth’s natural resources because of desertification. It is all a chain reaction that could be catastrophic to mankind. Action is needed to be taken now by governments, businesses, and individuals in the race to save Planet Earth. Time is of the essence and there is absolutely no time to waste.

Work Cited

Berwyn, Bob, et al. “A Year of Climate Change Evidence: Notes from a Science Reporter's Journal.” ​InsideClimate News,​ 10 Apr. 2019, insideclimatenews.org/news/24122018/climate-change-evidence-reports-2018-year-r eview-ipcc-arctic-emissions-gap-national-assessment.

“Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?” ​NASA​, NASA, 26 Mar. 2019, climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

“Climate Change Likely Supercharged Hurricane Harvey.” ​National Geographic​, National Geographic Society, 13 Dec. 2017, news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/climate-change-study-hurricane-harvey-flood/ .

“Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.” ​NASA,​ NASA, climate.nasa.gov/.

“Climate Science Glossary.” ​Skeptical Science,​ www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm​.

Gore, Al. “An Inconvenient Truth (Movie).” ​Al Gore,​ www.algore.com/library/an-inconvenient-truth-dvd.

Livingston, Ian. “The Five Most Extreme Weather Events of 2018 in the United States.” The Washington Post,​ WP Company, 31 Dec. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2018/12/31/five-most-extreme-weather-events-u nited-states/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5188d8b5ddc7.

[phroyd]

Why does the US media have an anti-Russian fixation? It’s not what the American people want to hear. 71% of the Ronald Reagan-loving, military-obsessed Republican Party approve of Trump meeting with Putin. On the other side, top liberal CNN commentator and former President Obama’s adviser, Van Jones has admitted in a video recording that the “Russiagate” story is a “big nothing burger” which Democrats are not interested in.  The Russia-fixated, Hillary Clinton-DNC liberal establishment now faces an upsurge of opposition from Democratic Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, who emphasize the need for populist economics reforms.

Conservatives don’t want to hear it. Liberals don’t want to hear it. Hating Russia is just not a bandwagon the U.S. public is ready to jump on. Yet, if one turns on American television, in the aftermath of the summit in Helsinki, the rhetoric and accusations against the government of the Russian Federation are almost endless.

Like Trump, Obama was also unable to resolve the tensions now being described as the “New Cold War.” Let’s not forget that Obama was elected saying he would “talk to Putin”. In the early years of Obama’s first term, he said he intended to “reset” relations with the Eurasian superpower, and was attacked for it by the Tea Party. The American people favor better relations with Russia, and politicians win votes for promising it, yet the dangerous trajectory continues. Why?

A New Day in the Energy Markets

One answer can be found in the field of economics. On July 18th, crude oil production in the United States reached 11 million barrels per day. This is the highest it has ever been. The drilling and fracking rigs are pulling more oil out of the ground and shale than ever before in U.S. history.

The longtime liberal aspiration for “Energy Independence” has been achieved.  The U.S. is no longer dependent on overseas oil. A new OPEC boycott wouldn’t be anything like the catastrophe of 1973. The longtime oil export ban has been lifted, and crude pulled from US shale and soil is now being shipped off to China and other countries.

Meanwhile, the spell of low oil prices that began in 2014 is long over. Oil prices are climbing high,  having reached over $80 per barrel in May, and  remaining around $70 since then. With high prices, oil companies are raking in profits.

But, amid the energy boom, another entity is also getting stronger. The world’s largest publicly traded oil company is not Chevron, BP, Exxon-Mobil, or Shell. The largest publicly traded petroleum corporation is called Rosneft. It is a government owned super corporation in Russia.

Rosneft, alongside Gazprom, are the two “National Champions” that Vladimir Putin wrote about as a university student. In 1997, as a graduate student, Vladimir Putin published his dissertation “”Strategic Planning of the Reproduction of the Resource Base.” In it, he laid out how Russia, which was reeling in poverty and massive internal turmoil after the fall of the Soviet Union, could restore its strength. Putin argued that two gigantic government corporations could harness Russia’s natural resources and make the country once again economically powerful.

Russia: A Competitor with Wall Street Monopolists

Putin’s academic work has manifested itself in reality. As President, Putin proceeded to utilize government power and reorient the economy around two super-corporations. As oil prices shot through the roof during the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, Russia’s government raked in new revenue. The oil and gas money rebooted industrial production. Poverty was drastically reduced, and wages multiplied.  The massive crisis of the 1990s was resolved by economic planning. Russia is now an energy giant, selling on the global market in competition with Wall Street and London.

As record amounts of crude oil is churned out of the United States, the Trump White House talks of “Energy Dominance.” The USA is also the top producer of natural gas, which is also due to the invention and widespread use of hydraulic fracking.

All of this oil and gas is worthless to the western oil monopolists, unless they can sell it. Every barrel of oil and every ounce of natural gas sold by Russia is a barrel of oil or an ounce of gas not purchased from the Wall Street and London oil banking elite. Russia is a competitor on the global energy markets, selling two of the most vital products in the world economy.

Trump recently lashed out at the Germans for their natural gas deal with Russia. The German public finds the idea of importing natural gas from the United States, on the other side of the planet, to be absurd compared to pumping it in from nearby Russia. The Wall Street energy giant and fracking cowboys naturally disagree, furious that somebody else has captured the German market.

As China’s oil and gas consumption rapidly expands, their neighbor to the north is supplying the fuel they need. American oil companies have just recently gotten in on the Chinese market, while Russia has been selling to the  government in Beijing for decades.

Relations between the U.S. and Russia were very good when Boris Yeltsin was running the country. Naomi Klein’s 2007 book “The Shock Doctrine” describes the Yeltsin years in detail. From 1991 to 1998, 80% of Russian farms went bankrupt. Russia was forced to start importing food from U.S. agriculture companies. 70,000 factories closed down. 1 in 4 people were living in conditions of extreme poverty, with unemployment often between 20% and 30%.

In the 1990s, as Russians were dying, being sold into sexual slavery, committing suicide and dying of heroin at massive rates, the US government and the Russian government were fast friends. The Clinton administration saw its relationship with Boris Yeltsin, and his relationship with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to be a great achievement.

In the 1990s, Russia was a dependent, impoverished “sphere of influence” for American corporations. Russians were poor, and not producing very much. They were a captive market for Wall Street and London monopolies, having been economically demolished after losing The Cold War .  In addition, British hedge fund managers and stock traders tied with HSBC Bank, among them Bill Browder, proceeded to loot the country’s natural resources.

But that disaster is long over with. Vladimir Putin leads a Russia that is “back in business.” The new Russia is selling oil and gas across the planet. The Russian government has now overseen a mass revival of agriculture, with farms springing up across the country, even in the sparsely populated Far East regions. Russia produces a large amount of the world’s titanium, and sits at the center of the Eurasian Economic Union, a bloc dedicated to overseeing similar revivals in other nations.

Now, as 11 million barrels of crude are pulled from American soil and shale each day, and the USA remains the top producer of natural gas, Russia is a barrier to global dominance on the energy markets.

The forces that seek to maintain a global monopoly are not concerned with  “election meddling”, “collusion”, “human rights”, “nationalism”, or any of the other endless canards flickering across U.S. television. What they can’t stand is a solid competitor.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Phroyd

[statetalks]

Is The Media Biased Against Republicans

Opiniontrump And His Voters Are Drawn Together By A Shared Sense Of Defiance

Are Google, Facebook, Twitter Biased against Conservatives?

Americans in general have begun to catch on: 66 percent of Americans believe that the media has a hard time separating fact from opinion and, according to a recent Gallup poll, 62 percent of the country believes that the press is biased one way or the other in their reporting.

So when CNN, NBC News, Fox News, or another outlet break a hard news story, there is a good chance that a large swathe of the public wont view it as legitimate news.

And politicians, right and left, are taking advantage of this.

The entire ordeal is part of an ever-growing list of examples in which the media seemed to be biased, whether consciously or not, against Republicans.

Before Donald Trump, there was New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who in 2014 accused the media of dividing us because they asked him about some protesters who had chanted “NYPD is the KKK” and . He also accused the media of McCarthyism when they dug into the personal life of an aide of his, who reportedly had a relationship with a convicted murderer. The mayor also publicly and privately accused Bloomberg News of being biased against him, since it is owned by his predecessor. However, de Blasio is not terribly popular within his own party, so Democrats in New York did not buy what he was selling.

What To Watch For

The NYU report makes a series of recommendations for social media companies and the Biden administration to address the suspicions of anti-right bias, including giving more explanation for content moderation actions, letting users choose between different algorithms and creating a new Digital Regulatory Agency dedicated to social media oversight. The researchers also predict conservatives are unlikely to actually leave major sites like Twitter and Facebook because of their perceived biases. Conservatives like the wide platform those sites offer, researchers said, and appear to relish wielding the bias-claim cudgel, even though its based on distortions and falsehoods.

The Technology 202: New Report Calls Conservative Claims Of Social Media Censorship ‘a Form Of Disinformation’

with Aaron Schaffer

A new report concludes that social networks aren’t systematically biased against conservatives, directly contradicting Republican claims that social media companies are censoring them.;

Recent moves by Twitter and Facebook to suspend former president Donald Trump’s accounts in the wake of the violence at the Capitol are inflaming conservatives’ attacks on Silicon Valley. But New York University researchers today released a report stating claims of anti-conservative bias are a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.;

The report found there is no trustworthy large-scale data to support these claims, and even anecdotal examples that tech companies are biased against conservatives crumble under close examination. The report’s authors said, for instance, the companies’ suspensions of Trump were reasonable given his repeated violation of their terms of service and if anything, the companies took a hands-off approach for a long time given Trump’s position.

The report also noted several data sets underscore the prominent place conservative influencers enjoy on social media. For instance, CrowdTangle data shows that right-leaning pages dominate the list of sources providing the most engaged-with posts containing links on Facebook. Conservative commentator Dan Bongino, for instance, far out-performed most major news organizations in the run-up to the 2020 election.;

Also Check: Who Controls The Senate Republicans Or Democrats

Republicans Are Far More Likely Than Democrats To Say Major Tech Companies Favor The Views Of Liberals Over Conservatives At The Same Time Partisans Differ On Whether Social Media Companies Should Flag Inaccurate Information On Their Platforms

Pew Research Center has been studying the role of technology and technology companies in Americans lives for many years. This study was conducted to understand Americans views about the role of major technology companies in the political landscape. For this analysis, we surveyed 4,708 U.S. adults from June 16 to 22, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Centers American Trends Panel , an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology.

Americans have complicated feelings about their relationship with big technology companies. While they have appreciated the impact of technology over recent decades and rely on these companies products to communicate, shop and get news, many have also grown critical of the industry and have expressed concerns about the executives who run them.

Debates about censorship grew earlier this summer following Twitters from President Donald Trump as misleading. This prompted some of the presidents supporters to charge that these platforms are censoring conservative voices.

Top House Republican Opposes Bipartisan Commission To Investigate Capitol Riot

But McCarthy replied by opposing Katkos product, and more than 80% of the other House Republicans did too. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., initially said he was keeping an open mind but then announced that he too was opposed. This makes it highly unlikely that 10 of McConnells GOP colleagues will be willing to add their votes to the Democrats and defeat a filibuster of the bill.

Republicans have argued that two Senate committees are already looking at the events of Jan. 6, as House panels have done as well. The Justice Department is pursuing cases against hundreds of individuals who were involved. Former President Donald Trump and others have said any commission ought to also be tasked to look at street protests and violence that took place in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd.

But with all that on the table, several Republicans have alluded to their concern about a new commission dragging on into 2022, the year of the next midterm elections. A lot of our members want to be moving forward, said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the No. 2 Senate Republican toMcConnell. Anything that gets us rehashing to 2020 elections is, I think, a day lost.

Resistance even after 9/11

The Taliban were toppled but bin Laden escaped, and U.S. forces have been engaged there ever since. The troop numbers have declined in recent years, and President Biden has indicated that all combat troops will be out by this years anniversary of the 2001 attacks.

Recommended Reading: What Do Republicans Believe About Taxes

The Actual Reason Why Republicans And Their Media Are Discouraging People From Getting Vaccinated

Dr. Anthony Fauci told Jake Tapper on CNN last Sunday, I dont have a really good reason why this is happening.

But even if he cant think of a reason why Republicans would trash talk vaccination and people would believe them, its definitely there.

Which is why its important to ask a couple of simple questions that all point to the actual reason why Republicans and their media are discouraging people from getting vaccinated:

1. Why did Trump get vaccinated in secret after Joe Biden won the election and his January 6th coup attempt failed?

2. Why are Fox Newspersonalities discouraging people from getting vaccinated while refusing to say if they and the people they work with have been protected by vaccination?

3. Why was one of the biggest applause lines at CPAC: They were hoping the government was hoping that they could sort of sucker 90% of the population into getting vaccinated and it isnt happening!

Death is their electoral strategy.

Is there any other possible explanation?

So, whats left?

Censorship Of Conservative Content

Tech companies and social media sites have been accused of censorship by some conservative groups, although there is little or no evidence to support these claims.

At least one conservative theme, that of climate change denialism, is over-represented in the media, and some scientists have argued that media outlets have not done enough to combat false information. In November 2013, Nathan Allen, a PhD chemist and moderator on Reddit‘s science forum published an op-ed that argued that newspaper editors should refrain from publishing articles from people who deny the scientific consensus on climate change.

Shadow banning

Claims of shadow banning of conservative social media accounts were brought to the fore in 2016 when conservative news sites lashed out after a report from an unnamed Facebook employee on May 7 alleged that contractors for the social media giant were told to minimize links to their sites in its “trending news” column. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard investigated and found no evidence of shadow-banning of conservatives.

Don’t Miss: Why Do Republicans Still Back Trump

Despite Cries Of Censorship Conservatives Dominate Social Media

GOP-friendly voices far outweigh liberals in driving conversations on hot topics leading up to the election, a POLITICO analysis shows.

The Twitter app on a mobile phone | Matt Rourke/AP Photo

10/27/2020 01:38 PM EDT

Link Copied

Republicans have turned alleged liberal bias in Silicon Valley into a major closing theme of the election cycle, hauling tech CEOs in for virtual grillings on Capitol Hill while President Donald Trump threatens legal punishment for companies that censor his supporters.

But a POLITICO analysis of millions of social media posts shows that conservatives still rule online.

Right-wing social media influencers, conservative media outlets and other GOP supporters dominate online discussions around two of the elections hottest issues, the Black Lives Matter movement and voter fraud, according to the review of Facebook posts, Instagram feeds, Twitter messages and conversations on two popular message boards. And their lead isnt close.

As racial protests engulfed the nation after George Floyds death, users shared the most-viral right-wing social media content more than 10 times as often as the most popular liberal posts, frequently associating the Black Lives Matter movement with violence and accusing Democrats like Joe Biden of supporting riots.

Trump Continues To Push Election Falsehoods Heres Why That Matters

Trump: Social media discriminates against Republicans

Republican opposition to the commission

Rice was featured in one of the very few congressional commissions ever to receive this level of attention. Most are created and live out their mission with little notice. Indeed, Congress has created nearly 150 commissions of various kinds in just the last 30 years, roughly five a year.

Some have a highly specific purpose, such as a commemoration. Others are more administrative, such as the five-member commission overseeing the disbursement of business loans during the early months of pandemic lockdown in 2020. Others have been wide-ranging and controversial, such as the one created to investigate synthetic opioid trafficking.

In the initial weeks after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, the idea of an independent commission to probe the origins of the attack and the failures that let it happen seemed a no-brainer. It had broad support both in Congress and in public opinion polls. It still enjoys the latter, as about two-thirds of Americans indicate that they think an independent commission is needed. The idea has fared well particularly when described as being 9/11 Commission style.

Also Check: Who Is The Speaker Of The House For Republicans

Its Time To End This Forever War Biden Says Forces To Leave Afghanistan By 9/11

The enormous national anger generated by those attacks was also channeled by the administration toward the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was conceived to prevent any recurrence of attacks on such a massive scale. Arguments over that legislation consumed Congress through much of 2002 and became the fodder for campaign ads in that years midterms.

The same anger was also directed toward a resolution to use force, if needed, in dealing with security threats from the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That authorization passed Congress with bipartisan majorities in the fall of 2002, driven by administration claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It became law weeks before the midterm elections.

Once those elections were over, the Republicans in control of both chambers finally agreed to create an independent commission to seek answers about 9/11. Bush signed the legislation on Nov. 27, 2002.

The beginning was hobbled when the first chairman, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and vice chairman, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, decided not to continue. But a new chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, and vice chairman, former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, filled the breach and performed to generally laudatory reviews.

Long memories

The American Mainstream News Media May Be More Biased Than We Think

Barely a day goes by without President Trump firing off an angry tweet referring to the fake news media. But what do we know about actual political bias in the media? Eric Merkley studied 400,000 news stories published over three decades and has found that the tone of economic news is more favorable during Democratic presidencies compared to Republican administrations.

Since even before his election over two years ago, President Donald Trump and his Republican surrogates have made a habit of responding to critical news coverage with allegations that mainstream press reports are fake news. This allegation, regardless of how often it is repeated, has been shown to be fundamentally without merit.

However, there has also been a long history of complaints from conservative elites that journalists are biased against conservatives and the Republican Party in their reporting for mainstream news outlets. There is evidence that most journalists identify with the Democratic Party and as ideologicalliberals. Consequently, these allegations cannot be so easily dismissed.

In new research, I find evidence of considerable bias against Republican presidential administrations in mainstream economic news content.;

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Elections To Watch In 2021

In its study of the media landscape in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election cycle, the Pew Research Center found that of the 30 news sources it asked about, only Fox News was trusted by a majority of Republicans. This finding stands in stark contrast with the views of Democrats, who said they trusted a variety of news sources, and it marks a further decline in Republicans trust of other news sources since Pew last conducted a similar survey in 2014.

This is in part because animosity toward the other party is at an all-time high and Republicans increasingly associate the news media with the Democratic Party. That means they are more likely to dismiss a source that isnt Fox News as politically biased. For example, in a among people who said they voted for then-President Trump in 2020, a staggering 92 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that the mainstream media today is just a part of the Democratic Party.

related:Why Attacking Cancel Culture And Woke People Is Becoming The GOPs New Political Strategy Read more. »

Views About Whether Social Media Companies Should Label Posts On Their Platforms As Inaccurate Are Sharply Divided Along Political Lines

Americans are divided over whether social media companies should label posts on their sites as inaccurate or misleading, with most being skeptical that these sites can accurately determine what content should be flagged.

Some 51% of Americans say they strongly or somewhat approve of social media companies labeling posts from elected officials on their platforms as inaccurate or misleading, while a similar share say they at least somewhat disapprove of this.

Democrats and Republicans hold contrasting views about the appropriateness of social media companies flagging inaccurate information on their platforms. Fully 73% of Democrats say they strongly or somewhat approve of social media companies labeling posts on their platforms from elected officials as inaccurate or misleading, versus 25% who disapprove.

These sentiments are nearly reversed for Republicans: 71% say they disapprove of social media companies engaging in this type of labeling, including about four-in-ten who say they strongly disapprove. Just 27% say they approve of this labeling.

Liberal Democrats stand out as being the most supportive of this practice: 85% of this group say they approve of social media companies labeling elected officials posts as inaccurate or misleading, compared with 64% of conservative or moderate Democrats and even smaller shares of moderate or liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans .

Recommended Reading: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

The Capitol Siege: The Arrested And Their Stories

It would only be logical for that memory to inform the imagination of any Republican contemplating a similar independent commission to probe what happened on Jan. 6. The commission would likely look at various right-wing groups that were involved, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, some members of which have already been charged. The commission might also delve into the social media presence and influence of various white supremacists.

Moreover, just as the 9/11 Commission was expected to interview the current and preceding presidents, so might a new commission pursue testimony from Trump and some of his advisers, both official and otherwise, regarding their roles in the protest that wound up chasing members of Congress from both chambers into safe holding rooms underground.

House Minority Leader McCarthy was asked last week whether he would testify if a commission were created and called on him to discuss his conversations with Trump on Jan. 6.

Sure, McCarthy replied. Next question.

All this may soon be moot. If Senate Democrats are unable to secure 60 votes to overcome an expected filibuster of the House-passed bill, the measure will die and the questions to be asked will fall to existing congressional committees, federal prosecutors and the media. To some degree, all can at least claim to have the same goals and intentions as an independent commission might have.

The difference is the level of acceptance their findings are likely to have with the public.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/is-the-media-biased-against-republicans/

[patriotsnet]

Is The Media Biased Against Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/is-the-media-biased-against-republicans/

Is The Media Biased Against Republicans

Opiniontrump And His Voters Are Drawn Together By A Shared Sense Of Defiance

Are Google, Facebook, Twitter Biased against Conservatives?

Americans in general have begun to catch on: 66 percent of Americans believe that the media has a hard time separating fact from opinion and, according to a recent Gallup poll, 62 percent of the country believes that the press is biased one way or the other in their reporting.

So when CNN, NBC News, Fox News, or another outlet break a hard news story, there is a good chance that a large swathe of the public wont view it as legitimate news.

And politicians, right and left, are taking advantage of this.

The entire ordeal is part of an ever-growing list of examples in which the media seemed to be biased, whether consciously or not, against Republicans.

Before Donald Trump, there was New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who in 2014 accused the media of dividing us because they asked him about some protesters who had chanted “NYPD is the KKK” and . He also accused the media of McCarthyism when they dug into the personal life of an aide of his, who reportedly had a relationship with a convicted murderer. The mayor also publicly and privately accused Bloomberg News of being biased against him, since it is owned by his predecessor. However, de Blasio is not terribly popular within his own party, so Democrats in New York did not buy what he was selling.

What To Watch For

The NYU report makes a series of recommendations for social media companies and the Biden administration to address the suspicions of anti-right bias, including giving more explanation for content moderation actions, letting users choose between different algorithms and creating a new Digital Regulatory Agency dedicated to social media oversight. The researchers also predict conservatives are unlikely to actually leave major sites like Twitter and Facebook because of their perceived biases. Conservatives like the wide platform those sites offer, researchers said, and appear to relish wielding the bias-claim cudgel, even though its based on distortions and falsehoods.

The Technology 202: New Report Calls Conservative Claims Of Social Media Censorship ‘a Form Of Disinformation’

with Aaron Schaffer

A new report concludes that social networks aren’t systematically biased against conservatives, directly contradicting Republican claims that social media companies are censoring them.;

Recent moves by Twitter and Facebook to suspend former president Donald Trump’s accounts in the wake of the violence at the Capitol are inflaming conservatives’ attacks on Silicon Valley. But New York University researchers today released a report stating claims of anti-conservative bias are a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.;

The report found there is no trustworthy large-scale data to support these claims, and even anecdotal examples that tech companies are biased against conservatives crumble under close examination. The report’s authors said, for instance, the companies’ suspensions of Trump were reasonable given his repeated violation of their terms of service and if anything, the companies took a hands-off approach for a long time given Trump’s position.

The report also noted several data sets underscore the prominent place conservative influencers enjoy on social media. For instance, CrowdTangle data shows that right-leaning pages dominate the list of sources providing the most engaged-with posts containing links on Facebook. Conservative commentator Dan Bongino, for instance, far out-performed most major news organizations in the run-up to the 2020 election.;

Also Check: Who Controls The Senate Republicans Or Democrats

Republicans Are Far More Likely Than Democrats To Say Major Tech Companies Favor The Views Of Liberals Over Conservatives At The Same Time Partisans Differ On Whether Social Media Companies Should Flag Inaccurate Information On Their Platforms

Pew Research Center has been studying the role of technology and technology companies in Americans lives for many years. This study was conducted to understand Americans views about the role of major technology companies in the political landscape. For this analysis, we surveyed 4,708 U.S. adults from June 16 to 22, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Centers American Trends Panel , an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology.

Americans have complicated feelings about their relationship with big technology companies. While they have appreciated the impact of technology over recent decades and rely on these companies products to communicate, shop and get news, many have also grown critical of the industry and have expressed concerns about the executives who run them.

Debates about censorship grew earlier this summer following Twitters from President Donald Trump as misleading. This prompted some of the presidents supporters to charge that these platforms are censoring conservative voices.

Top House Republican Opposes Bipartisan Commission To Investigate Capitol Riot

But McCarthy replied by opposing Katkos product, and more than 80% of the other House Republicans did too. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., initially said he was keeping an open mind but then announced that he too was opposed. This makes it highly unlikely that 10 of McConnells GOP colleagues will be willing to add their votes to the Democrats and defeat a filibuster of the bill.

Republicans have argued that two Senate committees are already looking at the events of Jan. 6, as House panels have done as well. The Justice Department is pursuing cases against hundreds of individuals who were involved. Former President Donald Trump and others have said any commission ought to also be tasked to look at street protests and violence that took place in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd.

But with all that on the table, several Republicans have alluded to their concern about a new commission dragging on into 2022, the year of the next midterm elections. A lot of our members want to be moving forward, said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the No. 2 Senate Republican toMcConnell. Anything that gets us rehashing to 2020 elections is, I think, a day lost.

Resistance even after 9/11

The Taliban were toppled but bin Laden escaped, and U.S. forces have been engaged there ever since. The troop numbers have declined in recent years, and President Biden has indicated that all combat troops will be out by this years anniversary of the 2001 attacks.

Recommended Reading: What Do Republicans Believe About Taxes

The Actual Reason Why Republicans And Their Media Are Discouraging People From Getting Vaccinated

Dr. Anthony Fauci told Jake Tapper on CNN last Sunday, I dont have a really good reason why this is happening.

But even if he cant think of a reason why Republicans would trash talk vaccination and people would believe them, its definitely there.

Which is why its important to ask a couple of simple questions that all point to the actual reason why Republicans and their media are discouraging people from getting vaccinated:

1. Why did Trump get vaccinated in secret after Joe Biden won the election and his January 6th coup attempt failed?

2. Why are Fox Newspersonalities discouraging people from getting vaccinated while refusing to say if they and the people they work with have been protected by vaccination?

3. Why was one of the biggest applause lines at CPAC: They were hoping the government was hoping that they could sort of sucker 90% of the population into getting vaccinated and it isnt happening!

Death is their electoral strategy.

Is there any other possible explanation?

So, whats left?

Censorship Of Conservative Content

Tech companies and social media sites have been accused of censorship by some conservative groups, although there is little or no evidence to support these claims.

At least one conservative theme, that of climate change denialism, is over-represented in the media, and some scientists have argued that media outlets have not done enough to combat false information. In November 2013, Nathan Allen, a PhD chemist and moderator on Reddit‘s science forum published an op-ed that argued that newspaper editors should refrain from publishing articles from people who deny the scientific consensus on climate change.

Shadow banning

Claims of shadow banning of conservative social media accounts were brought to the fore in 2016 when conservative news sites lashed out after a report from an unnamed Facebook employee on May 7 alleged that contractors for the social media giant were told to minimize links to their sites in its “trending news” column. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard investigated and found no evidence of shadow-banning of conservatives.

Don’t Miss: Why Do Republicans Still Back Trump

Despite Cries Of Censorship Conservatives Dominate Social Media

GOP-friendly voices far outweigh liberals in driving conversations on hot topics leading up to the election, a POLITICO analysis shows.

The Twitter app on a mobile phone | Matt Rourke/AP Photo

10/27/2020 01:38 PM EDT

Link Copied

Republicans have turned alleged liberal bias in Silicon Valley into a major closing theme of the election cycle, hauling tech CEOs in for virtual grillings on Capitol Hill while President Donald Trump threatens legal punishment for companies that censor his supporters.

But a POLITICO analysis of millions of social media posts shows that conservatives still rule online.

Right-wing social media influencers, conservative media outlets and other GOP supporters dominate online discussions around two of the elections hottest issues, the Black Lives Matter movement and voter fraud, according to the review of Facebook posts, Instagram feeds, Twitter messages and conversations on two popular message boards. And their lead isnt close.

As racial protests engulfed the nation after George Floyds death, users shared the most-viral right-wing social media content more than 10 times as often as the most popular liberal posts, frequently associating the Black Lives Matter movement with violence and accusing Democrats like Joe Biden of supporting riots.

Trump Continues To Push Election Falsehoods Heres Why That Matters

Trump: Social media discriminates against Republicans

Republican opposition to the commission

Rice was featured in one of the very few congressional commissions ever to receive this level of attention. Most are created and live out their mission with little notice. Indeed, Congress has created nearly 150 commissions of various kinds in just the last 30 years, roughly five a year.

Some have a highly specific purpose, such as a commemoration. Others are more administrative, such as the five-member commission overseeing the disbursement of business loans during the early months of pandemic lockdown in 2020. Others have been wide-ranging and controversial, such as the one created to investigate synthetic opioid trafficking.

In the initial weeks after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, the idea of an independent commission to probe the origins of the attack and the failures that let it happen seemed a no-brainer. It had broad support both in Congress and in public opinion polls. It still enjoys the latter, as about two-thirds of Americans indicate that they think an independent commission is needed. The idea has fared well particularly when described as being 9/11 Commission style.

Also Check: Who Is The Speaker Of The House For Republicans

Its Time To End This Forever War Biden Says Forces To Leave Afghanistan By 9/11

The enormous national anger generated by those attacks was also channeled by the administration toward the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was conceived to prevent any recurrence of attacks on such a massive scale. Arguments over that legislation consumed Congress through much of 2002 and became the fodder for campaign ads in that years midterms.

The same anger was also directed toward a resolution to use force, if needed, in dealing with security threats from the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That authorization passed Congress with bipartisan majorities in the fall of 2002, driven by administration claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It became law weeks before the midterm elections.

Once those elections were over, the Republicans in control of both chambers finally agreed to create an independent commission to seek answers about 9/11. Bush signed the legislation on Nov. 27, 2002.

The beginning was hobbled when the first chairman, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and vice chairman, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, decided not to continue. But a new chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, and vice chairman, former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, filled the breach and performed to generally laudatory reviews.

Long memories

The American Mainstream News Media May Be More Biased Than We Think

Barely a day goes by without President Trump firing off an angry tweet referring to the fake news media. But what do we know about actual political bias in the media? Eric Merkley studied 400,000 news stories published over three decades and has found that the tone of economic news is more favorable during Democratic presidencies compared to Republican administrations.

Since even before his election over two years ago, President Donald Trump and his Republican surrogates have made a habit of responding to critical news coverage with allegations that mainstream press reports are fake news. This allegation, regardless of how often it is repeated, has been shown to be fundamentally without merit.

However, there has also been a long history of complaints from conservative elites that journalists are biased against conservatives and the Republican Party in their reporting for mainstream news outlets. There is evidence that most journalists identify with the Democratic Party and as ideologicalliberals. Consequently, these allegations cannot be so easily dismissed.

In new research, I find evidence of considerable bias against Republican presidential administrations in mainstream economic news content.;

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Elections To Watch In 2021

In its study of the media landscape in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election cycle, the Pew Research Center found that of the 30 news sources it asked about, only Fox News was trusted by a majority of Republicans. This finding stands in stark contrast with the views of Democrats, who said they trusted a variety of news sources, and it marks a further decline in Republicans trust of other news sources since Pew last conducted a similar survey in 2014.

This is in part because animosity toward the other party is at an all-time high and Republicans increasingly associate the news media with the Democratic Party. That means they are more likely to dismiss a source that isnt Fox News as politically biased. For example, in a among people who said they voted for then-President Trump in 2020, a staggering 92 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that the mainstream media today is just a part of the Democratic Party.

related:Why Attacking Cancel Culture And Woke People Is Becoming The GOPs New Political Strategy Read more. »

Views About Whether Social Media Companies Should Label Posts On Their Platforms As Inaccurate Are Sharply Divided Along Political Lines

Americans are divided over whether social media companies should label posts on their sites as inaccurate or misleading, with most being skeptical that these sites can accurately determine what content should be flagged.

Some 51% of Americans say they strongly or somewhat approve of social media companies labeling posts from elected officials on their platforms as inaccurate or misleading, while a similar share say they at least somewhat disapprove of this.

Democrats and Republicans hold contrasting views about the appropriateness of social media companies flagging inaccurate information on their platforms. Fully 73% of Democrats say they strongly or somewhat approve of social media companies labeling posts on their platforms from elected officials as inaccurate or misleading, versus 25% who disapprove.

These sentiments are nearly reversed for Republicans: 71% say they disapprove of social media companies engaging in this type of labeling, including about four-in-ten who say they strongly disapprove. Just 27% say they approve of this labeling.

Liberal Democrats stand out as being the most supportive of this practice: 85% of this group say they approve of social media companies labeling elected officials posts as inaccurate or misleading, compared with 64% of conservative or moderate Democrats and even smaller shares of moderate or liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans .

Recommended Reading: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

The Capitol Siege: The Arrested And Their Stories

It would only be logical for that memory to inform the imagination of any Republican contemplating a similar independent commission to probe what happened on Jan. 6. The commission would likely look at various right-wing groups that were involved, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, some members of which have already been charged. The commission might also delve into the social media presence and influence of various white supremacists.

Moreover, just as the 9/11 Commission was expected to interview the current and preceding presidents, so might a new commission pursue testimony from Trump and some of his advisers, both official and otherwise, regarding their roles in the protest that wound up chasing members of Congress from both chambers into safe holding rooms underground.

House Minority Leader McCarthy was asked last week whether he would testify if a commission were created and called on him to discuss his conversations with Trump on Jan. 6.

Sure, McCarthy replied. Next question.

All this may soon be moot. If Senate Democrats are unable to secure 60 votes to overcome an expected filibuster of the House-passed bill, the measure will die and the questions to be asked will fall to existing congressional committees, federal prosecutors and the media. To some degree, all can at least claim to have the same goals and intentions as an independent commission might have.

The difference is the level of acceptance their findings are likely to have with the public.

[usgag]

Never has the hold of states over the economy been so strong

From the first confinement to the second, passing through all the intermediate stages, the French have been able to see to what extent the decisions taken by the executive power to try to slow the spread of Covid-19 limit their freedoms. These exceptional measures could be taken because Parliament had authorized it, by voting for a state of health emergency. The extension of this state of emergency until February 16, 2021 has certainly caused a stir - the opposition parliamentarians would have liked to be able to discuss the measures already taken and those which are being considered -, but, in essence, in France as in other countries, it was recognized that governments had to intervene, including by taking very coercive measures unthinkable in normal times. Here as elsewhere, citizens, their representatives and the press are not deprived of sometimes virulently criticizing decisions taken at the top of the State - too early, too late, ill-adapted, ineffective, etc. One fundamental point seems unchallenged: faced with a large-scale threat such as the pandemic, private or public initiatives taken locally cannot be enough. The state has a protective role to play and it must play it. Still rising deficits This intervention in the health sector has a strong impact on economic life, as we saw in a particularly spectacular way during the first confinement, from March 17 to May 11, much stricter than the current confinement, which, according to the first Banque de France estimates, should lead to a GDP loss limited to around 12% in November. Very quickly, activity fell by 30%, forcing the government to take measures to support businesses and help the most affected households. The general state budget for 2020 had been established on the basis of 244.6 billion in net revenue for 337.7 billion in expenditure, which left a deficit of 93 billion euros. Incidentally, it should be noted that from the start, more than a quarter of expenditure was not covered by revenue ... On March 23, a first amending budget law provided for a decline in revenue of 7.1 billion and expenditure in an increase of 6.2 billion, and therefore an increase in the deficit of over 13 billion. The confinement had been announced for two weeks, it was extended twice and the accompanying measures had to be strengthened. The second amending finance law of April 25 provided for a further drop in revenue of 36.1 billion and an increase in expenditure of 37.9 billion, or an increase in the deficit of 74 billion and even 76 billion with the so-called special accounts. On July 30, a third amending finance law reduced revenue forecasts by 24.5 billion and increased expenditure by 12.7 billion, which led to a further increase in the deficit of over 37 billion (39 billion with the special).

A crisis of 186 billion euros for the year 2020 alone ... At that time, we thought we were done with the budget measures, at least for this year. The recovery plan of around one hundred billion euros would be included in the finance bill for 2021. It was without counting without the second confinement. The draft of a fourth amending finance law for 2020, which was not at all planned, had to be tabled in Parliament on November 4. In particular, it provides for around twenty billion euros more to help businesses, employees and households in precarious situations. In total, the health crisis is expected to have cost 186 billion this year: 100 billion in lost revenue and 86 billion in expenditure. As for the deficit of all public administrations (State, local authorities, Social security), which was to stand at 2.2% of GDP this year, it is now expected at 11.3% of GDP, unprecedented since the end of World War II. Another figure showing the gravity of the crisis and the vigor of the government response: the weight of public spending should reach 64.3% of GDP this year, a level never before reached. Since the 2008 financial crisis, public expenditure has exceeded 55% of GDP annually; in 2019, it was possible to reduce them to 54% of GDP. The finance bill for 2021 plans to start a decline again and reduce them to 58.5% of GDP; but it was established before the second confinement ...

In the G20, 11,000 billion dollars disbursed Let those who see Emmanuel Macron as a dangerous socialist (yes, yes, there are still some ...) look at what has been done elsewhere: everywhere, the State has had to intervene, whatever the political color of the or parties in power. Those who have the courage can browse the IMF's regularly updated list of measures taken in 196 countries. Since the start of the crisis, around 11 trillion dollars have been spent by the top twenty world economic powers. As is the case in every crisis (the last time was in 2008-2009), when states, such as Germany or the United States, widely open their portfolios, we see comments like: c t is the rediscovery of Keynesianism, in reference to John Maynard Keynes who, in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis, had developed the theoretical tools to inspire vigorously interventionist public policies in the event of a downturn in economic activity.

Obviously, most of the leaders who take decisions today to support the economy have not read Keynes and their advisers are not all seduced by his theory which mainly inspires political parties on the left.

Even the American federal state intervenes massively The most obvious example is that of the United States, which notably launched an aid program, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economy Security Act (CARES Act), which is expected to cost around $ 2.3 trillion. This program provides, for example, for the sending of checks of 1,200 dollars per person (2,400 for a couple, 3,400 for a couple with two children). Donald Trump had insisted that the Treasury checks that would be sent in this context bear the following mention: "Economic Impact Payment, President Donald J. Trump". This requirement had obviously raised a lively controversy. Asked about this point during one of his press conferences, Trump replied, very comfortable: "I'm sure people will be very happy to receive a big, nice fat check and my name is on it." In an election year, it could be useful ...

Donald Trump Economic Impact Payment: pic.twitter.com/e12DSVHexg

— Ken Dukes (@BeyondKenny) May 11, 2020

We can then notice that in the fall, when Democrats and Republicans were discussing a new support plan in the Senate, Donald Trump, after multiple reversals, seemed ready to accept a plan of 1.8 trillion dollars, lower to the one demanded by the Democratic minority, but still very consistent. The Republican senators did everything to prevent an agreement: they did not want to further increase the federal state's spending and therefore its weight in the economy.

Public interventions demanded, but contested Very clearly, it would be wrong to see in the policies pursued here and there in recent months changes in political doctrine. There is simply a consideration of reality. This reality is both simple and complicated. Simple, because at the base, there is a strong requirement that we find everywhere: in our modern societies, it is no longer considered tolerable to let an epidemic decimate the population, science must provide the means to fight effectively against such plagues. Complicated, because the recommended solutions can cause strong rejection reactions (wearing a mask, curfew, confinement).

Le mouvement "Keep Britain Free" a organisé hier une manifestation anti-masque à Londres, alors que les masques seront obligatoires à partir du 24 juillet 2020 dans les magasins et les supermarchés en Angleterre #AFP @JustinTallis pic.twitter.com/c6BadllvYL

— Agence France-Presse (@afpfr) July 20, 2020

The same problem is found in the economic consequences of the fight against the disease: it is not considered tolerable that the measures taken lead to the impoverishment of part or all of the population. But the implementation of this policy turns out to be complicated in a society which is itself complex. We see it with the debates on essential goods and the competition between small businesses, large-scale distribution and distance selling. The simplest solutions, like strict containment, are also the most expensive. As soon as we try to find more flexible methods with differentiated treatment, we inevitably run towards a risk of incomprehension and the rise to the niche of pressure groups defending particular interests. Who should pay? And we are far from being at the end of the difficulties. If the demand for a protective state, whether in terms of health or standard of living, is fairly unanimous, opinions very quickly diverge when the question arises as to who will pay the cost of this protection. Take a simple test. Start the discussion on the topic of expenses to be incurred for our hospitals. Say that we must substantially increase the number of beds in intensive care units, hire doctors, nurses and orderlies and sharply increase salaries in this sector to generate more vocations. And strongly criticize this government for doing nothing. You will for sure be heartily approved. Then observe that the overall deficit of all branches of Social Security, including the Old Age Solidarity Fund, should stand at more than 46 billion in 2021 and that the deficit of the sickness branch alone should approach 30 billion . Emphasize that the situation is serious and that we cannot continue like this, especially if we want to incur new expenditure to strengthen the hospital sector. Then suggest an increase in social contributions or a larger increase in everyone's contribution to the payment of their current health costs. It's a safe bet that this part of your speech will not be very successful. The suggestions are many when it comes to claiming expenses, they are less so when it comes to income.

A kind of recognition However, beyond the still very strong theoretical oppositions on the role of the State and the weight of collective spending, and despite strong tax competition between States, we see in the long term in developed countries, a tendency to increase. the weight of tax revenues in the broad sense (including social contributions). There are certainly very strong differences between countries and periods of stabilization or decline. But in the end, despite all that one can hear against power in general and politicians in particular, there is a kind of recognition of the indispensable role of the state, which cannot be limited enacting laws and maintaining order and security. Criticism is permanent, sometimes violent, but as soon as a serious problem arises, it is on the side of the State that we seek the solution. At the same time, we are also observing a very strong rise in importance of a few very large companies around the world. Faced with Google, Facebook, Apple or Amazon, governments seem to be losing their power. Conspiracy theories that governments are puppets manipulated by hidden financial powers find very fertile ground on which they can prosper. The reality is however quite different, and it will be necessary to refine the attacks against capitalism, which today has many faces.

The many faces of capitalism In China, things are very clear today. The regime adapts very well to the existence of very large private companies alongside public companies and one can easily be a billionaire and a member of the Communist Party. But make no mistake: the only boss is Xi Jinping. More and more often, in their annual reports, large listed companies think of paying homage to his thinking and criticism of government policy is strongly discouraged. Jack Ma, himself a multi-billionaire and a member of the Communist Party, should have known. The founder of Alibaba took the liberty, during a conference organized on October 24, to sharply criticize the organization and operation of the Chinese financial system. The response was quick. On November 3, the authorities announced the suspension of the IPO procedure in Hong Kong and Shanghai of its financial company Ant, an operation that would have enabled it to raise more than thirty billion dollars in funds. The message, no doubt, will be received five out of five by all the big and big bosses. At the other end of the spectrum, in the United States, we have a country that does not know about planning and leaves business behind. This does not mean that it is totally absent from the field of economics. We must never forget that the Internet owes its existence to computer research carried out within the Department of Defense, which has actively supported and continues to support aeronautics, space and, more generally, all high technology. On the other hand, the federal state does not intervene in the life of companies, except when they reach a size considered large to the point of endangering competition and innovation. In the past, this was particularly the case in the petroleum industry and telecommunications.

What to do with GAFA? Renewing the business fleet is a vital necessity for the United States. Lester Thurow, famous economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who died in 2016, explained it to us a few years ago: “It's true, we have a significant trade deficit. But we are always creating new businesses that investors from all over the world come to invest their money in. This influx of capital allows us to finance our imports. ” Today, many voices are raised to denounce the excessive weight of large high-tech companies. Even within the United States, they are criticized in particular for hindering the development of new businesses: as soon as one of them begins to emerge from the lot of start-ups, it is bought out. And, outside the United States, there are concerns about the tax optimization policy of these giants, which deprives states of significant tax revenues. Donald Trump, even if he hardly seemed to carry the big Californian groups in his heart, never did anything against them. Joe Biden could also hesitate to weaken these groups which contribute to the influence of American power in the world. On the other hand, it could be a little more cooperative within the OECD to reform the taxation of the digital activities of these groups. And it would not be negligible. When we see what the States have spent this year and what they will spend again next year to ensure the resumption of activity, we can without taking too many risks predict that the question of knowing who should pay will keep us busy in the next few years. We can certainly consider that the public debt should not be repaid, at least not in full, but we must not kid ourselves: in economics, there is no free meal. State protection comes at a cost. It will have to be paid for. And if we could get the money where it is, it would be better ... Recall that Joe Biden, if he refused to include in his program the most radical proposals of the left aid of the Democratic Party, pledged to reverse the cut in corporate tax and tax on the income of the better-off decided under the Trump presidency.

from Opinion Rss https://ift.tt/3llRiuD via IFTTT

[patriotsnet]

How Many Log Cabin Republicans Are There

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-log-cabin-republicans-are-there/

How Many Log Cabin Republicans Are There

Nbc Outtrump Supporters In Battleground States Largely Favor Lgbtq Rights Poll Finds

Asked about Trump’s attitude toward the LGBTQ community, Kabel offered a series of well-rehearsed talking points: Trump is “the most gay-friendly president,” same-sex marriage is settled law, Trump-nominated Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the pro-LGBTQ decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and the administration is doing great work on HIV/AIDS.

As an example of how “the press doesn’t give him a break,” Kabel cited the administration’s partnership with Gilead Sciences Inc. and pharmacies, including CVS and Walgreens, to provide and distribute HIV-prevention medication to targeted communities.

“He never got credit for it,” Kabel said. “The LGBT organizations thank Walgreens and CVS and, of course, intentionally forgot to mention Trump actually made this happen.”

In June, Trump declared that the same scientific know-how that produced an AIDS vaccine would deliver one soon for Covid-19, even though there is no AIDS vaccine.

Kabel said he wishes the Republican National Committee would have met this year to update the party’s official platform, which still states at least five times that marriage should exclusively be a union of “one man and one woman.” But he said he’s not worried about a backslide on LGBTQ rights.

“The social conservatives understand that we’ve won on marriage,” he said. “They’ve lost, we’ve won, and I think they really play it down now.”

Back Into The Wider World

After Bakers speech, the groups first female chairman, Sarah Longwell, announced the afterparty was at Nellies, a popular gay/sports bar with a weekend drag-queen brunch. You boys enjoy yourselves, she said, Ive got kids at home. Someone appeared in a skin-tight Make America Great Again dress and posed for photos in front of the Log Cabin logo with the dress designer; they were the most exotically outfitted attendees:

Online, Democratic critics unsheathed their knives. Your org has accomplished nothing in 40 fucking years as the GOP has gone from bad to worse to Trump on your watch, the activist and advice columnist Dan Savage wrote in response to a cheery tweet from Angelo celebrating the night. Go fuck yourselves Log Cabin Republicans, Savage wrote.

At the Mayflower, after a few minutes of post-speech networking chatter, much of the room cleared out.

Outside the grand ballroom two women in pantsuits walked down the wide marble hallway from the party. They casually held hands for a moment, then unclasped as they approached the crowded lobby.

Next to the front door stood a group of men in well-cut suits in shades of charcoal. It was impossible to tell if they were they from the Log Cabin event or part of the Mayflowers regular carousel of business guests.

And that, the Log Cabin Republicans would tell you, is exactly the point.

Sarah Longwell: Donald Trump Is Not A Republican Or A Conservative

Longwell insisted that she still holds traditional Republican beliefs, including “restraint from the executive branch fiscal responsibility and American leadership in the world where we treat our allies with respect.”

The problem with Trump isn’t a gay issue, she said; rather, it’s an American issue.

I think Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy and the country, because the rules dont apply to him, said Longwell, 40. He thinks hes above the law.

She blames the president for disregarding the Constitution, cozying up to dictators and putting his own interests first, and said she is frustrated that the GOP has stood by him.

“Republicans should be a party that cares about principles and ideas, not its loyalty to one man,” she said.

She said she’ll be voting for Biden, whom she calls a centrist. “He has a message of unity, not division.”

Other LGBTQ Republicans, like Williams, straddle the line. Asked whether she’ll be voting for Trump, she tactfully replied, “The jury is still out.”

“Since New Jersey is not in play, I’ve been trying to focus on more of our down-ballot candidates who’ve sought my support and my counsel on reaching voters,” she said.

Log Cabin Republicans And Goproud Struggle For Future Of Lgbt People In The Gop Party

The night before the Republican National Convention began in Tampa last month, a group of gay Republicans sipped wine and ate crab cakes at the Rusty Pelican, a white-tablecloth establishment with massive fireplaces and sweeping bay views. Defying the widespread perception that the Republican party is more actively opposed to gay rights than ever, R. Clarke Cooper, the 41-year-old director of the Log Cabin Republicans, told the gathering that gays are not just an insular group in the party, were an integral part of the party. Like other fetes around town that week, the reception was dominated by clean-cut white men who looked like consultants with practiced golf swings. Women and minorities were as rare a sight as unpleated pants.

Log Cabin, a Republican fixture since the late 70s, defines its mission as building a stronger, more inclusive Republican Party by lobbying for same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination laws, and other gay causes. With 44 chapters and more than 45,000 members, it has become the closest thing there is in the gay Republican scene to the establishment. Its nemesis and counterpart is the three-year-old GOProud, the only other national organization for gay Republicans. While Log Cabins white-wine affair at the Rusty Pelican was designed to appeal to the old-school Republican country-club set, GOProuds event, dubbed Homocon, featured male go-go dancers in skin-tight Freedom is Fabulous belly-tees.

REPUBLICANS FROM THE GET-GO

Jonathan Hoffman: Log Cabin Republicans A Model For Politics

Save

The following column is the opinion and analysis of the writer.

It seems as if our political contests have become more like warfare than debates these days. The increase in identity politics has lead to some political parties becoming more like tribes defined by ethnicity, race or sexual orientation, rather than parties defined by philosophy or principles. As such, there is no place for cooperation or compromise, just a question of who will prevail.

The other day I was wondering if there was some group that, by example, demonstrates that it need not be that way. I then heard someone mention the Log Cabin Republicans, and I thought, Yeah, those guys.

Who are the LCR people?

Let us begin with a little history. In the late 1970s, gay Americans were becoming more accepted in the broader culture. This prompted a backlash. States began banning gay people from teaching in public schools. The California version of this was a ballot initiative championed by a state legislator named John Briggs. The Briggs Initiative, as it was called, had overwhelming support and looked like a done deal.

I spoke with my friend Bill Beard, a gay Republican who served as chairman of the Pima County Republican Party and is active in LCR. I asked him about endorsements. He told me that the local chapter endorsed all three Republicans for Tucson City Council, and made no formal endorsement for mayor.

Thats why I thought, Yeah, those guys.

Tags

Trans Rights: A Perplexing Issue

Like many other gay conservatives, however, he seems to disconnect gay rights and transgender rights. Kabel recalled a recent article with a quotation from the conservative activist Tony Perkins that contrasted the Democratic and Republican platforms in 2016.

“The only issue Perkins raised was the transgender bathroom issue,” Kabel said. “And I thought, ‘That means we won.'”

Kabel called transgender equality “one of the most perplexing issues going.”

“Transgender people deserve support and protection just like anybody else, but it’s a very complex issue,” he said. “It’s remarkable when you hear their stories, but it’s just a very perplexing issue about how to really address it and do it so that they’re protected but other people aren’t hurt, so that people’s religious views are actually taken into consideration.”

Transgender visibility is all but absent in the Log Cabin Republicans, from their leadership to their messaging.

An OUTSpoken Instagram post compares the LGBT left to the LGBT right by putting an image of a person who appears to be transgender or gender-nonconforming next to a shirtless picture of former U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock, while the campaigns store sells T-shirts bearing slogans like “gay for Tucker” “gay for Melania” and “gay not stupid.

OUTspoken sent Brokeback Patriot, who has stated trans women are not women, to New Orleans Southern Decadence party to ask passersby if they think Trump is pro-gay.

Burning During The War Of 1812

On August 2425, 1814, in a raid known as the , British forces invaded the capital during the . The , , and were burned and gutted during the attack. Most government buildings were repaired quickly; however, the Capitol was largely under construction at the time and was not completed in its current form until 1868.

Citing Resources In The Web Archive

Citations should indicate: Archived in the Library of Congress Web Archives at www.loc.gov. When citing a particular website include the archived website’s Citation ID . Researchers are advised to follow standard citation guidelines for websites, pages, and articles. Researchers are reminded that many of the materials in this web archive are copyrighted and that citations must credit the authors/creators and publishers of the works. For guidance about compiling full citations consult Citing Primary Sources.

Nbc Outcourt Orders Idaho To Provide Gender Surgery For Trans Inmate

Despite the backlash to the Trump endorsement, Charles Moran, the groups national spokesperson, told NBC News the group has no plans to rescind its support for the president as it was a universal decision determined by the board of directors and chapters.

When asked whether Henry was involved in the endorsement decision, Moran said he could not speak to that as he was not on the phone call during her resignation but that he and the board thank her for her service to the Log Cabin Republicans.

Henrys departure comes just weeks before the groups Sept. 17 Spirit of Lincoln reception in D.C. The annual event has typically included a dinner and reception featuring high-profile Republican attendees, but this year there will only be a reception.

Were seeing a lot of what I thought would happen: A lot of prominent leaders are leaving the group, Evans told NBC News. We need a Republican group that advocates for LGBTQ issues, but the Log Cabin Republicans have sent the message that this is not their priority.

Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Trump

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed President Trump

The group said its national board of directors voted to endorse Trump after consulting with its chapters across the country. 

Log Cabin Republicans Chairman Robert Kabel and Vice Chairwoman Jill Homan argued in a Washington Post op-ed on Friday that Trump has helped remove LGBTQ rights as a wedge issue in the GOP, citing his administration’s policies on ending the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as his push to get other countries to conform to modern human rights standards.

The leaders also cited Trump’s appointment of Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, as U.S. ambassador to Germany. 

“While we do not agree with every policy or platform position presented by the White House or the Republican Party, we share a commitment to individual responsibility, personal freedom and a strong national defense,” Kabel and Homan wrote. 

The move marks a reversal after the group refused to endorse Trump in 2016, citing him surrounding himself with advisers “with a record of opposing LGBT equality,” as well as his support of the First Amendment Defense Act, which would block the federal government from taking adverse action against people based on their beliefs about marriage.

The group said in 2016 that they would welcome the opportunity to work with him on LGBTQ issues. 

The president has also come under fire for the views of Vice President Pence, who has opposed legalizing same-sex marriage, citing his Christian faith.

Log Cabin Republican Quits After The Group Endorses Trump’s Re

Prior to Henry’s resignation, Casey Pick, who served as the programs director for the Log Cabin Republicans from 2010 to 2013, wrote in a Facebook post that even though she began distancing herself from the group after the 2012 election, she decided to give it another chance after Henry was brought on board as executive director.

I was hopeful that despite watching the organizations slide toward Trump apologism under Gregory T. Angelo , their hiring a skilled and principled operative like Henry meant the organization would finally be able to again be a conscience this party needs, Pick wrote on Aug. 15, the same day the group endorsed Trump. I publicly celebrated her hiring, and encouraged my peers in the LGBT advocacy community to give LCR another shot, knowing that a vibrant and effective Log Cabin could be a godsend during a Trump/Pence administration.

Yet, Pick said, Henrys hands have been tied and instead of espousing a progressive mission, the group increasingly fulfills the stereotypes that used to be hurled at Log Cabin Republicans: overwhelmingly gay men who are indifferent to the experiences of women, transgender Americans or LGBT people who lack the financial or social resources to protect them from the discrimination that they so often deny even exists.

“Don’t call me a Log Cabin Republican,” she wrote at the conclusion of her post.

Civil Rights And Home Rule Era

1960s Washington DC, 4K from 35mm Kinolibrary

The was ratified in 1961, granting the district three votes in the for the election of president and vice president, but still no voting representation in Congress.

After the , on April 4, 1968, , primarily in the U Street, 14th Street, 7th Street, and H Street corridors, centers of black residential and commercial areas. The riots raged for three days until more than 13,600 federal troops and D.C. Army National Guardsmen stopped the violence. Many stores and other buildings were burned; rebuilding was not completed until the late 1990s.

In 1973, Congress enacted the , providing for an elected mayor and thirteen-member council for the district. In 1975, became the first elected and first black mayor of the district.

How Groups Get Approved By Cpac Including Massresistance

MassResistance registered for a table at CPAC on January 8, six weeks before the conference. We were told that the approval process could take 5-7 working days, but to go ahead and make airline and hotel reservations, etc. anyway.

We waited two weeks with no answer. Then on Jan. 24 a conference call was set up to discuss your organization and your plans for CPAC. It was with CPACs events coordinator and Dan Schneider, the Executive Director. He said he had never heard of MassResistance.

We described the history of MassResistance and the kind of activism we do. We were very up-front about our plans for CPAC. We were going to promote our book, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, and similar materials. We told Schneider we believe that CPACs large constituency of younger people had not been sufficiently exposed to the pro-family message, and he agreed. He said he would like pro-family groups to come to CPAC.

Schneider said that there are four criteria for a group to be approved:

The applicant organization must stand for at least one conservative/right-of-center proposition

The applicant organization must not exist primarily for a liberal purpose

The applicant organization must be legitimate

The applicant organization cannot be disrespectful of either ACU or CPAC

We told him that it was hard to believe that the Log Cabin Republicans would pass this since they clearly exist to homosexualize the Republican Party and push the LGBT agenda in government and society.

Working For Lgbt Americans

In 2019, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced that pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences Inc., would donate pre-exposure prophylaxis medication for uninsured, high-risk HIV individuals.

As part of the president’s Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America initiative, this medication, which could run up to as much as $20,000 per patient, per year, would be distributed to up to 200,000 individuals each year through at least Dec. 31, 2025. 

The Trump plan is focused on communities most in need and has received support from those who have been involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

In similar fashion, Trump announced during Pride Month in 2019 that his administration was launching a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality. His leadership on this issue couldnt be more necessary  even in 2020, 72 countries still identify same-sexual orientation as criminal, including eight where it is punishable by death. 

This campaign was spearheaded by former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, an openly gay member of the administration who subsequently served as acting director of U.S. national intelligence, becoming the first openly gay Cabinet member in our history. In coordination with the United Nations, the European Union and other human rights organizations, the campaigns goal is to pressure nations into ending homophobic laws, securing the safety and freedom of all LGBT individuals throughout the world.

Who Are The Log Cabin Republicans

The Log Cabin Republicans are a political organization founded in the 1970s that identifies themselves as staunchly Republican, with a twist. Members of the Log Cabin Republicans are strong activists for many Republican values, the idea of free markets, limited government and lower taxation, especially of high earners and corporations. They especially support privacy, and identify most with President Lincoln, one of the most identifiable presidents, who was born in a log cabin. They identify with Lincolns Republican party at that time, which could definitely be considered the more liberal of the two parties, especially in Lincolns signing of the emancipation proclamation and his promotion of civil rights for all.

This issue is extremely important to Log Cabin Republicans because most members identify themselves as gay or lesbian, or in support of equal rights for gays or lesbians. While a number of lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender folks identify more strongly with the Democratic party, many members of the Log Cabin Republicans find themselves out of step with the Democrats on many issues. Their political ideas are more aligned with those of the Republican party, and thus since the 1970s the LCRs have become an important part of the political process in avidly supporting non-discrimination of the LGBT community, promoting greater funds for AIDs research, and supporting measures like the right for individuals to marry others of their choosing.

Nbc Outover 500 Lgbtq Candidates To Appear On November Ballots Shattering Records

Williams, chair of the Republican Committee in Trenton, New Jersey, agrees that some LGBTQ Republicans choose to look past certain statements or policies especially cisgender members.

LGBTQ “people who are voting for the president are most likely not going to be transgender, because we’ve been the target and the butt of most of the administration’s actions,” she said.

According to the GLAAD poll, however, 19 percent of trans and nonbinary registered voters were supporting Trump more than either gay men or lesbians .

This Former Log Cabin Republican Is On A Mission To Stop Trump

Sarah Longwell says Trump threatens the GOP but, more importantly, democracy itself.

Back in the day , when I worked on Capitol Hill, I met my very first boyfriend. Kurt was from Paducah, Ky., and worked for a fairly moderate Republican at the time, a senator named Mitch McConnell. 

We were both in the closet, and I would pick Kurt up in my car at discrete locations. We never really spoke about politics, because it really didnt matter. The only thing I vaguely recall him telling me about McConnell was that they put lipstick on him for TV appearances since his mouth is like a knife slash.

And, one of my best drinking buddies during that period, worked um, lets say toiled for then-Rep. Rick Santorum. I only knew that Santorum was an absolute jerk because I sat next to him at a dinner on the Hill one night and witnessed his rude and obnoxious behavior. He was childishly upset about getting the right dinner rolls. But again, with Will, there was never any talk about politics. We just had a good time over lots and lots of beers.

Thats the way it was then in Congress. You had friends across party lines, and anyone who was virulently political was usually also friendless.

Sarah Longwell also worked for Rick Santorum back in the in mid 1990s, going on a tour with Senator Santorum to help promote his book, It Takes a Family. She was coming out as a lesbian at the time and eventually quit Santorum, who she considered the most visibly antigay politician in the country. 

Nbc Outtrump Applauds Poll Showing 45 Percent Support Among Gay Men

Kazmierczak called Trump a staunch supporter of gay people and their rights, but he said he makes a distinction when it comes to religious groups.

“He doesn’t want gay rights forced on religious institutions,” Kazmierczak said. “It doesn’t mean that he doesn’t support gay people. It means that to him, religious freedom is more important than social issues.”

Trump made a halfhearted effort to court the LGBTQ community in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. He called the massacre of 49 mostly LGBTQ people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that year an “assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.”

At the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Trump swore “to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.”

And two days before Election Day, he grabbed an upside-down Pride flag inscribed with “LGBT for Trump” at a rally in Colorado and waved it around.

Once in office, however, Trump has consistently opposed LGBTQ rights from rolling back Obama-era nondiscrimination protections to banning openly transgender service members in the military. The national LGBTQ rights group GLAAD has accused the Trump administration of 181 separate attacks on the community since his inauguration.

For Rogers, Trumps bona fides with the community arent so important.

Many gay Trump supporters say they’re tired of being told what political views are acceptable.

While Democrats Take The Lesbian And Gay Community For Granted Donald Trump’s Republican Party Is Delivering Real Results

Democrats are using their convention this week to tout their agenda for the next four years, including their promise to stand up for the lesbian and gay community. For years, Democratic Party leaders have taken for granted the lesbian and gay community along with other minority communities thinking they had no where else to turn. Those days are over. 

I’ve fought for civil rights for gay Americans for the past four decades. Today, the Republican Party is delivering real results and leadership for our community:

It hasnt always been this way. For years, the GOP generally stood against the inclusion of gay and lesbian conservatives. As one of the Republican National Committee’s first openly gay members, and a longtime leader of Log Cabin Republicans, I’ve worked tirelessly alongside many friends and colleagues to pull the party into the future. Today, thanks in large part to the leadership of President Donald Trump, the party has delivered meaningful policy victories for gays and lesbians. 

He didnt abandon these principles when he assumed his position behind the Resolute Desk. 

Nbc Outsan Francisco Police Chief Apologizes To Lgbtq Community

Evans announced her own departure from the Log Cabin Republicans last Monday in a scathing op-ed for LGBTQ magazine The Advocate. Jennifer Horn, a former board member, and Robert Turner, the former president of the group’s Washington, D.C., chapter, also denounced the Trump endorsement and left the group last week.

Notably, Henrys name did not appear alongside those of board members Robert Kabel and Jill Homan in a Washington Post Op-Ed this month announcing the group’s endorsement of Trump. The Log Cabin Republicans declined to endorse Trump in 2016.

In the endorsement, Kabel and Homan cited Trumps commitment to end HIV/AIDS in 10 years, which was met both with cautious optimism and flat-out skepticism, and his work with Richard Grenell, the openly gay U.S. ambassador to Germany, to encourage other nations to end the criminalization of homosexuality, as examples of his dedication to the LGBTQ community.

[expatimes]

Surge in Latino support for Trump helps him win Florida | US & Canada

A wave of support from Hispanic voters gave President Donald Trump a narrow victory in Florida on Tuesday night, boosting his chances of re-election.

Trump, who won the state in 2016, outperformed his 2016 margins with Florida's Hispanic voters, who made up 19 percent of all the state's voters. A lot of the swing came in Miami-Dade, the county that contains Florida's largest Cuban and Venezuelan communities, many of whom are strongly anti-left wing.

Trump and his allies have frequently painted opponent Joe Biden, a moderate Democrat, as either a socialist himself or in hock to the “radical left”. Some Miami voters told the Reuters news agency this struck home.

Trump also ate into Latinos' support for Democrats in Texas, results showed. It was still unclear how this will affect the overall race for the presidency, which may not be called for days.

Nationally, Trump got a higher proportion of support from non-white voters, when compared with 2016, according to Edison Research exit polls, offsetting a decline in support among white people compared with his successful race against Hillary Clinton.

Support for Trump this year rose by three points among all Latinos, and 15 points among older ones; it jumped by 11 points among Black voters aged 30 to 44.

The jump among Latinos comes despite Trump's harsh stance on immigration, and his administration's treatment of asylum-seekers - a hallmark of his presidency.

“The Latino surge is real, and it is happening across the country,” tweeted White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany on Tuesday night.

Engage with Latino voters

Biden can still win the election with victories in other states. If he loses, some of the blame can be laid on his failure to engage with Latino voters, said Jaime professor Regalado, a political science at California State University in Los Angeles.

“He just wasn't there,” Regalado said. “He didn't spend a lot of time courting Latinos until the final two weeks of the campaign. It could turn out to be a huge mistake. ”

The Biden campaign had no comment on Tuesday night, but the campaign has in past weeks and months disputed criticism from some Democrats that it was not sufficiently focused on this demographic.

Unofficial results on Tuesday night showed Trump was winning about 47 percent of the Hispanic vote in Florida, increasing his vote share in the county over 2016 by about 12 percentage points.

That swing denied Biden the votes he needed from South Florida to balance Trump's strength in the state's mainly rural Panhandle and win Florida's 29 Electoral College votes.

Texas's Starr County, which is 99 percent Latino, had an even more dramatic shift - in 2016, fewer than 19 percent of the votes went to Trump; This year he won nearly half of the vote.

'Opportunity not handouts'

While out celebrating Trump's victory at Versailles, a popular hangout in Little Havana on Tuesday night, Jose Cuevas, the 62-year-old owner of a manufacturing company that makes cabinets, said he arrived in the United States in 1968 as Cubans escaped communism.

“We had everything taken away from us. We were adopted by the United States with open arms, ”said Cuevas.

“We came here for opportunity, not handouts. I firmly believe it's that welfare mentality that Democrats sell to create their base and that goes against Cubans completely. ”

Supporters of President Donald Trump chant and wave flags outside the Versailles Cuban restaurant during an Election Night celebration in Miami [Wilfredo Lee/AP Photo]

Biden, a three-decade senator who voted for free trade agreements and calls himself a capitalist, beat Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist senator from Vermont, in the Democratic Party's nominating contest with promises of more moderate policies.

Nonetheless, Trump's efforts to cast Democrats as socialist may have been crucial in Florida, said Sergio Garcia professor-Rios, a of Government and Latino studies at Cornell University. “That mobilized a lot of Cuban Americans,” he said.

Republican Party of Florida Chairman Joe Gruters said Trump's message had resonated with many voters in South Florida.

“People want safety and security in their communities. They want freedom and liberty. They don't want to go backwards, ”said Gruters. "They want to live in a capitalist society where anybody has the chance to move up and do well for themselves."

The Trump campaign worked to erode Biden's margins among voters of color, specifically targeting certain groups. Florida Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nunez, a Cuban American from Miami, co-chaired the national Latinos for Trump group.

Trump also appealed to evangelical Hispanic voters, holding an event at 7,000-capacity King Jesus International Ministry Church in Miami in January, which is led by Pastor Guillermo Maldonado.

Democratic Latino activists complained Biden was ignoring Hispanic voters, and in the weeks leading up to the election opinion polls in key states suggested Biden was underperforming with Latinos.

The Biden campaign opted to focus on Puerto Ricans in Florida because the former community has grown since Hurricane Maria in 2017, one person briefed on the campaign strategy said.

#world Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=13314&feed_id=14158

[techcrunchappcom]

New Post has been published on https://techcrunchapp.com/congressional-candidates-discuss-economic-development-covid-19-national-news/

Congressional candidates discuss economic development, COVID-19 | National News

CHESTERTOWN — Republican Andy Harris is facing a challenge for his seat representing Maryland’s 1st District in the U.S. House of Representatives from Democrat Mia Mason.

Harris and Mason sat down for individual interviews during which they were asked the same set of questions. Mason’s interview was conducted Sept. 16. Harris sat for his interview Sept. 25.

Over the next three weeks, we will publish their responses to those questions in a series of articles. Future topics include race, balancing agriculture and the environmental stewardship and health care.

The 1st District comprises the entirety of Maryland’s Eastern Shore and parts of Baltimore, Carroll and Harford counties.

Early voting in Maryland runs Oct. 26 through Nov. 2. Election day is Nov. 3.

Question: While several counties/communities in the district are doing well on the economic development front, others are struggling with the loss of industries/populations. What would you do to help improve economic development and growth to those areas in the district most in need, and what additional measures can be done at the federal level to enhance economic development in the district?

Harris: There are some counties on the Eastern Shore that certainly are lagging behind other counties in the district. What we have to do first of all, just on the national level, we have to make sure we get the economy going again. The economy was going very well before the COVID pandemic. We have got to get it back on track. Part of the post COVID environment is going to be actually attracting some of the manufacturing back to the U.S. I think there are counties on the Eastern Shore that are ideal sites for attracting some of that business back to the U.S.

The other thing we need to do, we need to make sure we don’t hurt the other industries on the Shore, whether it is the tourism industry, the watermen industry or the agriculture industry. We have to make sure the federal government doesn’t get in the way of allowing those industries to prosper in the recovery.

We have had record increases in median family income in the U.S. and in the 1st Congressional District before the COVID pandemic and we need to return to that kind of economy

Mason: Currently there is a plan for 2021 for neighborhood revitalization. Our district has about six different regions that comprise that. The outline of this program is to help our communities with manufacturing, help them with jobs, help them with the healthcare issues that they have. What I can do on the federal level is to be able to provide federal block grants so that this program is fully funded, because the state of Maryland is currently shortchanged due to the current budget crisis with the pandemic. I think this would be something that we can work together with other house leaders and then work with our Senators to pass because this is something that is happening across the entire nation.

Question: What is your position on how the COVID-19 pandemic is being handled by the State of Maryland and nationally? If placed in charge of COVID-19 related responses what would you handle differently?

Mason: The best thing that we have seen is our governor stand up against President Trump. Because he (Gov. Larry Hogan) was sued by our opponent, Rep. (Andy) Harris, he has had to revert back to a lot of things. He provided a three-phase plan that the other governors and even federal leaders did not have. So the governor did do a good job there.

As far as implementing it and getting it done faster than the federal government, that is where Gov. Hogan has failed. Because I know my opponent sides with the President, the conspiracy theories, the whole anti-masking and everything else is completely detrimental to our healthcare providers and our healthcare workers. It put them at risk. It definitely put nurses and doctors into the COVID ward and the ICU where they ended up with COVID themselves and it could have been prevented.

Instead of hunting for PPE (personal protective equipment) to sell to other states, we could have used the PPE and reduced the COVID numbers in this state drastically, if it was implemented back in January or February versus mid to late March.

Those were the things that I see for leadership that can change. I am all about making sure that we get rid of bad leaders and Andy Harris was one of those bad leaders because he went from Frederick all the way down to Salisbury to basically reopen Maryland, force our schools to reopen too soon and even wanted to try to have them open before the school year ended because he did not believe in the science or the deaths.

Currently five out of the nine counties on the Eastern Shore have double the rate of COVID cases than anywhere else in the state. So if you are going down Route 50 from Queens Anne (county)/the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to Ocean City, it is a COVID hotspot continuously along that route. We see the same issues in other states, like in the corridor of Louisiana on Route 10, these are the problems that we see where people are just moving from state to state, that they are not taking the safeguards required to wear masks properly. The places where there are no restrictions and they want to debunk the science about this pandemic has completely failed us.

So with that failed leadership, he (Harris) has worked against our healthcare workers, our teachers and our communities and desperately has degraded the technology in our communities that needed it years ago by voting against our communities.

With that we are now in phase three. I know there is a rush for a vaccine, however, we need to make sure that is a quality instead of quantity measure and that is a safest way to make sure we get a vaccine, by not rushing the process or circumventing the FDA or CDC guidelines to basically get this done before Election Day.

Harris: The most important thing to remember is this is a novel coronavirus. This has not been seen on the earth before last year. So we really had no experience whatsoever with it. We have had experiences with related coronaviruses, but not with the one that causes COVID-19 as a disease. No one knew what was the right thing to do because we have never seen this before.

At the federal level, precautions were taken. I think some of the most important precautions were stopping international travel since we knew this virus originated in China, spread to Europe and then spread to the U.S., stopping international travel was important.

Beyond that, the most important thing the federal government could do was to accelerate the development of treatments and vaccines so that we could shorten, to the greatest extent possible, the duration of this pandemic. That is exactly what we are doing with Operation Warp Speed, which is going to have, I believe, a licensed vaccine before the end of the year, which means probably by next summer we can return almost to a state of normal, which is so important to the economy of the Eastern Shore.

On the state level, the important thing was for the governor to monitor how the state was doing, and once the lockdowns were imposed, to engage how quickly we could come out of the lockdowns. I thought we waited a little too long to come out of the spring lockdown. Since the Eastern Shore economy is so dependent on the summer season, I thought we could have come out a little earlier. We did come out and I think we came out fairly safely. The bottom line is in Maryland we came out without stressing our health system really at all. Stopping elective procedures was a financial strain on our health system, but we did not fill our hospitals and we did not have patients who couldn’t get care because of healthcare system constraints for COVID-19.

What would I have done differently? Given that we didn’t know much about this last year, we were all learning at the same time, it is easy to play Monday morning quarterback, but the fact of the matter is we have passed the spike in deaths in the country. Our rate of hospitalizations has gone way down, our death rate has gone way down. All the trends are in the right direction, with the development of therapeutics and, I believe by the end of the year, licensing of a vaccine.

People have to realize how significant Operation Warp Speed was to cut through the red tape of product development and vaccine development and therapy development yet preserving the safety and efficacy requirements that the FDA has. Being in the federal government for awhile, you learn there is a lot of red tape that can come out of Washington. Some of that red tape is not necessary, some regulation is. Obviously the FDA needs to ensure that drugs are safe and efficacious, but there can be a lot of red tape that slows down drug and vaccine development that is not necessary.

The government is making the investment of producing the vaccines as they are being researched and in the regulatory approval process. This usually doesn’t occur. There is usually a one-year lag time or so, but in this case one year is tens of thousands of lives. The decision was made, and I think it was the right decision, to go ahead and produce these vaccines in parallel with testing the vaccines.

Now some of the vaccines are not going to pan out and we will have spent money producing them that is never going to be used, but that is OK, because I am convinced several of them are going to pan out and we are going to have hundreds of millions of doses by early next year.

Learn more about the candidates at www.andyharris.com and miadmason.us.

(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.5&appId=1076755405678815"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

[fitnesshealthyoga-blog]

New Post has been published on https://fitnesshealthyoga.com/sentencing-their-dog-to-death-how-the-anti-vax-movement-spread-to-pets-society/

'Sentencing their dog to death': how the anti-vax movement spread to pets | Society

Sam Kovac can’t say for sure what prompted it, but in the past few weeks the Sydney veterinarian has been faced with the same alarming, beguiling question over and over: “Will this vaccination give my dog autism?”

“It’s actually ridiculous. I mean you hear chatter over the years, but just in these last few weeks it’s really, really ramped up,” he tells Guardian Australia.

“Most of the time people are OK, they’re not staunchly against it once you tell them the science and the statistics [but] we have had people walk out in hysteria, saying that there is absolutely no way their dog is getting [vaccinated] because they believe it causes auto-immune diseases or, specifically, autism.”

Kovac is so perturbed by the trend that he felt moved to speak out about it in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph this week, saying he didn’t believe anti-vaxxers deserved to have animals as pets if they were willing to put them at risk of diseases such as canine parvovirus.

“They are sentencing their dog to death from one of the most shocking, horrible viruses you can imagine,” he says.

“If a disease as contagious, as horrific and with a high mortality rate as parvovirus existed for humans, this conversation would be so different.”

Vaccinations do not cause autism in dogs or humans. But there is an important distinction: there is no such thing as autism in dogs.

“Well, there are certainly no recorded cases of animals with the condition that I know of,” Kovac says. “And there is no diagnostic test to check for it in dogs or cats anyway.”

The amplification of the anti-vaccination movement in online communities and its association with the rise of populism and anti-establishment politics has been well documented.

This year the World Health Organisation included “vaccine hesitancy” among its 10 biggest threats to global health, pointing to a 30% increase in the number of cases of measles worldwide and a “resurgence” of the disease in countries that were close to eliminating it.

In March, the head of Britain’s National Health Service, Simon Stevens, blamed “fake news” by “vaccination deniers” on social media for a tripling in measles cases in the UK in 2018. In December a Guardian investigation pointed to the way populist rightwing politicians in Europe and the US were capitalising on the mistrust of vaccine science.

In 2015 Donald Trump wrongly linked vaccination schedules to autism in a debate during the Republican primaries, while in Australia One Nation leader Pauline Hanson was forced to apologise in 2017 after she asserted that the government’s vaccination policies amounted to blackmail.

But are our four-legged friends really the latest front in the anti-vaccination movement’s war?

Naomi Smith, a sociologist from the Federation University in Victoria, has published research mapping out the anti-vaccination movement’s presence on social media by trawling through hundreds of thousands of posts and comments on popular anti-vaccination Facebook pages.

A dog in India receives a vaccination. Photograph: Noah Seelam/AFP/Getty Images

The anti-vaccination movement was not born with social media, but Smith’s research highlights the role social media plays in fostering and amplifying its conspiracy theories.

Did they talk about dogs, though?

“Well, no, they didn’t, but what was really interesting is that after we published I got emails from vets saying we have seen this in our space too,” she tells Guardian Australia.

“So it didn’t come up in our data but it’s definitely something I’ve heard about since, because people have approached me about it.”

Most concerning was an email from an equine veterinarian in Queensland, who told Smith he continually faced reluctance from anti-vaxxers opposed to the Hendra virus vaccine.

The Hendra vaccine is not without critics – last year horse owners from New South Wales and Queensland launched a class action against the pharmaceutical company responsible for developing it, claiming it did not provide adequate warnings about potential side effects. But Paula Parker, the president of the Australian Veterinary Association, believes much of the opposition to the virus is based on “bad-faith” arguments.

“There are unfortunately some people making bad-faith arguments about Hendra, and some who get into internet rabbit holes and come out misinformed, it’s heartbreaking to us because it’s an amazing vaccine for a disease which is life-threatening to horses and humans,” Parker says.

She too is aware of a broader reluctance among a small number of pet owners to vaccinate, and sees a link with the flourishing market for “holistic” animal care, which she says “anecdotally seem to breed some reluctance to vaccinations or other conventional treatments”.

A horse on a property in Queensland is given the Hendra virus vaccination. The fatal disease is also a threat to humans. Photograph: Dan Peled/AAP

“There are some complementary therapies like acupuncture which are helpful adjuncts to conventional medicine, [but] the difficult part with homeopathy is there is no regulation in that space,” she says.

“Most of them don’t cause harm, they’re just not effective, but the biggest worry is that pet owners seek out that kind of care and delay a diagnosis and required treatment.”

For Smith, too, there is a clear link between the so-called wellness industry and the spread of anti-vaccination messaging.

“What’s super interesting about the wellness movement, or industry, is that anyone can talk about it, you don’t have to have any kind of credentials, and it seems to be that those conversations naturally lead to a suspicion of established bio-medical practices,” she says.

Smith points to the example of Taylor Winterstein, wife of the Penrith Panthers NRL player Frank Winterstein, who claims vaccines cause allergies and believes parents are being “bullied” by GPs who “pressure” them to give their children vaccinations.

The Daily Telegraph reported last month that Winterstein was charging $200 for “informative” workshops, teaching other parents about her views.

Winterstein told the paper she had “never once said not to vaccinate”, but added: “Vaccines are not safe and effective for everyone, a ‘one size fits all’ schedule does not fit all bio-individual children and where there is risk there must always be choice.”

Smith is critical of that approach: “You’ve got footballers’ wives holding anti-vaccination seminars and their credentials are essentially being very good looking, which somehow means they’re speaking to some deeper truth that they understand what it is to be healthy,” she says.

“We’re very food- and diet-obsessed in this culture and people are constantly looking for advice about how to be healthy, which is fine, but that’s not all that these people are selling.”

That the anti-vaccination movement would turn its attention to animals is unsurprising to Smith.

“This attitude towards, I say this in quotation marks, ‘bodily and dietary purity’, is being translated by people into their pets because we view pets as part of the family now,” she says.

“So if you’re taking on the attitude that you’re going to keep your family, again, quote-unquote, ‘safe’, why wouldn’t you extend it to your dog too?”

Source link

[epistolizer]

Hit & Run Commentary #120

Josh Harris, the author of “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”, is now a 43 year old married father of three.  He has also renounced the hardline position that made him a household name among Christians and no doubt millions of dollars.  A thing to ask is how many around his age bracket as a result of his advice that became nearly gospel truth in some circles now find themselves with only cast asides, sloppy seconds, and defective goods left to pick over?  And that doesn’t even touch the issue of those not wanting to be alone having to make a wrenching decision between companionship or acceptance by their church community because of the ecclesiastical blacklisting that results from daring to marry a divorced person or one outside the narrowest of dogmatic confessions. 

Now that no other man really wants her, Monica thinks that President Clinton should want to apologize to her. But if Monica liked it at the time by not crying rape and apparently came back for multiple helpings, why should Bill feel that he is obligated to?  

Headlines are shocked that a Texas school board might cut Helen Keller but keep Moses as part of the curriculum.  But while the story of Helen Keller is an interesting historical and medical curiosity, beyond its Lifetime movie of the week appeal, her labors aren’t exactly of the sort upon which an entire civilization is based.   Maybe if a school district wants to keep Helen Keller, they can always cut out some of the drivel that gets harped upon from mid January until the end of February.  

At the end of a Triscuit commercial, the pitch woman assures with a wink that she is also not genetically modified.  Wonder how long until articulating pride in that is castigated as a form of noninclusive hate speech.

In his defense of the mainstream media against castigation by the Trump Administration, Mitt Romney effused, “The free press dispelled the false conspiracies about the 9/11 attacks.”  If Romney is referring to the lapdog press of entrenched elites, did these mouthpieces conduct their own investigations?  Or, instead, did such propagandists merely reinforce what they were told by their bureaucratic or secret society handlers?  

Will Democrats deploring Trump’s rhetoric as stoking the possibility of nuclear war articulate criticism of their colleague insinuating the mass murder of actual Americans in a similar manner for failure to comply with an anti-Second Amendment agenda?  

In the sci fi drama “The Colony”, a New World Order-style dictatorship with the assistance of extraterrestrial overlords would eliminate entire metropolitan areas perceived as hindering the implementation the planetary authority’s policy directives.  Skeptics might dismiss such a plot as highly unlikely.  But is it in light of one Democratic legislator threatening mass murder for failure to comply with any draconian firearms confiscation proposals?  

Instructive and revealing.  Radical Democrats are comparing border enforcement personnel to the KKK while letting it slip that they have no problem murdering in the most horrifying way imaginable Americans that refuse to comply with totalitarian plans to eliminate the Bill of Rights and infringe upon liberties endowed by the Creator.  

Amy Powler in a commercial for some Google contraption says she only wanted women at her Thanksgiving Dinner this year. Would a commercial saying no women or minorities allowed be deemed acceptable for prime network viewing time?  

In a commercial for one of its gadgets, Google has Amy Powler vocalize a line about not wanting any men at her Thanksgiving meal this year. Shouldn’t the writer of this remark receive the same punishment as the Google functionary stating in a company memo that the alleged discrepancies in technology fields are the result of inherent gender differences?  

In an analysis of the Star Wars worldview, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson criticized the franchise in part from the political theory he perceived the series as espousing.  According to Swanson, the films are ungodly because the plot focuses upon two ideologies jockeying for power in order to implement their particular vision of large interstellar government.  Mind you, in his analysis of The Hunger Games, Swanson condemned characters in that movie for resisting the prerogatives of empire.  It is doubtful a film about a two hour prayer meeting is going to sell many tickets.  Likewise, there isn’t going to be much of a story if both sides of a conflict are already comporting themselves by Christian standards.  The films are, after all, called “Star Wars” not “Star Hallmark Channel”.  

If intruders bursting into Nancy Pelosi’s office would justifiably be tasered or sprayed, why not migrant swarms pouring over the border without authorization?  

Parents not wanting their children pepper sprayed shouldn’t cross delineated borders without authorization.  

Those condemning the use of tear gas to repel border violators interestingly probably have no issue with the heathen savages that murdered an interloping missionary.  

If one is obligated to ascent to the principle that men and women are equal in all things, why all of a sudden is it an outrage to douse a woman threatening law enforcement personnel and international border integrity with pepper spray?  

If women are such delicate creatures that they cannot endure U.S. border protection officers deploying pepper spray as a deterrent, why ought we to think that they can handle the full wrath of the Russian, Chinese, or assorted Islamist militariess on the battlefield?  

Analysts from both the left and the right are pretty much in agreement that the missionary murdered by the heathen savages on a remote Indian island pretty much got what was coming to him.  So what then is so wrong with radical Muslims killing Christians or the Red Chinese harvesting Christian organs?  One insisting that one is acceptable but the other inappropriate has, perhaps unwittingly, embraced Rousseau’s foolishness about the so-called “noble savage”. Will Democrats jacked out of shape that Roy Moore dated young women still over the age of consent or that Brett Kavanaugh laughed at a flatulence joke while in high school get as discombobulated over Mike Espy rendering services on behalf of an African dictator accused of slavery and mass murder?  But those outrages pale in comparison to the Charlie Brown Christmas special.  

On Fox News, Rep Jim Hines said that there is no way to know who in the caravan threatening to violate the nation’s borders is criminal or not. As such, the Congressman seems to admonish, the President should not speak or or treat these individuals as if they are.  If that is the case, perhaps he should allow the general public to ramble the halls of Congress unscrutinized without having to stop at assorted checkpoints.  

Greater fuss seems to be made that James Hodgkinson published anti-Trump letters to the editor and remarks on social media than that he actually shot people.  So how are these literary undertakings different than those of the New York Times, MSNBC, or increasingly CNN?  We are constantly beaten over the head about the necessity of voluntarism and on giving back to the COMMUNITY.  So why does it sound like this variety of civic engagement will land you on the do not fly list?  

In a sermon, Independent Baptist Stephen J. Anderson claimed that atheism is often the result of having watched too many science fiction movies and television programs.  How about a number of science fiction authors pushed towards atheism as a result of churches too legalistic in terms of their application of the Bible?

President George H.W. Bush passed away at his home in a Texas gated community.  Yet the Bush family stands among the foremost of establishmentarian Republicans that would deny the nation a similar degree of protection through their ongoing opposition to the construction of a border wall. 

Contrary to George H.W. Bush, “community” is not a beautiful word.  It usual becomes nothing more than whatever group you are required to belong to for the purposes of survival getting in your business not because of some distinct moral reason but because those in charge of the group wish to perpetuate their own power by justifying the existence of the group as an end in itself.

By Frederick Meekins