If you didn't see Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on Sunday, the Main Story was on libraries. Yes, libraries. The focus is the attack on public libraries, starting with banning books, relocating books and outcry from the far-right. It's a very interesting and extremely serious story, and clearly one, as well, that lends itself to a lot of wonderful humor.
0 Comments
The other day, Trump once again tried to tell every Jewish person who votes for President Biden that they should all be ashamed. For a long time, whenever he’d say this, I’d respond on social media that Trump and his fascism has never been the go-to guy for what Jews should do. But it’s taken a while for the reality to kick in and recognize that his words about this are never about votes – after all, it’s not going to change what anyone does -- but it's his anti-Semitic screed dog whistle to demonize Jews to his supporters, giving them even more permission to spread their own anti-Semitic hate.
Speaking of racist hate, last week Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) talked about his concerns about how immigrants had grown to a larger percentage of American citizens than they had been in recent years. The first thing to know is he was not talking about undocumented immigrants, but immigrants who were in the country legally, including many (if not most) who were U.S. citizens. And second, the percentage is almost exactly the same as it was in 1920, over 100 years ago. But almost more to the point, never mind that almost all Americans are immigrants, children of immigrants or, like Trump, grandchildren of immigrants.) Fun Fact: the Founding Fathers of the United States were all "foreign born." And they actually wrote the Constitution that Chip Roy is crying out about. (Well...yes, but the United States didn't exist before. True. Also true: they were all foreign born. And created the U.S.) And then, just days later, Chip Roy said that he had “strong concerns” about Sharia law becoming used in the U.S. What’s long become clear is that Chip Roy’s real concerns aren't Sharia law or immigrants, but about Chip Roy and his personal insecurities towards minorities and “others.” Finally, it was sort of shocking and disturbing to read the New York Times Editor-in-Chief go on the record to say his paper’s job was not to defend democracy but be objective in telling the truth. For the record, one can defend democracy truthfully while being completely objective – most especially when recognizing that it is democracy that allows the New York Times and all newspapers to tell the truth. I can imagine a future New York Times article, "At his rally, described by one observer as 'reminiscent of a putsch,' Mr. Trump announced arrests of the Times editorial board & reporters as 'enemies of the people.' There were no comments from the paper as it has been closed down." Yesterday, Stephanie Clifford (who works as ‘Stormy Daniels’) took the stand in the Manhattan election fraud trial against Trump. She’ll continue testifying again tomorrow. A lot of legal media analysts seemed to say that it was risky testimony for being so lurid, and if the jury doesn’t like her (or believe her) that could impact the trial.
I’m not a lawyer, as the expression goes. Nor was I in court. And I trust what lawyers say here, being very experienced at this sort of thing. But I also have additional thoughts – which may be valid or not, whether or not what these lawyers say is valid. For starters, “impact the trial” doesn’t mean result in a hung jury. After all, many lawyers were saying that it wasn’t absolutely necessary she even testify. That the trial isn’t a sex case, but one about election fraud. And so, whether jurors like or believe her, the charge is that Trump still paid to silence her in order to illegally affect the election. Keep in mind that when a woman claimed that President Biden sexually assaulted her, he and his team took her on directly and publicly, showed the inconsistencies and ultimately falseness in her story, and it disappeared. As for her testimony, it would seem that the problem for Trump is that she’s the only one testifying about what occurred. His lawyers can cross-examine her, of course, and try to break down her story. But if Trump doesn’t testify (and it’s likely that he won’t), then her testimony is the only one the jury can hear under oath. And if he does insist on testifying, the prosecution is most certainly prepared and likely anxious for that. The other problem for Trump is that, even if jurors don’t like Ms. Clifford, at issue is Trump relentlessly insisting he never had sex with her. And her detailed testimony (even if jurors don’t like her) shows that Trump did have an involvement with her, and made efforts to illegally hide it to impact the election, as AMI publisher David Pecker testified -- which is the very point of the trial. Further, even if (for whatever reason) they don’t even believe her, Trump still made that $130,000 payment to silence her claims…which again is the whole point of the trial. The checks exist. The documentation about it exists. Whatever the surface reason those checks exist, the foundational reason was to silence her so as to illegally not hurt his election chances. And I suspect that jurors are likely to think, especially given earlier testimony, that Trump is not someone to pay $130,000 to silence something that didn’t happen. Especially given he has been relentlessly been shouting out loud for years that he did not rape “that woman” and didn’t even know E. Jean Carroll – a cry for which he has been twice found guilty of defamation. So, if he has no problem defaming a woman by insisting he didn’t do something two juries found he did – why on earth would he pay $130,000 to hide something he claims he didn’t do??! Again, I have no idea how the jury will see it all. And those lawyers who note the risk, make good, valid points. I just think, whether or not these lawyers are right, there are these additional points. And also, as the experts note, as well, the trial is about far more than this, and much of that is on paper and has been corroborated. It turns out that Gov. Kristi Noem's (R-SD) "Killing the Puppy was OK" Reclamation Tour is getting worse (and yes, that's possible -- and yes, it's still going on) as she quintuples down at this point. And as she helps isolate herself from much of the caring world. It's not that her story keeps changing as she tries to make "Cricket" seem more vicious than in her book (among other things, no longer talking about the puppy killing a couple of chickens as she writes in her book, but now referring to them as "livestock"), or that the story isn't just that she shot this apparently vicious puppy because she also shot and killed the family goat (who ruined her children's clothes), or that when she shot the family goat she first only wounded it but then had to go and find more ammunition while the goat suffered. Or that she killed three horses. Or that she could have trained the puppy better. Or kept the puppy in her car if she thought it was so vicious when she visited the farm with chickens. Or tried to place the puppy and goat in better homes. Or at the very least taken the puppy and goat to a vet who could more humanely ended their lives. Now, it turns out that she also would like to see President Biden's dog Commander put down. Yes, really. Because it's bitten a lot of Secret Service men. Never mind that maybe the problem there is that Secret Service protecting the President of the United States carry guns and are tough and perhaps seem threatening to a dog, especially when trying to protect the President. And never mind that it's weird when someone goes public about killing someone else's dog -- especially as the first option. But it's more than that. Because it also turns out that her book is full of literal lies. Like writing about staring down North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un -- "I’m sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants (I’d been a children’s pastor after all)” she writes -- ...despite never actually having met him. And also writing about how she was "slated to meet" with French President Emmanuel Macron last November, but cancelled it when she believed he had made comments that she felt was too "pro-Hamas." As it happens, Macron's office has said that no such meeting was ever scheduled. Which makes it a bit hard to cancel. Noem also writes that she was “slated to meet” with Macron in November last year while she was in Paris for a conference of European conservative leaders, but later canceled when he made comments that she considered “pro-Hamas.” There are some other mistakes (or lies) that the publisher has said will all be fixed before actually publishing the book. Mistakes (or lies) all in service of her effort to seem really tough. As she tries desperately to become Trump's running mate. Which is pretty clear now is not going to happen. But that appears to be the reason behind her desperate "Killing the Puppy was OK" Tour. By the way, when you've even put off Trump for being too cruel (the man who pushed for taking migrant children from their parents and putting them in cages), you know you've gone maniacally too far and quarantined yourself alone so distant from everyone else that they're afraid of getting infected by just being anywhere near you, even in the general vicinity. Sort of like during The Plague when those with the disease had to wear signs that said, "Unclean." Here is everybody, and way over there is Kristi Noem. For all the obvious tone-deafness of the stories in her book and her Desperation Tour, what stuck me, as well, beyond all that, is that even if you make the weird decision to tell the puppy, family goat and horse stories because you think it makes you seem tough, there are such better ways to do it. For instance, you don't say that the puppy's name was "Cricket," which is an adorable name and makes the puppy seem even more adorable than just calling it a puppy, which is pretty adorable on its own. And you don't write that when your young daughter came home, she asked, "Where's Cricket?" -- since, among other things, not only does that make you sound more cruel, but it shows that the puppy wasn't all that vicious and just because you hated the puppy, as she wrote, clearly her daughter didn't. Further, you don't write about the puppy running around chasing animals and having the time of its life, which shows it having fun and being happy around other animals. And you most especially don't tell the story about when you killed the family goat that you missed the first time and only wounded it, forcing the goat to be in pain as you tried to track down more bullets. And you leave out that what really bothered you about the goat that helped push you to kill it is that it ruined your children's clothes. Oh, and separate from this is the reality that Kristi Noem is actually banned from 17% of the land in her own state of South Dakota. Really. That's because she has been so horribly insulting to Native Americans (suggesting for reasons known only to her, but apparently still in her "macho tough" phase, that they're somehow involved the drug trade at the U.S.-Mexican border) that many tribes in South Dakota have banned her from their land. Not shabby for a governor. And yet, the Kristi Noem "Killing the Puppy was OK" Reclamation Tour rambles on. On Sunday, she was on Face the Nation, face-planting once again. When asked if she'd met with Kim Jong-Un, the best she could offer was, "I've met with many world leaders." So, that would be a big "no," then, right? But the best comment was, "Some of these anecdotes shouldn't have been in the book." Like, seemingly, the ones about killing the puppy and family goat, and also the lies. It's like she's unaware that reporters question her won't have read the book or read articles about it or fact-checked anything. Or not have a dog. Or know anyone who has a dog. But still, she goes on the interviews, unprepared, hoping the be picked to be a heart-beat from the presidency. Floundering on her one with no one within sight to throw her a lifeline. But, of course, above all, for someone who wants to be a Vice Presidential nominee or even be re-elected as governor, or be elected to any position, it really shows a total lack of awareness to not understand -- putting all that aside, which is a ton to put aside -- that almost all people actually like puppies. And would be against killing them. The guest on this week’s Al Franken podcast is investigative journalist Ari Berman of The Nation. As Al writes, “The GOP is undermining democracy all over the country. The will of the people is being subverted for a loud and active minority. In his new book, guest Ari Berman explains how and where this is happening in America. And, more importantly, what we can do to fight back.”
The other day, I decided to correct the latest MAGOP talking point, that Democrats are the real fascists, not Republicans. Putting aside that it seems obvious from this that they have no more idea what fascism is than they know what communism or socialism are (despite trying to pain Democrats with that for the past 70 years), what they most are completely unaware of is that fascism is specifically a conservative political philosophy. So, calling a liberal a fascist is a contradiction in terms.
It turned out that MAGOPs don’t like hearing this. The vitriol came pouring down. Unrelentingly. I responded to many, continuing to explain politely that, no, they were incorrect, though for the most invective-laced it was clear why the “Block” button was invented. Occasionally, though, I did even reply to a few of those that cried out for an answer. For instance, I would reply, “Just so you know, starting a note to a total stranger with “Dumbass” is generally not going to start a meaningful exchange.” Or to those who would send a graphic meme that said something like, “You are a stupid idiot idiot idiot idot. You make me sick,” they would get the response, “That is not a compelling argument.” I particularly liked the person who explained back that fascism was actually just an offshoot of communism. It was near-impossible to let that fly past, so I’d just point out that that would be a neat trick that could not be found anywhere in reality. I didn’t engage anyone of these in conversation and debate – clearly, there was no point in that. Minds were certain, locked in. But to be clear, the reason I did reply at all was for other people reading the wildly off-base comments who didn’t know the truth, and I felt it was important to correct the disinformation so they didn’t go away believing it all. And yes, I understood full well that it was like playing whack-a-mole in a cornfield of whack-a-mole that spread as far as the weary eye could see. That’s all well and good. I was okay with the responses, since I eventually realized it was easy to ignore them. Replies on Twitter go to your Notifications folder, so all one has to do is not read your Notification folder for a couple days, when the vitriol usually dies down. It does mean you want see the “Likes” and “Reposts” and any comments from people you know who you might want to reply to. But it’s a minor downside to the beatific comfort of silence. What I didn’t count on was the magical world of algorithms, especially those set up by Elon Musk. Those are the computer codes that identify content and match it up with like-minded content it thinks you might enjoy. That’s one of the nefarious results that allows hate-filled posters to find one another and reinforce their anger and echo chamber. And it turns out that by answering many of these corrosive slams and lies and disinformation, my algorithm buddy seemed to think, “Hey, this guy is responding to these people, he must want to continue doing so! Okay, here, let me dump all this garbage on your timeline…” There is good news/ bad news to all this – The bad news is…well, obvious. It’s pretty hideous what solid MAGOP writes. Not to me, but just in general, and mostly to themselves. And they write a whole lot of it, too. It’s hateful, ignorant, often filled with lies and actual “fake news” (whimsical for people who claim they supposedly detest it so much) that they believe, and believe all the more so because it gets reinforced. And I have to wade through this tripe to get to the actual news and exchanges I’m there for. (To be clear, I’ve always gotten a mix of political tweets on my timeline. Mostly liberal, yes, but enough that’s conservative and MAGOP -- some of which I’ll reply to, most of which I’ll at least be aware of. And that’s fine, and as it should be. But this kind of empty, angst-ridden venality is just a detestable bubble.) The good news is that it’s important to see how desolate that unsubstantiated fury is. It’s disturbing, to say the least, but it’s important to know what the sane world is dealing with. And yes, the bad news part in this dynamic overwhelms the good news. But I’m glad for that perspective. What I don’t know is if I’m stuck with this algorithm from now on when rummaging through Twitter – especially since occasionally there will be something SO profoundly inaccurate or a hurtful lie about something that demands being corrected, or if it will fade back to normal, as long as I keep my replies to such things to a minimum. Time will tell. If it doesn’t, it might render Twitter useless, or at least as only a platform to post on and not bother reading. Or perhaps greatly limit what accounts can get sent to my timeline. I’m hoping for a return to normal. I’ll accept semi-normal. But I do mean it – I’m glad to see how insane and angry and utterly misinformed the core MAGOP world is. And no, that's not bias. It’s an accurate description of the equivalence of people saying “2 plus 3 equals ‘French toast,’ and I hate you, and all libs are scum, minorities should be deported, and Trump is God.” And just to cleanse the palate and end on a refreshing note -- the correct answer is 5. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|