A great video to a great song.
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
Sources Revealed - Finally
Starting many months ago, I began asking some commentators on Facebook to provide their sources when they make what appear to be particularly outlandish statements. Over the months, not a single one of them has been able to provide me with anything concrete that might support their positions. Until now.
I was having an exchange, recently, with one fellow on a right-wing wanna-be echo chamber group. The "discussion" was, as I recall, about DonOLD Trump and security and media bias, among other things. At first, when I asked for evidence to support what the fellow was saying, I got memes in response and the usual cop-out "do your own research". I've always found that kind of comment amusing. If you want to actually convince someone, you provide some backup material that might help convince them. Telling them that they're dumb, a liberal, or whatever, doesn't seem to me to be much of a sales pitch.
Finally, though, I got an actual response. FINALLY. After several years of asking. A link to an article in The Federalist and a list of names. purportedly to be worthwhile sources. This seemed like too good an opportunity to pass up, so I'm going to go through a bit of an analysis to see what might be there.
The Evidence
The article was titled: "25 Lies Kamala Harris Told in Her Debate Against Trump", published by The Federalist, September 11th, 2024.
Not being familiar with The Federalist, I looked around to see what kind of a reputation it has. I found this from Wikipedia:
The Federalist is an American conservative online magazine and podcast that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion, and publishes a newsletter.[1][2][3][4] The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013.[4]
During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published many pieces that contained false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations of the recommendations of public health authorities.[5][6][7] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 United States presidential election, The Federalist made false claims that there had been large-scale election fraud.[8][9]
The fellow I was exchanging view with dismissed Wikipedia as a source, but there are a number of credible supporters, such as the following:
- From NetReputation: The Truth About Wikipedia's Credibility
- From ReputationX: Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source for Information?
- From The Economist: Wikipedia is 20, and Its Reputation Has Never Been Higher
- Even the University of Kansas has an examination of Wikipedia in one of their courses, linked to here: Be Credible: Wikipedia
- The College of New Jersey also had a short article about Wikipedia: Encyclopedia Britannica vs Wikipedia.
The basic premise was that Wikipedia is a pretty good source although it lacks the detailed editorial control that traditional encyclopedias have. Usually, there is a recommendation to dig deeper by looking to scholarly, edited works. Of course, we know full well that the political right has spent several years disparaging anything to do with scholarly pointy-headed academics, so I'm not sure where that leaves them.
My approach is to treat Wikipedia as a relatively reliable source of information, keeping in mind how it is created and edited. I'd also point out that IF the main reason for dismissing Wikipedia has to do with "crowd sourced articles" (even with the requirement for citations that can be verified) one has to wonder why so many people think VAERS is a useful source for anti-vaccine information, given that the raw information there is not verified at all. However, I digress....
Back to The Federalist.....
Knowing what has been said about this publication and some of the blatant falsehoods that it's been accused of spreading (COVID-19 and the 2020 US Election results), I'd certainly be unlikely to rely on it, much less read it on even an irregular basis.
The article I was given contained 55 links as follows:
- To Twitter (currently referred to as X) - 22 links
- To other Federalist articles - 17 links
- To Truth Social - 1 link
- To Brietbart - 1 link
- To Other sources - 15 links. These included NPR, ABC News, Hill Times, among others.
I can't imagine using anything coming from "Truth Social", in any context. This is Trump's mouthpiece. Trump lies as easily as he breathes. Nothing he says is credible, at least not on its own.
I'm intrigued by a publication using links to other articles that it's published as "backup material". This sounds like me using my own quotes in support of what I'm currently saying.
About Brietbart: Breitbart News Network (/ˈbraɪtbɑːrt/; known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart, or Breitbart.com) is an American far-right[5] syndicated news, opinion, and commentary[6][7] website founded in mid-2007 by American conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart. Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.[8] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[9][10] and intentionally misleading stories.[11][12] Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.[13][14][15][16]
If you want to know more about why you should ignore Brietbart, Wikipedia would be a good place to start. For a fun exercise, try to find even one positive thing to say about the outlet.
I've never used Twitter (currently known as X), but it seems pretty clear that it's a cesspool of personal opinions with no moderation of any kind. If you want the wild west of bullshit, then Twitter (currently known as X) would be the place to go. As an aside, many on the right disparage Elon Musk for a variety of reasons and claim they wouldn't buy a Tesla because of him and yet they seem content to quote "tweets" from Twitter (currently known as X) as something close to gospel. Yeah, Musk is an idiot, albeit a rich one. Teslas are nice cars, Musk notwithstanding. Twitter is just another anarchists platform.
The Claims
The Federalist article made claims that Harris lied a minimum of 25 times during the debate. I'm not even going to attempt to address each one, but several are worth commenting on.
Harris claimed she was a "middle-class kid". Frankly, criticizing a comment like this while supporting DonOLD Trump is pretty preposterous. Do I need to refresh anyone's mind about DonOLD's wealth here? Nah, I didn't think so. DonOLD has done that plenty by himself. So, what's a middle-class family? According to the Pew Research Center, a family of 4 would be considered middle-class if its income fell between $67K and $201K. Keep in mind that Kamala's mother was a research scientist and her father was a tenured professor in Economics. I don't know what those kind of positions command in terms of salary, but a quick Google search might lead one to assume over $100K as a professor and under $100K as a research scientist. So, upper middle class, perhaps? Also, when Kamala was seven, her parents divorced, so she became the child of a single parent family. Was Kamala "lying" about her background? Not so far as I can see. Is Trump a "man of the people"?? This rates a protracted LOL.
Harris claimed Trump will implement a sales tax if elected. The only evidence quoted in support of the Federalist's claim of a lie is what Trump appears to have said. He has said he wouldn't bring in a sales tax. However, he has promoted various tariffs on imported goods. Many economists see these as a form of sales tax and some have suggested they could cost the average middle class family $4000 a year. So, draw your own conclusions on this one.
Harris claimed that the January 6th riot was an attack on democracy, the worst since the Civil War. Harris is not alone in saying this. So do other organizations and groups, such as: A Majority of Americans, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and the Center for American Progress. It has also been reported as such by The Hill, the BBC, Encyclopedia Britannica, PBS and CNN. What transpired on January 6th was an attempt to subvert an election. I was unable to find a similar event in the years since the Civil War (although I didn't try very hard). It was clearly an attempted insurrection. For The Federalist to dismiss January 6th because there were also events like Pearl Harbour and WWII is preposterous. January 6th was an attack on Congress, the center of government of the nation, by American nationals, incited by a defeated President. Was Harris lying? Not in my opinion.
Harris claimed Trump will implement Project 2025 if elected. Once again, the only evidence refuting this is Trump's word, something any thinking human will recognize as pretty suspect. What the Federalist didn't mention was the very clear fact that the people behind Project 2025 are former or current Trump consultants, advisers, and operatives. Trump may be on the golf course, but these people will be hard at work. Guess what they'll be working at? Furthermore, if you look critically at Project 2025, hundreds of its proposals match Trump policies. You want to read more? Try this link as reported by CBS It claims 270 Project 2025 proposals match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Was Harris exaggerating or lying? Not based on that evidence.
Claims related to Abortion. There were 4 in the list of 25 claimed by The Federalist. I'm going to lump all of them together. Perhaps the ONLY thing worth saying is this: What a woman does with her body is her business and should ONLY be a discussion between her and her doctor. So far as I'm concerned, any other points raised are merely a distraction from that. Here's the reality: Trump appointed several conservative supreme court justices. They decided to reverse the long-standing Roe protections for abortion. In the absence of Roe, many extreme right-wing states have brought in their own very restrictive laws against a woman's right to choose. Saying those states have "protections" (to address rape, incest and so on) is pretty much useless if applications under those provisions are refused. Which is actually the case. A New York Times article made exactly this point
As for the 9-month abortion "issue", The Federalist cites CDC data about what they call "late-term abortions (after 21 weeks). The Federalist ought to know that full term is around 40 weeks. The data they claim isn't related to "9-month abortions". In fact, the link provided by The Federalist to CDC data showed nothing related to these so-called "9-month abortions", only noting that 0.9% occurred after 21 weeks, which is not the same thing at all. There are, though articles debunking this 9-month nonsense. One is here: "Debunking the Mythical 9-Month Abortion". Another is here: "Dear Donald Trump. I'm an Ob-Gyn. There are no 9-month Abortions". So, was Harris lying? Not so far as I can see. Not on any of the four claims raised by the Federalist.
Harris claimed that Trump incited the January 6th attack on Congress. Despite protestations by The Federalist, it's been reliably reported by several news organizations, complete with quotes from Trump, that Trump did exactly that. Here is a selection:
From the BBC, with quotes directly from Trump - Capital Riots: Did Trump's words at rally Incite Violence?
From Reuters, with testimony from a HoR hearing - Trump incited Jan 6 attack after "unhinged" White House meeting, panel told. The vice-chair of that panel, Liz Cheney, made it quite clear how she felt. You can listen to what she had to say by following the link above.
Was Harris correct is saying what she did? Based on what Trump is quoted as saying, how can there be any doubt? Unless, of course, you're The Federalist.
Harris claimed that "some" officers died because of the Jan 6 riots. The Federalist seems to believe this is a lie. I'm only going to bother referring to one case. DOJ finds police officers suicide .... was a death in the line of duty. Perhaps The Federalist is lying? It's worthwhile noting that, according to some sources, The Federalist was responsible for promoting false information about the 2020 election.
Harris claimed Trump threatened a "bloodbath" if he didn't win. It has been claimed that Trump was referring to an "economic bloodbath", specifically in the auto industry. But one good article pointed out that Trump often phrases things in a way that "walks a line" that could be interpreted differently, depending on the listener. So, was Trump referring to violence or an economic catastrophe? If you read the rest of his comments, you might be excused if you wondered which kind of bloodbath he was talking about.
Harris claimed she doesn't support mandatory gun confiscation. Frankly, in the US, there is NO WAY to discuss this issue without invoking massive pushback, from both sides of the debate. I'm not even going to try to consider what Harris might or might not have said. This article does try to explain, however. Trump has said "She’s for taking away all of your guns", which doesn't seem accurate either. I'd say there is exaggeration from everyone on this issue. Sensible gun regulations is not the same as gun confiscation. We see that here in Canada. But to some, regulations mean the same thing. So, once again:
Just as former President Barack Obama never confiscated firearms from law-abiding gun owners, Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz oppose confiscation. PolitiFact rated the confiscation accusations against Harris as “mostly false.” During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she supported “a mandatory gun buyback program,” but only for assault weapons. In July 2024, the Harris campaign said she still supports an assault weapons ban but not a requirement to sell existing assault weapons to the federal government. PolitiFact “found no examples that she supports mandatory gun confiscation now and the majority of guns sold in the U.S. are handguns.”
The Federalist seems to believe Harris is lying about the gun issue. Not how I see it.
Harris has claimed that IVF patients are being denied because of Trump's abortion bans. The Guardian had a useful article on this very topic and I will quote them directly:
In February, for example, several clinics in Alabama temporarily paused IVF procedures after the state’s supreme court ruled that frozen embryos are “children”. (Because the IVF process typically involves making multiple embryos, disposing of surplus embryos would put medical professionals in legal jeopardy.) Following a massive backlash, Trump said he would “strongly support the availability of IVF” and called on Alabama lawmakers to preserve access to the procedure. Which they did: Alabama quickly passed a law protecting IVF providers from liability. At the same time, however, Republicans refused to consider proposals that would have addressed the legal status of embryos created in IVF labs, meaning the issue still isn’t fully settled.
So Trump may wish to woo women voters by claiming he's all for IVF, but Republicans do not seem to be onside with Trump on that. It's also surprising that The Federalist would mention Trump's promise to make taxpayers pay for IVF treatment. As The Guardian notes, that's a very big, very expensive and very unsubstantiated promise.
Back to what Harris claimed, however. If Trump (and through him his conservative USSC justices) have effectively thrown the whole issue back to individual states, and those states are rushing to block IVF for ideological reasons, it's hard to see why Trump's feelings on the issue matter much. What matters is what happens on the ground. I think The Federalist is avoiding a discussion about reality as it exists.
Harris claims foreign autocrats are pulling for Trump. The Los Angeles Times wrote an article on this: "Trump's foreign strategy still rests heavily on courting autocrats".
"It’s in many ways a continuation of the precedent-breaking, Western-world-order-busting policies that Trump pursued in his first. As president, Trump heaped scorn on faithful U.S. allies, like Germany’s Angela Merkel, and embraced autocrats, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Honduras’ Juan Orlando Hernandez, who is now serving a 45-year sentence in U.S. federal prison for drug trafficking."
The article goes on to explain how this is likely to continue, and has indeed continued while Trump has been out of office. The best The Federalist can do is claim that it's difficult to know what any foreign leaders night think. That's not what numerous examples seem to indicate. Trump is an authoritarian, he likes authoritarians and there are many Americans who know this and support it.
There were other claims that Harris had lied during the debate. Frankly, I would be skeptical, generally, given the source of those claims, but other views are available. I'm not going to try to examine each and every one of them. I will end by including a link to a BBC article that fact-checked a number of claims made by both Harris and Trump. Worth skimming over.
But the fellow who sent me this link also included the names of several commentators who he indicated were worth listening to. I will briefly mention them here.
Lara Logan - On reading some background on Ms Logan, one thing struck me pretty clearly. If you wanted a good example of someone who started a promising career in journalism but fell from grace as a result of stories containing factual errors and eventually descending into the rabbit hole of conspiracies, fake information and outright lies, Ms Logan's career would be an excellent exemplar. She was even dumped by Faux News, which must say something. She has an entry in Wikipedia that outlines her decline. I suppose you "could" read her material, but my question would be WHY? Even far-right media disavow some of her material.
Julie Kelly - Ms Kelly seems like a regular run-of-the-mill right wing writer with the usual mantras: Biden bad, Trump good; progressives bad, regressives good. An archive of some of her articles is available here. It's worthwhile noting that one of her articles mentioned the (travesty of the) arrest of someone associated with Moms for Liberty, a group Ms Kelly paints as " a nationwide group of moms defending their children from “woke” ideology and government overreach". Just to be clear, this group has declared support for a member who approvingly quoted Hitler and which some label as a group promoting hate speech. And this article from The Hill, calls the group an Extremist Organization.
Glen Greenwald - Given the hate and harassment that gay couples face, I have to give credit to Mr Greenwald for his chosen career. He even managed to attract the negative attention of Bolsonaro supporters, which must count for something. You can get a useful synopsis of his career here. If you read that story you might notice that Mr Greenwald appears critical of both sides of the political spectrum, depending on the issue at hand. That's the kind of commentator you're looking for, generally.
John Solomon - Although Mr Solomon has held positions at The Hill and Faux News, he has been criticized (by colleagues) of having a conservative bias and missing important context. Terms like "false narrative" and "significant flaws" appear regularly. In an internal report, The Hill noted: "...Solomon's 14 columns about Ukraine and the Bidens, including omitting important details and failing to disclose that the sources used by Solomon were his own attorneys Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova—both close associates of Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani." Hmmm... He may have won awards, but....
Megyn Kelly - An extensive story about her life and career is available here. I can say one thing. Any commentator normally labeled as conservative but who has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Trump, unlike the other lap dogs in Trump's circle, has to be worth listening to. This despite the fact that she's appeared at fundraisers for Moms for Liberty (see above and also this article in The Hill - Six reasons why Moms for Liberty is an Extremist Organization).
Summary
So. What to make of all this? I appreciated the opportunity to look into some of the sources that at least one individual regards as informative. Not sure I'd look to any of these sources to inform my own opinions but if I did, I'd be careful to fact-check anything they said because it seems they are playing a bit fast and loose.
Saturday, August 03, 2024
Costs of Climate Change - Deaths
I supposed the ultimate cost of any catastrophe would be the deaths the catastrophe causes. Climate change has been identified as a cause of a significant number of deaths globally.
The World Health Organization has estimated that close to 500,000 deaths globally can be attributed to heat. And we all know that climate change is making things hotter. In Europe, the number has been estimated to be around 175,000 heat-related deaths, as described here:
Heat in European region kills 175,000 a year, WHO estimates
Mostly what the heat does is make various chronic conditions worse. Conditions like cardio-and-cerebro-vascular diseases (strokes and such). Diabetes-related conditions as well. Of course, many of these chronic conditions are more common in the elderly. However, as we saw during the pandemic, some people see the elderly as expendable, especially when it comes to taking any kind of proactive measures like masking, vaccinating or, in the case of climate change, actively working to reduce greenhouse gases.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an analysis looking into the various ways climate change was impacting people. It can be seen here:
Basically, the report looks at things like temperature, vector-borne diseases, food safety and nutrition, mental health concerns and air quality impacts.
Air quality, of course is affected in a number of ways. With increasing temperatures, ground level ozone is expected to increase. More forest fires, already happening because of more hot and dry conditions, causes increases in particulate matter in the air. These all have quite negative effects on health.
Food and nutrition will be affected, as shown in the following picture (a larger image can be found on the link above):
The Climate Atlas of Canada also has an article dealing with Climate change and Health. The article considers many of the same issues and includes a number of actions that can be taken to mitigate the effects of those issues.
Once again, it's clear that inaction on climate change is going to be costly, particularly in terms of human health.
Friday, August 02, 2024
Danielle Smith - Meet Jasper Alberta
On July 24, 2024, a forest fire swept through Jasper, Alberta. Preliminary reports say that over 30% of the structures in that town have been destroyed. Insured losses are estimated to be in excess of $700 Million.
One story about how the fire engulfed Jasper appeared here, complete with video footage.
Jasper wildfire: Here’s how quickly flames engulfed a town
A number of factors likely contributed to the intensity of this fire. Weeks of higher than average temperatures. Months of less than average rainfall. Decades of fire suppression and a buildup of fuel in the forest. Climate change driven wild by more and more burning of fossil fuels.
A few of them are explained in this article: A history of cuts to Alberta's firefighting budget, explained.
Two different government administrations were responsible for cuts to Alberta's firefighting capabilities. The current UCP government continued those cuts.
Alberta’s UCP Government Has Cut Tens of Millions of Dollars From Wildfire Preparedness Programs
Danielle Smith performed well for the cameras. Expressions of sadness, perhaps a few (fake) tears. But it was all for the cameras. Danielle has gaslighted for oil and gas. She's pimped for oil and gas. She's defended oil and gas. She denied human-caused climate change. She is one of the politicians who is partly responsible for this mess.
Danielle, of course, has identified what or who is to blame. Arsonists.
A climate connection to Alberta wildfires? Smith says most in province caused by humans
Danielle should resign and let someone else be Premier. Preferably someone with a better grip on reality.
Thursday, August 01, 2024
Costs of Climate Change - Tourism
Human-caused climate change is simply a fact. We've known about it since the late 1800s, Exxon scientists knew about it over 50 years ago, and data continues to pour in confirming what we've known all along. Burning fossil fuels, releasing giga-tonnes of CO2, is changing the climate in ways we haven't seen in all of human history and at a rate that is unprecedented in the Earth's history.
We know that we need to change energy sources. We need to adapt for greater changes in climate still to come. None of this will be cheap. However, doing nothing is not an option because not doing anything will cost even more. As this series tries to make clear, we are already paying for the effects of climate change, and one casualty of climate change is tourism.
A recent article from the BBC was titled "Will extreme weather change when (and where) you go on holiday?"
This summer has seen what was referred to as "a slew of heat-related deaths" in the Mediterranean. And tourists are taking note. Cancellations, booking at different times of the year and even heading for cooler destinations (think Iceland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway....).
And it's not just heat. There have been other natural disasters, such as fires, hurricanes and floods. Remember, it was only last summer when temperature infernos and a lack of rain triggered massive fires in Spain, Italy and Greece.
Closer to home, forest fires have disrupted travel more and more each year recently.
The recent massive fire that burned 30-40% of Jasper closed major highways, throttling commercial truck traffic and essentially closing down certain businesses in the area, as this article makes clear.
Business craters for open tourist spots outside Jasper National Park. Highway 16 has been closed since July 24 and only recently opened for short periods to allow commercial truck traffic through. The Icefields Parkway has also been closed, one of the major routes to and from Jasper. Campers in Jasper who had to flee as the fire approached have still not been able to retrieve their camping equipment, RVs and such. It's unknown when that will happen. Now that so much of Jasper has burned, one wonders how long it will be until many tourists return to the Park.
An article in the Vernon Morning Star from September 19th, 2023, suggested that Climate change cost B.C. tourism ‘$100s of millions, never to be recovered’. A fire on Vancouver Island in June 2023, forced a 2.5 week closure of Highway 4. A survey of businesses affected indicated a loss of $44 million. What is also means is that potential tourists might avoid BC in the future, especially since smoke-filled summers, road closures and forest fires makes travel in this province less appealing.
And it's not just summer fires and heat waves. Climate change is resulting in less snow in winter, so tourism for skiing is suffering. On a personal level, snow levels were so bad last winter where I live that I didn't do a single day of alpine touring skiing all winter, choosing instead to spend my time at a few nearby cross country ski locations.
It's also worth mentioning that tourism isn't just a victim of climate change. According to one source, tourism is responsible for 8% of the world's carbon emissions.
Globally, tourism is a $7.7 trillion business and contributes 7.6% to the global economy. This and other effects were mentioned in Climate change, global warming posing serious challenges to global tourism.
And this is just a start. It's going to get worse.
Tuesday, July 30, 2024
Costs of Climate Change - Denial
It's a VERY common refrain from the Climate Change Denial camp
"The climate has changed before. It's always changing."
"How could CO2 cause climate change when it makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere?"
Both statements are true, up to a point. It's what comes after that point that's the problem.
Both statements are addressed and debunked in this one article:
It's like this, briefly.
First, CO2 concentrations are higher now than they've been in the past 4 million years. That encompasses the whole of human history and definitely the history of modern civilization.
That said, it's not the concentration of CO2 specifically OR the precise temperature that is the problem. It's the RATE at which both CO2 and temperature are changing.
Yes, there have been warm periods in the Earth's past. Those changes happed over thousands of years and amounted to around 0.1 degree F per century. That's 10 times slower than the rate of change we're experiencing now.
What we're seeing now looks like this:
That rapid rate of change is what's giving us conditions like those shown in this data. Where the past 12 months are the warmest they've ever been, historically. A rate of change that's more like a whole degree in a decade (remember - 10 times faster than anything the Earth has experienced before).
The infrastructure on which 8 billion people depend - our cities, our agriculture, and pretty much everything else - was built around a climate that was stable for thousands of years. Infrastructure can be adapted to changing conditions IF those changes happen slowly.
They're not.
Saturday, July 20, 2024
Democracy Under Attack in the USA
The grand jury indictment referred to in the following article came out in 2018. And yet, here we are, in July 2024, with the prospects of Trump becoming President once again.
By: Heather Cox Richardson
On Friday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, appointed to the Department of Justice by Donald Trump, announced that a grand jury had returned an indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers for interfering in the 2016 US election. A grand jury is comprised of regular Americans, and it only indicts when a supermajority believes that the evidence proves a case. So Rosenstein was telling the nation, and the Republican Party, and the president, that the Department of Justice has evidence, admissible in court, that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, under Vladmir Putin, the Russian military hacked the 2016 election in favor of Trump. This is an attack on our sovereignty as real as any bombing campaign. Indeed, one of the aliases the Russians used was "Ward DeClaur," which sounds an awful lot like "War Declared."
Today, Trump stood in front of cameras and sided with Putin.
The American president sided with an enemy power over our own government. This has never happened before; indeed, our system was deliberately set up to make sure it could not happen. But it has.
Also today, a Russian national, Maria Butina, was charged in federal court with acting as a foreign agent, forging ties to the Republican Party through the NRA. Butina had testified voluntarily before the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russian interference in the election, which produced a bipartisan report unanimously agreeing that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, but GOP House investigators refused Democrats' requests to call Butina to testify. We know that the NRA gave $30 million to Trump's campaign, and that a great deal of that money was Russian. We also know that the NRA heavily supported GOP candidates, and that, apparently, some of them were talking with Russian agents. It is not a stretch to believe that Russian money influenced the election down the ticket as well as at the top. It seems we are approaching an explanation of why GOP leaders have been so defensive about the Russia investigation, and so weirdly quiet as Trump has run roughshod over the nation.
We are at the moment when we must face that the president and the leaders of the Republican Party are tools of a foreign power.
To what end are they acting?
They are deliberately destroying democracy in favor of oligarchy. This is why their interests align with those of the oligarchical Russia, rather than with us, and why Trump is trying to destroy our alliances with other democratic nations.
Since WWII, America has tried to curb the abuses of capitalism while still preserving that system. The government regulated businesses to keep them from brutalizing workers, cheating consumers, and polluting the air and water. It provided a basic social safety net for the elderly and the needy. And it provided infrastructure-- roads, bridges, schools and hospitals-- to make sure everyone had equal access to opportunity. Above all, it demanded equality before the law. Since 1933, this government represented what the American people wanted.
Trump and the GOP have deliberately worked to destroy this system (most recently by rewriting the numbers so they can declare that we have no need for a social safety net because there are so few Americans living in poverty). They believe that government interference in the accumulation of wealth hampers the ability of rich men to advance the economy, and therefore society. They must not be held to the laws; they must be permitted to do what they think is best. This was the same ideology as that held by the Robber Barons at the end of the nineteenth century and the leaders from the 1920s: to make the country great, you had to give businessmen free rein to act in their best interest. Now that ideology is international. If only Trump can smash our alliances with other democracies-- as he is working so hard to do-- he can help Russia launch an oligarchy that can rule the world.
If we permit this to happen, we will all be expendable, depending on whether or not we are useful to our rulers. You can bet your life on it. Literally.
In the 1890s and the 1920s, Americans took back their democracy. Today, we are at an even more dramatic crisis, with a president who is siding with a foreign enemy and a ruling political party that is compliant, at best. This is the moment when we must call out treason, and speak up to defend democracy, our birthright, from enemy oligarchs, both abroad and- heartbreakingly- at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)