Sad news today

[hntnhole]

On 3/4/2022 at 8:29 PM, ErosWired said:

[think before following links] https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-the-idea-that-every-country-has-the-government-it-deserves

That was a fairly interesting link.  In the case of current events, it appears to still ring true.  All reports I see on media reports lately, is that citizens of Russia are denying the truth (as peddled by their President and his henchmen), even when offered proof by their own family members, suffering atrocities - committed in the name of the Russian People - in the Ukraine.  Obviously, I regret that is the case, but - our regret does not translate into fact.  If the terribly misguided Russians that follow their President's falsehoods are the eventual victims of his rapacious land-grab(s), then so be it.  There are thousands and thousands of Russian citizens that know the truth, and are demonstrating at this moment in the streets against the acts their government is perpetrating.  And still, a substantial percentage of Russian citizens fail to pull the fetid wool from their eyes.

If the majority of the Russian citizenry depose their own Government, instead of the Ukrainian one, great.  But until that happens, I have no sympathy for the Russians that support their Government's actions.  

In the same vein, I have no sympathy for the American citizens that support the overthrow of our own Democracy.  Remember: at the end of WWII, there were still citizens of Germany that disbelieved the crimes against humanity committed in their names. Even when the war ended, and German citizens were forced to walk through the death-camps, some thought that outrage was committed by non-Germans.  

The siren-call of hatred towards "the other" has been, is, and unfortunately probably always will be the curse of Humanity.  It's up to those other citizens - of any nation - to reject that depravity, and work towards a better, more enlightened human race.

[BannedWord]

13 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The op-ed....(Shortened for brevity)...Of course, he's the same asshole who gleefully endorsed Mitch McConnell's blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination, despite the fact that Garland's prior nomination to the DC Circuit was UNOPPOSED - far more support than Brown EVER had, for ANY nomination. As always, Thiessen the Hack is saying "do what I say, not what I do".

You're right that no one remembers Janice Rogers Brown. That's because she was an utterly forgettable failure as a judge. 

Ok, so a couple points in here. (Views expressed in links do not necessarily reflect those of the person posting as disclaimer going forward)

1. This was not about Marc Thiessen's article, so let's not derail. I used that only as a pointer to substantiate that she would have been, in fact, the first black female to be nominated.

2. It seems that your litmus test to whether a justice is qualified is whether they tow a purely liberal/Democrat line. Bush 41 presented a candidate for justice, it happened to be Clarence Thomas. I don't know where you've concluded that Thomas is outside the mainstream, but let's keep in mind that SCOTUS isn't an activism wing of the government but rather one that examines the Constitutionality of actions and rulings set before it that it accepts. It cites legal precedent, There is a Legislative branch for making laws, that isn't SCOTUS' remit. If we're basing this upon putting forth the best choice for a justice irrespective of politics, Preet Bharara (I'll let you look him up, apparently my providing a link will mean I'm promoting a view, dare-say I not do that) would be an excellent candidate based on what he's done in Southern District of New York as a prosecutor. No one is touching that one though because it would be the first "Asian American" justice. 

3. I was not about making this political in the discussion, and was attempting to keep it lined that way. For all the squeaking in the wheel here, it'll still be Kagan, Sotomayor, and the replacement to Breyer who tend to side more liberally, and often John Roberts tends to side that way as well despite being appointed by Bush 43. So this doesn't make much difference on composition which is why I'm not looking to make this political.

4. Merrick Garland. Yeah, thank heavens he wasn't appointed. The man is a walking civil rights disaster. Look at the student rape case in Virginia and Garland's responses that we start clamping down on parents, of all people, who are outraged by the decisions that school boards have made and are often making. Viewing parents as terrorists!?!? WTF? Sorry man, but where you have problems with him not being appointed to SCOTUS, I have problems with his actions as Attorney General. 

5. Again, to your last point on her 'forgettableness' as a judge, please go back to my point in #1 above. Perhaps I shouldn't have cited ANY article to introduce this, but I was looking (quickly, I'll add) for some citation about the circumstance. Unfortunately it was an Op-Ed, but at least in WaPo. I'll do better next time. Like citing an MSNBC page. 🤣😂

[BootmanLA]

45 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

1. This was not about Marc Thiessen's article, so let's not derail. I used that only as a pointer to substantiate that she would have been, in fact, the first black female to be nominated.

But she wasn't nominated. Bush had the option of submitting her name even knowing she might not get confirmed. That's what Obama did with Garland, even after Yertle the Turtle declared he was going to hold that seat for the next Republican president, whoever that might be (if you think he'd have let Clinton get a justice confirmed on the Court, you're on some sort of substances). 

48 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

It seems that your litmus test to whether a justice is qualified is whether they tow a purely liberal/Democrat line. 🤣😂

Nope. I will freely admit I think a strict conservative approach to the Constitution is wrong (if it were, television, radio, and internet news media would not be covered by the First Amendment, because the First Amendment guarantees freedom "of the press", and in "originalist" thinking - what the conservative wing insists on - a "press" is a physical piece of equipment producing printed material. It's only because we consider the "evolving" meaning of things - something the right wing routinely denounces when it comes to things like sexual orientation being a protected characteristic - that FOXNews enjoys First Amendment rights.

Be that as it may, I think a variety of viewpoints on the Court are a good thing, within a reasonable range. I'm no more in favor of a radical leftist approach than I am of the extreme right-wing positions of Clarence Thomas.

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

I don't know where you've concluded that Thomas is outside the mainstream, but let's keep in mind that SCOTUS isn't an activism wing of the government but rather one that examines the Constitutionality of actions and rulings set before it that it accepts. It cites legal precedent, There is a Legislative branch for making laws, that isn't SCOTUS' remit.

I'm not the only one - by far - who thinks Thomas is outside the mainstream. The fact that he is frequently - by an order of magnitude more than any other justice he's served with - standing alone in dissent on matters of long-settled jurisprudence tells any disinterested observer that much. He routinely has staked out positions so far to the right that not even Rehnquist, Scalia, or Roberts would go for. Unlike most cheerleaders for one side or the other on here, I actually have to read the opinions issued by the Court - not only majority Opinions, but plurality ones, dissents, partial dissents, and the like, and it's patently clear to anyone who's read Thomas's work that he is outside the mainstream. Or was, until a couple of more recent appointees - the Handmaiden among them - have joined the Court.

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

If we're basing this upon putting forth the best choice for a justice irrespective of politics, Preet Bharara (I'll let you look him up, apparently my providing a link will mean I'm promoting a view, dare-say I not do that) would be an excellent candidate based on what he's done in Southern District of New York as a prosecutor. No one is touching that one though because it would be the first "Asian American" justice. 

I assure you that you don't have to explain to me who Preet Bharara is. I agree he would probably make a good choice for an appellate judge at any court, and possibly a SCOTUS justice as well. 

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

3. I was not about making this political in the discussion, and was attempting to keep it lined that way.

Odd choice, for a politics forum, but hey, you do you.

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

For all the squeaking in the wheel here, it'll still be Kagan, Sotomayor, and the replacement to Breyer who tend to side more liberally, and often John Roberts tends to side that way as well despite being appointed by Bush 43. So this doesn't make much difference on composition which is why I'm not looking to make this political.

You may not want to make this political, but every confirmation decision for the US courts is political. Right now, we can HOPE that the replacement for Breyer is more like Breyer than, say, Thomas. If somehow the GOP manages to drag this confirmation out past the midterms (if even one Democrat isn't present to support the nominee, you can bet the GOP will block whoever it is), and the Republicans regain control of the Senate, I have no doubt that McConnell will decide that the Court got along with 8 justices just fine while Scalia was dead, so another two years is no big deal.

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

Merrick Garland. Yeah, thank heavens he wasn't appointed. The man is a walking civil rights disaster. Look at the student rape case in Virginia and Garland's responses that we start clamping down on parents, of all people, who are outraged by the decisions that school boards have made and are often making. Viewing parents as terrorists!?!? WTF? Sorry man, but where you have problems with him not being appointed to SCOTUS, I have problems with his actions as Attorney General. 

You're once again parroting right-wing bullshit. Let's get the facts straight. The victim in this VA case was a female student raped by a male student who was her former dating partner. He was not a transgender girl nor was he posing as one, and the school in question had NOT adopted a policy regarding trans persons using restrooms, so that bullshit about liberal policies leading to this is just that - bullshit. The female victim CHOSE the girls' restroom to talk with her former dating partner (I use that term because while they had had consensual sex on more than one previous occasion, I don't know if she considered him a "boyfriend" or what). He assaulted her in the rest room out of opportunity, not because he used a liberal policy to sneak his way in there. Once transferred to another school during the disciplinary process (separate from the criminal process), he sexually assaulted ANOTHER student.

The girl's father was arrested at a school board meeting after he got violent and threatened another parent with a fist in her face. I get that he was upset about his daughter's case, but violence towards other parents is not the way to handle it, and he was appropriately arrested for the assault.

Garland's memo about parental attacks on school boards, etc. had nothing to do with this case. It had to do with the growing number of right-wing brainwashed people who refuse to wear masks and want to prohibit schools from even allowing masks for the students who feel vulnerable, and who want to prohibit any vaccination requirements, because these dumbfucks have been conditioned by FOXNews and even sleazier right-wing outlets that there's something dangerous about the COVID vaccines, even as over 900,000 people have died from the disease in this country in just two years. THOSE are the parents the AG was warning people to be on the lookout about - the kind that are likely to organize, show up and disrupt meetings, and otherwise terrorize - yes, terrorize is the right word - others into acquiescing to their idiotic view of the world.

The VA case, by contrast, was a local incident, not something that would normally rise to the level of notice by the attorney general of the United States. That's like expecting the president to know your fucking birthday and send you a card. Top federal officials have a little bit more on their plates to worry about than a single incident of a domestic violence/rape case in a school.

[BannedWord]

8 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

But she wasn't nominated. Bush had the option of submitting her name even knowing she might not get confirmed. That's what Obama did with Garland, even after Yertle the Turtle declared he was going to hold that seat for the next Republican president, whoever that might be (if you think he'd have let Clinton get a justice confirmed on the Court, you're on some sort of substances). 

Again, I'm not inferring anything. I'd sincerely doubt that McConnell or whoever the majority leader is would ever be able to get away with 3-4 years of a vacancy.

And the comment on substances is another low blow but I've seen this from you before. Let's keep this civil please.

8 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Nope. I will freely admit I think a strict conservative approach to the Constitution is wrong (if it were, television, radio, and internet news media would not be covered by the First Amendment, because the First Amendment guarantees freedom "of the press", and in "originalist" thinking - what the conservative wing insists on - a "press" is a physical piece of equipment producing printed material. It's only because we consider the "evolving" meaning of things - something the right wing routinely denounces when it comes to things like sexual orientation being a protected characteristic - that FOXNews enjoys First Amendment rights.

So a few things on this:

1. There is a difference between the interpretation of The Constitution and legislation from the bench. I'd suggest the framers intended The Constitution to 'evolve' but were insightful enough to understand that SCOTUS isn't there to pass laws but only to determine if they're in line with the Constitution. Congress legislates. Executive does...well, for #45 and #46, both have tried to contort the Constitution through Executive Orders, so thankfully there are legal remedies.
2. I never once said I was an "originalist". There are a lot of areas where the laws haven't caught up with the technology. Press evolves. It's not even just national or local media, but in the Internet age, it's also independent parties who are reporting. But if we consider all of them under the same broad brush, they should all be held to the same standards of truthfulness. Thankfully we have laws about that was well to address the false accusations that have come to light against people like Kyle Rittenhouse and Nick Sandmann by CNN and others reporting conjecture as fact. That certain made Sandmann one of CNN's highest-paid, I'd hope everyone starts to heed that lesson versus a rush to judgment.
3. I disagree the "right-wing" (I'm libertarian, thank you) is against evolution meanings since they've had to rule on items that weren't even in the minds of the original framers. 
4. You do you with FOX News or CNN or MSNBC or whoever. Can we agree that all of them -- without exception -- have run derelict of their mission to "report news" and moved to providing opinion over facts? 

I firmly believe that we lost that when the Equal-Time rule was abolished. Ever since, media has taken their hard turns to out-do each other in how radically they can appeal.
 

8 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I'm not the only one - by far - who thinks Thomas is outside the mainstream. The fact that he is frequently - by an order of magnitude more than any other justice he's served with - standing alone in dissent on matters of long-settled jurisprudence tells any disinterested observer that much. He routinely has staked out positions so far to the right that not even Rehnquist, Scalia, or Roberts would go for. Unlike most cheerleaders for one side or the other on here, I actually have to read the opinions issued by the Court - not only majority Opinions, but plurality ones, dissents, partial dissents, and the like, and it's patently clear to anyone who's read Thomas's work that he is outside the mainstream. Or was, until a couple of more recent appointees - the Handmaiden among them - have joined the Court.

Can you point to any recent 8-1 SCOTUS decisions to support this? Both sides have written dissenting opinions, including John Roberts.  It's clear that you have a name for anyone who doesn't agree with your views, I haven't heard one for Kagan, Sotomayor or Breyer yet to give an equal treatment, so I doubt there's any chance of agreement at any point in the future. So this post will be my last response since I'm not in the business of trying to convince the unconvinceable. Handmaiden? Really? Tell us how you really feel. 😉

8 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

You may not want to make this political, but every confirmation decision for the US courts is political. Right now, we can HOPE that the replacement for Breyer is more like Breyer than, say, Thomas. If somehow the GOP manages to drag this confirmation out past the midterms (if even one Democrat isn't present to support the nominee, you can bet the GOP will block whoever it is), and the Republicans regain control of the Senate, I have no doubt that McConnell will decide that the Court got along with 8 justices just fine while Scalia was dead, so another two years is no big deal.

Of course it's political. We can agree that I'd much rather have a justice like Breyer since I'm a moderate and libertarian. I never thought Breyer was pushing an agenda in the same way we can say that other appointees have, on both sides of the aisle.

8 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

You're once again parroting right-wing bull...

And you're simply quoting the far left. What's your point?

You know, we disagree here and almost certainly will never agree since there is no longer a media outlet who could be disabused of reporting all-opinion. Instead, we get two or more different versions of their agendas. If it's CNN, we get the war as sponsored by Applebee's, or MSNBC and Al Sharpton (anyone remember Tawana Brawley) or FOX News (Tucker Carlson's comments on siding with Russia made some time ago). None of them are 'correct' or more correct than any other and all are selective on what they report of how they angle it. Find one truly objective source. You can't. 

And we're all worse off and more divided as a country as a result of it.

Good luck to you.

[BlackDude]

Given the history of the Ukraine harboring, even enabling, white supremacist groups, to the point it’s world renowned, my thoughts will be other places. They can figuratively “hold their own nuts.”  

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

You know, we disagree here and almost certainly will never agree since there is no longer a media outlet who could be disabused of reporting all-opinion.

I’m sorry, but I can’t let that pass without challenge. That statement is hyperbolic, deeply cynical, and an affront to every professional journalist working in the field. I hold a degree in journalism. Objectivity in reporting lies at the core of the discipline, and is the first thing taught. There are many - many - dedicated men and women working in journalism today who take their professional responsibilities very seriously, adhere firmly to the highest standards of journalistic ethics, and go out of their way to provide balanced reportage because above all else what they want to do is convey the true story. There is fair and balanced reporting on the airwaves every hour of the day. The British Broadcasting Corporation’s news product has long been a gold standard, and National Public Radio adheres to robust journalistic principles, just for a start.

The fact that partisan and/or capitalist interests have co-opted and corrupted certain outlets (or in the case of Fox News, warped them grotesquely out of all recognition) does not mean that all journalism is now equally compromised. If a person insists that it does, that simply indicates that that person lacks the discernment to separate reportage from opinion in the first place. Bleats that all ‘the Media’ are crooked/corrupt/lying/fake are facile, dim-witted, utterly indefensible tripe spouted by people who think everything they hear is opinion because they never learned how to think objectively and therefore can credit only what sounds like their own opinion. We can, therefore, and should, dismiss such criticism out-of-hand.

Edited March 8, 2022 by ErosWired

[hntnhole]

8 hours ago, BlackDude said:

They can figuratively “hold their own nuts.”

The problem with that perspective, in my opinion, is that there is nothing Progressive in that mindset.  There is only an entirely justified, natural, disgust at what has been, with no hope of altering that history in favor of changing hearts and minds.

Given that the US, founded upon the depravity of White Privilege, and cursed to this very day with the results, how are we to progress to a more Perfect Union here, let alone in other parts of the bitterly racist world, if we don't try?  Being Caucasian, I cannot possibly pretend to imagine what the experiences of Af/Am citizens have suffered.  But that doesn't mean I cannot do what I can to change the system.  

I've seen the examples on the media coverage of the treatment of non-Caucasians in the Ukraine, and there's substantial work to be done there, as well as around the world.  Some how, this page in human history must be turned.  I'd rather go down fighting to improve everyone's lot than turn my back and do nothing.  

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The problem with that perspective, in my opinion, is that there is nothing Progressive in that mindset.  There is only an entirely justified, natural, disgust at what has been, with no hope of altering that history in favor of changing hearts and minds.

Given that the US, founded upon the depravity of White Privilege, and cursed to this very day with the results, how are we to progress to a more Perfect Union here, let alone in other parts of the bitterly racist world, if we don't try?  Being Caucasian, I cannot possibly pretend to imagine what the experiences of Af/Am citizens have suffered.  But that doesn't mean I cannot do what I can to change the system.  

I've seen the examples on the media coverage of the treatment of non-Caucasians in the Ukraine, and there's substantial work to be done there, as well as around the world.  Some how, this page in human history must be turned.  I'd rather go down fighting to improve everyone's lot than turn my back and do nothing.  

There is no such thing as “progressive” racism. Either there is or there isn’t. And their racism isn’t toward “non-Caucasian” it’s toward black people. Ukraine is openly enabling anti-black neo nazi’s from around the world to come and train. This has been reported for years. That is not a condition of the heart, that’s a national ideology. 

Black people should not have to suffer or be mistreated in silence for the betterment of everyone else. Telling us “we should just ignore the blatant white supremecy in the Ukraine for now, and we will get to you guys later” is not acceptable for most black people. Some would call that a form of slavery. 
 

 

 

 

 

[hntnhole]

8 hours ago, BlackDude said:

There is no such thing as “progressive” racism

I neither wrote or implied there is.  What I wrote was, there is nothing Progressive about the perception.  While I agree with your ideas of the universality of racism, I do not agree that with long, hard work, it cannot be rectified.  You may call me a Bleeding Heart Liberal if you'd like, but you may not call me a supporter of slavery - past, present, or future.

The Ukrainian society may well be as infected with anti-Black racism, but that does not equate to Nazism.  Our country is deeply infected with racism too. What we do to root it out is what counts.  I too am dismayed to see this anti-Black racism in the Ukraine, as well as around the corner here in FL, and under every other rock in the world.  How about we work together to that end?

 

[BannedWord]

20 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I’m sorry, but I can’t let that pass without challenge. That statement is hyperbolic, deeply cynical, and an affront to every professional journalist working in the field. I hold a degree in journalism. Objectivity in reporting lies at the core of the discipline, and is the first thing taught. There are many - many - dedicated men and women working in journalism today who take their professional responsibilities very seriously, adhere firmly to the highest standards of journalistic ethics, and go out of their way to provide balanced reportage because above all else what they want to do is convey the true story. There is fair and balanced reporting on the airwaves every hour of the day. The British Broadcasting Corporation’s news product has long been a gold standard, and National Public Radio adheres to robust journalistic principles, just for a start.

The fact that partisan and/or capitalist interests have co-opted and corrupted certain outlets (or in the case of Fox News, warped them grotesquely out of all recognition) does not mean that all journalism is now equally compromised. If a person insists that it does, that simply indicates that that person lacks the discernment to separate reportage from opinion in the first place. Bleats that all ‘the Media’ are crooked/corrupt/lying/fake are facile, dim-witted, utterly indefensible tripe spouted by people who think everything they hear is opinion because they never learned how to think objectively and therefore can credit only what sounds like their own opinion. We can, therefore, and should, dismiss such criticism out-of-hand.

Let's be clear: I'm not maligning the work of all journalists. The majority of media in this country is owned or controlled by under a dozen corporations. In the cases of CNN, MSNBC and others, the journalistic slant has leaned largely left. For Fox News, Newsmax and others it's largely right. The is no longer a centrist outlet that focuses on "news" without some level of political bias, and for decades, the 3 major networks have had a more liberal treatment. 

Here's a link that shows the overall slanting of the media as a scatter diagram. [think before following links] https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button

So as I prefer to cite source material, I'm presenting this as backup. I also worked for several years for a major global news gathering organization whom I'll not mention here, but which had been maligned for it's lack of the use of "terrorists" or "terrorism" to describe acts that would reasonably be inferred to meet that definition. They maintained that injecting the term created a "bias" (admittedly, it can be viewed as incendiary), and to date they rank as among the most middle-lined, factually reliable and objective sources, even using the chart I cite. So trust me when I also state that I know from whence I speak as well and that I highly respected our journalists across the globe who reported at great personal costs. But in that vein, I'm certainly not bleating on because I've seen and read what journalistic integrity is and can be. And sadly, for a lot of those out there, they have been co-opted. 

After all, you cited Fox News and conversely MSNBC (and to a degree CNN) are the foils where they show as skewing left. Most of them are guilty of analysis/opinion across the spectrum, right or left. The organizations you cite -- AP, Reuters, BBC -- all set the right examples. Maybe you were taught journalistic ethics, and kudos that you were. But I'm not optimistic and -- yes -- "deeply cynical" given the lack of objectivity and the trading of news with 'analysis' or 'opinion'. 

[BannedWord]

12 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Being Caucasian, I cannot possibly pretend to imagine what the experiences of Af/Am citizens have suffered.  But that doesn't mean I cannot do what I can to change the system.  

I've seen the examples on the media coverage of the treatment of non-Caucasians in the Ukraine, and there's substantial work to be done there, as well as around the world.  Some how, this page in human history must be turned.  I'd rather go down fighting to improve everyone's lot than turn my back and do nothing.  

I'll never know personally what your experiences are. But I can listen, I can understand, and given the chance, I can stand beside you and help. 

I think a lot of us share the dim view taken toward how blacks are treated in general as compared to whites. But I think we can agree that we haven't done enough to help level the playing field and providing the same opportunities to everyone. Maybe that is where more dialogue needs to begin and continue?

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

I too am dismayed to see this anti-Black racism in the Ukraine, as well as around the corner here in FL, and under every other rock in the world.  How about we work together to that end?

Thanks for saying that @hntnhole. The problems are being shown to us daily, but I don't think we've achieved that will as a people to stand together and create the right foundation to work on a solution. I feel as if everything done politically is just a dog and pony show every four years to give platitudes and get votes but never really address the actual problem. We need to stand together and turn those words (and platitudes) into specific actions. 

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, TheSRQDude said:

Let's be clear: I'm not maligning the work of all journalists. The majority of media in this country is owned or controlled by under a dozen corporations. In the cases of CNN, MSNBC and others, the journalistic slant has leaned largely left. For Fox News, Newsmax and others it's largely right. The is no longer a centrist outlet that focuses on "news" without some level of political bias, and for decades, the 3 major networks have had a more liberal treatment. 

Here's a link that shows the overall slanting of the media as a scatter diagram. [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button

So as I prefer to cite source material, I'm presenting this as backup. I also worked for several years for a major global news gathering organization whom I'll not mention here, but which had been maligned for it's lack of the use of "terrorists" or "terrorism" to describe acts that would reasonably be inferred to meet that definition. They maintained that injecting the term created a "bias" (admittedly, it can be viewed as incendiary), and to date they rank as among the most middle-lined, factually reliable and objective sources, even using the chart I cite. So trust me when I also state that I know from whence I speak as well and that I highly respected our journalists across the globe who reported at great personal costs. But in that vein, I'm certainly not bleating on because I've seen and read what journalistic integrity is and can be. And sadly, for a lot of those out there, they have been co-opted. 

After all, you cited Fox News and conversely MSNBC (and to a degree CNN) are the foils where they show as skewing left. Most of them are guilty of analysis/opinion across the spectrum, right or left. The organizations you cite -- AP, Reuters, BBC -- all set the right examples. Maybe you were taught journalistic ethics, and kudos that you were. But I'm not optimistic and -- yes -- "deeply cynical" given the lack of objectivity and the trading of news with 'analysis' or 'opinion'. 

I don’t want to leave the impression that I’m not all too keenly aware of the degree to which commercial interests have bought and sold the soul of many journalism outlets. Back when I was getting my degree (lo these many moons ago) it was the age when traditional newspapers and news magazines were just beginning to teeter on the edge of the electronic abyss that would soon begin to swallow them. We could see it coming then, the hungry capitalists with their sharp knives closing in, ready to carve up the Fourth Estate into pieces small enough to haul away, and by God they didn’t waste any time.

It’s been a state of siege ever since, with responsible professional journalists trying to hold the line against “infotainment” and “sponsored content” to preserve the integrity of reporting so people would be able to trust that they are being told the truth when they hear the news. Without that trust, the whole enterprise is meaningless.

And so we arrive today at a point in the battle where the cause is nearly lost. There are now people who refuse to believe anything a reporter writes simply because he’s a reporter. Even though you have some understanding, your own cynicism is now so deep that you write off the majority of outlets as either too far left or too far right to be trusted, and declare that there essentially isn’t anyone left in the center.

Even the basic definition of what journalism actually is is disappearing from the public consciousness. Whether you, a clearly educated and informed person, realize it or not, you fail to make the very marked distinction between CNN, which regardless of whatever slant it may be perceived to take is nonetheless practicing actual journalism, and Fox News, which has so unmistakably converted into a propaganda engine (propaganda, by definition, is not only not journalism, it’s the anathema of journalism) that its major viewership draws aren’t even considered part of its “news” division anymore. You cannot simply refer to Fox as having a “journalistic slant” in the same way as you do CNN or a similar serious outlet. It’s a false equivalency.

Have you ever noticed that the great majority of photographs of Donald Trump show him with his mouth wide open? (Aside from the ones in which he’s clearly about to voice an expletive.) I think it’s because it’s so difficult to catch him in any other position. The truth takes time. Facts take time. Research takes time. Getting it right and being sure takes time. Pulling bullshit out of your ass takes seconds, even less if your asshole is located conveniently beneath your nose and never completely closes. Preparing an accurate news report in the public interest can take hours. Shouting “Fake news!” takes precisely 0.88 seconds.

But Trump isn’t the cause, he’s just the most egregious symptom of an indolent, selfish, greedy, self-satisfied, unthinking culture in decline. The decay of social grace in online communication is another symptom. The apps aren’t causing people to forget what it means to be civilized - we were barely civilized to begin with. All the apps do is show what we look like without the masks on.

So to my mind the plight of journalism to sustain its integrity is merely a part of a desperate struggle in our time in which there are about four billion too many humans on this planet for it to comfortably accommodate, and we are currently in the throes of determining whether Homo sapiens, as a species, is going to rise above its limitations and achieve a new enlightenment, or fall backward onto its neolithic foundations and club itself to death. I’m not optimistic.

Unless.

If humanity can hang on long enough for two generations - possibly three - currently living to die off, humanity might make it through. I can see possibilities in the Gen-Z kids, Millennials, too, though not as strongly. Gen-X’rs like me didn’t achieve the critical mass needed, and too many of us became jaded by the hardness of life in an unsustainable world and lost our ideals. All these people desperately trying to impose the values of a passing generation onto the future may succeed in passing their odious, backward-facing laws for today - but tomorrow, the young will be the ones deciding, and they’ll simply change it all back the way they want it. God speed them.

The pendulum swings. It never stops swinging. I believe that if I believe nothing else. We may now live in a time when chaos rules the day, up is down, truth is a lie, and justice is a comedy routine. But the pendulum will swing back.

And you can quote me on that.

Edited March 9, 2022 by ErosWired

[hntnhole]

9 hours ago, TheSRQDude said:

but I don't think we've achieved that will as a people to stand together and create the right foundation to work on a solution.

Thanks, TheSRQDude.  I don't think so either, but compared to where we were 10, 20 years ago, we are far more in numbers, in commitment, and much further down the road towards Justice.  I happen to believe that the utterly blatant display of anti-human behavior by that detestable cop in Minneapolis, the murderer of Mr. Floyd, brought into focus to the entire country (and beyond) just how despicable Caucasian repression of non-Caucasians has been since the founding of this Nation.  

I see the alluded to "foundation" as it exists today, an entitlement artifice to keep Caucasians in Power.  As the nation recoiled in horror at the Floyd murder, thousands and tens of thousands of Caucasian Americans began to understand, even if only slightly.  So, I agree that we - as a Nation - have not achieved the plateau of understanding required to force change upon our Government, but we're closer than we've ever been.  It's a constructive, fruitful and pleasurable thing to reflect each evening on what we did, or could have done that day to advance the cause of Liberty and JUSTICE for All.  

It's taken 4 centuries of racial repressions to get to where we are.  It will take a while to sweep up this mess and toss it into the dustbin of history.  Once we've expelled that shit out of our own national asses, we can widen our message to other places in the world (which has been bluntly pointed out in an earlier reply).  It will take generations to accomplish this, and as we build upon the efforts of previous generations, future ones will build on ours.  There is no religion, no organization, no government more powerful than like-minded citizens working together to make this a More Perfect Union.  Or, put in the reverse, a Less Racist Union.

[hntnhole]

14 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I can see possibilities in the Gen-Z kids

First, thanks for a magnificent addition to the thread.  To the Trump references, 🤣

If we can reform public education, and get two or three generations of unfucked up minds in Government, we might make it.  Here in FL, the pie-faced fool of a Governor just got a bill passed through the legislature under the slogan "Don't Say Gay" in the public schools.  Of all the important things this cracker could have done, he's manipulating the public school system against gay kids. We sorely need reform in the public schools (gen Z'ers), and if we can get inclusivity, some measure of caring for others inculcated into young minds, there's at least some measure of hope.  

Thanks !!!

[BootmanLA]

On 3/7/2022 at 10:45 PM, TheSRQDude said:

Again, I'm not inferring anything. I'd sincerely doubt that McConnell or whoever the majority leader is would ever be able to get away with 3-4 years of a vacancy.

Six years ago, the idea that the Senate majority leader would be able to get away with a year of a vacancy on the Court was unthinkable - especially a vacancy with a single, highly qualified nominee waiting virtually the entirety of that time. Before the Garland standoff, only one "long" vacancy had occurred since about 1875, when Abe Fortas's seat came open. And in the case of Fortas's successor, the problem there wasn't a majority leader sitting on the nomination; it was Nixon's nomination of two successive unqualified and bigoted individuals who both had hearings and were brought to a floor vote. Only once he nominated a less repulsive judge was Nixon able to get Fortas's replacement confirmed. World of difference between that and McConnell just sitting on the nomination - and if he can do it for 14 months, why not 24 or 36? What, really, could stop him, as long as his party backs him?

 

On 3/7/2022 at 10:45 PM, TheSRQDude said:

1. There is a difference between the interpretation of The Constitution and legislation from the bench. I'd suggest the framers intended The Constitution to 'evolve' but were insightful enough to understand that SCOTUS isn't there to pass laws but only to determine if they're in line with the Constitution. Congress legislates. Executive does...well, for #45 and #46, both have tried to contort the Constitution through Executive Orders, so thankfully there are legal remedies.

No dispute there. I don't see where the Supreme Court has "legislated" anything, really. That's another right-wing euphemism for "interpreting the Constitution in a way we don't like."

On 3/7/2022 at 10:45 PM, TheSRQDude said:

2. I never once said I was an "originalist". There are a lot of areas where the laws haven't caught up with the technology. Press evolves. It's not even just national or local media, but in the Internet age, it's also independent parties who are reporting. But if we consider all of them under the same broad brush, they should all be held to the same standards of truthfulness. Thankfully we have laws about that was well to address the false accusations that have come to light against people like Kyle Rittenhouse and Nick Sandmann by CNN and others reporting conjecture as fact. That certain made Sandmann one of CNN's highest-paid,

Sandmann got a nuisance settlement. While the amount was/is confidential, most legal scholars believe, for good reason, it was in the low six figures - a couple of hundred thousand dollars. That's hardly enough to make him "one of CNN's highest-paid". Not even close. 

On 3/7/2022 at 10:45 PM, TheSRQDude said:

3. I disagree the "right-wing" (I'm libertarian, thank you) is against evolution meanings since they've had to rule on items that weren't even in the minds of the original framers. 

Then explain how originalism exists as a school of "thought" and how it's a school inhabited solely by the far right. In "originalist" thinking - and Thomas is the premier example of it - he simply believes that if the words of the Constitution as understood in 1787 were not seen to encompass something, that's it - game over, the meaning as written at the time is the only thing that matters (or, for amendments, as understood at the time the amendment was adopted). Many of Thomas's noted dissents are exactly on this point.

On 3/7/2022 at 10:45 PM, TheSRQDude said:

4. You do you with FOX News or CNN or MSNBC or whoever. Can we agree that all of them -- without exception -- have run derelict of their mission to "report news" and moved to providing opinion over facts? 

I firmly believe that we lost that when the Equal-Time rule was abolished. Ever since, media has taken their hard turns to out-do each other in how radically they can appeal.

Nope, we cannot agree on that. It's true that the op-ed parts of the cable news networks lean left or right - as op-eds in print and broadcast have always done. That includes Rachel Maddow and Tucker Swanson Carlson alike. But the parts of CNN and MSNBC that are "straight news" - which occupy far more of the 24-hour cycle than "straight news" does on FOXNews - are not notably biased. The "straight news" on FOX is biased in multiple ways - not least of which is their deliberate ignoring of any news story that doesn't fit the op-ed narrative they present in the non-news portions of their broadcast day. 

As for the Equal Time rule - it was obsolete by the time it was abolished, because it did not and could not ever apply to cable TV.

On 3/7/2022 at 10:45 PM, TheSRQDude said:

Can you point to any recent 8-1 SCOTUS decisions to support this? Both sides have written dissenting opinions, including John Roberts.  

Define "recent". What's important is that Thomas is recorded as in dissent from the majority's opinion more than any other justice, and frequently dissents even in 8-1 cases because his way of thinking about the law in question is so far removed from even his conservative compatriots on the Court. He's well-documented as willing to overturn precedent far more often than any other justice he served with, even including the arch-conservative Scalia (who said "I'm a conservative, but I'm not nuts"). Thomas believes, unlike almost any other justice in history, that prior decisions are owed no deference if he thinks they were wrongly decided. THAT is a sign of politics on the Court - the notion that you just appoint enough justices to get 5 who think in one way, and they'll just overturn anything that they disagree with, regardless of how much havoc that might cause.

I do agree we're unlikely to agree. But I can point to many an issue on which I've changed my mind, when more actual evidence supporting a different outlook is presented.