Post New

The Teflon Don is the king. “ 77 Nobel Prize Winners Write Message To The Senate: Don’t Confirm RFK Jr.
"The leader of DHHS should continue to nurture and improve — not threaten — these important and highly respected institutions." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nobel-laureates-let...

The Teflon Don is the king. “ 77 Nobel Prize Winners Write Message To The Senate: Don’t Confirm RFK Jr.
"The leader of DHHS should continue to nurture and improve — not threaten — these important and highly respected institutions." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nobel-laureates-let...

-------------

Who cares? About as useful and no more credible than...

https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2022/03...

Named and Shamed: The 51 Intel Officials Who Lied About the Hunter Biden Laptop Emails


"... the 51 former “intelligence” officials who cast doubt on The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop stories in a public letter really were just desperate to get Joe Biden elected president...
.
.
.
They all decided, as part of groupthink and pure hatred of Donald Trump, to sign a letter saying Hunter Biden’s laptop, filled with damning evidence against the entire corrupt Biden family, was Russian disinformation purely to help put Joe Biden in the White House. "

" Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner during Donald Trump's first presidency, raised alarm on Friday about the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), warning that Kennedy Jr.'s policies could lead to a resurgence of preventable childhood infectious diseases that would have dire consequences for public health." Will rfk get confirmed? The betting sites now have rfk at 71% yes. Hegseth is now 70 % yes as well.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/former-trum...

Which Trump picks will be confirmed?
OUTCOME
% CHANCE

Market icon
Pete Hegseth
$999,523 Vol.
72%
Market icon
Tulsi Gabbard
$508,056 Vol.
71%
Market icon
Kash Patel
$243,830 Vol.
79%
Market icon
RFK Jr.
$392,644 Vol.
77%

They all decided, as part of groupthink and pure hatred of Donald Trump, to sign a letter saying Hunter Biden’s laptop, filled with damning evidence against the entire corrupt Biden family, was Russian disinformation purely to help put Joe Biden in the White House.

The Intel officers have much more credibility than this loaded swill.

77 Nobel Prize Winners Write Message To The Senate: Don’t Confirm RFK Jr.

I can't help but think that increases the chances that he'll get confirmed....

" I can't help but think that increases the chances that he'll get confirmed..?


PLUS, Bidens pardon plans may get every nominee confirmed. What a country!

What a country!

Is it just the USA?

The entire world is being impacted by the creation of the internet, comprehensive satellite coverage, and the accumulation of wealth in an increasingly smaller number of controllers.

The richest man in the world, a South African billionaire with vast business interests in China bought a major roll in the POTUS election and is being rewarded with a set of keys to the US government.

The POTUS-elect is deeply in bed with Saudi money, Delhi development, corrupt global-crypto crooks.

This is so far beyond 'a country' an honest assessment concludes it's a global game controlled by global interests... which is supremely ironic since the POTUS-elect fooled the USA into believing he's an 'American First' activist.

" The POTUS-elect is deeply in bed with Saudi money, Delhi development, corrupt global-crypto crooks."

Keep it simple, do open borders help the rich or the poor? Thanks.

do open borders help the rich or the poor? Thanks.

To shape an answer you'd need to define 'help.'

Also, I'd need to understand why you've excluded middle class.

" Also, I'd need to understand why you've excluded middle class."

Who benefits in the aggregate from open borders, the high net worth, or others? Off to pickleball, you and others have two hours to think about it.

I can't help but think that increases the chances that he'll get confirmed....

Good. I think all of Trump’s nominees should be confirmed. After all, his supporters believe he had a tsunami-like mandate of 49% of the popular vote and a 44th out of 60 electoral college margin. Can’t argue with that logic.

If you’re stupid enough to trust RFK Jr., well, let’s just call it thinning the herd.

Too bad Gaetz withdrew. They already knew he supported an insurrection and had sex with underage girls. They must have had photos of something much worse. Maybe shooting a puppy?

Gabbard? Let’s face it, our national security is already threatened because no intelligence agency with 3 functioning brain cells is going to share sensitive information with a country that elected a moron like Trump. Heck, Gabbard just makes Putin’s job a tad easier. Instead of having to hire an agent to sneak into a country club poolside room and photograph our top secrets, Gabbard will just hand them to Putin.

Hegseth? No biggie. He’s just your ordinary misogynistic sloppy bar drunk. He can stop anytime he wants. He’s just never wanted to.

The list goes on and on. Who better to look out for the interest of middle class Americans than the most avaricious multi-billionaires on the planet?

You can’t fix stupid.

77 Nobel Prize Winners Write Message To The Senate: Don’t Confirm RFK Jr.

I can't help but think that increases the chances that he'll get confirmed....

I can't help but thing you are correct.

More than a revolution against the financial elites (and this has proved false with Trump's billionaire picks which seem a-ok with MAGA)

....the true revolution is against intellectual and cultural elites, in which awards or evidence of excellence are de facto proof of untrustworthiness.

Meanwhile, the foxes are setting a banquet in the henhouse.

....the true revolution is against intellectual and cultural elites, in which awards or evidence of excellence are de facto proof of untrustworthiness.

This. Although I don't think it's "untrustworthiness" that those award or evidence of excellence are proof of. No one doubts that a Nobel physicist is an expert, or trustworthy, about his particular area of expertise. I think the revolution is against letting intellectual and cultural elites have priority in political choices, rather than scientific questions.

"What will likely happen if we impose tariffs?" and "Should we impose tariffs?" are two very different questions, and there are two very different groups of people and processes by which we would answer those questions. I think a big part of the MAGA revolution is against having the people who are qualified to answer the first question also get to answer the second question.

77 Nobel Prize Winners Write Message To The Senate: Don’t Confirm RFK Jr.

I can't help but think that increases the chances that he'll get confirmed.... - albaby

------------

I hope so, there already appears to be broad support for banning red dye no 3. I hope they leave 1 and 2 alone as those are downright delicious and they can be used to restore luster to your leather goods.

Listening to NPR today, they had a lengthy segment on formaldehyde, it is pervasive and toxic. Over the decades it has crept into everything that depends on adhesion which is mainly every wood product you have in your home. Love that new car smell, don't you? Yep.

Industry titans are aligned to keep it flowing but standing in their way is a defiant Bobby K. Bobby is a blessing bring up things that need to be examined but never seem to get talked about, the effectiveness of lobbyists on display until now.

Gabbard will just hand them to Putin. - AW

------------------

You can’t fix TDS either!

"What will likely happen if we impose tariffs?" and "Should we impose tariffs?" are two very different questions, and there are two very different groups of people and processes by which we would answer those questions. I think a big part of the MAGA revolution is against having the people who are qualified to answer the first question also get to answer the second question.

Let's see.

What will happen? The experts tell us that prices of imported goods will rise, fueling inflation.

So MAGA responds by saying we should impose tariffs.

As Alpha says:

You can't fix, well, you know.

The good news that while some folks don't learn well by watching or listening to others, they do eventually learn by experience. Don't try to tell them the flame will burn them. Just let them light the match and figure out the lesson for themselves. Unfortunately, all of us have to pay the price while the lessons are in progress.

--Peter

What will happen? The experts tell us that prices of imported goods will rise, fueling inflation.

Are these the same experts who said we could never repatriate manufacturing jobs into the USA and that we shouldn't try?
Or the same bunch that said we'd run out of oil in 1996?
Or the same folks who said that if we re-negotiated NAFTA that the US economy would collapse?
Or that we shouldn't do unilateral deals Because Reasons?

I swear, you people walk into a car dealership and automatically pay the dealer upcharge, don't you? When you look for Mutual Funds do you skip right past the no-loads and pay 5% for somebody to underperform the S&P for you?

That's Establishment Republicanism *and* fossilized progressivism for you in one shot: you think things are unfixable and that we should accept mediocrity. Fortunately, America wasn't built on this kind of loser spirit.

The good news that while some folks don't learn well by watching or listening to others,

---------------------------

Sort of, but what is not being learned is that the tariffs are not intended to be applied for very long, or at full strength, or at all. The expectation is that behavior change is necessary and sincere steps will diminish or avoid their imposition.

What will happen? The experts tell us that prices of imported goods will rise, fueling inflation.

So MAGA responds by saying we should impose tariffs.

But that's the point. Whether to impose tariffs is a political decision, that should be reached by democratic means through democratic institutions - not an "expert" choice. There are both pros and cons to tariffs. They cause the prices of imported goods to rise, which hurts consumers of those goods; but those higher prices for imported goods provide a benefit to domestic producers of those goods.

At the highest levels of abstraction, international trade drives down the prices of tradeable goods. That creates winners and losers in society. Those who are involved in the production of physical goods that are capable of being imported end up can end up worse off, because they are now subject to international competition that erodes their earning power. Those whose jobs are in areas that aren't exposed to global competition are much better off, because they get the benefit of cheaper tradable goods and are insulated from the downsides. Those who are producing goods where the U.S. has a competitive advantage in global markets (like agricultural products) also benefit.

Which makes the decision about whether to impose tariffs a political question, not an "experts" question. I happen to agree that imposing tariffs is a bad idea, but I acknowledge that it's certainly something that is to be resolved through political institutions, not left up to the experts.

Tariffs aren't really the issue that was the problem. I think Democrats have been good at treating that as a political question. Where they've been bad are three different issues: climate change, COVID responses, and to a lesser extent transgender issues. For all three, Democrats have acted as though (to some degree or another) the conclusions reached by experts foreclose political choices about tradeoffs, balancing the interests of different groups, and reaching policy decisions through political institutions rather than just "following the science." That once certain conclusions are reached by expert analysts that they decide policy choices, rather than just inform them.

Are these the same experts who said we could never repatriate manufacturing jobs into the USA and that we shouldn't try?

Never read that. Read it would be difficult, and we'd have to consider the tradeoffs because America liked the cheap goods. Also read about overseas companies coming back.

Or the same bunch that said we'd run out of oil in 1996?

Never heard this ever. Did hear that we'd used up the cleaner sources.

Or the same folks who said that if we re-negotiated NAFTA that the US economy would collapse?

Never heard that. Heard we'd pay more for goods and Americans wouldn't like that. That's why the changes were minor. Biggest change - instead of International courts being used for worker disputes, Mexican courts are used now.

dems have been 'bad' at 3 issues because of their stance :

- climate change? its exists. but deniers will always be first to whine for insurance money because of the 'weather'.
- COVID response? it should exist. but be on science-based consensus rather than self-deemed experts finding a tangentially-credentialed kook.
- transgenders? they should be allowed to exist.

all views too woke for america.

They cause the prices of imported goods to rise, which hurts consumers of those goods; but those higher prices for imported goods provide a benefit to domestic producers of those goods.

I recall that argument being made decades ago on TMF. The 'working-man voter side argued that Walmart selling cheap imported products and 5 gallon jars of pickles "made things more affordable for the working man and only an elite would think thats ain't good."

Now they're spouting 'MAGA/America First/buy American.

You can have the cheapest or you can have it made in america for a higher price. You can export the industrial pollution or you can inflict it on our local air/water/land. OR you can have a powerful EPA work hard to make sure it's done cleanly and safely.

Isn't this populist whiplash precisely why it should not be a political decision?

I acknowledge that it's certainly something that is to be resolved through political institutions, not left up to the experts."

same comment: Isn't this populist whiplash precisely why it should not be a political decision?

You can have the cheapest or you can have it made in america for a higher price. You can export the industrial pollution or you can inflict it on our local air/water/land. OR you can have a powerful EPA work hard to make sure it's done cleanly and safely.

Isn't this populist whiplash precisely why it should not be a political decision?

Not really. The whole point of democracy is to allow decisions to be made by representatives elected by the governed. Even if the governed might change their mind about what they want. Those are all choices that, under a democratic system, are within the proper sphere of the political bodies.

There's no "right" answer to these questions. For example, should we have high tariffs on Chinese EV's? There are pros and cons, benefits and costs - and different groups reap the benefits than bear the costs. This is not something that can get resolved by experts. Experts can tell you what the likely impacts will be, which groups will benefit and which will be harmed, what the potential non-economic impacts might be, etc. - but they can't tell you what ought to be done, because "ought" questions involve values and balancing competing interests rather than factual evaluations.

With climate change and COVID, Democrats really leaned hard into the idea that where the scientists had spoken, public policy choices had to follow certain paths. And a fair number of people got really upset that there wasn't a discussion about whether and how those types of decisions should be made. In a democracy, most choices are ultimately made by "the people" - and even though "the people" might make short-sighted choices or selfish choices or even 'bad' choices, we still reserve those choices to be made by "the people" through specific political processes.

In a democracy, most choices are ultimately made by "the people" - and even though "the people" might make short-sighted choices or selfish choices or even 'bad' choices, we still reserve those choices to be made by "the people" through specific political processes.

Without googling a bunch of quotes, can we agree that a healthy democracy depends on an well-informed populace... that misinformation thwarts the goal of having a well-informed voting population?

A long as the 'zone is flooded with shit,' voters are going to make choices based on shit information; childish choices that do not reflect reality.

I realize I sound elite for a working-class voter, but it's counter-productive to ignore why there's massive migration, to ignore the impact of fossil fuel dependence, to ignore the astounding transfer of wealth to the 1%.

Without googling a bunch of quotes, can we agree that a healthy democracy depends on an well-informed populace... that misinformation thwarts the goal of having a well-informed voting population?

Nope. In any democracy, most people aren't ever going to be "well-informed" about public issues. And it's completely rational for them to be that way. It costs resources to be well-informed about politics, but the impact of a marginal voter on the outcome of political processes is trivial. Most voters are rationally ignorant about the granular details of public policy and the specifics of a candidate's position. They rely on heuristics to make their choices. They vote their values, not their policies. Any and every democracy is going to work like that.

There are some voters that enjoy immersing themselves in information about public policy issues and politics. Everyone on here is among them. We find it stimulating or interesting or just enjoyable to argue about things. Those voters are a tiny minority of the electorate - and always will be. If a "well-informed populace" is a prerequisite for a healthy democracy, then there has never been and will never be a healthy democracy in the U.S. - or really anywhere.

But that's the point. Whether to impose tariffs is a political decision, that should be reached by democratic means through democratic institutions - not an "expert" choice.

I’m quite familiar with this process. In my role as a tax professional, I regularly inform my clients of the tax law and how it applies to their situation. Frequently there are choices to be made. My job is not to make the choice for them, but to provide information so they can make the choice.

In a world where the political decision is made based on the pros and cons as identified by the experts, the process would be reasonable.

But what do you do when a large group of people completely reject the idea that experts are actually experts, instead substituting non-experts who will say whatever is popular rather than objective facts?

—Peter

...can we agree that a healthy democracy depends on an well-informed populace...

Yes we can! The Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of an ignorant populace and emphasized the importance of an informed citizenry for maintaining a free society...

James Madison stated, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." ~Thomas Jefferson

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both." ~James Madison

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion,
the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." ~Thomas Jefferson

"To be successful, American voters need both knowledge of candidates and knowledge of issues." ~James Madison

"If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed." ~Thomas Jefferson

But what do you do when a large group of people completely reject the idea that experts are actually experts, instead substituting non-experts who will say whatever is popular rather than objective facts?

You let them decide anyway. Through whatever the political processes are, of course - we have representative democracy, not direct democracy or referenda, for the most part. But ultimately, in a democracy you let the people make these decisions. If people have ill-informed ideas about public policy, it will be nothing new. I don't believe the electorate has a much worse grasp of "the objective facts" that surround complicated issues of public policy or economics or foreign affairs than did the 90%+ of voters who hadn't graduated high school a hundred years ago. The legitimacy of a democracy isn't contingent on the "quality" of the voters.

Reading through some of the posts on this thread, can you not see why some voters were not entirely convinced that it was the Republicans that were a threat to democracy, rather than the Democrats? Suggesting that choices on major issues of public policy are deficient unless the voters meet some external standard isn't exactly a thrilling endorsement of democracy. It's actually more in line with retrograde limits on the franchise, when the Founders tried to make sure the voters were of sufficient "quality" by the expedient method of only letting the "right people" vote.

But what do you do when a large group of people completely reject the idea that experts are actually experts, instead substituting non-experts who will say whatever is popular rather than objective facts?

It's called "making an argument", also known as "presenting your case".

Merely showing up and saying, "I'm an expert" isn't either of those.

nice try banksy.

if alive today, MAGA would lump these notables into the trashpile along with the ineffective group of never-trumper RINOs.

It's called "making an argument", also known as "presenting your case".

Merely showing up and saying, "I'm an expert" isn't either of those.

The expert should "present his case" or "make his argument" for their recommendations.

...can we agree that a healthy democracy depends on an well-informed populace...

Yes we can!

Not so fast. While that’s certain ideal, I would venture to say the only time in the nation’s history that was true was in the immediate aftermath of the Revolutionary War when only landed, presumably educated white men could vote. Since that tine we have seen long periods with vast corruption: bosses telling workers how to vote, unions telling workers how to vote, the sudden influx of entire classes of people who never paid attention until they were enfranchised (blacks, later women). Immigrants who couldn’t even speak the language voting in significant numbers.

We’ve seen machine politics in cities like New York and Chicago: Boss Tweed, Richard Daley. We’ve seen decades of the American public ignoring international crises and gathering storms, and others of the American public simply going along with wrongheaded policies (Vietnam, Iraq2, Afghanistan). We’ve watched destructive social experiments like Prohibition come and go and we’ve seen the deleterious effects of other policies which were absurd on their face (marijuana, trickle-down, know-nothing politics)

…and somehow we have come through it all and found ourselves in the enviable position of being the most powerful country in the history of the world. And the richest.

Maybe it’s just all been luck. Or maybe there’s some kind of special sauce in “democracy”, as Britain and Germany and Japan and lots of others seem to validate. And sure, there have been rough spots and bumps but they’re still (mostly) coming out the other side in pretty good shape.

Healthy democracy? Yeah, that would be great. Maybe just “democracy” is enough?

Never forget that half the electorate has an IQ below the median.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0

Not so fast. While that’s certain ideal, I would venture to say the only time in the nation’s history that was true was in the immediate aftermath of the Revolutionary War when only landed, presumably educated white men could vote.

Yep. AKA the well fed, the well bred, the well read, and the well bed.

Of course there was one exception to the white men; from 1790 to 1807, New Jersey allowed single white women of means to vote.

That was prior to the great drone attack of 2-aught 24.

And the obligatory “you can’t fix stupid.”

Never forget that half the electorate has an IQ below the median.

That correlates quite closely to the 49.9% of the vote going to Trump.

Just saying.

You can’t fix stupid.

...can we agree that a healthy democracy depends on a well-informed populace...

I think a "healthy democracy" does depend on a "well-informed populace."
And we have neither...
If many citizens don't understand the world they live in, are unhappy, are in debt, have no sense of purpose, are not cultivating good character or contributing to the common good, is that success?
If we are saddling our children and grandchildren with massive debts and environmental pollution and devastation, is that success? Or tragedy?

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both." ~James Madison

Would a healthy democracy with a well-informed populace be $36 Trillion in debt? The annualized cost of servicing this debt is $726 billion. This accounted for 14% of total federal spending.
Also, total U.S. consumer debt stands at $17.80 trillion = not healthy.

Would a healthy democracy with a well-informed populace find a child poverty rate of 16% acceptable?

Would a healthy democracy with a well-informed populace be so unhappy compared to other nations? (The U.S. hit an all-time low ranking in the World Happiness Report, tumbling eight spots to 23rd.)

Would a healthy democracy with a well-informed populace live in a country where firearms are the leading cause of death for children?
(It's important to note that no other country has firearms listed among the top four causes of child mortality.)

Would a healthy democracy with a well-informed populace give guns more rights than Woman? 9 states have total abortion bans that lack exceptions for rape or incest.

Would a healthy democracy with a well-informed populace have a president elect who stole classified documents, is a proven rapist and convicted felon?

Would the citizens of a healthy, well informed democracy have microplastics in their body tissues, including their hearts, livers, kidneys and brains?

Would the president elect of a healthy, well informed democracy be shilling everything from Fight-Fight sneakers and BS digital currency to Fight-Fight-Fight cologne?

Medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy in America. 67% of all bankruptcies are attributed to medical bills. Would the citizens of a "healthy", well informed democracy find this acceptable?
(No other industrialized nation has this problem.)

Would the citizens of a healthy, well informed democracy accept the fact that 31% of Americans have a net worth of $0 or less, meaning their total liabilities meet or exceed their assets.
(13 million actually have a negative net worth.)

Would the citizens of a healthy, well informed democracy accept a minimum wage that is exactly where it was 15 years ago, $7.25? (Because the GOP has blocked all attempts to raise it.)

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/09/acs...

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/20/world-happiness-a...

https://apnews.com/article/microplastics-human-hea...

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2024/feb/us-...

In any democracy, most people aren't ever going to be "well-informed" about public issues.

This isn't a theoretical discussion.

The world is being lied to by the MAGA leadership and a handful of right wing media owners. The rate and pervasiveness of those lies, thanks to electronic media, is unprecedented. Algorithms and microtargetting have made lying supremely effective.

It costs resources to be well-informed about politics, but the impact of a marginal voter on the outcome of political processes is trivial.

It costs resources to attend stock car races, real fighting and fake WWE fights, and Trump rallies, watch Fox, listen to Limbaugh.

They rely on heuristics to make their choices.

That's always been the case, but pervasive electronic media has warped the balance on which heuristics form. In the US we can thank the elimination of Fairness in broadcasting and now a corrupt SCOTUS for facillitating even more lying in broadcasting that will further warp the heuristic process.

The days of uninformed appalchian hicks walking acrost ta the next hill ta hog-yell to let loretty know her Pa died are done and gone. They have TV and Fox is on. They go to mega churches and get politicized preaching.

Heck, even the few remaining aboriginals in the Amazon basin have satellite TV in their thatched villages.

They're being lied to non-stop by the likes of Trump/Fox/MAGA (and now Kari Lake is gonna be the Voice of America???LOeffingL)

Again, the POINT is 'HEALTHY DEMOCRACY'. SUBJECTING THE POPULATION TO INCESSANT LYING AIN'T HEALTHY.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2...

It costs resources to attend stock car races, real fighting and fake WWE fights, and Trump rallies, watch Fox, listen to Limbaugh.

Sure - but most people don't watch Fox or listen to Limbaugh. Only people who are into this stuff for entertainment purposes. It's how we choose to spend our leisure time; it's our hobby. The overwhelming majority of voters do not and never will invest their time into getting informed about public affairs, but instead will choose other leisure/hobby activities (whether going to stock car races or the WWE or the movies or listening to music or what have you).

The rate and pervasiveness of those lies, thanks to electronic media, is unprecedented.

Is it? I mean, certainly the volume of information that some people are consuming - but it's not like an environment where much of the electorate is being fed lies (or half-truths or innuendo or propaganda) is unprecedented. Just the medium is different. A century ago, it was yellow journalism - the yellow rags and tabloids that were pumping misinformation twice daily into the voting populace. Sure, Fox is on 24/7 rather than a morning and evening edition - but in terms of composition of one's media diet, it's not any different. Of course, the parties have switched - in the early 20th century, it was mostly Democrats that were consuming yellow journalism morning, noon, and night, while the Republicans mostly ignored it.

Again, the POINT is 'HEALTHY DEMOCRACY'. SUBJECTING THE POPULATION TO INCESSANT LYING AIN'T HEALTHY.

Then there's no such thing as a healthy democracy, and never has been. Every democracy is filled with slander, innuendo, yellow journalism, and incessant lying. You think that getting "politicized preaching" is a new thing? That prior to broadcast television, people didn't get their information from partisan sources that lied and shaded and misled? They didn't have the same types of news and facts sources back then - rather than TV or the internet, they got their information from newspapers or broadsheets or tabloids or pamphlets - but what they got was just as bad as today. The "news" was no less scurrilous in the 18th century than here in the 21st. It's just more visible today.

The Fairness Doctrine only existed for about 40 out of our 250 years as a country. That period was the aberration - the rule has generally been that the electorate is only passingly informed about major issues, and what information they got was going to be heavily colored by whatever partisan sources they were interacting with.

Healthy democracy? Yeah, that would be great. Maybe just “democracy” is enough?

Commercial broadcasting began little more than a hundred years ago.

It's impact on the human condition is evolving at a speed we cannot fathom.

Kari Lake is gonna be THE VOICE OF TRUMPAMERICA.

A democracy based on lies is not an honest institution and is bound to fail.

Never forget that half the electorate has an IQ below the median.

People with low IQs are not the problem.

People intentionally bombarded with untruthful information, and those who do the bombarding for personal gain, are the problem.

Sure - but most people don't watch Fox or listen to Limbaugh. Only people who are into this stuff for entertainment purposes. It's how we choose to spend our leisure time; it's our hobby.

With all due respect, I believe you are a little bit out of touch with the "working-class" and the many ways pervasive media got a media-master like Trump elected.

With all due respect, I believe you are a little bit out of touch with the "working-class" and the many ways pervasive media got a media-master like Trump elected.

Fox News Channel has approximately 1.5 million daily viewers. For comparison, approximately 20 million viewers watch the "big three" network news.

Very few Americans actually watch Fox News. It is a giant among cable news, but very few Americans watch cable news. Very few Americans watch televised news at all, to any great extent.

It's influential and important, of course. Its audience surely overrepresents the hardcore politically active folks within the GOP base, and it can serve as an imprimatur and thought leader and political gatekeeper within the party. But not it's not pervasive.

Trump's skill wasn't in getting Fox News to cover him favorably (they would have supported any Republican candidate). It was in getting all the other media to cover him constantly.

It's influential and important, of course. Its audience surely over-represents the hardcore politically active folks within the GOP base, and it can serve as an imprimatur and thought leader and political gatekeeper within the party. But not it's not pervasive.

Agree that people watching Fox is not a huge number but it's just one source of misinformation infection.

From '91 to 2021 Rush Limbaugh's show had 15 to 26 million daily listeners depending on the source you choose(EIB claimed the higher figure, of course, kinda like Trump claiming the biggest inauguration ever) !

Also, you are not considering the multiplier effect of coordinated misinformation campaigns.

The combo of electronic sources infect the daily activities in overt and subtle ways; school, sports, social clubs, workplaces, churches, school boards, supposedly "non-partisan" councils and Boards, employment unions.




"The term “magic multiplier” itself might not be a standard term, but it appears to emphasize the significant and sometimes seemingly disproportionate effects that certain actions or inputs can have on various processes, systems, or outcomes. It’s essential to recognize that real-world scenarios are complex and subject to various factors, so the actual effects of multipliers may not always be straightforward or linear. In the context of development communication, mass media is considered a magic multiplier as it can have a significant impact on information dissemination."

Let’s not forget Joe Rogan and the other bro-casters.

Or OAN and NewsMax.

Heck- millions of Americans get their news from Xitter and TicTock

Agree that people watching Fox is not a huge number but it's just one source of misinformation infection.

From '91 to 2021 Rush Limbaugh's show had 15 to 26 million daily listeners depending on the source you choose(EIB claimed the higher figure, of course, kinda like Trump claiming the biggest inauguration ever) !

Also, you are not considering the multiplier effect of coordinated misinformation campaigns.

Of course. But again, this is not a new thing. The influence of Hearst's or Pulitzer's yellow journalist rag papers wasn't just limited to their direct circulation, either - those stories were picked up by the political machines and Boss hall's and their own propaganda outlets as well. The Birchers' lies weren't limited to recipients of their newsletters or attendees at their meetings, nor those of the Moral Majority to its members, nor the 700 Club to its viewers, nor The National Review to its subscriber base.

I think you're feeling nostalgia for an electorate that has never existed. Democracy doesn't require the voters to be better than they actually are to be healthy. The electorate has always acted on a mix of myths, biases, falsehoods, half-truths, and prejudices - on all sides of the political spectrum.

Of course. But again, this is not a new thing.

Of course it's a new thing.

Hell, man, commercial radio broadcasting is barely 100 years old.

The ubiquity and intrusion of the internet is only a few decades.
That ring of satellites with which Musk is polluting the night sky is only 5 friggin years old "SpaceX launched the first 60 satellites of the constellation in May 2019 into a 450 km (280 mi) orbit and expected up to six launches in 2019 at that time, with 720 satellites (12 × 60) for continuous coverage in 2020"

Guttenberg ink NEVER achieved the immediacy, impact & penetration of electronic media (please don't say 'whutabouthebible').

Anecdote:
The Birchers' lies weren't limited to recipients of their newsletters or attendees at their meetings

The VA doctor who lived across the street from my childhood home held JBS meetings at their home. They invited my Dad, also a VA doctor, to attend. My Dad detected the right wing stench and politely declined, yet remained friends. I got my 1st surfboard from them. It was their son's; he was off flying a USAF jet in Southeast Asia.

Guttenberg ink NEVER achieved the immediacy, impact & penetration of electronic media (please don't say 'whutabouthebible').

Of course. But that doesn't mean that the electorate of the past was any more accurately informed that it is today. When I say that "this is not a new thing," I'm not referring to the medium. I'm referring to the fact that the electorate is largely acting on a stew of ignorance, myth, bias, lies and propaganda.

That mix of ignorance, myth, bias, lies and propaganda used to be transmitted in different ways. For most of our history, it wasn't even through any formal media - people would believe the lies and misinformation they heard at the pub or through local gossip or at church. But they were believing lies and misinformation all the same, leavened by a healthy ignorance of entire swathes of human knowledge before we got high school graduation rates out of the single digits. These voters have always been believing the crap that someone in their life was spewing - the difference now is that they can fall for the crap someone a thousand miles away is spewing, rather than just the guy in their local pub/church/workplace.

Again, I think you're romanticizing an electorate that has never existed. They might have gotten their misinformation from local gossip rather than high-speed internet, but they were misinformed all the same.

I think you're romanticizing an electorate that has never existed

Not a chance. I majored in advertising and worked in the field just long enough to be disgusted (and to realize it wasn't the world I wanted to work in, especially cigarettes and fast food).

I'm acutely aware of the impact of evolved media; the manipulation of the masses by those who can afford to produce media. Politicians or Big Macs, advertising is advertising. The more exposures to an effective ad campaign, the better.

Nobody in 1860 existed in an 'echo chamber,' bombarded with the same message from multiple sources multiple times a day, every day, with precision coordination. It couldn't be done. The technology simply didn't exist. It's a moot point.

That mix of ignorance, myth, bias, lies and propaganda used to be transmitted in different ways.

Basically 2 ways: word of mouth (pulpit or pub)or print. Neither constantly reinforced the other throughout one's waking hours as do the current electronic media.

People were never inundated by the incessant screens and speakers, the audio and visual tidal wave that has evolved.

Nobody in 1860 existed in an 'echo chamber,' bombarded with the same message from multiple sources multiple times a day, every day, with precision coordination. It couldn't be done. The technology simply didn't exist. It's a moot point.

It's not a moot point. That voter in 1860 was just as ill-informed - probably more ill-informed - than voters today.

You didn't need to bombard them with the same message multiple times a day. The typical voter would have a head filled with misinformation to begin with - by 1860, you had near-universal white male suffrage, so your typical voter would certainly have materially less than a high school education (though by then, there's a better than even chance that they might be literate). Their knowledge of the world and the facts relating to public policy issues would have been miniscule at best. The typical modern voter - yes, even the typical modern Fox-watchin' and Facebook-usin' voter - would have a more accurate understanding of the world and how it works and the issues of the day than your typical 1860's voter.

The 'echo chamber' and technology just makes the ignorance and misinformation different. It doesn't mean that there wasn't just as much, if not more, ignorance and misinformation among the 1860 electorate as there is today.

The typical modern voter - yes, even the typical modern Fox-watchin' and Facebook-usin' voter - would have a more accurate understanding of the world and how it works and the issues of the day than your typical 1860's voter.

The folks to whom your direct much-appreciated essays on this very website disprove "even the typical modern Fox-watchin' and Facebook-usin' voter - would have a more accurate understanding of the world and how it works"

You're no competition for the echo chamber in which they exist.

Despite your exhaustive efforts, you have gained zero ground with the likes of Dope and his mini-dope.

You're no competition for the echo chamber in which they exist.

Despite your exhaustive efforts, you have gained zero ground with the likes of Dope and his mini-dope.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that the modern electorate is free from ignorance, myth, bias, lies and propaganda. Rather, I think you're severely underestimating the degree to which the electorate has always been afflicted with those things.

You don't need an echo chamber to be resistant to arguments against things you believe in. I'm old enough to have had lots of arguments with people back in the day when the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect. I didn't change many minds back then either (though I had excellent discussion). It's always and forever been the case that most people are inclined to believe what they want to believe, and reject things that contradict their beliefs.

And the folks in those long-ago electorates were vastly more ignorant of the world than anyone today who is capable of accessing the internet. Virtually none of them would have completed as much as a high-school education in 1860. Your typical Fox-watcher may be led to be outraged by the latest hearings in the Judiciary Committee - but our 1860's era voter wouldn't have even known that the Judiciary Committee existed. Assuming it did - I actually don't know when the committee structure was adopted - but whatever the 1860 analog is. Skewed perspectives over the merits of a candidate for Secretary of Defense are one thing, but voters back then wouldn't necessarily have been aware of the existence of a Cabinet or the nomination/confirmation process or even that we had a Department of War (or whatever the label was back then).

Again, I think you're grossly overestimating the degree to which any U.S. electorate at any time in history has been free of ignorance, myth, bias, lies and propaganda. Or even less affected by those things than modern voters. The sources of all of their skewed worldviews and unsupported biases and false beliefs may have changed over the many decades, but the existence of all those things has been a constant.

People with low IQs are not the problem.

People intentionally bombarded with untruthful information, and those who do the bombarding for personal gain, are the problem. - sano

------------------

People appointing themselves as truth detectors and endeavoring to assert control over others judged incapable of running their own lives are the problem.

Fox News Channel has approximately 1.5 million daily viewers. For comparison, approximately 20 million viewers watch the "big three" network news.

Let's not forget that Fox (we well as other news outlets) have a lot of viewers who don't watch live TV, but catch their videos on various social media platforms. Facebook and X/Twitter are probably two of the more important channels.

Those social media platforms with their algorithms do a lot to reinforce whatever news sources you are watching.

It would be interesting to see how effective these algorithms are based on income and education strata. My hypothesis is that they are more effective on those with less education and/or lower incomes. Ultimately, education teaches you how to think about the world around you, and to rationally question sources of information.

--Peter

People were never inundated by the incessant screens and speakers, the audio and visual tidal wave that has evolved.

It was also hard to coordinate the stew of ignorance, myth, bias, lies, and propaganda across large swaths of society until the last few decades. Print media, such as newspapers, were never distributed over a wide area. Almost all were local. And while bias and outright lies existed, every paper had a different bias and set of lies. Even with radio and later television, there were only a limited number of channels available, and they were regulated to some extent by the government. Get too many complaints, and your broadcast license could be suspended.

With the rise of the internet and especially social media, it's now possible to distribute the same set of biases and lies not just to an entire country, but to the whole world. Combine that with the social engineering behind algorithms at Google, YouTube, FaceBook, X/Twitter, and others, and it has become possible to coordinate and constantly reinforce mis- and dis- information across all of society.

I think Albaby is right in that the electorate today isn't any less informed than in previous centuries, but their lack of information is far more coordinated and consistent today than it has ever been thanks to the immediate and constant communications that the internet has enabled.

--Peter

People appointing themselves as truth detectors and endeavoring to assert control over others judged incapable of running their own lives are the problem.

blah blah blah.

Successful societies have endeavored to follow best known science in the interest of public health; quarantines being the classic example. More modern examples: anti-pollution regulations, manufacturing regulations for consumables, buildings, vehicles.

The about-face, allowing ignorant self-interest to replace science based public health regs is no less stupid or dangerous than eliminating speed limits and drunk driving laws, building codes, safe food production standards.

The about-face, allowing ignorant self-interest to replace science based public health regs is no less stupid or dangerous than eliminating speed limits and drunk driving laws, building codes, safe food production standards.

It's worth noting, though, that all of those rules that you mention involve making political decisions about the trade-offs between life safety and other goals.

You'd have fewer highway deaths if you lowered speed limits...but then everyone would have to bear the burden of longer travel times. Building codes aren't set for maximal safety, but balance cost of construction. Food production standards similarly allow some risk of contamination and/or health problems, for the sake of various economic interests. Drunk driving laws aren't maximally set or enforced either, causing higher fatalities but de facto permitting more recreational drinking.

We don't live in a country where the speed limit on highways is 40 mph, where we have the same draconian drunk driving laws as you see in some European countries, and where food safety and building standards are maximized at a "cost be damned" level.

Those aren't science questions. Science can tell us how many more fatalities we can expect if speed limits are 65 mph rather than 40 mph - and social sciences can give us an idea of the economic impacts of the different speeds. But science can't decide "should" questions - which limits we should choose, given that information.

Successful societies have endeavored to follow best known science in the interest of public health; quarantines being the classic example. More modern examples: anti-pollution regulations, manufacturing regulations for consumables, buildings, vehicles.

One of the purposes of "society" and "government" is to protect people from their own stupidity.

One of the purposes of "society" and "government" is to protect people from their own stupidity. - g0177325

----------------

Sure it is when your tribe self appoints with the lofty responsibility of sole decider.

Here is another and wise way of looking at it. Are such ideas allowed inside your thought bubble?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis,

It's worth noting, though, that all of those rules that you mention involve making political decisions about the trade-offs between life safety and other goals.

Of course compromises are made. They are made based on what we believe are scientific facts and data, as opposed to conspiracy theories, religious beliefs, flat out lies and scams.

We punish actors who display 'a conscious disregard of the probability that the actor's conduct will result in injury to others.'

It's why electricians use GFCI breakers and UL approved connectors instead of duct tape.

It's why check-ins at Stanford Hospital are currently required to wear masks, and people with viral infections have their procedures rescheduled.

etc etc.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis,

Nice prose.

It seems you are suggesting the intent of the US Constitution (establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare) is tantamount to tyranny.

It seems you are suggesting the intent of the US Constitution (establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare) is tantamount to tyranny.

A truly beneficent government (as Biden's was and Trump's will not be) will always be branded by the ignorant and stupid as a tyrannical one, intent on suppressing their freedom to be ignorant and stupid, even to their own detriment.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis,

This is SO well said. The White liberal Savior Complex is what has driven 100% of progressivism's bad ideas for decades. From housing projects to the welfare state to "listen to the experts" the left has been killing people with their " " kindness " " for going on 60 years.

It all comes down to We just know better, proles. And because they view the world through their protoMarxian lens of race, economic and socioclasses as well as oppressor/oppressed they view themselves as the top of the pyramid...which from upon that perch they dole out largesse to the lesser people out there.

A breathtaking combination of hubris, ego, self-absorption, and pride with equal helpings of insecurity, lack of confidence and built upon a foundation of intellectual mediocrity. Today's White Savior liberal is a legend.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis

Curious if he has a quote on abortion, which is a tyranny visited on women, as this would apply, "It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."

Curious if he has a quote on abortion, which is a tyranny visited on women, as this would apply, "It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."

Here's one I found - from https://www.liveaction.org/news/what-did-c-s-lewis...

So how did this towering Christian intellect feel about abortion? In short, he considered it a sin. In a personal letter dated July 1951, Lewis made this statement:

"It is certainly not wrong to try to remove the natural consequences of sin provided the means by which you remove them are not in themselves another sin. (E.g. it is merciful and Christian to remove the natural consequences of fornication by giving the girl a bed in a maternity ward and providing for the child’s keep and education, but wrong to remove them by abortion or infanticide.) (Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. III, 91)"

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

Interesting thoughts.

How would that apply to abortion bans? Or book bans? Or transphobia? Or bans on teaching certain parts of history?

—Peter

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

So true.

That’s what I think about speed limits. if we didn’t have those I could just zoom around at any hyper velocity through the neighborhood. I am oppressed because I can’t save the time I need to do other things. Stop taking care of me with your stupid laws.

Maybe I want to inspect my own food. I certainly do not need government bureaucrats doing something I don’t want them doing in the first place! Who appointed them, anyway? Oh, right, the tyrannical oppressors protecting me from myself. Well who needs it!

And housing codes! Whose business is it whether my house falls down on me or not? Just mine, period. Stupid city council trying to protect me from myself - and raising the cost of my house to boot. End It Now!

We would be a lot better off if we didn’t regulate medicine: you would see an explosion of cures for things which don’t exist now. Sure, some of them might not work, but the free market would take care of that in its own way (creative death, I call it).

And requiring accountants and lawyers and investment counselors to subscribe to an ethics code? Who needs it? Surely the tiny fraction of dishonest lawyers would be revealed quickly and shut out of the profession without onerous regulation requiring them to operate transparently in the interest of their clients, right?

Oh, you could go through everything in our modern life and see that we’d be so much better off without this tyranny of do-gooders. If I want to be a victim, I should be allowed to be. Period.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but i think CS Lewis is talking more about things where that are protecting people from themselves.

Speed limits, food safety, and building codes protect one person from another. Book bans and limits on teaching history are attempts to protect people from themselves.

—Peter

Speed limits, food safety, and building codes protect one person from another.

Public health mandates do exactly that.

An unvaccinated kid presents a threat to everybody in his school, their families and friends.

Public health mandates do exactly that.

Right. Lewis is not calling those tyranny. He’s calling things like book bans tyranny, because they purport to protect the “victim” from himself.

Protecting one person from harming another is not tyranny. It’s common courtesy codified into law.

—Peter

Imagine a country so furious about a 4.3% unemployment rate that it voted for polio?

https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-unemploym...

RFKjr has key support.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2...
To Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate:

I write you today to offer my full and feverish support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his nomination to become head of the Department of Health and Human Services.

I believe Mr. Kennedy will fulfill President-elect Donald Trump’s mission of making America great again, not only for its people but also for largely eradicated communicable diseases like myself.

As you know, Mr. Kennedy has long been an advocate for preventable diseases and an outspoken critic of vaccines. I have lost most of my strain to vaccines, and have been forced to live host-less my entire life, so this issue is deeply personal to me and the polio community I represent.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.