'Liberals'/'Leftists' in America

[Joe Hillshoist]

Just noticed your post Sonic. For what it's worth, this was my response at the time.

Rishi Belmarsh.jpg

That is cool. Can I use it?

[Harvey]

Just noticed your post Sonic. For what it's worth, this was my response at the time.

Rishi Belmarsh.jpg

That is cool. Can I use it?

Of course.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Cheers.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

This can also go in the COVID thread, but it's just as relevant here:





https://twitter.com/gnocchiwizard/statu ... 3817375745

[Belligerent Savant]

.

A number of truths here, but still too soft on Stewart and Colbert. Also: Stewart's comments at Colbert's show was no 'surprise' to Colbert, of course. All part of the act. They are actors, quite literally, doing their part to frame and corral status quo talking points and divisive rhetoric.

Jon Stewart, The High Priest Of Cultural Liberalism, Reprimands His Flock

If contemporary American liberalism has any High Priests, foremost among them would have to be Jon Stewart. Arguably, he’s the functional equivalent of a supreme pontiff. So much of contemporary American liberalism hinges on aesthetic presentation — the ever-present need to convey that you and your peers “get it” — and Stewart pioneered the perfect public sensibility tailored to this ambition. For years, cultural liberals’ sense of savviness and ironic detachment, coupled with an underlying pretension to earnestness, was cultivated and affirmed by Stewart. His method of communicating political information on The Daily Show became the dominant style not just of mainstream corporate comedy, but of left-liberal politics as a whole. Everyone from establishment Democrats to cynical online leftists speaks of Stewart with worshipful reverence.

Stewart is also very smart. Like any good leader of a religious order, he knows on occasion he must chide his fellow clergymen for their doctrinal blindspots, tactical blunders, or personal indiscretions. He knows how to gently but firmly advise parishioners when they’ve gone astray, or gone too far. He also mostly kept his head down throughout the Trump presidency — declining to weigh in on every fleeting micro-scandal — which was a wise decision, so as to not get himself too brain-melted by the endless frenzy of that period. He didn’t even join Twitter until this past January.

Empathizing with the habits and tastes of those who are culturally dissimilar is always healthy, but it’s a major struggle to understand why some people still voluntarily watch late-night network TV. Nonetheless, Stewart appeared this week on the first back-in-studio taping of his protégé Stephen Colbert’s late-night show. There he issued what amounted to a new Papal encyclical. In that signature weary, deadpan delivery everyone knows and loves, he averred that the “lab leak” theory of COVID origins — previously a contemptible heresy — should not just be seriously considered as plausible, but had in fact become trivially obvious. So obvious that you’re now the dummy if you don’t think so. Watch as Colbert awkwardly wrestles with the implications of what his longtime hero Jon Stewart is saying; he looks almost pained. Six months ago, anyone who broached this topic on Colbert’s show would’ve been assumed to be some sort of QAnon crank. But here’s Jon Stewart, repeating Steve Bannon talking points. Colbert, understandably, appears quite disoriented.

Stewart recognizes when to “read the room” and direct a course correction in the prevailing sentiments of popular liberalism when its dogmas have become too untenable to continue. Who else was going to do it, Joe Biden? Nowhere near enough funny-guy sway. It takes the cultural prestige of a leader like Stewart to truly make a difference. And when he decides it’s time for one of those gentle-but-firm course corrections, liberals listen intently — because liberalism is underrated for its ability to adapt and self-correct, at least in the arena of public presentation. This is best accomplished by reframing its past failures as a big joke, and there’s no one better positioned to do so than Stewart.

Accordingly, the rapid transformation of the lab leak theory from shameful racist trope into cool-kid conventional wisdom need not occasion any recriminations or blame — just more self-deprecating laughter. Never mind that during all the Zoom banter Stewart presumably participated in over the past 15 months, the theory was either scornfully dismissed or ignored. That’s all in the past; Trump is gone. Eventually Stewart got it.

But he wasn’t imparted with this knowledge by some divine revelation. A campaign of Twitter sleuths and Medium posts is what punctured a false consensus. Stewart merely consecrated the shift within a certain strand of the cultural mainstream, thereby granting license to liberals who need permission from their entertainment idols before they form opinions about anything.

This volatility within liberalism is often fodder for mockery. It can make adherents look and sound incoherent. But malleability is part of liberalism’s strength; after all, conservatives are always complaining that liberals control most every institution. To what do they attribute this...?

It’s why the big “face-off” this week between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden, desperately hyped by the flagging corporate news industry, could result in Putin lavishing Biden with praise for his statesmanship and sterling moral character, and no Democratic elected official taking issue. Memories of how similar diplomatic niceties were portrayed vis-a-vis the previous President simply vanish. Stephen Colbert didn’t sneer at the “collusive” implications. The last five years of spy-thriller hype can just wash away, with the snap of a finger.

It’s why Ashli Babbitt — an unarmed protester shot dead at point-blank range by an agent of the state — was presumed worthy of summary execution by the nation’s liberal class, even as they make other questionable police killings the guiding impetus of their entire political program. Babbitt had bad ideas, she was deluded by YouTube misinformation, she was a de facto white supremacist, whatever. She might’ve even been trespassing at the time the bullet was pumped into her throat. The public still doesn’t have the name of her assailant — this information has been concealed by the relevant police agency. But Jon Stewart wouldn’t go near that one... yet. Promoting a certain interpretation of January 6 still has a utility for liberals that clinging to lab leak denialism no longer does.

So much of it all is a facade — but facades can overlay the accrual of real power. Stewart just has enough self-awareness to poke his head through the facade every now and then, when the conditions are safe, and help right the ship.

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/jon-stew ... f-cultural

[JackRiddler]

.

Jon Stewart, The High Priest Of Cultural Liberalism, Reprimands His Flock

If contemporary American liberalism has any High Priests, foremost among them would have to be Jon Stewart. Arguably, he’s the functional equivalent of a supreme pontiff.

If contemporary ideological wankery for clicks had someone who wanted to be chief wanker, this is the kind of wankery and boldly stupid, flatly unfalsifiable, meaningless premise that would be attempted as though it were the start of a serious musing.

Come on!

.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Yea, for a certain subset demographic -- the Millenial/Gen Z media conditioned armchair 'liberal' -- that intro has merit.
(See my very first post on this thread for a real world example of this mindset)

For others that may self-identify as more classically liberal (however that may be currently defined) it would read as you satirize.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

@gnocchiwizard

at some point in the next year it will become permissible for libs/lefties to discuss the harms covid vaccines are doing to children, but as with the lab leak theory, broader and far more urgent questions will continue to be regarded as crank shit, conspiracy theory, etc.

which is not to belittle concerns raised by harming children with vaccines not adequately tested or the implications of the lab leak theory. it's just to point out that the obvious lies become indefensible and discussing them becomes allowable, while the less obvious ones do not.

one brick in the vast structure of lies can be discarded as it crumbles but the structure remains standing

@JeffWellsRigInt
·
Replying to
@gnocchiwizard

"Hearts didn't inflame themselves" will be the new "Epstein didn't kill himself" for an ineffectual, cynical laugh after the fact that makes no demands.

https://twitter.com/gnocchiwizard/statu ... 91716?s=20

[Harvey]

^

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57570377

Covid: Ivermectin to be studied as possible treatment in UK

University of Oxford scientists are trialling giving Ivermectin to people with Covid symptoms to see if it can keep them out of hospital.

The Principle study will compare those given the drug to patients receiving the usual NHS care.

The drug has become controversial after being promoted for use across Latin America and in South Africa, despite being so far unproven.

Previous studies of Ivermectin have generally been small or low quality.
Participants protest during the Legalise Ivermectin to fight COVID-19 demonstration on January 11, 2021image copyrightGetty Images
image captionSome South Africans have been demanding the authorities allow Ivermectin to be used

Most commonly used to treat parasitic infections such as river blindness, spread by flies, Ivermectin has also been shown to kill viruses in petri dishes in the lab - although, at much higher doses than would usually be prescribed to people.

Dr Aurora Baluja, an anaesthesiologist and critical care doctor, said Ivermectin was often being given in parts of the world where there are high incidences of parasitic infections.

Covid patients who are also fighting a parasitic disease at the same time would be likely to fare worse and that might explains some of its seemingly positive effect.

Though there have been some early "promising" results from small and observational studies, Principle joint chief investigator Prof Richard Hobbs said it would be "premature" to recommend Ivermectin for Covid.

Observational studies look at people already taking the drug, rather than giving it to a group representative of the population.

So they fail to account for differences in the types of people who might choose that treatment, and other factors that might have been influencing the spread of the virus at the time.

'Gold standard'

An observational study previously suggested antibiotic Azithromycin might be helping Covid patients - but the Principle study later showed the drug was ineffective.

Trials such as Principle are seen as the "gold standard" because they can be much more sure they are measuring the effects of the drug and not that of other factors.

Despite the lack of good evidence so far, Ivermectin has been taken up by doctors or by individuals self-medicating in countries including Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, South Africa and the US.

In the US, provider SingleCare said 817 prescriptions had been filled for Ivermectin (which can also be used to treat skin conditions such as rosacea) in January and February 2021, compared with 92 in the same period last year.

Dr Stephen Griffin at the University of Leeds said, "much like hydroxychloroquine before, there has been a considerable amount of off-label use of this drug," based mainly on studies of the virus in the lab, not in people.

"The danger with such off-label use is that...the use of the drug becomes driven by specific interest group or proponents of non-conventional treatments and becomes politicised," he said, adding this trial should provide a "final answer" to whether or not Ivermectin should be used to treat coronavirus.

Doctor offers bogus Covid remedies for social media likes
The doctors using unproven worm drug to treat Covid-19

The Oxford team said they had selected Ivermectin to be included in the trial because it was "readily available globally" and known to be relatively safe (although, like most things, it can be toxic at very high doses).

Of the six other drugs in the Principle study of Covid treatments to be taken at home, only one - inhaled steroid budesonide - has so far proved effective.

Although, sister project the Recovery trial, of treatments for hospital patients, also discovered another steroid, dexamethasone, could treat Covid, which has been credited with saving more than 20,000 lives in the UK.

People aged 18-64 with an underlying health condition or experiencing breathlessness, and anyone aged 65 or over, can sign up to the Principle study within 14 days of having Covid symptoms or receiving a positive test.

[Elvis]

"Liberalism is, I think, resurgent. One reason is that more and more people are so painfully aware of the alternative."

—John Kenneth Galbraith

[stickdog99]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... plutocracy

US billionaires don’t pay tax, and our politicians don’t seem bothered

Maureen Tkacik

Fifteen years of tax information on thousands of plutocrats is one of the biggest stories of the decade. And yet … crickets

American billionaires don’t pay taxes, and American politicians are all but ready to send Seal Team Six to assassinate the nameless bureaucrat who let ProPublica in on this fact. Welcome to our political hellscape.

This month, ProPublica revealed that American billionaires essentially do not pay taxes, and within hours the White House had awkwardly promised no fewer than four federal investigations into the identity of the individual who had alerted the news organization to this fact.

By Thursday, a North Carolina congressman was demanding the FBI director explain why he hadn’t made any arrests or at the very least, “executed any search warrants or raided any offices” in the international manhunt for the leaker.

By the weekend, demands for justice on behalf of America’s parasite oligarchs had unified the Republican party like nothing since perhaps the phrase “public option” was a thing you heard on cable television. Politicians from Susan Collins to the author of the infamous North Carolina “bathroom bill” both grilled law enforcement officials testifying in their committees about the website’s “illegal” violations of mega-billionaire privacy.

Fox News screamed about Twitter’s double standard in enabling sharing of the ProPublica revelations despite blocking an earlier New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. At least 19 senators signed angry letters demanding the investigations they had been repeatedly assured were well under way. (Senator Mike Crapo alone released three separate statements to this effect.) The ranking member of the powerful ways and means committee told the Hill on Friday that the revelations had dealt Democratic proposals to add an additional $8bn to the annual IRS budget – which was meant to help with tax law enforcement and compliance – “close to a death blow”.

Meanwhile, the Democrats hardly had a better response. The billionaire tax avoidance story warranted nary a mention on the Twitter feeds of the four founders of “the Squad” aside from a retweet from AOC. And so the only elected officials who seem to have read the story ProPublica president Richard Tofel had framed as “the most important story we have ever published” were the ones who calling for the feds to ransack the ProPublica offices.

But the worst part of the whole saga was the realization that ProPublica’s bombshell revelations would probably have more attention during the presidency of Donald Trump. ProPublica carefully chose the six billionaires whose tax returns it chose to single out for specific scrutiny, and several of them – Jeff Bezos, George Soros and Mike Bloomberg – are so loathed by conservatives it would have been impossible for a Trump-era Republican party to respect their constitutional right to dodge taxes. The scarce press coverage of the fact that billionaires have not only paid virtually no taxes, but that they have also added to their net worths in recent years, makes the four-year media obsession with former president Donald Trump’s tax returns feel like a partisan crusade that was never about a genuine commitment to ending billionaire tax avoidance, but just scoring points against Trump alone.

So, while we were homeschooling our kids and waiting on hold with the unemployment department, Democrats of every declension barely say a word about the fact billionaires added $1.2tn to their fortunes over the past year alone. And it’s not that there’s nothing to say about the matter. ProPublica has the goods to actually put tax avoidance on the map, and if Democrats were committed to ending the class warfare that the rich wage against the poor every day, they would take these goods and run.

Every billionaire is an inherently public figure, whose fortunes are inextricable from the fabric of our daily lives
After all, Jeff Bezos got a $4,000 middle-class tax credit the year his net worth hit $18bn. There’s something so marvelous and transcending of petty tribal affiliations about this fact, like a perfectly executed 60-yard touchdown pass in the final 18 seconds of a five-point game. Unearth a diamond like that, and your side deserves to win. Now imagine if the Democrats would just catch the damn thing!

But ProPublica seems to have deliberately underthrown. After breathlessly informing readers they possessed a “trove” of 15 years’ worth of tax returns on literally “thousands” of the world’s richest people, the story’s three authors proceeded to weave a few juicy and non-contextualized facts into a narrative that felt like a protracted sidebar to the “real” story. We learned that the 25 richest billionaires in America added $401bn to their net worths between 2014 and 2018 and paid about 3% of that amount in taxes, but we didn’t learn much about any specific billionaire’s tax avoidance strategies outside a brief discussion of the borrowing habits of random 1980s corporate raider Carl Icahn, of which Icahn is clearly proud enough not to bother suing. (“I enjoy winning,” he told the website.)

Fifteen years of tax return information on thousands of American plutocrats is, to be sure, one of the biggest stories of the decade. It’s just not clear ProPublica has that much appetite for sticking with the story.

Bloomberg has already threatened to “use all legal means” to determine who leaked the tax returns and “ensure that they are held responsible”. No doubt Charles Koch and Dan Gilbert are already sharpening their knives. In a podcast interview last week, ProPublica’s series editor, Steve Engelberg, expressed profound discomfort about actually using the information provided by the anonymous tipster, explaining that editors had agreed to only publish information they determined to be “absolutely necessary for the public to appreciate what is, let’s face it, an arcane topic”.

There had been early thoughts of publishing basic tax return data on the top 25 richest billionaires in the country, he added, but they decided against it on grounds that some of the names on the list “are quite well known and some are much less well known”, and he preferred “using household names” who are “in the fabric of our daily lives” and not, I suppose, their lower-key heiresses and widows.

This was, I believe, a moral and strategic mistake that will be difficult to undo. Every billionaire is an inherently public figure, whose fortunes are inextricable from the fabric of our daily lives; the Forbes 400 could serve as an invaluable guide for unsentimentally demystifying our social dysfunctions, were billionaires not plenty rich enough to hire all the lobbyists and publicists who ensure nothing of that nature ever gets written about their clients.

Once, the malefactors of great wealth burnished their public images by investing in journalism outlets; now, plutocrats seems just as happy to siphon their ad revenue, flip their office buildings or even sue them into oblivion. Surely the editorial board of ProPublica, one of the last two or three American news organizations with the resources to handle this story, understands the stakes. One can only hope they stick to their guns – and that someone with a modicum of political power starts paying attention.

[Elvis]

After all, Jeff Bezos got a $4,000 middle-class tax credit the year his net worth hit $18bn.

* $180bn


Tax The Billionaires

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko1y-f5Ihqw



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8BYvEjn8I

[Grizzly]

^^^
Join the movement?

WHAT FUCKING MOVEMENT WOULD THAT BE???

[DrEvil]

Here's a visualization of just how much money these people have. It's pretty fucking mind-boggling:

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Glimpse into the thinking/talking points of self-identified "leftists" and "conservatives" within the Twittersphere, which isn't necessarily -- and often is not -- a reflection of reality [assuming for a moment there's a single 'objective reality'], but an interesting view into some of the thinking out there.


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1411 ... 01058.html

Conservative Twitter is all over this.

I highly recommend reading the quoted tweets for a deeper understanding of how many in America view SF, the left, etc.

A thread.

ABC7 News

@abc7newsbayarea

Target says it's closing all six of its San Francisco stores early because of crime specifically thefts and shoplifting.
http://abc7ne.ws/3jAtW6r

Here's one that caught my eye:

@johncardillo

This is also why they are rigging the Democratic primary against Eric Adams in New York.

The radical far left needs rampant crime to destroy private industry so that everyone is dependent upon the state.

Adams is running on law and order.

Another one:

@johncardillo

SanFran has always been the test bed for the left’s most radical experiment.

This is going exactly to plan.

Destabilize cities, let criminals run rampant, crush all private industry, all necessities will then be provided by the state.

The left is winning the war.

There seems to be an impression among many conservatives that the left:
+ Doesn't support & protect businesses
+ Doesn't protect citizens from criminals
+ Is trying to destabilize our social order/society

On this last part - about society - the right tends to critique:
+ Branding white people as "oppressors" (e.g., critical race theory)
+ Recasting American history as rooted in evil (e.g., renaming schools)
+ Undermining meritocracies (e.g., getting rid of adv math)

SF has caught a lot of national attention as we are a petri dish for many progressive ideas - e.g.,
+ Harm reduction & housing first approach to addiction & homelessness
+ High taxes (state income tax, businesses)
+ Decarceration, ending bail, lax prosecution

There are early signals that politics are having a significant impact on the Bay Area:
+ 45% of businesses in SF are still closed
+ SF/CA exodus is real
+ Remote is here to stay (in many parts b/c people don't want to go downtown)

I think we will start to experience a real shift in outlook if real estate prices start falling. This could occur due to:
+ Recession (we are overdue, RE usually in 10-year cycles)
+ Remote guts city of younger workers, fewer buyers
+ Crime driving out elderly, families, women

Anecdotally, every single one of my friends right now is considering leaving SF (and frankly, myself included).

The biggest driver is no longer cost of living. It's crime.

My friends are scared for their children, and their husbands are scared for their wives...
And it isn't about metrics.

Nobody is saying we are "X% up" in this category.

It's how they feel walking the streets. It's walking a stroller next to a tent that has a pile of bikes next to it.

It's being screamed at or chased by someone who seems mentally unstable.
What I'm seeing is that if there is a big enough incident, it shakes people up.

It could be seeing a robber trying to climb into your child's bedroom, being pulled off your bike, having someone chase you with a pipe...

These incidents shake people up. And their friends too.
Ultimately, I think that the biggest responsibility of government is to protect people from one another.

It is in place to protect us from assault, theft, robbery, etc.

Right now the criminal justice system in SF is not working.
It is allowing people to get high on very powerful drugs and terrorize one another, neighbors, stores.

It is allowing rampant theft, burglary & car break-ins.

It is allowing mentally unstable felons to stab elderly women.
There is a social contract inherent in living in a city.

We are all crammed together in a small space with the expectation and understanding that we protect one another.

There is an expectation that our government will keep things functioning smoothly so we can coexist.
The San Francisco government has abdicated on that responsibility.

It is focused on equity & "justice" at the expense of fulfilling its basic duties.

Fee caps, school renaming, criminal justice experiments, public banks, red tape, corruption... the list goes on.
My whole life I've considered myself a proud liberal, progressive San Francisco Democrat.

Today I am ashamed of my city.

I see smug ignorance of the laws of unintended consequences.

Moral grandstanding winning over data, logic, and facts.
Radical candidates winning elections unopposed.

Social justice warriors getting into government and wreaking havoc on neighborhoods, businesses, children.

Why have we all been asleep at the wheel? Where is our sense of civic duty? Civic pride?

Is this who we want to be?
Throughout history, millions of ppl have gone to war and died for their country, their home, their sense of what is right.

What is going on in SF isn't right. We likely have the most inept, corrupt local government in the nation.

For a city of innovation, this is humiliating.
I tweet because my heart is breaking about what's happening in my hometown.

This is not how an American city should look and feel.

I feel like I'm on the brink of being red-pilled. How can I not, when our policies are so aligned with the radical left?
San Francisco has a long history of push and pull between moderate and progressive Dems.

Currently, we are fully in the hands of the progressives.

They are in charge of our criminal justice system and our governing body, the board of supervisors.
My hope is that in the next few elections we turn this around.

We need more moderates in office. Mayor Breed will need more moderates in the BOS to get things done.

People say the word moderate isn't inspiring.

Well, it is to me.

(fin)