Skip to content

Month: April 2021

God help the Senate

…if this guy gets in. He’s a full-blown white supremacist:

GOP Rep. Mo Brooks is very happy about the Alabama Senate race right now. Just ask him.

Buoyed by a high-profile endorsement from former President Donald Trump, who remains immensely popular with Republicans in that state, Brooks is running away with the GOP primary at this point. 

“We’re probably up 30 to 40 points over whoever the second place person is,” Brooks said in an interview, citing a poll Trump mentioned during an interview on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Monday night. No further details on that poll were available.

“Looks like he’s got clear sailing,” Trump said of Brooks. And Brooks is holding a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago on Friday.

That Brooks is doing so well is a problem for both Democrats and the GOP establishment, neither of which want the 66-year-old former state representative in the Senate. But Trump is still the boss of Alabama politics, and if Trump wants Brooks, that might just be that. 

Brooks was heavily criticized for speaking at Trump’s Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse prior to the deadly attack on the Capitol. During his speech, Brooks urged rally goers to “start taking down names and kicking ass.” Brooks insists he was talking about the 2022 elections, not urging attacks on lawmakers as they certified Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. Democratic Reps. Tom Malinowski (N.J.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) introduced a resolution to censure Brooks, but up until now, they haven’t pushed it.

The Jan. 6 controversy fits the bill for Brooks, now in his sixth term in the House. Brooks once read from Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” on the House floor in a bid to own Democrats. He seems to think the “National Socialist German Workers Party” means the Nazis were socialists. He’s a climate change denier, and once he accused Democrats of launching a “war on whites.”

Four years ago, a Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell-aligned Super PAC helped bury Brooks in the GOP Senate primary with a wave of attack ads. But the strategy backfired as Roy Moore went on to win the primary — McConnell was backing incumbent GOP Sen. Luther Strange. Moore lost in the general election to Democrat Doug Jones.

This time, Brooks said it doesn’t matter who McConnell or the GOP establishment is backing — he’s got Trump.

“I’m not really concerned about any other campaign,” Brooks said. “I have to run my own race. If I run a good race, I believe the people of the state of Alabama will elect me.”

The only other Republican candidate in the GOP primary right now is Lynda Blanchard, a wealthy self funder who has vowed to pour millions of dollars into the race. Blanchard recently wrote an op-ed for the Yellowhammer News in Alabama entitled “A man in a skirt is not a woman — It is an abomination.” Blanchard described herself as “a Christian, conservative, Trump Republican who is one hundred percent committed to the MAGA agenda and America First initiative” in the op-ed. Blanchard was Trump’s ambassador to Slovenia.

Katie Boyd Britt, president and CEO of the Business Council of Alabama and a former chief of staff to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), had been touted as a possible top-tier candidate. Britt, though, hasn’t gotten into the race yet, and it’s not clear she could beat Brooks if she did. Politically connected Alabama business leaders are busily scrambling to find someone else, fearing another potential Roy Moore debacle if Brooks is the GOP candidate in 2022.

Brooks said he doesn’t care what the Republican party bosses say, think, or do about him at this point. “Doesn’t make any difference to me,” Brooks said. “If anything, having the establishment Republican senators support someone else probably enhances my chances for election.”

He’s probably right about that. Being a radical jerk is a prime selling point in the Republican Party these days. Owns the libs dontcha know.

Now there’s an app for Driving While Black

Chris Rock in 2015 took selfies before his encounters when police pulled him over for “Driving While Black” three times in two months.

From Colorlines (2015):

Chris Rock began chronicling the number of times he gets stopped by the police on his social media channels in February. The posts have since prompted a public conversation among performers on racial profiling.

Rock’s first pulled-over pic appeared on Instagram with the caption, “Just got pulled over by the cops wish me luck,” and was followed by another two weeks later on Feb 27 with the note, “I’m not even driving stop by the cops again.” His latest, and third in two months, was a nighttime tweet, ”Stopped by the cops again wish me luck,” accompanied by a selfie from the driver’s seat. His tweet got the attention of four-time Emmy winner Isaiah Washington, who replied to Rock’s tweet, advising him to “adapt.”

Washington sold his Mercedes G500 and bought not one Prius but three “with windows that are tinted darker than the windows that were tinted in my $90,000 vehicle.” The traffic stops stopped. Washington went on CNN to explain that he was not implying racial profiling would stop just by changing car models.

But now, thanks to Apple’s iOS 12 update there is a Shortcuts app for Driving While Black (Business Insider-Tech):

Arizona resident Robert Petersen used this update to create his own third-party shortcut, initially known as “Police” and now known as “I’m Getting Pulled Over.” It aims to assist users during traffic stops by automatically recording their interactions with police officers.

[…]

First developed in 2018, the shortcut activates the Do Not Disturb feature, turning off all incoming calls, messages, and notifications. This is to reduce the chance that a police officer will be startled by your phone ringing or flashing, and act aggressively.

Next, it’ll send a text message with your current location to all the contacts that you’ve selected beforehand.

At the same time, your phone will start recording a video with the front camera (i.e. the one above the phone’s screen).

Yes, it’s come to this. Business Insider has the download and installation instructions for the app.

Don’t bother cluttering up your phone with this app if you’re white. You won’t need it.

Straw man über alles

These huge straw men were set up in 2010 to welcome the Tour de France cycling race which went through Lautrec. Photo by Robin Ellis via Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0).

A proposition is a picture of reality, Ludwig Wittgenstein explained. Wittgenstein studied how language and logic interact. Our class on Wittgenstein used this as an example of a logical proposition: “There is a rose bush on the far side of the moon.” Was it? A valid proposition (IIRC; someone will correct me) was one that was provable. One that is unfalsifiable is not a valid proposition. Such a statement is doing something other than describing the world.

“I know Jesus is Lord because he has saved me,” is another we discussed. It may take the form of a proposition but is not. It is unprovable by comparison to observable reality.

With the help of Laura Field of the Niskanen Center, Greg Sargent examines the extreme right’s flight from reality into fantasy. Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), among others, utter things that sound like propositions but are hardly pictures of reality.

Carlson recently waved away assertions by a law enforcement official that Derek Chauvin’s use of force against George Floyd was excessive: “I’m kind of more worried about the rest of the country, which, thanks to police inaction, in case you hadn’t noticed, is, like, boarded up.”

“Of course, you probably haven’t noticed that the ‘rest of the country’ is ‘boarded up,’ because, well, it isn’t,” Sargent writes. All it would take to test Carlson’s proposition is a trip to the far side of the moon, so to speak.

Greene strikes a similar pose:

Was it “dead”? The police were there because of the right-wing riot on January 6.

Field distinguishes between conspiracy theories and conspiracism, “more a habit of mind, a tendency to unshackle oneself in a way that permits a kind of open-ended indulgence in fabulism,” Sargent continues:

The latter is common among QAnon sympathizers, but Field argues that a conspiracist tendency is becoming distressingly common even among some right-leaning intellectuals, particularly ones who saw President Donald Trump as a necessary disruption of our politics, and his defeat as a cause for political anguish. But their through line concerns their depiction of the left.

In too many cases, Field argues, empiricism is entirely absent. This tendency sometimes attacks the political legitimacy of the entire left by conflating liberals and Marxists into one monolithically tyrannical political force. Or it attacks the legitimacy of institutions which have fallen under the left’s cultural spell (such as the media or “woke” corporations, never mind the latter’s pursuit of a distributive agenda the left hates). Or it attacks the political system itself (which the left has manipulated, rendering elections illegitimate).

New Right intellectuals, Field writes, “share a fundamentally conspiratorial view of the left — a view that is often deeply cynical and/or detached from reality.” Indeed, “conspiracism is increasingly detaching itself from any obligation to justify its connection to reality in any way,” Sargent writes.

Straw man über alles

The conspiracy is all around you, Morpheus tells Neo in The Matrix. “Free your mind.” Carlson, Greene, et al. have freed theirs. Argument by assertion is the rule in their virtual world. Pictures they paint with words bear no relation to reality. Nor do they care if they don’t. (Emphasis mine.)

After all, if widespread voter fraud can simply be asserted, then overturning an election result can magically be made legitimate. If antifa’s role in storming the Capitol can simply be asserted, then the violent Trumpist mob can be transformed into virtuous exercisers of their First Amendment rights who were smeared by association with the Real Rioters, i.e., antifa.

Or, as John Ganz suggests, if the social degradations of cultural liberal hegemony can be exaggerated into something heinously irredeemable through conventional politics, then anything goes. The very “giving up” on our institutions itself becomes the justification for engaging in the prosecution of right-wing politics by any disruptive means necessary.

“In this imaginary world, sinister forces lurk behind every facet of liberal society: the most apparently milquetoast and moderate liberals are actually in the thrall of hardcore revolutionary Marxist ideology,” Ganz adds. That’s the picture painted by the Carlsons and Greenes. No correspondence to reality required.

Why, imaginary liberal depredations might just require virtuous conservatives take up fascism in response. Straw man über alles. “If the left forces the issue and things get bad enough,” the right’s violent response is on them.

Democracy? Disposable. The rule of law also.

Black Lives protests against police violence left cites across the country in flames last summer and boarded up now. Thus, right wing violence is justified. The election was stolen from Donald Trump. Thus, storming the Capitol was justified, too. The right’s believers are uninterested in having the Carlsons and Greenes show us their proofs.

Sargent concludes:

If these folks recognize no obligation of any kind to remain tethered to reality in depicting the leftist threat however they see fit, then it’s a short leap to justifying anything in response to it. Which is the whole point.

Liberals made them do it. Thus saith the personal responsibility people.

The GOP vaccine refusniks

These Republican focus groups just amaze me. Apparently, we are supposed to believe that if we just shut up about it and stop being such meanies (for allowing them to kill people) they will somehow change their minds. I don’t believe it:

Stop talking about the possibility of coronavirus booster shots. Don’t bully people who are vaccine holdouts. And if you’re trying to win over skeptics, show us anyone besides Dr. Fauci.

That’s what a focus group of vaccine-hesitant Trump voters urged politicians and pollsters during the weekend, as public health officials work to understand potential roadblocks in the campaign to inoculate Americans against the coronavirus. Among the most pressing questions are why so many GOP voters remain opposed to the shots and whether the recent decision to pause Johnson & Johnson vaccinations was a factor.

Although more than half of U.S. adults have received at least one dose of coronavirus vaccine, more than 40 percent of Republicans have consistently told pollsters they’re not planning to be vaccinated — a group that could threaten efforts to tamp down the virus’s spread, public health officials fear.

Many vaccine-hesitant Americans are increasingly entrenched in their decisions to resist the shots, said Frank Luntz, a longtime GOP communications expert who convened Sunday’s focus group over Zoom.

“The further we go into the vaccination process, the more passionate the hesitancy is,” Luntz said after the session. “If you’ve refused to take the vaccine this long, it’s going to be hard to switch you.”

That was the case in the weekend’s focus group, the latest in a series Luntz has convened. It included 17 participants who heard pro-vaccine pitches from four doctors, including three Republican politicians and Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Obama administration.

Unlike a similar focus group five weeks ago, when most participants told Luntz and Frieden that the session persuaded them to get shots, attendees Sunday said they were swayed only moderately by doctors’ urging — or not moved at all.

“I was zero [on] the vaccine. I’m still a zero,” said a woman identified as Tammy from Virginia about an hour into Sunday’s focus group. Her comments came after Frieden repeatedly tried to calm attendees’ fears, which included questions about the vaccines’ unknown long-term effects and about baseless claims suggesting the shots would change recipients’ DNA even though that does not happen. Focus group attendees were identified only by their first name and state, although many participants volunteered additional biographical details.

While cautioning against drawing too many conclusions from a single focus group, public health experts said the nearly two-hour session offered insight on messages that could reach holdout Americans — and which messages didn’t.

For instance, the group largely shrugged off federal regulators’ decision last week to pause Johnson & Johnson’s coronavirus vaccine for safety reviews, citing the risk of rare blood clots. Luntz and others had expected the pause to worsen hesitancy, but focus group participants instead asked why doctors were halting a potentially useful medical treatment, given that the reported side effects were so rare.

“A lot of people might want to take the Johnson & Johnson vaccine versus the others, because it’s one shot versus two,” said a woman identified as Cathy from Pennsylvania.

Brian Castrucci, an epidemiologist who leads the de Beaumont Foundation, which helped convene the focus group, said: “Every public health person, me included, thought this would be a real hit to vaccine confidence. But we didn’t see folks really concerned with the pause in the J&J vaccine.”

The foundation, which focuses on community public health, also issued a poll Tuesday with Luntz that found most Americans thought the Johnson & Johnson pause shows that safety protocols are working. A federal advisory committee this week is expected to determine whether medical officials can resume administering the vaccine.

Instead, the focus group participants said they were far more concerned by recent news that they may need ongoing shots to ward off the coronavirus. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told CNBC this month that Americans who received his company’s two-dose vaccine regimen probably will need a third shot within a year.

“I feel like this is not going to end. I mean, we’re just going to be shot up and shot up and shot up,” said a man identified as Erzen from New York. “We can’t live like this. This is not sustainable.”

Public health experts have said it is premature to assume Americans will need booster shots in the coming year, and Frieden framed Bourla’s claims as a business decision.

“I’m pissed off at Pfizer for talking about boosters. And I think they did that for their corporate benefit,” he told the group. Attendees later said that they appreciated Frieden’s blunt rhetoric.

Pfizer defended Bourla’s comments in a statement to The Washington Post, noting the company has repeatedly discussed the possibility of booster shots.

“Until we see a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 circulation and covid-19 disease, we think it is likely that a third dose, a boost of our vaccine, within 12 months after vaccine administration, will likely be needed to help provide protection against covid-19, subject to approval by regulatory authorities,” Pfizer spokeswoman Jerica Pitts said.

Castrucci said he had not expected Pfizer’s booster shot discussions to catalyze so much resistance.

“That’s the beauty of focus groups. You get to see the harbinger of things to come,” he said, arguing that participants’ concerns about a booster shot illustrated how coronavirus-weary Americans needed to know there would be an end to the pandemic.

The focus group revealed another unexpected development: Most participants said they would want a fake vaccination card that would allow them to claim they had received shots, after Luntz granted them anonymity to speak honestly.

“One-thousand percent,” one woman said.

“If I have a fake vaccine card, yeah, I can go anywhere,” added a man who said he had turned down free New York Yankees tickets because of the team’s requirement to show proof of vaccination to attend games. Other participants said they wanted a fake card to attend concerts and go on trips, citing the growing number of organizations saying they will require proof of shots.

Even some participants who said they did not intend to get a fraudulent card acknowledged they were tempted. “My faith wouldn’t allow me to be deceitful. So what do I do?” one woman asked the group.

Federal officials have condemned the rising use of fake vaccination cards, warning that the scams are illegal and that they will prosecute Americans who make, sell or use the easily falsified cards. The use of fake cards could prolong the pandemic by allowing unvaccinated people to continue to spread the virus, officials have said.

Several Republican politicians took turns pitching Sunday’s focus group to get shots, often with politically tinged rhetoric.

Sen. Roger Marshall (Kan.), an obstetrician, exhorted the Trump voters to get vaccinated out of respect for their former president.

“President [Donald] Trump busted his butt to get this vaccine for us. He kicked down doors that I’ve never seen kicked down before,” Marshall said. “And I think to respect him, would you take the vaccine? Would you honor it out of respect for him and his efforts and everything he did to get this country through this crisis?”

The senator’s pitch fell flat with some attendees.

“I’m very thankful to Donald Trump, but all his efforts to make it happen don’t have anything to do with its continued or long-term efficacy,” said a man named Allen from Georgia.

Others said they agreed that Trump should be receiving more plaudits — and that the shots should even be called the “Trump vaccine” — but that alone didn’t appear to change their opinion.

Luntz said Trump bears responsibility for the tens of millions of hesitant GOP voters, having used his presidential podium to make political attacks while missing opportunities to promote vaccines to his political base.

“He wants to get the credit for developing the vaccine. Then he also gets the blame for so few of his voters taking it,” Luntz said in an interview. The longtime GOP pollster added that President Biden could be doing more to cross the aisle, such as making a joint appearance with Trump to tout the vaccines before promptly deferring to medical experts.

One figure was roundly panned at the focus group: Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Every participant said they preferred hearing from politicians over the medical expert, who has been pilloried by conservative media for months over his coronavirus warnings.

“The data have shown that unfortunately Dr. Fauci has been politicized, and we need different messengers, because even the right messages coming from the wrong messengers aren’t always helpful,” Castrucci said, noting his foundation’s polling found Americans trust their personal doctors more than the government’s top infectious-disease doctor.

Other complaints reflected opinions from previous focus groups and surveys, such as criticism of “vaccine passports” — documents that could be used to demonstrate proof of vaccination but have become swiftly politicized — and interventions characterized as overreach.

“I work for a university, and they’re really pressuring employees to take this vaccine, and they don’t pressure us near this hard for a flu shot each year,” a man identified as Michael from Iowa said.

Many participants blasted a media environment that they said was relentlessly negative.

“A lot of the hesitancy that’s coming from the right is just from being bullied, being humiliated, basically, by the media,” said a woman who identified herself as Leslie from California, who was one of the younger members of the group. “I don’t really see the point in getting it if nothing is going to change, and I haven’t gotten sick.”

Luntz said he would be closely watching Biden’s prime-time address to Congress next week as a major opportunity to win over vaccine skeptics, particularly in communities of color. “Everything else he says is platitudes. What he says about covid can save lives,” the pollster said, arguing that Biden’s current popularity made him more effective than many politicians.

Given that vaccine-hesitant voters said their decisions were influenced by their personal doctors, Castrucci argued that all physicians could incorporate subtle questions about coronavirus vaccinations into their medical routines. That would hark back to successful anti-tobacco campaigns in which doctors routinely asked patients about their tobacco use.

Meanwhile, Castrucci warned that some Democrats’ hectoring and ridicule of GOP vaccine holdouts had backfired, adding that it was wrong to argue with vaccine skeptics like a political debate: “If we don’t get this country vaccinated, it’s not a debate because there’s no winner, and we all lose.”

Fine. I won’t say another word. But it will not make a difference. These people are not babies. They know what they are doing and they have agency. They are unreachable on many things, including this. I do not believe there is anything that will reach them.

It means we are going to have to live with this virus being our midst and come to accept that these people are going to provide hosts for it to mutate into something that the current vaccines cannot defeat. I think that’s just the way it is. They are determined not to do anything to keep that from happening and there’s nothing we can do about it.

I think we need to hope that science comes to the rescue with availability of treatments like the monoclonal antibody treatment that saved Trump (and his elderly cronies with comorbidities) and vaccines that can be turned around quickly to deal with the variants. Counting on herd immunity with people like this in our society is a false hope. They are nihilist know-nothings. And there are millions of them.

Well, you asked …

Phony as a three dollar bill Senator John Kennedy quizzed Stacey Abrams on the Georgia Vote Suppression efforts. Seems he wasn’t prepared for the answer:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1384898233902800898

Succession on steroids

Following up on my post below I thought I’d share some excerpts of this piece by Peter Maas at the Intercept from a year ago. It’s about the Murdoch heir Lachlan Murdoch and it’s fascinating. I think it’s his influence that’s being felt in the sharp, openly fascist turn of the network:

In 1994, a philosophy student at Princeton University submitted a senior thesis that began with a famous passage from Lord Byron, the Romantic poet. The passage reflected the student’s apparent uncertainty about who he was and what he would become after college.

Between two worlds life hovers like a star,
’Twixt night and morn, upon the horizon’s verge.
How little do we know that which we are!
How less what we may be!

The thesis was written by Lachlan Murdoch, the eldest son of Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch. In the 57-page thesis, Lachlan tried to develop a system, rooted in German philosophy, for leading a life guided by morality and love. His thesis was titled, “A Study of Freedom and Morality in Kant’s Practical Philosophy,” and he salted it with spiritual inquiries. It even concluded with a striking Sanskrit line about yearning for the purity of infinity.

A quarter-century later, this document is strangely relevant because its author has become one of the most important yet least-known purveyors of white nationalism.

Until recently, the Murdoch who most dominated Fox News was Rupert, the craggy billionaire who created the network in 1996. But with Rupert nearing his 90th year, the Murdoch who now oversees the network — who in the past year has presided over some of the most racist and conspiratorial programming it has ever broadcast — is Lachlan. The tattoo-flecked chair and chief executive of the parent company of Fox News is now 47 years old and lives in a mansion in Los Angeles with his wife and children.

Lachlan Murdoch represents an archetype of extremism that often escapes scrutiny, because he is not an on-the-barricades provocateur. Instead, he is a behind-the-scenes proprietor. He doesn’t publicize his views — there is even a polite guessing game about them. At a recent conference, he had to be asked whether he agreed with the ideas on Fox News. “I’m not embarrassed by what they do at all,” Lachlan replied. His general practice of gilded silence stretches across the decades and has been the opposite of the foot-in-mouth bluntness of his infamous father.

Lachlan’s emergence as the Murdoch in charge of Fox offers an opportunity to assess the family for what it truly is. In America, the Murdochs are usually treated as a financial success, not as a political plague. Rupert and his sons, Lachlan and James, regularly attend exclusive business conferences where they are celebrated like royalty; media coverage tends to be congenial. The anger that exists toward Fox News is mostly directed at the network’s on-air barkers, notably Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, and Jeanine Pirro. But these far-right shouters wouldn’t be on our screens without the approval of the Murdochs. Just as the Sackler family owns the pharmaceutical firm that created and marketed OxyContin, at the center of the opioid epidemic, the Murdoch family is behind Fox News and the far-right sludge that has been injected into America’s political bloodstream.

[…]

Lachlan Murdoch has become the new boss of this far-right node. As with most tales about men in power, there is an interesting twist to his life. Unlike Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, Lachlan does not appear to be an upstanding citizen hiding a terrible secret in a sordid past. His trajectory has been the opposite of the usual corruption arc — the decency was in his early years, before he slid into dishonor as a loyal son laboring for the approval of an imperious and reactionary father. The tale is so ripe with intrigue and pathology that it seems stolen from Shakespeare.

He was a good student, modest and unassuming, who did seem to have a sense of decency. How did he become a white nationalist?

The article shows that he always had a strong libertarian streak that just grew exponentially. And the story goes on to explore the family succession drama (The Showtime show “Succession” is much closer to reality than I realized) which had Lachlan out of the family for a decade. When he returned he was more right wing than ever. Did he do it to please Rupert, to ensure that he would inherit the mantle? Who knows? Who cares, really?

The Murdoch empire is a malign influence on this world and especially the US, UK and Australia which remain its base. But that’s all they need. And Lachlan Murdoch is taking them to the next level of wingnutiness: straight up fascism.

Read the whole Intercept piece when you get a chance. It’s very illuminating.

Are the Murdochs the most powerful family on earth?

They are certainly in the running. Watch this interview with former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, a former journalist himself, lay it all on the line about Rupert Murdoch’s toxic empire:

Here’s some of it in case you can’t listen:

STELTER: What happens on Fox News in the U.S. affects the entire world. And the Murdoch media empire spans that world, as our viewers in the U.K. and Australia know all too well. In Australia, the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ripped into Rupert Murdoch in a recent parliamentary proceeding.

It is quite rare to hear someone of Turnbull’s stature, speaking out so bluntly against the Murdochs. So, I wanted to find out why, and what he wants all of you to know. Watch.

MALCOLM TURNBULL, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA: The Murdoch media empire has enormous political power. It is the most potent political force in Australia. It does not operate as a conventional news or journalistic operation any longer. It’s influenced in the United States and Britain in all of the countries where it is to be found is now utterly partisan.

It is more like a political party, but the only members are the Murdochs. And as you know, it has driven populist right-wing agendas, denying climate change, supporting extremism on the right of politics, of populist politics to the extent most irresponsibly, of all you might think, supporting the proposition that Joe Biden had, in fact, stolen the election, and was not legitimately elected president. And that, of course, was directly connected to the sacking — the assault — of violent assault on the United States Capitol. A shocking event, and one of the darkest days in America’s political history.

STELTER: You, Mr. Turnbull, seem more disturbed by the attack on the U.S. Capitol than a lot of people here in the United States. A lot of conservatives are trying to deny what happened and pretend it wasn’t that bad. But I appreciate that you saw it for what it was.

TURNBULL: Well, it was an assault on democracy. It was — and it — and you see, what Murdoch has delivered, largely through Fox News in the United States, is exactly what Vladimir Putin wanted to achieve with his disinformation campaigns, turning one part of America against another, so exacerbating the divisions that already exist in American society, and undermine the trust Americans have in their democratic institutions.

Now, that’s the — that was the objective of the Russian disinformation campaign. And that is exactly what has been delivered from — by Fox News and by other players in that right-wing, populist, you know, media ecosystem.

And it is, in effect, they — what they have created is a market for crazy. They’ve become unhinged from the facts. That is now basically, they’ve worked out that you can just make stuff up. They — we — you know, everyone talks about and complains about social media. But what is being done by curated media, mainstream media, including and in particular Fox News, has done enormous damage to the United States.

I mean, the question you have to ask yourself, is America a more divided country than it was before? Thanks to Murdoch’s influence, the answer must be yes. Do Americans have less faith in their electoral institutions and their legitimate institutions of government as a result of Murdoch? Yes. Now, that is a terrible outcome. That is a terrible outcome.

STELTER: You said Murdoch has created a market for crazy. I’ve never heard anyone say it quite like that before, a market for crazy. And if this clip is re-aired on Fox News, they’ll say, you’re insulting all of Trump’s supporters, you’re insulting all of Conservative America, and they would say that’s going to harm your cause. Have you thought about what the right way or what the most effective ways are to combat the so-called market for crazy?

TURNBULL: Look, when somebody tells lies and spreads misinformation, and you call them out, you are calling out the liar, not the people that have been taken in by the lies. They’re the victims. Right? So, you know, there — Murdoch has to take responsibility for what he has done. You know, politicians take responsibility, they come up for election every few years.

The power that has been — the power that is exerted by Murdoch and in such a partisan way. I mean, this is — look, I’ve been involved in the media business most of my life since the — since the mid-70s, early 70s, in fact, and, you know, I grew up with newspapers that some of them lent more to the left, others more to the right.

But they basically reported the news straight. And on election day, they would say, you know, vote for this party or vote for that party. Fair enough. What you now have with Murdoch, and you see it with Fox News, so Americans don’t need, you know, an Australian to tell them this, but what you see now is just undiluted propaganda.

STELTER: Fox CEO, Lachlan Murdoch has relocated near you. He’s relocated to Sydney or there abouts. And so, I wonder why you think that is, and whether the two of you should get together and try to hash this out?

TURNBULL: Well, look, I’ve known Lachlan Murdoch for many years. And I’ve spoken to him and his father, about fact, I know pretty much all the family. I’ve spoken to both of them about these issues in the past. I would say that Lachlan is more right-wing than his father, more extreme, and he — I think the bottom line is, they enjoy the power.

You know, a lot of people assume that people are attracted to power simply for the purpose of doing something. That’s a very generous assumption, that many people in the media, in business, in politics are attracted to power for its own sake, and asking them, Why do you want to exert this power?

It’s like saying to somebody, you know, why do you want to have sex? It is an — it’s an urge. It is a — so that — so the power, the influence, that is what turns them on? And it’s very, very dangerous. I mean, I saw the relationship between Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump. I have never seen a politician as deferential to Murdoch, as Trump was.

And, you know, it was — it was clearly a very symbiotic relationship. Murdoch knew very well, I’d heard this, he knew very well what Trump’s shortcomings were. He didn’t think he was qualified to be president. But once he thought he could make him president and have that influence over him, but to what end? He did so.

And so, you ended up again, where did you end? You ended with an assault on the Congress. You ended up with a country that were a third. So, I recently saw the public believe that Biden was not legitimately elected. You know, in defiance of all the facts, and all the reality.

Now, that is a — that is the type of outcome that Vladimir Putin could only dream of having achieved. But it was done by Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan and their organization, and they are not held to account at all, but they should be.

The most chilling comment in that interview is the fact that Lachlan Murdoch, now running the empire, is more right wing than his father, if that’s even possible. But it does explain this kind of outrageous behavior on the network:

Facebook and other social media have a lot to answer for. But if you want to find the heart of the problem, from which all this neo-fascist poison is being mainstreamed, look no further.

Update — My God. This man is being touted as a “reasonable” Republican, destined for higher office among DC insiders.

I didn’t think these Trumpers could shock me. But this does. He’s a Governor, not some Fox blabbermouth. But then, there isn’t really a difference anymore, is there?

30 years on, has anything changed?

30 years ago last month I was watching the 11 o’clock news in LA and a grainy black and white video came on that shocked me and shocked the conscience of the entire world. It showed a group of policemen, bathed in the harsh glare of their vehicle headlights, viciously tasering and beating a Black man on a deserted street while several others stood by and watched. There had been police beatings on television before, of course. We saw many of them during the civil rights and Vietnam War protests. But this was different. This video showed what the police did when they thought no one was looking, validating their victims’ accusations of police brutality, which were routinely dismissed as the complaints of combative criminals who resisted arrest.

We soon knew the name of the victim: Rodney King, a name which will go down in history because of that awful incident and everything that happened afterward. The Los Angeles Times chronicled the escalating horror as the nation grappled with what we were seeing and the reaction from the leaders of the community was swift. The mayor, the city council and even the police chief, a notorious fellow named Darryl Gates, all called for the cops to be prosecuted, an unusual response to say the least. That videotape put into doubt the officers’ initial account of what happened that night in which they described a wild man they suspected of being on PCP, spitting and violently resisting arrest. Rodney King got out of his car and almost immediately laid face down on the pavement. A witness said, “the officers were all laughing and chuckling, like they had just had a party.”

The four cops who meted out the worst brutality on King were put on trial in a suburban enclave known for being the home of half of the LAPD. The blue wall of silence was strong and the cops on the scene defended their colleagues’ actions, insisting that King was resisting and the accused were justified in their actions. The defense made the case that you cannot believe your eyes when you see something on video by slowing it down, offering alternative explanations for their clients’ actions.

The sympathetic jury found the cops not guilty and everyone knows what happened next. All of us who were living in LA at the time have stories to tell about what the next few days were like. Let’s just say the city exploded and nobody in it was shocked except the police.

I’ve been thinking about that time ever since George Floyd was murdered almost a year ago in Minneapolis. Once again we only know what happened that day because the incident was videotaped by a bystander and we were able to see and hear exactly what happened. The police report was just as dishonest as the report in the Rodney King case three decades before and even more inexplicable since the cops in Floyd’s case knew their actions had been recorded. They must have believed they were immune from the law they were charged with upholding.

This time the reaction to the tape sparked global protests against police brutality, following the precepts of the already established Black Lives Matter movement. The authorities took quick action and indicted Derek Chauvin, the man who stared at the camera with dead eyes as he ground his knee into George Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, snuffing the life from him. The police reform movement took on new urgency as this grotesque display of authoritarian brutality, echoed by dozens and dozens of previous such incidents filmed by witnesses and police body cams, seemed to be the last straw.

But when I thought of the Rodney King beating and everything that happened after, I had to wonder whether we’d made any progress in that time other than providing witness to the violence, sort of the way people used to gather to witness executions by the state (or lynchings by the KKK). Yesterday, I think we got an answer. Yes, there has been a little progress after all.

The trial of Derek Chauvin was impressive. They managed to seat a jury that accurately reflected the community. The defendant had professional counsel. The judge was fair and the prosecution did its job which is often not the case in cases where police are on trial since prosecutors and cops see themselves as being on the same team. Perhaps most importantly, the blue wall evaporated and police testified against Chauvin with clear compelling testimony, declaring that what he did was unacceptable. (If only one of the cops on the scene had raised those objections and knocked Chauvin off of Floyd’s neck, the man might be alive today.)

In other words, we saw a fair trial of a police officer. And instead of the video being used to create reasonable doubt as the defense successfully did in the Rodney King case, the video was the star witness and it convicted Derek Chauvin.

Crowds gathered all over the country last night upon word of the verdict. Rather than the days of rage we experienced in 1992, this time people were able to hug each other in relief that a little bit of justice was done for once. They could hold candlelight vigils and silent marches for George Floyd and instead of feeling impotent in the face of this ongoing struggle for equality and dignity for Black Americans they could feel a little hope that maybe it’s just possible that things can change.

But nobody in those crowds felt this verdict meant that the job was done. President Biden and Vice President Harris both gave eloquent, heartfelt speeches promising to take up the mantle of police reform. Civil rights leaders and politicians pledged to keep the pressure on. But most impressive were the people in the streets yesterday telling the media that they planned to keep protesting, keep filming, keep demanding that this country finally live up to its purported ideals and create a system of justice in which all people are treated equally and fairly. None of them think it is going to be easy. But they are not going to stop trying.

People gathered at the scene of the outbreak of the Rodney King uprising in South Central Los Angeles yesterday too. And they said some things were better:

It shouldn’t have taken 30 years to get there but considering it’s a centuries-old problem, at least it’s a start.

Salon

A beautiful tribute to a good man

Joe Trippi wrote this twitter tribute. Well worth reading. And best get a kleenex:

1/ The story of these gloves will tell you the kind of man Fritz Mondale was and why he meant so much to me. Please take the time to read this thread – and wait for it. Its worth it.

2/ In December 1983, I was in my 20’s and running Iowa for Fritz.
At the end of every campaign swing through Iowa – Fritz would almost always end the trip the same way….

3/ After loading the campaign plane (a Boeing 727 if I remember right) with traveling staff and a huge press corps that were assigned to a front-running campaign back then…..

4/ Fritz would come down the steps of the plane and take me on a stroll around the tarmac 2 or 3 times before rebounding the plane tp NH or some other state. The conversation always ended the same way…

5/ Fritz explaining that he could not lose Iowa and that he was counting on “The Hogs” (the name Mondale Iowa campaign staff proudly called ourselves) to do everything we could to make sure he won a must win state. “Don’t let up. Keep fighting” and back on the plane he went…

6/ But we also talked about all kinds of things before we got to the “no pressure, just don’t blow it” part. One day as we walked around the plane – we got to talking about my family. Fritz asked a dreaded question about my father….

7/ I explained to Fritz that my father had stopped talking to me 5 years earlier, when I left college to join the Kennedy campaign in 1979. My dad was old school Italian — I was supposed to take over his flower shop — not go to college, or run off to become a political hack…

8/ Fritz asked a few more questions and then joked with me that my dad was wrong about a lot of things but maybe I should have listened to him about going to work for Kennedy. I was one of only a handful of Kennedy operatives hired in the Mondale campaign…

9/ I was lucky to have worked for them both. But at the time there was still a lot of bad blood – luckily, Fritz was joking. And I was relieved when he got to the – “win Iowa” part…

10/ About a month Later, we won Iowa with 49% of the vote and with Gary Hart taking a distant 2nd, But that was enough to get Hart the media spotlight and the momentum he needed to win New Hampshire and the Hart rocket was roaring….

11/ After a string of loses to Hart, “fighting Fritz” emerged as the narrative of the campaign. Mondale would walk on to the stage at rally after rally and thrust these gloves in the air and speak from the heart about who he was fighting for…

12/ I remember traveling with him to a meat packing plant & Frtz bellowing ‘Show me your hands!” My jaw dropped as plant worker after worker thrust a hand in the air with fingers missing lost on the job. I had no idea, but Fritz did. And that’s who he was fighting for…

13/And so the campaign put out the word to the press that Fritz would carry those gloves and carry on the fight til he broke the string of losses to Hart. Time and delegates were running out on us and the delegate rich Pennsylvania primary was looming as critical to our cause…

14/ If I had nightmares about losing Iowa (and I did) they were no where near those I had in Pennsylvania. I was sent in as state director of Pennsylvania in March when we were down by 14 points. The Pennsylvania Primary would be held in April – months after winning Iowa…

15/ And so for a month – Fritz and I did the tarmac walk thing again. No Pressure but fighting Fritz needs you and all the staff to “not let up, remember who we are fighting for”…

16/ It was a comeback win of all comeback wins I have ever been part of — only Doug Jones win in 2017 compares to it. But Fritz won Pennsylvania – and with it regained the momentum to move towards being the Democratic nominee….

17/ After the polls closed and the networks called Pennsylvania for Fritz. I got a call in the boiler room. David Lillehaug, then the aide that traveled with Fritz (and would later serve as an Associate Justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court) was on the line…

18/ “Joe, Fritz wants to see you before he goes down to the ballroom to make his victory speech, get up here quick”. I rushed to the elevator and up to Frtiz’s hotel suite…

19/ when I walked through the door there was Fritz Mondale, sitting down and explaining to an old Italian guy that his son was “in an honorable profession. Fighting for people who were down and hurting — he’s making a difference – I count on him and you need to know that ”….

20/ Fritz Mondale had remembered a story I had told him months and months ago — eons in the life of a Presidential campaign. He had somehow gotten someone to locate my dad and get him to Philadelphia to be there on Primary night and bring us together to reconcile…

21/ I still tear up thinking about this moment of my life that shows the kind of man Walter “Fritz” Mondalle was. David Lillehaug broke the spell as my father hugged me.. “Sir we have to get downstairs for your speech”, and handed Fritz his “fighting Fritz” gloves….

22/ Fritz turned & said “I don’t need these anymore” took out a felt tip and wrote “To Rocky Trippi, with thanks” Fritz Mondale. Handed me the gloves , grabbed my dad, brought him with to the ballroom and dragged him on stage to stand with him as Fritz declared victory…

23/ Years later when my father passed away I gently tucked one of the gloves with him to rest with him.


This one remains with me as homage to a man that touched my life like few others.

RIP Fritz

Thanks to all of you who read this thread and have passed it in to others. Very grateful.

Originally tweeted by Joe Trippi (@JoeTrippi) on April 20, 2021.

Truth decay revisited

Rupert Murdoch (via Wikipedia).

Freedom has seen better days. The term is not what it was. It has been repurposed. David Dwan cautioned readers of The Guardian in 2018:

Orwell insisted it was a sentimental illusion to assume that “truth will prevail”. Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) gives a boot in the face to this kind of optimism. So does 2018. Nonetheless, in these dark times, it’s worth recalling Winston Smith’s famous line: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

The key thing here, some argue, is that we should be free to say our sums, not that they should be correct. But this seems to miss Orwell’s point. Free speech is important but it is not enough; as the trolls and the cyber-thugs reveal each day, freedom of expression is a dangerous licence when it is severed from any commitment to truth. Such freedom erodes freedom itself, undermining our ability to account for ourselves and to hold others to account.

Making freedom a worship word allows people like Rupert Murdoch to dissolve external reality to serve their purposes.

The term “truth decay” dates back to the 1980s, at least. Christians invoked it to describe the secularization of society, I think. (Internet searches go back only so far.) Since then, they have abandoned capital-T truth for a personalized one and embraced trafficking in propaganda.

Abandon facts for a personal reality (as New Agers did, too) and all else follows.

Former US director of national intelligence James Clapper joined former Australian prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull in calling for an investigation into Murdoch media as a principle vector of truth decay Down Under:

In an interview with Guardian Australia, Clapper, a retired lieutenant general in the US air force and the top intelligence official for seven years under former US president Barack Obama, said Fox News was a “megaphone for conspiracies and falsehoods” in America. He said the storming of the US Capitol on 6 January had demonstrated a clear connection between truth decay and the risk of civil disobedience and unrest.

“I have spoken a lot about a phenomenon that is not just in the United States but in other places as well of what the Rand Corporation has very aptly and cleverly called truth decay,” Clapper, who is a CNN analyst, said. “This is the whole business of disregarding facts and objective analysis and empirical data.

“Unfortunately, in this country we’ve fallen into two separate reality bubbles, one of which is fomented and amplified by Fox News.

“Rupert Murdoch and Fox is part of a larger issue we have in this country. To the extent that anyone feeds, amplifies, expands, embellishes truth decay – that is insidious and dangerous to democracy.”

That is, two former Australian prime ministers and a former U.S. DNI recognize Murdoch’s media empire as a national security threat and Murdoch as a villain right out of the Marvel cinematic universe.

Clapper said, having watched the storming of the Capitol by enraged supporters of the former Republican president Donald Trump, he was struck by “the fanaticism of the people, the ferocity of their fanaticism – they believed the big lie [that the 2020 presidential election was stolen by the Democratic party] and that’s why what I’m calling truth decay is so dangerous to the fabric of a democracy”.

He said Fox News was “the principal media component of this general trend towards truth decay” in the US, and the trend was “quite threatening to the basis of our country and society”.

No kidding.