*** Admin Note ***
Everyone please be careful in this thread. The OP has anonymized their target, which I think is OK because there are many politicians with similar characteristics. Please keep the conversation generic and I'll allow it for now. If the conversation steers into specific politicians, I'll pull the thread.
Thanks,
CZ (admin)
**********

For the last few years, I have noticed a rather morbid interest in reading books about a certain exceptionally prominent politician in our (American) culture, particularly books that dwell on the less savory aspects of this person's character.

It's like being both fascinated and terrified of Slytherin House and its occupants and graduates.

It would be best to ignore this person and any news thereof, but I can't seem to. It's everywhere.

My best guess is that maybe, the more I know about how awful this person is, maybe I can allow myself to turn away. But so far, I don't dare.

I've always considered politics to be something that happens without any interference from me - and it still is - but I feel direct consequences from political decisions these days, either those already made or those that are being contemplated.

I would be grateful for suggestions on how to distance myself from these fears without having to move to a desert island (which is not practical.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2020 09:04PM by Concrete Zipper.

You forgot to say you were "asking for a friend." :)

Keep your friends close and our enemies closer as they say? I dunno.

Tune in just enough to get the lay of the land but not enough that you decide to start planting crops and definitely not herding the cows.

If I had a nickel for every person I have heard say lately that they can't stand watching the news anymore and that is a new feeling, I would have $408.00. Lot of nickels. I'm one of them. So frustrating and unsettling to witness travesty for which you have no remedy and no hope that anyone else does either.


I have no answers. Just trying to give your misery some company.

Perhaps the problem isn't the news but rather the events themselves.

Freaking people out is where the money is. It does seem surreal when the news people, clearly identified as media, get hit with rubber bullets and pepper spray.

This seems to be a reboot of the 99% protests, with teeth this time. Is all of this bad? I suppose it could be spun that way. But that’s spin. There’s the narrative to push and then there’s the truth. Their claim on the truth is about as good as that of the Mormons.

I absolutely agree

So you are saying the the press is fake news ?

"Freaking people out is where the money is."

An important and prophetic statement....

Think long and hard about that sentence...

That you don't understand the point, bradley, does not mean it is real. But rest assured you are in good company: there are many natural sheep on this website who welcome the coming of the messiah.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2020 11:45AM by Lot's Wife.

This politician must have must have some defenders. What if you read a book by one of his/hers/its supporters? We like to say, "I look at both sides of an issue," but do we?

Was it right of Chamberlain to "look at both sides of the issue" when Hitler demanded the Sudetenland?

Its supporters are a slimy, smarmy lot. Reading something like that would invite nausea.

The only ones who draw blood are radical right wing extremists.

"Kentucky barbecue owner and ‘community pillar’ shot dead by police—police chief fired"

Not sure how many were shot by cops and/or Russians.

In an abundance of caution, however, Chicago churches remain closed.

Yup. You think it's all fun and games until a rubber bullet takes out your eye.

All fun and games till your neighbor the ex-investigator forgets that the shotgun is loaded or your wrestling buddy the cop doesn't hear the safe word.

All fun and games.

Also, Anon is speaking as a private citizen, not as a national leader.

This is how democracies die.

I have no idea who you’re talking about. I don’t know what this pertains to if it’s a local issue you have in your town. I don’t know if you’re in America or somewhere in Uruguay. I’d love to chime in and give my two cents but I’m at a complete loss.

I identified myself as American in the first line of my original post.

On this subject, I would strongly recommend all to read Milton Mayer's "They Thought They Were Free."

That is all I can say.

We have a system these days in the historical community of presenting prominent men in a critical way. Historians are always searching for a new angle, something sensational that others have missed. It's a way to sell books. Consider the Bill O'reily titles: "Killing Jesus" "Killing Lincoln" "Killing the SS" "Killing Kennedy"... there's going to be alot of sensationalism in these books and perhaps some exagerations?

I would say if OP wants books with sweetness and light look for books written before the 1990s. Books preferably from the golden age of the 1950's when America was more innocent.

More innocent in the 50s? The era of the McCarthy witch hunt and the civil rights movement. Was it really more innocent?

Of course fucking not. macaRomney doesn't realize that the majority of Americans alive in the 1950s had also been around between 1941 and 1945.

The 1950s: nothing but helicopter hats and bobby socks.

Too many people just want to be on a winning team as opposed to using their own critical thinking skills. On top of that, even our previously trust-worthy news sources (on both sides) are not telling an objective story in most cases any more. Often, an unsavory character is actually a caricature that was created by an untrustworthy media source. I think that often the distress that we feel is usually a sign that we've bought-in to something false. I think we just need to trust the American people to make the right choices in the voting booth. We need to support worthy principles ourselves and to believe that everything will work out well as long as our own integrity can stay in-tact. I think that the problems arise when people say that it is okay to violate the law or social norms in specific cases because a higher purpose is being served which makes otherwise unacceptable behavior to be okay in certain instances of our own choosing (a spin on lying for the lord or at least, lying for a worthy cause).

I used to have some sense of what was likely to happen going forward because during the majority of my lifetime, the political pendulum used to swing only so far in any one direction before reversing course. New ground is being broken now which is probably still in the normal range when viewed over a much longer time frame than that of most people's living memory, and that most of us are not familiar with. In the 1890's, the term 'yellow journalism' was coined. Most of us are not accustomed to seeing demonstratively false statements being made in the media on a daily basis. But that is what is happening and it is stressful.

George Floyd was murdered and it is a shame that his fellow officers did not arrest and charge the officer who murdered him, on the spot for George's murder. Why did none of the other police stop the murder in-progress? We need some objective reporting on how that can happen. At least George's murderer was eventually arrested and charged. The riots should stop. George's own brother is making public statements to try to stop the rioting and to show some honor for his brother through lawful means. And yet both sides of the media are working overtime to create more politically biased spin to keep stirring the pot as buildings and cars burn and as their ratings increase.

So the media is fake news ?
And the white supremicist boogaloo bois are infiltrating peaceful protests and causing destruction of property ? Did I miss anything ?

Nah Dave, it's Antifa...far-left extremism. These guys advocate for violence against citizens, advocating for killing law enforcement, for the overthrow of the government and the destruction of property. That's just what they do.

In your radical right wing extremist imagination.

> New ground is being broken now
> which is probably still in the normal range when
> viewed over a much longer time frame than that of
> most people's living memory...

An astute observation. Very few people are still kicking who were alive in 1933 and the following years, also a period in which "new ground was being broken" and state media in several countries told people how to think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2020 12:00PM by Lot's Wife.

Anon for this one Wrote:
---------------------------

> It would be best to ignore this person and any
> news thereof, but I can't seem to. It's
> everywhere.

As CZ says, “this person” is many, and I’ll add my own commentary and say it is all of them, every single one.

“This person” is a symptom, not the cause. He/she is a symptom of a much larger problem. The problem won’t go away in the least, not even a little bit, by replacing the person.

As long as each hand can blame the other hand, make fun and name-call and label and etc, the problem remains, the system stays fixed. This is exactly the way the oligarchy wants it, and it’ll remain this way until Americans stop feeding the two-party monopoly.

Whatever lurid details that fascinate you is beside the point. The point?

As demonstrated everyday, in the halls of power and on the streets, the government does not fear you, care for you or even considers you. The politicians do not fear your displeasure, your outrage, your condemnation, or your contempt. You fear them, which is backwards, and exactly the way they want it.

The lurid details that fascinate you are pablum, court gossip, just one of many ways to distract you from the fact that you have lost your country.

My two cents. The issue is not the media nor is it even rioters and looters, or even agitating groups who may or may not be among them. The issue is systemic racism in society that does not change and will not change while we focus on symptoms and not the cause.

Rioters broke into two Seattle cruisers, stole AR-15s, and torched them. A Marine serving as security for a local news crew intervened, recovered them at gunpoint and rendered them safe. You'll notice he drops the mags and clears the chamber.

He was incorrectly identified as Special Forces ("Green Berets"), late ID's as a Marine. Take note of the garb worn by the rioters, consistent with Antifa. The ACAB graffiti on the cruisers is very common now, meaning "All Cops Are Bastards."

For you:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/where-did-policing-go-wrong

Taibbi writes,

"The early American police forces evolved out of slave patrols in the South, and “progressed” to enforce the Black Codes from the Civil War period and beyond, on to Jim Crow through the late sixties if not longer."

US policing began with the Boston "Watch and Ward Society," a system of community firewatch that began in earliest colonial times. It evolved into a rudimentary public safety, keeping an eye out for drunks and malefactors. For much of the colonial and early Federal period, most police forces (such as they were) were privately maintained and safeguarded the interests of those who hired them, such as block or guild associations.

Professional policing as we know it began in Britain with Robert Peel, hence the nickname "Bobbies" and "Peelers" for UK cops ("Constable On Patrol"), and the principle of enforcment "Under the Law" for the good of the larger community was first initiated in Boston in 1854.


https://www.pinterest.com/pin/273030796135870361/

Taibbi's thesis is derived from the NY Times "1619 Project", widely debunked (even disparaged) by respected historians everywhere, that North American colonization was instigated for the express purpose of exploiting Africans. Of course slavery was a potent and evil element in the European expansion into the New World, but it was one of very many factors, not the determining one.

There's plenty to discuss about "policing gone wrong," such as why at least one assisting officer didn't pull Chauvin off Floyd's neck, and why ARs were left unattended in cruisers. Incidentally, one of the ARs was fired by another demonstrator before the Marine recovered it.

Put your finger on the video's pause button and look at it second-by-second. That is one cool dude!

Antifa resides only in your mind. The people causing the destruction were white supremicist boogaloo bois disguised as protesters.

I honestly don't get the terminology.

Does this mean that people complaining about "Antifa" are actually pro fascism? Really? What is reasonable here? It seems like "Antifa" includes moderate people in the middle who are concerned about extremes, right or left.

Lol..

White supremacist groups are now posing as Antifa, to more easily scare low-information whites and advance their own race-baiting agendas.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/tech/antifa-fake-twitter-account/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/twitter-takes-down-washington-protest-disinformation-bot-behavior-n1221456

Active participation, maybe not. But *incitement*? Almost certainly. Two different things. But Breitbart tries to muddy the waters; what a surprise!

"'I have not seen any clear evidence that white supremacists or militiamen are masking up and going out to burn and loot,' Howard Graves, an SPLC research analyst who tracks white supremacists and other anti-government extremist groups, told the newspaper."

"The SPLC analysts' comments about there being no evidence white supremacists are taking part in the rioting and looting came after Democrat political leaders in Minnesota, on Saturday, indicated without evidence white supremacists were instigating the civil unrest."

Again, taking an *active* participatory role vs. *instigating* & letting others do their dirty work. It's great how you disparage the NYT and then hold up Breitbart as this shining example of journalism. JFC. You're scarcely better than Jordan.

This is information from SPLC through the NYT to Breitbart.

Note that the SPLC is addressing the narrative of white SUPREMACISTS instigating in and/or involved in the rioting, anarchy and looting. It does not exclude whites from such roles. Conclusion: whites are involved, just not white supremacists.

(Pending other evidence)

No, it's Breitbart's disingenuous *spin* on the SPLC info.

Let's parse the paragraph I pasted.

"The SPLC analysts' comments about there being no evidence white supremacists are taking part in the rioting and looting"

No evidence white supremacists are TAKING PART (active participation) in the rioting/looting.

"came after Democrat political leaders in Minnesota… indicated without evidence white supremacists were instigating the civil unrest."

Shifting now to white supremacists INSTIGATING the rioting/looting (BTW using the "Democrat" label, used as a pejorative by conservative media).

Instigating, not participating, is what Twitter acted on. Encouraging others to throw the bombs as opposed to throwing the bombs themselves.

I'm willing to concede that there may well have been some in the crowds who identified with Antifa. Can you in turn admit the possibility that white supremacist elements, whether boogaloos or Evropa, could also have been present?

I named a politician. I believe that my primary (and non-partisan) points are useful to this discussion. I reproduce them here, with different remarks.

(Changed from previous post). I believe there is a lot of partisan and ideological finger-pointing, which creates a dangerous, counter-productive distraction (at least) and divisive enmity (at worst), so that we fail to attend to the much greater problem of our major cities' destruction:

My points from before:

If the harm caused by pandemic(s) isn't sufficient, the riots will cause:

-increased flight of the middle class and affluent, + their taxes
-flight of business and industry
-massive tax breaks to attract/retain business (who makes up the difference?
-increase in "consumption" of government services
-reduction in office space/rents/taxes (more telecommuting + relocation)
-pauperization of urban attractions (sports,concerts, restaurants, shopping, culture)
-decline in recruit quality for city employees, especially police
-deterioration of infrastructure
-deterioration of public education

Those are just top-of-my-mind expectations that I believe are common-sensible expectations. These are what we need to be discussing.

Edit: my politically left millennial son, very much the urbane hipsters, is shopping rural property an hour's drive from the city core.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2020 02:14PM by caffiend.

I don't see any mention in there of people of color or their right to live in safety and with equality. Did you forget to add those bullet points or was your list growing too long?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2020 02:12PM by Lot's Wife.

But I will expand upon it.

--sociological theory/government policy/education failures that have resulted in the decimation of the Black family, resulting in
--fatherless families and subsequent disruption of the social fabric
--destruction of black businesses by rioters
--increased cost of urban living, such as higher insurance premiums, which will impede auto and home ownership
--burning of black churches and low-income housing during riots
--loss of minority political leverage, as the more affluent (see above) flee the cities, resulting in population loss and reduced representation.

You might be surprised to know that when my son was juried for his BFA, about 1/3 of his exhibit was BLA and other political art.

Oh, I understand what you are saying.

What I was trying to ask was whether you think the way the police treat black people is okay. Because your focus touches upon several valid points but seems implicitly to assume that it is in minorities' interest not to rock the boat.

Is it your position that people should accept what the police do to minorities? Are the beatings and murders less important than, say, insurance premiums?

Exactly my thought.

I thought I had posted this above after LW's post suggesting Caffiend's post made no mention of addressing the real issue.

I think you did post there, Kentish. There were just several new posts inbetween. I was going to respond exactly as you did too.

It comes across to me like caffiend thinks like a right wing cop who forgets to express any compassion. But his son knows some black people so it's OK.

> It comes across to me like caffiend thinks like a
> right wing cop who forgets to express any
> compassion.

That key on his piano does indeed seem to be broken.


---------------
> But his son knows some black people so
> it's OK.

Some of my best friends. . .

How come whenever I see a thread labeled "not political" it always turns out to be highly political ?