TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality trivia
reality is the state of things as they actually exist
april 26, 2024
Real News Today
(for previous day's articles see "what's inside" below)
comment/tweet of the day
Blinken tells CNN the US has seen evidence of China attempting to influence upcoming US elections
Beijing CNN — US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US has seen evidence of Chinese attempts to “influence and arguably interfere” with the upcoming US elections, despite an earlier com ... (CNN Politics)
Lie of the century by NYT chief WH correspondent
JAMIE RASKIN: MOVE SUPREME COURT OVER TO RNC
---
thom hartmann
Is SCOTUS in on the Coup and Trying to End American Democracy?
The simple reality is that conservatives throughout modern history have viewed democracy with a jaundiced eye, and the Supreme Court’s Republican appointees are no exception...
Southern Autoworkers aren’t Listening to the GOP’s BS Any More
The problem for Republicans is that unions are “democracy in the workplace,” and the GOP hates democracy as a matter of principle...
Unveiling the Actual, Shocking Driver of Crime in America
How Trump Lit Up a Fascination with Fascism Trump's vision of fascism,
supported by the neofascist ideologues behind Project 2025 and Project 47, is claiming the Democratic Party is so extreme it’s a threat and needs to done away with...
Unveiling the Actual, Shocking Driver of Crime in America Our entire popular understanding of the cause of much crime — enough to “tipping point” a society into crisis — is usually wrong…
Why Homelessness Stalks America Like the Grim Reaper Both homeless & inflation are the result of America allowing housing to become a commodity that can be traded & speculated in by financial markets & overseas investors..
is this democracy???
The Supreme Court’s 5 Male Justices Are Fully in the Tank for Trump
During the former president’s immunity hearing, Roberts & Co. made clear that they’re going to do everything they can to delay Trump’s criminal reckoning.
ELIE MYSTAL - the nation
4/25/2024
Donald Trump believes that he has the Supreme Court in his back pocket. He is right. The court heard oral arguments on Thursday in Trump v. United States, the case about whether Trump is immune from prosecution over his attempt to obstruct Congress and reverse the results of the election he clearly lost. Trump is counting on delaying the trial about his crimes committed in the previous election until he gets to the next one, which he hopes to win so he can then dismiss the charges against him. The Supreme Court has done everything in its power to help Trump accomplish his goals, and that pattern continued on Thursday.
At this point, people who expect anything less than the maximum partisan thuggery possible from the Republicans justices are not paying attention—or worse, they’re actively lying to themselves and the American people about what the Roberts court has become. The question has long since ceased being “whether” the court will help Trump; the question is only “how” it will go about doing it.
Heading into oral arguments, the justices-for-Trump crowd had three ways to stand by their man: They could grant Trump absolute immunity; they could reject immunity but release their ruling as late as possible; or they could send the case back down to the DC Circuit court for an additional ruling (lawyers call this a “remand”) that would trigger another appeal and another opportunity for delay.
The first option is kind of a nonstarter. Unlike, say, the Republican judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Republicans on the Supreme Court are generally careful to make sure that their pro-Trump rulings cannot be turned against them later and used by a Democratic president. Giving Trump blanket, absolute immunity could be used by people like the current president, Joe Biden, to do whatever he wanted. Granted, Biden would not use the newfound power to steal an election as Trump did—Democrats are eager to follow rules that don’t apply to the other side—and the Supreme Court knows that. But still, granting future presidents total immunity from criminal prosecution sets a precedent that even Republicans can see is dangerous.
The second option of just delaying the decision rejecting Trump’s argument has always been in play. But that option might not get the Supreme Court and Trump all the way to the next election. There is a timeline, albeit an unlikely one, where special counsel Jack Smith could still get through a trial before November, so long as the court rules against Trump by the end of the term.
That brings us to the third option: Remanding the case back to the DC Circuit. This is the option that causes maximum delay of Trump’s reckoning, allowing him to avoid it entirely if he wins the next election, while still preserving the court’s ability to say that blanket immunity is unconstitutional later down the line, should Trump lose. Remand is therefore the best possible option for the Republican justices if they want to see a Republican president elected in November—and at oral arguments, most of them signaled that’s exactly what they’re going to do.
Chief Justice John Roberts led the charge for remand. According to Roberts, the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for “personal acts,” but he left open the possibility that Trump could be immune from criminal prosecution for some of his official acts. In either case, Roberts argued that the DC Circuit did not fully explain which of Trump’s allegedly criminal acts were “official,” nor the reason he should be prosecuted for any of those official acts, so the case needed to be remanded. When questioning the government’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben (a former deputy solicitor general who has been part of special counsel Jack Smith’s legal team), Roberts asked, “Why shouldn’t we either send it back to the court of appeals, or issue an opinion saying [the DC Circuit ruling] is not the law?” He continued: “The court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we’re talking about or what documents we’re talking about…. they did not look at what courts usually look at.” Roberts’s idea is basically to make the DC Circuit redo its homework, even though it has already provided him with the correct answer.
Roberts’ approach is wrong on at least two levels. First, the crimes that Trump is charged with cannot reasonably be construed as having been “official acts,” so the lower court should not be required to explain the difference between official and personal acts. It’s not, for instance, “official” for a president to use his power to submit fake electors in an effort to obstruct the certification of the election results. The liberal justices made this point repeatedly. Justice Elena Kagan was particularly effective when questioning Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, about whether “attempting a coup” could possibly be construed as “official.” (Sauer, reluctantly, said yes, attempting a coup could be construed as an official act and that Trump should be immune for such crimes, which only serves to highlight the utter ridiculousness of Trump’s argument.)
Roberts is also wrong when he suggests that the DC Circuit didn’t complete its homework. The DC Circuit never got to the official-versus-private-acts question, because it ruled that whatever criminal immunity Trump may have had ended when Trump ceased being president. Remember, nobody else in the country can even begin to claim that they are immune to prosecution for crimes because committing crimes is part of their job. Trump’s only being allowed to make this argument because he used to be president, but the whole concept of “immunity because you’re the president” collapses (or should collapse) the moment you leave office. Trump is no longer president, and that should simply end the discussion on whether being president made him immune for the rest of his life.
It’s the part of the argument Roberts, and his fellow Republicans, never got to, because it doesn’t help their forever-president. The entire idea that a president should be treated differently, and better than, a regular citizen after they leave office runs counter to the principles of constitutional democracy. The Republicans on the court expressed a worry that post-presidential prosecution would “chill” future presidents from… committing crimes. As if that were a bad thing. But the potential chilling of presidential crime sprees has literally always been in effect, at least it was until Trump left the White House. Every president has known, or should have known, that any crimes they commit could and would be prosecuted after they left office. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out, if we did live in a world where presidents were forever immune, Richard Nixon wouldn’t have needed a pardon from Gerald Ford.
Roberts’s decision to help Trump out through delay wasn’t subtle, but the rest of the male conservatives were so in the tank for Trump it sounded like they’d just come back from Mar-a-Lago. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that other presidents had “committed coups” in the past but were not prosecuted for it, which is both not true and a terrifying glimpse into how deeply the Thomas family rejects the results of elections they disagree with. Justice Samuel Alito suggested that under the standard set by Jack Smith, Franklin Delano Roosevelt could have been prosecuted for interning Japanese Americans during World War II. (The government said Alito was wrong because the Supreme Court approved of internment and thus FDR’s actions were not criminal, but, for the record, I absolutely think that FDR and any president who sends people to concentration camps should be prosecuted for war crimes.) And Justice Neil Gorsuch compared Trump’s actions on January 6 to a “peaceful civil rights protest” that blocks congresspeople from zipping around the building.
Then there was alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, who was deeply concerned that the prosecution of Trump was politically motivated and thought Trump should be protected from that. As many people have said, every accusation from Republicans is a confession, but Kavanaugh’s alleged concern here is truly something else. That’s because Kavanaugh first came to prominence as a prosecutor working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Kavanaugh’s literal job consisted of pushing a politically motivated investigation into a land deal involving Bill Clinton and then digging and digging—until he ended up in Monica Lewinsky’s closet. For Kavanugh to suggest he’s now concerned about political prosecutions is the very height of hypocrisy.
Among the conservatives, only Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical of the arguments made by her male colleagues. Barrett agreed that Trump couldn’t possibly be immune for everything, as his lawyers were asking, and that there was more than enough information to decide the case.
Barrett left herself enough intellectual space to still support remand if she changes her mind after consultation with John Roberts and Jesus Christ, but even if Barrett steps back from the ledge, the other Republicans are eager to jump off, so it won’t matter. A 5-4, men vs. women ruling to remand the case back to the DC Circuit is still a 5-4 ruling to delay the Trump trial indefinitely. The case will go back down to the lower court, which will once again have to hold a hearing, and will then take its sweet time writing an opinion (it’ll probably take even more time to issue a ruling now, because the Supreme Court has essentially criticized it for not having been thorough enough). That ruling, which will still be adverse to Trump (because his core legal argument is absolute trash), will be appealed to the Supreme Court again, and the court won’t even schedule oral arguments about that appeal until after the election, much less rule on anything before November. A decision to remand the case kills the case before the election, and everybody on the Supreme Court knows it.
To add insult to injury, the court likely won’t issue its ruling to remand to DC on May 9, which is the next available Supreme Court decision day, and will instead drag this all the way out until late June or July 3, which is functionally the last day of the term. It will delay this as long as possible to make sure Jack Smith has no chance of bringing Trump to trial before the election. That is its one true goal.
Trump had the Supreme Court in the bag this entire time, and he knew it. So did you. So did nearly everybody else who has been paying attention. At this point, the only people who act like the Supreme Court is anything other than the enforcement wing for the Republican political agenda are lawyers who have to argue in front of the court and therefore must pretend they can be reasoned with, and the editorial boards of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Everybody else knows that this court is corrupt and compromised and does not work for the American people but for the Republican Party and its donors.
And so I’m left asking, yet again: What are the American people prepared to do to stop these people? What reforms are people going to demand from their elected representatives? What issues are people willing to get off the couch and vote for? What bitter compromises are people willing to make to elect representatives who will at least try to bring the Supreme Court to heel?
From where I sit, the answer to all my questions appears to be “not a thing.” There will be no reforms, no demands, and no compromises. The Supreme Court will continue to be allowed to rule in favor of the Republican Party agenda for as long as the ruling conservatives draw breath (and beyond that, assuming the court is successful in engineering future Republican electoral victories).
Trump knows this too. So do his justices on the Supreme Court. Trump and the court act with impunity because Trump and the court know that nobody will stop them. They’re not wrong. Democracy does not die in darkness. Democracy dies when people won’t fight for it.
At this point, people who expect anything less than the maximum partisan thuggery possible from the Republicans justices are not paying attention—or worse, they’re actively lying to themselves and the American people about what the Roberts court has become. The question has long since ceased being “whether” the court will help Trump; the question is only “how” it will go about doing it.
Heading into oral arguments, the justices-for-Trump crowd had three ways to stand by their man: They could grant Trump absolute immunity; they could reject immunity but release their ruling as late as possible; or they could send the case back down to the DC Circuit court for an additional ruling (lawyers call this a “remand”) that would trigger another appeal and another opportunity for delay.
The first option is kind of a nonstarter. Unlike, say, the Republican judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Republicans on the Supreme Court are generally careful to make sure that their pro-Trump rulings cannot be turned against them later and used by a Democratic president. Giving Trump blanket, absolute immunity could be used by people like the current president, Joe Biden, to do whatever he wanted. Granted, Biden would not use the newfound power to steal an election as Trump did—Democrats are eager to follow rules that don’t apply to the other side—and the Supreme Court knows that. But still, granting future presidents total immunity from criminal prosecution sets a precedent that even Republicans can see is dangerous.
The second option of just delaying the decision rejecting Trump’s argument has always been in play. But that option might not get the Supreme Court and Trump all the way to the next election. There is a timeline, albeit an unlikely one, where special counsel Jack Smith could still get through a trial before November, so long as the court rules against Trump by the end of the term.
That brings us to the third option: Remanding the case back to the DC Circuit. This is the option that causes maximum delay of Trump’s reckoning, allowing him to avoid it entirely if he wins the next election, while still preserving the court’s ability to say that blanket immunity is unconstitutional later down the line, should Trump lose. Remand is therefore the best possible option for the Republican justices if they want to see a Republican president elected in November—and at oral arguments, most of them signaled that’s exactly what they’re going to do.
Chief Justice John Roberts led the charge for remand. According to Roberts, the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for “personal acts,” but he left open the possibility that Trump could be immune from criminal prosecution for some of his official acts. In either case, Roberts argued that the DC Circuit did not fully explain which of Trump’s allegedly criminal acts were “official,” nor the reason he should be prosecuted for any of those official acts, so the case needed to be remanded. When questioning the government’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben (a former deputy solicitor general who has been part of special counsel Jack Smith’s legal team), Roberts asked, “Why shouldn’t we either send it back to the court of appeals, or issue an opinion saying [the DC Circuit ruling] is not the law?” He continued: “The court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we’re talking about or what documents we’re talking about…. they did not look at what courts usually look at.” Roberts’s idea is basically to make the DC Circuit redo its homework, even though it has already provided him with the correct answer.
Roberts’ approach is wrong on at least two levels. First, the crimes that Trump is charged with cannot reasonably be construed as having been “official acts,” so the lower court should not be required to explain the difference between official and personal acts. It’s not, for instance, “official” for a president to use his power to submit fake electors in an effort to obstruct the certification of the election results. The liberal justices made this point repeatedly. Justice Elena Kagan was particularly effective when questioning Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, about whether “attempting a coup” could possibly be construed as “official.” (Sauer, reluctantly, said yes, attempting a coup could be construed as an official act and that Trump should be immune for such crimes, which only serves to highlight the utter ridiculousness of Trump’s argument.)
Roberts is also wrong when he suggests that the DC Circuit didn’t complete its homework. The DC Circuit never got to the official-versus-private-acts question, because it ruled that whatever criminal immunity Trump may have had ended when Trump ceased being president. Remember, nobody else in the country can even begin to claim that they are immune to prosecution for crimes because committing crimes is part of their job. Trump’s only being allowed to make this argument because he used to be president, but the whole concept of “immunity because you’re the president” collapses (or should collapse) the moment you leave office. Trump is no longer president, and that should simply end the discussion on whether being president made him immune for the rest of his life.
It’s the part of the argument Roberts, and his fellow Republicans, never got to, because it doesn’t help their forever-president. The entire idea that a president should be treated differently, and better than, a regular citizen after they leave office runs counter to the principles of constitutional democracy. The Republicans on the court expressed a worry that post-presidential prosecution would “chill” future presidents from… committing crimes. As if that were a bad thing. But the potential chilling of presidential crime sprees has literally always been in effect, at least it was until Trump left the White House. Every president has known, or should have known, that any crimes they commit could and would be prosecuted after they left office. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out, if we did live in a world where presidents were forever immune, Richard Nixon wouldn’t have needed a pardon from Gerald Ford.
Roberts’s decision to help Trump out through delay wasn’t subtle, but the rest of the male conservatives were so in the tank for Trump it sounded like they’d just come back from Mar-a-Lago. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that other presidents had “committed coups” in the past but were not prosecuted for it, which is both not true and a terrifying glimpse into how deeply the Thomas family rejects the results of elections they disagree with. Justice Samuel Alito suggested that under the standard set by Jack Smith, Franklin Delano Roosevelt could have been prosecuted for interning Japanese Americans during World War II. (The government said Alito was wrong because the Supreme Court approved of internment and thus FDR’s actions were not criminal, but, for the record, I absolutely think that FDR and any president who sends people to concentration camps should be prosecuted for war crimes.) And Justice Neil Gorsuch compared Trump’s actions on January 6 to a “peaceful civil rights protest” that blocks congresspeople from zipping around the building.
Then there was alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, who was deeply concerned that the prosecution of Trump was politically motivated and thought Trump should be protected from that. As many people have said, every accusation from Republicans is a confession, but Kavanaugh’s alleged concern here is truly something else. That’s because Kavanaugh first came to prominence as a prosecutor working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Kavanaugh’s literal job consisted of pushing a politically motivated investigation into a land deal involving Bill Clinton and then digging and digging—until he ended up in Monica Lewinsky’s closet. For Kavanugh to suggest he’s now concerned about political prosecutions is the very height of hypocrisy.
Among the conservatives, only Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical of the arguments made by her male colleagues. Barrett agreed that Trump couldn’t possibly be immune for everything, as his lawyers were asking, and that there was more than enough information to decide the case.
Barrett left herself enough intellectual space to still support remand if she changes her mind after consultation with John Roberts and Jesus Christ, but even if Barrett steps back from the ledge, the other Republicans are eager to jump off, so it won’t matter. A 5-4, men vs. women ruling to remand the case back to the DC Circuit is still a 5-4 ruling to delay the Trump trial indefinitely. The case will go back down to the lower court, which will once again have to hold a hearing, and will then take its sweet time writing an opinion (it’ll probably take even more time to issue a ruling now, because the Supreme Court has essentially criticized it for not having been thorough enough). That ruling, which will still be adverse to Trump (because his core legal argument is absolute trash), will be appealed to the Supreme Court again, and the court won’t even schedule oral arguments about that appeal until after the election, much less rule on anything before November. A decision to remand the case kills the case before the election, and everybody on the Supreme Court knows it.
To add insult to injury, the court likely won’t issue its ruling to remand to DC on May 9, which is the next available Supreme Court decision day, and will instead drag this all the way out until late June or July 3, which is functionally the last day of the term. It will delay this as long as possible to make sure Jack Smith has no chance of bringing Trump to trial before the election. That is its one true goal.
Trump had the Supreme Court in the bag this entire time, and he knew it. So did you. So did nearly everybody else who has been paying attention. At this point, the only people who act like the Supreme Court is anything other than the enforcement wing for the Republican political agenda are lawyers who have to argue in front of the court and therefore must pretend they can be reasoned with, and the editorial boards of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Everybody else knows that this court is corrupt and compromised and does not work for the American people but for the Republican Party and its donors.
And so I’m left asking, yet again: What are the American people prepared to do to stop these people? What reforms are people going to demand from their elected representatives? What issues are people willing to get off the couch and vote for? What bitter compromises are people willing to make to elect representatives who will at least try to bring the Supreme Court to heel?
From where I sit, the answer to all my questions appears to be “not a thing.” There will be no reforms, no demands, and no compromises. The Supreme Court will continue to be allowed to rule in favor of the Republican Party agenda for as long as the ruling conservatives draw breath (and beyond that, assuming the court is successful in engineering future Republican electoral victories).
Trump knows this too. So do his justices on the Supreme Court. Trump and the court act with impunity because Trump and the court know that nobody will stop them. They’re not wrong. Democracy does not die in darkness. Democracy dies when people won’t fight for it.
american values redefined: greed, racism, hypocrisy
racism: The unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race. Violent behavior towards them. Having the belief that some races of people are better than others. General beliefs about other people based only on their race. Showing this through violent or unfair treatment of people of other races.
greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food
hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
You Have the Right to Remain Stupid
nancegreggs - du
4/26/2024
Yes, Trump-humpers - despite the fact that your Dear Leader is going down, you still have the right to be just as stupid as you've always been.
You are free to continue believing his ridiculous lies, no matter how many times they are debunked. You are free to send him your hard=earned cash to pay the alleged billionaire's legal expenses - like the brainless marks you have proven yourseles to be.
You are free to keep worshipping an adulterous, theiving con-man as God's chosen one - and I understand your confusion on that point, because when you read Jesus's Sermon on the Mount and hear Trumpy's description of migrants, it's almost impossible to tell them apart - am I right?
So fear not, clueless MAGAts - your right to remain stupid is still intact, and you will no doubt continue to exercise that right on a daily basis.
You are free to continue believing his ridiculous lies, no matter how many times they are debunked. You are free to send him your hard=earned cash to pay the alleged billionaire's legal expenses - like the brainless marks you have proven yourseles to be.
You are free to keep worshipping an adulterous, theiving con-man as God's chosen one - and I understand your confusion on that point, because when you read Jesus's Sermon on the Mount and hear Trumpy's description of migrants, it's almost impossible to tell them apart - am I right?
So fear not, clueless MAGAts - your right to remain stupid is still intact, and you will no doubt continue to exercise that right on a daily basis.
nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people
House Republicans are officially down to a one-vote margin for error
by David Nir for Daily Kos Elections
Daily Kos Staff
4/22/2024
Despite pleas from House Speaker Mike Johnson that he stay on, Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher followed through on his plans to resign from Congress on Saturday. The direct result of Gallagher’s departure is that Johnson can now afford just a single GOP defection on any given vote. That in turn means Johnson, who is already heavily dependent on Democrats to pass any legislation, will grow even more reliant on them.
The math—if you’re Johnson—is grim. With Gallagher gone, Republicans hold just 217 seats in the House while Democrats have 213. On a strict party-line vote, then, if one Republican joins with Democrats, the final tally would be as narrow as it gets: 216-214 in favor of the GOP.
But if two Republicans side with Democrats, then it’s a 215-215 tie—and in the House, a tie is the same as a loss. In fact, we just saw that happen just recently, when an amendment to a surveillance bill failed after deadlocking on the House floor.
Johnson long ago lost control of his caucus, if he ever had it in the first place. Far-right dissidents have repeatedly sunk procedural votes that until now had virtually never failed. Johnson has had to rely on parliamentary maneuvers to bypass these implacable extremists, but those maneuvers mean he needs Democrats to bail him out again and again.
And now the House GOP is on the verge of falling into even deeper disarray. Recent news reports say that more Republican resignations could be coming, and a move to oust Johnson as speaker is gaining steam. Following Saturday’s successful foreign aid votes—which once again saw the speaker forge a coalition with Democrats to pass critical legislation—Johnson’s right flank is more enraged than ever.
Whatever happens next, the chaos in the ranks of House Republicans will only further serve to remind voters in November that only the Democrats are capable of governing the country. In fact, you could even say that they already are.
The math—if you’re Johnson—is grim. With Gallagher gone, Republicans hold just 217 seats in the House while Democrats have 213. On a strict party-line vote, then, if one Republican joins with Democrats, the final tally would be as narrow as it gets: 216-214 in favor of the GOP.
But if two Republicans side with Democrats, then it’s a 215-215 tie—and in the House, a tie is the same as a loss. In fact, we just saw that happen just recently, when an amendment to a surveillance bill failed after deadlocking on the House floor.
Johnson long ago lost control of his caucus, if he ever had it in the first place. Far-right dissidents have repeatedly sunk procedural votes that until now had virtually never failed. Johnson has had to rely on parliamentary maneuvers to bypass these implacable extremists, but those maneuvers mean he needs Democrats to bail him out again and again.
And now the House GOP is on the verge of falling into even deeper disarray. Recent news reports say that more Republican resignations could be coming, and a move to oust Johnson as speaker is gaining steam. Following Saturday’s successful foreign aid votes—which once again saw the speaker forge a coalition with Democrats to pass critical legislation—Johnson’s right flank is more enraged than ever.
Whatever happens next, the chaos in the ranks of House Republicans will only further serve to remind voters in November that only the Democrats are capable of governing the country. In fact, you could even say that they already are.
About 200 bodies recovered from mass grave in Nasser hospital complex, says Gaza official
Gaza's Civil Defence agency said Monday that health workers had uncovered around 200 bodies over the past three days of people killed and buried by Israeli forces at a hospital in Khan Yunis.
france 24
Issued on: 22/04/2024 - 11:17
Modified: 22/04/2024 - 19:23
The Israeli military did not offer an immediate comment.
"Our civil defence crews are still recovering bodies from inside Nasser Medical Complex, and since Saturday bodies of nearly 200 martyrs have been retrieved," Mahmud Bassal, spokesman for Gaza's Civil Defence, told AFP.
Bassal said several of the recovered bodies had decomposed.
"There is difficulty in the process of identifying them but civil defence efforts are ongoing," he said.
Ismail al-Thawabta, head of the Hamas government media office in the Palestinian territory, gave a higher figure of 283 bodies found at the hospital.
"We discovered mass graves inside Nasser Medical Complex" of people killed by "the occupation (Israeli) army", Thawabta told AFP.
Muhammad al-Mughayyir, a senior official at the civil defence agency, also confirmed the discovery of corpses at the facility and said the work to retrieve the remaining bodies would continue until Thursday.
"Our civil defence crews are still recovering bodies from inside Nasser Medical Complex, and since Saturday bodies of nearly 200 martyrs have been retrieved," Mahmud Bassal, spokesman for Gaza's Civil Defence, told AFP.
Bassal said several of the recovered bodies had decomposed.
"There is difficulty in the process of identifying them but civil defence efforts are ongoing," he said.
Ismail al-Thawabta, head of the Hamas government media office in the Palestinian territory, gave a higher figure of 283 bodies found at the hospital.
"We discovered mass graves inside Nasser Medical Complex" of people killed by "the occupation (Israeli) army", Thawabta told AFP.
Muhammad al-Mughayyir, a senior official at the civil defence agency, also confirmed the discovery of corpses at the facility and said the work to retrieve the remaining bodies would continue until Thursday.
in the land of stupid!!!
Recycled 'zombie' misinformation targets U.S. voters
David McBrayer - raw story
April 24, 2024 7:28AM ET
Migrants, vaccines, pedophilia rings -- old conspiracy theories are resurfacing ahead of the U.S. election despite being repeatedly debunked, in what researchers call "zombie" falsehoods that appear to resonate with polarized voters.
Americans are deluged with misinformation about political hot-button issues that observers say have the potential to sway voters in the widely anticipated rematch between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump in November.
That includes misinformation that is recycled online despite being repeatedly knocked down by fact-checkers in what seems like a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
The trend illustrates the ability of long-debunked falsehoods to mutate into viral political discourse on social media platforms, which now offer fewer guardrails as they scale back content moderation.
"This type of misinformation gets repeated so often that it eventually becomes the gospel truth to believers," Mike Rothschild, an expert on conspiracy theories, told AFP.
"The same tropes get recycled over and over and they work because they're always going to appeal to a certain type of person" in a polarized environment, he added.
That includes a surge of false claims -- inspired by record crossings along the US-Mexico border -- that Democrats are recruiting migrants to sway the presidential election in favor of Biden.
Among the key misinformation spreaders is Elon Musk, the owner of X, formerly Twitter, who claimed ahead of primaries in swing states such as Arizona that the government was "importing voters" by welcoming unvetted illegal immigrants.
AFP's fact-checkers debunked the narrative, noting that migrants admitted on a temporary basis undergo background checks and have no direct path to citizenship or voting rights.
But the claim -- which echoes years-old false narratives from Trump and other US conservatives that seek to demonize migrants -- still received renewed traction, amassing hundreds of thousands of posts and comments across platforms.
- 'Lot of popularity' -
Republican politicians have made immigration a top issue in swing states such as New Hampshire, even as political observers say their claims are not always backed up by facts.
Some 43 percent of residents said illegal immigration is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" issue in the state, according to a recent poll by the University of New Hampshire.
In recent weeks, AFP has also debunked numerous claims that vaccines are harmful or ineffective, a narrative that has surged since the Covid-19 pandemic despite being repeatedly swatted down.
The deluge comes as Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a longtime vaccine skeptic whose nonprofit raised millions of dollars during the pandemic, makes political inroads in some states as a challenger to Biden and Trump
In part due to the spread of recycled falsehoods, the anti-vaccine community "is in a stronger and better place than it was pre-pandemic," said Kolina Koltai, a senior researcher at the digital investigative group Bellingcat.
"RFK is gaining a lot of popularity and running as an independent," she said. "He's a very well-known anti-vaxxer. That's not nothing."
Distrust in the government is one reason why zombie claims continue to spread, analysts say -- a trend exemplified by the staying power of the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory.
The theory, which falsely linked a pizza restaurant in the US capital to an underground child sex trafficking ring involving high-ranking Democrats, has been thoroughly debunked since 2016.
Yet it later grew into the sprawling QAnon conspiracy movement, which gained popularity ahead of the 2020 election. Social media users, including Musk, have repeatedly revived the unfounded allegations in recent months.
- 'Cognitive bias' -
Sensational claims that prey on people's innate fears are always going to be fodder for misinformation, experts say.
"Debunking such claims has relatively low impact since people and institutions who do the debunking are considered part of the corrupt system or 'establishment' in the eyes of the people who believe" them, Mert Bayar, from the Center for an Informed Public at the University of Washington, told AFP.
Baseless claims that the 2020 election was ridden with fraud and stolen from Trump still resurface online –- despite being thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers, government officials and audits.
Some of the recycled misinformation goes unchallenged as platforms such as X reduce content moderation in a climate of cost-cutting that has gutted trust and safety teams.
Analysts say misinformation purveyors have a financial motive to continue posting, as X's ad revenue-sharing program incentivizes extreme content designed to boost engagement.
Influencers also tend to reinforce their followers' beliefs.
"This can often be attributed to a cognitive bias known as confirmation bias," Bayar said.
"Content creators might have financial incentives or personal reasons for recycling such claims, but many of the people who spread such claims also genuinely believe in them."
Americans are deluged with misinformation about political hot-button issues that observers say have the potential to sway voters in the widely anticipated rematch between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump in November.
That includes misinformation that is recycled online despite being repeatedly knocked down by fact-checkers in what seems like a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
The trend illustrates the ability of long-debunked falsehoods to mutate into viral political discourse on social media platforms, which now offer fewer guardrails as they scale back content moderation.
"This type of misinformation gets repeated so often that it eventually becomes the gospel truth to believers," Mike Rothschild, an expert on conspiracy theories, told AFP.
"The same tropes get recycled over and over and they work because they're always going to appeal to a certain type of person" in a polarized environment, he added.
That includes a surge of false claims -- inspired by record crossings along the US-Mexico border -- that Democrats are recruiting migrants to sway the presidential election in favor of Biden.
Among the key misinformation spreaders is Elon Musk, the owner of X, formerly Twitter, who claimed ahead of primaries in swing states such as Arizona that the government was "importing voters" by welcoming unvetted illegal immigrants.
AFP's fact-checkers debunked the narrative, noting that migrants admitted on a temporary basis undergo background checks and have no direct path to citizenship or voting rights.
But the claim -- which echoes years-old false narratives from Trump and other US conservatives that seek to demonize migrants -- still received renewed traction, amassing hundreds of thousands of posts and comments across platforms.
- 'Lot of popularity' -
Republican politicians have made immigration a top issue in swing states such as New Hampshire, even as political observers say their claims are not always backed up by facts.
Some 43 percent of residents said illegal immigration is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" issue in the state, according to a recent poll by the University of New Hampshire.
In recent weeks, AFP has also debunked numerous claims that vaccines are harmful or ineffective, a narrative that has surged since the Covid-19 pandemic despite being repeatedly swatted down.
The deluge comes as Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a longtime vaccine skeptic whose nonprofit raised millions of dollars during the pandemic, makes political inroads in some states as a challenger to Biden and Trump
In part due to the spread of recycled falsehoods, the anti-vaccine community "is in a stronger and better place than it was pre-pandemic," said Kolina Koltai, a senior researcher at the digital investigative group Bellingcat.
"RFK is gaining a lot of popularity and running as an independent," she said. "He's a very well-known anti-vaxxer. That's not nothing."
Distrust in the government is one reason why zombie claims continue to spread, analysts say -- a trend exemplified by the staying power of the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory.
The theory, which falsely linked a pizza restaurant in the US capital to an underground child sex trafficking ring involving high-ranking Democrats, has been thoroughly debunked since 2016.
Yet it later grew into the sprawling QAnon conspiracy movement, which gained popularity ahead of the 2020 election. Social media users, including Musk, have repeatedly revived the unfounded allegations in recent months.
- 'Cognitive bias' -
Sensational claims that prey on people's innate fears are always going to be fodder for misinformation, experts say.
"Debunking such claims has relatively low impact since people and institutions who do the debunking are considered part of the corrupt system or 'establishment' in the eyes of the people who believe" them, Mert Bayar, from the Center for an Informed Public at the University of Washington, told AFP.
Baseless claims that the 2020 election was ridden with fraud and stolen from Trump still resurface online –- despite being thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers, government officials and audits.
Some of the recycled misinformation goes unchallenged as platforms such as X reduce content moderation in a climate of cost-cutting that has gutted trust and safety teams.
Analysts say misinformation purveyors have a financial motive to continue posting, as X's ad revenue-sharing program incentivizes extreme content designed to boost engagement.
Influencers also tend to reinforce their followers' beliefs.
"This can often be attributed to a cognitive bias known as confirmation bias," Bayar said.
"Content creators might have financial incentives or personal reasons for recycling such claims, but many of the people who spread such claims also genuinely believe in them."
Welcome to RepublicanDebt.org
This site tracks the current Republican Debt.
The Republican Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States
is attributable to
the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush,
George W. Bush, Donald J. Trump,
and
the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.
As of Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 4:58:35PM PT,
The Current Republican Debt is:
$16,678,196,532,885.40
which means that in a total of 24 years,
these four presidents have led to the creation of
94.69%
of the entire national debt
in only 9.6774% of the 248 years of the existence of the United States of America.
Donald Trump now considered 'co-conspirator' in Michigan 2020 election plot: testimony
Kathleen Culliton - raw story
April 24, 2024 12:02PM ET
Former President Donald Trump has been dubbed a co-conspirator in the scheme to claim an unearned victory in Michigan's 2020 presidential election, according to reports of testimony from an Attorney General's office investigator.
Michigan prosecutors consider Trump, former chief of staff Mark Meadows and lawyer Rudy Giuliani unindicted co-conspirators in the state's false elector plot, Howard Shock, a special agent for Attorney General Dana Nessel, said in testimony reported Wednesday by The Detroit News.
"That means prosecutors believe they participated, to some extent, in an alleged scheme to commit forgery by creating a false document asserting Trump had won Michigan's 16 electoral votes when Democrat Joe Biden had won them," writes reporter Craig Mauger.
Shock delivered this avowal in Ingham County District Court Wednesday as Nessel seeks felony forgery charges against 16 Republican activists who signed a certificate of votes for Trump, according to the report.
Duane Silverthorn, the lawyer representing elector Michele Lundgren, reportedly went through a list of people whose status as "unindicted co-conspirator" he asked Shock to confirm.
Shock also affirmed Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro — two lawyers who have accepted plea deals in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' election racketeering case — are also considered unindicted co-conspirators, the Detroit News reports.
"Some of the defense lawyers have argued that their clients didn't understand what they were signing when they gathered in Michigan GOP headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020," the report notes.
"They've also contended that it was Trump campaign advisers who orchestrated the false certificate."
Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to the Detroit News' request for comment Wednesday, but spokesperson Steven Cheung has previously criticized accusations that Trump's actions in the wake of his failed 2020 presidential election were improper, the report notes.
"Trump was carrying out his duty as president to investigate the rigged and stolen 2020 presidential election," Cheung said in January.
One month after Cheung made this claim, the Washington Post reported Trump's campaign commissioned a research firm to prove electoral-fraud claims but didn't release the findings because the probe never found any proof.
Michigan prosecutors consider Trump, former chief of staff Mark Meadows and lawyer Rudy Giuliani unindicted co-conspirators in the state's false elector plot, Howard Shock, a special agent for Attorney General Dana Nessel, said in testimony reported Wednesday by The Detroit News.
"That means prosecutors believe they participated, to some extent, in an alleged scheme to commit forgery by creating a false document asserting Trump had won Michigan's 16 electoral votes when Democrat Joe Biden had won them," writes reporter Craig Mauger.
Shock delivered this avowal in Ingham County District Court Wednesday as Nessel seeks felony forgery charges against 16 Republican activists who signed a certificate of votes for Trump, according to the report.
Duane Silverthorn, the lawyer representing elector Michele Lundgren, reportedly went through a list of people whose status as "unindicted co-conspirator" he asked Shock to confirm.
Shock also affirmed Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro — two lawyers who have accepted plea deals in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' election racketeering case — are also considered unindicted co-conspirators, the Detroit News reports.
"Some of the defense lawyers have argued that their clients didn't understand what they were signing when they gathered in Michigan GOP headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020," the report notes.
"They've also contended that it was Trump campaign advisers who orchestrated the false certificate."
Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to the Detroit News' request for comment Wednesday, but spokesperson Steven Cheung has previously criticized accusations that Trump's actions in the wake of his failed 2020 presidential election were improper, the report notes.
"Trump was carrying out his duty as president to investigate the rigged and stolen 2020 presidential election," Cheung said in January.
One month after Cheung made this claim, the Washington Post reported Trump's campaign commissioned a research firm to prove electoral-fraud claims but didn't release the findings because the probe never found any proof.
in the land of stupid!!!
THE DAILY TRASH REPORT FEATURING TODAY'S DESPICABLES
THOMAS JEFFERSON CALLED THEM "WASTE PEOPLE" AND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN CALLED THEM "RUBBISH" WE CALL THEM "MAGA PEOPLE"
Alabama lawmakers advance bill that could lead to prosecution of librarians
(ABC News) Alabama lawmakers on Thursday advanced legislation that could see librarians prosecuted under the state's obscenity law for providing “harmful” materials to minors, the latest in a wave of bills in Republican-led states targeting library content and decisions. The Alabama House of Representatives voted 72-28 for the bill that now moves to the Alabama Senate. The legislation comes amid a soaring number of book challenges — often centered on LGBTQ content — and efforts in a number of states to ban drag queen story readings.
Newly minted RNC chair Lara Trump says they've got lawsuits cooking in 81 states. There are 50 states.
(Business Insider) Lara Trump may have had a little slip-up when announcing the Republican National Committee's approach to tackling voter fraud. The newly elected RNC cochair — who's married to former President Donald Trump's son, Eric — said in a Newsmax interview on Tuesday that the RNC has engaged poll watchers and lawyers to oversee and monitor the upcoming elections. During the interview, she also referenced the lawsuits the RNC has filed, questioning election integrity. Last month, the RNC filed a lawsuit against Michigan's secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, claiming that the state's voter rolls are inflated. "We have lawsuits in 81 states right now," Trump told Bolling.
ALITO: Immunity for Exiting Presidents is Justified as They Might Cling to Power in Response. WHAT?
(Daily Kos) So — let me get this straight: Alito is making the argument that an ex-President should never be charged with a crime they committed...because (gasp!) they’ll “fear prosecution” (yes, that tends to happen with criminals who are indicted with crimes — they usually aren’t happy about it)...and “cling to power” — meaning that they’ll refuse to leave office and engage in insurrection — and THAT’s the logic for not charging an ex-President for crimes they committed? That we should never hold ex-Presidents accountable for their CRIMES because they might commit the crime of insurrection because they’re BUMMED about being indicted?
Utility That Bribed Ohio Regulators Secretly Bankrolled Republican Mike DeWine’s 2018 Governor Bid, Records Show
FirstEnergy gave $2.5 million to a dark-money group backing the GOP nominee.
MARIO ALEJANDRO ARIZA, JESSIE BALMERT - mother jones
4/25/2024
In 2018, the Akron, Ohio-based utility FirstEnergy donated $2.5 million to a Republican Governors Association-affiliated dark money group backing GOP nominee Mike DeWine in a competitive race for Ohio governor, according to newly released records.
The records show FirstEnergy’s extensive behind-the-scenes work to get DeWine elected. “This Fall Governor race is very important to FirstEnergy from both a legislative and regulatory perspective and getting Mike across the finish line is critical,” then-CEO Chuck Jones wrote in an August 14, 2018 email invitation to a DeWine fundraiser.
The $2.5 million donation, which had never been disclosed, reveals how invested the power company was in the outcome of the Ohio governor’s race between DeWine and Democratic challenger Rich Cordray. At the time, FirstEnergy wanted to bail out two nuclear plants then owned by a subsidiary—but faced opposition from Ohio leaders including then-Gov. John Kasich.
Both DeWine and Cordray had promised to save the two northern Ohio nuclear plants if they became governor, and the company chipped in publicly disclosed money to both the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association.
DeWine has not been implicated in the ongoing bribery scandal surrounding the nuclear bailout. Eight people, including the state’s former House Speaker Larry Householder, have been indicted. Two of those charged in the multimillion-dollar scandal stemming from the passage of the bailout bill have taken their own lives, including Sam Randazzo, the former chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, who was found dead earlier this month from suicide.
According to the newly released records, FirstEnergy donated $2.5 million in three installments to State Solutions, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit affiliated with the Republican Governors Association that is not required to disclose its donors.
One installment of $500,000 is labeled “DeWine;” the other two are listed as “RGA,” according to records released by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau, Floodlight, Ohio Capital Journal, and the Energy News Network.
The documents, including emails among high-level FirstEnergy executives, show multiple efforts by the power company to keep its support of DeWine out of the public eye by using dark money donations.
The records show that on August 14, 2018, Jones—now criminally charged in the scandal—held a fundraiser for DeWine and running mate Jon Husted, calling Husted a “good friend” to the utility.
Then DeWine met with FirstEnergy executives at an RGA fundraiser in downtown Columbus on October 10, 2018, the Dayton Daily News first reported. Shortly after, FirstEnergy Solutions donated $500,000 to RGA, according to tax records
FirstEnergy also donated $200,000 to the Citizens Policy Institute, which blasted Cordray for being “Republican Lite,” according to released records. Cleveland restaurateur Tony George, a close FirstEnergy ally, was behind the group, as BuzzFeed News reported at the time.
In November 2018, DeWine defeated Cordray, 50.4 percent to 46.7 percent as Democrats swept elections across the country. In 2019, FirstEnergy helped Republican lawmakers craft HB 6, an energy overhaul measure that included $1 billion for the two nuclear plants. DeWine signed the bill within hours of it hitting his desk.
When asked if the donations influenced DeWine’s support of nuclear energy, DeWine spokesman Dan Tierney said: “Gov. DeWine’s support for nuclear energy is documented well prior to 2018, including during his tenure as United States senator.”
FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young said the company was unable to comment on pending litigation; shareholders sued FirstEnergy after federal investigators revealed an extensive pay-to-play scandal bankrolled by the Ohio utility.
That federal investigation led to a 20-year prison sentence for Householder, a five-year sentence for ex-Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges, and the firing of several FirstEnergy executives. A parallel state-led criminal investigation has brought charges against two FirstEnergy executives and Ohio’s former chief energy regulator.
Attorneys in the shareholder lawsuit have sought to subpoena records from DeWine and depose Husted, but neither faces any criminal accusations. FirstEnergy donated $1 million through a dark money group to back Husted’s campaign in 2017, according to previously released records. Husted and DeWine were competitors until they merged campaigns.
In 2018, the owner of the nuclear plants, FirstEnergy Solutions, was in bankruptcy. So creditors raised concerns about a $1 million payment earmarked to help DeWine’s campaign, according to emails exchanged on August 11, 2018. “They cited it is very large compared to DeWine’s current fundraising.”
Senior Vice President of External Affairs Michael Dowling tried to allay concerns by explaining that donors can back DeWine’s bid in several ways, including giving to DeWine’s campaign fund, the Republican Governors Association, State Solutions, and the Ohio Republican Party’s state candidate fund.
“Theoretically, DeWine/Husted could have a balance of $10M in their campaign account and the RGA could spend $40M in support of DeWine in Ohio,” Dowling explained in an email. “My point is that comparing the size of a contribution to the RGA to what the DeWine campaign has raised or what the DeWine Campaign’s current balance is can be done, but I’m not sure is logical.”
Republican fundraiser Brooke Bodney, who worked with the RGA, confirmed: “All factually accurate.”
Meanwhile, FirstEnergy Solutions’ David Griffing reassured Akin Gump partner Rick Burdick that there was no connection between State Solutions and DeWine’s campaign. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is a powerful law firm that represented FirstEnergy Solutions during its bankruptcy and lobbied for House Bill 6.
The issue was important because exchanging a political favor for a campaign donation would be illegal, a quid pro quo.
“Thanks,” Burdick wrote. “Just to confirm there is also no understanding with the DeWine campaign re his position on regulatory relief for nuclear plants related to this contribution.”
“Correct,” Griffing replied.
The records show FirstEnergy’s extensive behind-the-scenes work to get DeWine elected. “This Fall Governor race is very important to FirstEnergy from both a legislative and regulatory perspective and getting Mike across the finish line is critical,” then-CEO Chuck Jones wrote in an August 14, 2018 email invitation to a DeWine fundraiser.
The $2.5 million donation, which had never been disclosed, reveals how invested the power company was in the outcome of the Ohio governor’s race between DeWine and Democratic challenger Rich Cordray. At the time, FirstEnergy wanted to bail out two nuclear plants then owned by a subsidiary—but faced opposition from Ohio leaders including then-Gov. John Kasich.
Both DeWine and Cordray had promised to save the two northern Ohio nuclear plants if they became governor, and the company chipped in publicly disclosed money to both the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association.
DeWine has not been implicated in the ongoing bribery scandal surrounding the nuclear bailout. Eight people, including the state’s former House Speaker Larry Householder, have been indicted. Two of those charged in the multimillion-dollar scandal stemming from the passage of the bailout bill have taken their own lives, including Sam Randazzo, the former chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, who was found dead earlier this month from suicide.
According to the newly released records, FirstEnergy donated $2.5 million in three installments to State Solutions, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit affiliated with the Republican Governors Association that is not required to disclose its donors.
One installment of $500,000 is labeled “DeWine;” the other two are listed as “RGA,” according to records released by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau, Floodlight, Ohio Capital Journal, and the Energy News Network.
The documents, including emails among high-level FirstEnergy executives, show multiple efforts by the power company to keep its support of DeWine out of the public eye by using dark money donations.
The records show that on August 14, 2018, Jones—now criminally charged in the scandal—held a fundraiser for DeWine and running mate Jon Husted, calling Husted a “good friend” to the utility.
Then DeWine met with FirstEnergy executives at an RGA fundraiser in downtown Columbus on October 10, 2018, the Dayton Daily News first reported. Shortly after, FirstEnergy Solutions donated $500,000 to RGA, according to tax records
FirstEnergy also donated $200,000 to the Citizens Policy Institute, which blasted Cordray for being “Republican Lite,” according to released records. Cleveland restaurateur Tony George, a close FirstEnergy ally, was behind the group, as BuzzFeed News reported at the time.
In November 2018, DeWine defeated Cordray, 50.4 percent to 46.7 percent as Democrats swept elections across the country. In 2019, FirstEnergy helped Republican lawmakers craft HB 6, an energy overhaul measure that included $1 billion for the two nuclear plants. DeWine signed the bill within hours of it hitting his desk.
When asked if the donations influenced DeWine’s support of nuclear energy, DeWine spokesman Dan Tierney said: “Gov. DeWine’s support for nuclear energy is documented well prior to 2018, including during his tenure as United States senator.”
FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young said the company was unable to comment on pending litigation; shareholders sued FirstEnergy after federal investigators revealed an extensive pay-to-play scandal bankrolled by the Ohio utility.
That federal investigation led to a 20-year prison sentence for Householder, a five-year sentence for ex-Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges, and the firing of several FirstEnergy executives. A parallel state-led criminal investigation has brought charges against two FirstEnergy executives and Ohio’s former chief energy regulator.
Attorneys in the shareholder lawsuit have sought to subpoena records from DeWine and depose Husted, but neither faces any criminal accusations. FirstEnergy donated $1 million through a dark money group to back Husted’s campaign in 2017, according to previously released records. Husted and DeWine were competitors until they merged campaigns.
In 2018, the owner of the nuclear plants, FirstEnergy Solutions, was in bankruptcy. So creditors raised concerns about a $1 million payment earmarked to help DeWine’s campaign, according to emails exchanged on August 11, 2018. “They cited it is very large compared to DeWine’s current fundraising.”
Senior Vice President of External Affairs Michael Dowling tried to allay concerns by explaining that donors can back DeWine’s bid in several ways, including giving to DeWine’s campaign fund, the Republican Governors Association, State Solutions, and the Ohio Republican Party’s state candidate fund.
“Theoretically, DeWine/Husted could have a balance of $10M in their campaign account and the RGA could spend $40M in support of DeWine in Ohio,” Dowling explained in an email. “My point is that comparing the size of a contribution to the RGA to what the DeWine campaign has raised or what the DeWine Campaign’s current balance is can be done, but I’m not sure is logical.”
Republican fundraiser Brooke Bodney, who worked with the RGA, confirmed: “All factually accurate.”
Meanwhile, FirstEnergy Solutions’ David Griffing reassured Akin Gump partner Rick Burdick that there was no connection between State Solutions and DeWine’s campaign. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is a powerful law firm that represented FirstEnergy Solutions during its bankruptcy and lobbied for House Bill 6.
The issue was important because exchanging a political favor for a campaign donation would be illegal, a quid pro quo.
“Thanks,” Burdick wrote. “Just to confirm there is also no understanding with the DeWine campaign re his position on regulatory relief for nuclear plants related to this contribution.”
“Correct,” Griffing replied.
Migrants Tricked Into DeSantis Flight Scheme Qualify for Residency Visas
The migrants “are now able to legally work in the United States” and are protected from deportation, their lawyer said.
By Chris Walker , TRUTHOUT
Published April 23, 2024
Some of the dozens of migrants who were tricked by a scheme orchestrated by Gov. Ron DeSantis’s office into boarding an airplane in Florida and flying to Martha’s Vineyard in 2022 have been granted temporary visas due to the fact that they may have been victims of a crime.
DeSantis’s office coordinated two planes to fly the migrants (most of whom had come to the U.S. from Venezuela) from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. Those who had recruited the migrants, around 50 in total, to fly on the planes had done so with false promises to them that jobs, shelter and food would be available upon their arrival.
Instead, the migrants were left with nothing. Volunteer groups helped them to find temporary housing in the short term after they made it to the community.
DeSantis’s office, which had spent around $615,000 in state-based funds authorized by the state legislature for the transporting of migrants in the state, was widely lampooned for the action, which was described as a political stunt meant to make him look tougher on immigration during his 2022 reelection campaign (and in the run-up to his failed presidential campaign). Some also suggested that he may have committed a crime — indeed, Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar has filed a criminal case with the county district attorney’s office, alleging “unlawful restraint” violations. No decision on the advancement of that case has been made as yet.
However, because of that filing, and with help from civil rights lawyers, some of the migrants were able to apply for what are called “U visas,” which grant temporary residency rights to immigrants who are “victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity.”
Some of the migrants “are now able to legally work in the United States and have temporary protections from deportation — because they are considered victims of a potential crime,” said Rachel Self, an attorney for the migrants, who spoke to The Miami Herald about the update on their statuses.
It’s not clear how many of the approximately 50 migrants who were victims of the DeSantis-orchestrated scheme have received these visas, but those who have them will be allowed to live and work in the U.S. potentially for several years while the investigations are ongoing. Many U visa recipients are also eventually granted permanent residency protections.
Some of the migrants who were part of the flights have also sued DeSantis and his allies, as well as the airline, Vertol, that was part of the scheme, alleging that their civil rights were violated. That suit describes the actions taken by DeSantis and his allies as a “premeditated, fraudulent and illegal scheme” meant to advance the “personal, financial and political interests” of the governor.
“These immigrants, who are pursuing the proper channels for lawful immigration status in the United States, experienced cruelty akin to what they fled in their home country,” the lawsuit added.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Boston said the lawsuit had met the legal standards to move forward. The judge removed DeSantis from the lawsuit, which places Vertol as the central focus of the litigation, but did so “without prejudice,” which means, as the lawsuit progresses and more evidence is presented, there is a possibility of having the Florida governor brought back into it later on.
DeSantis’s office coordinated two planes to fly the migrants (most of whom had come to the U.S. from Venezuela) from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. Those who had recruited the migrants, around 50 in total, to fly on the planes had done so with false promises to them that jobs, shelter and food would be available upon their arrival.
Instead, the migrants were left with nothing. Volunteer groups helped them to find temporary housing in the short term after they made it to the community.
DeSantis’s office, which had spent around $615,000 in state-based funds authorized by the state legislature for the transporting of migrants in the state, was widely lampooned for the action, which was described as a political stunt meant to make him look tougher on immigration during his 2022 reelection campaign (and in the run-up to his failed presidential campaign). Some also suggested that he may have committed a crime — indeed, Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar has filed a criminal case with the county district attorney’s office, alleging “unlawful restraint” violations. No decision on the advancement of that case has been made as yet.
However, because of that filing, and with help from civil rights lawyers, some of the migrants were able to apply for what are called “U visas,” which grant temporary residency rights to immigrants who are “victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity.”
Some of the migrants “are now able to legally work in the United States and have temporary protections from deportation — because they are considered victims of a potential crime,” said Rachel Self, an attorney for the migrants, who spoke to The Miami Herald about the update on their statuses.
It’s not clear how many of the approximately 50 migrants who were victims of the DeSantis-orchestrated scheme have received these visas, but those who have them will be allowed to live and work in the U.S. potentially for several years while the investigations are ongoing. Many U visa recipients are also eventually granted permanent residency protections.
Some of the migrants who were part of the flights have also sued DeSantis and his allies, as well as the airline, Vertol, that was part of the scheme, alleging that their civil rights were violated. That suit describes the actions taken by DeSantis and his allies as a “premeditated, fraudulent and illegal scheme” meant to advance the “personal, financial and political interests” of the governor.
“These immigrants, who are pursuing the proper channels for lawful immigration status in the United States, experienced cruelty akin to what they fled in their home country,” the lawsuit added.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Boston said the lawsuit had met the legal standards to move forward. The judge removed DeSantis from the lawsuit, which places Vertol as the central focus of the litigation, but did so “without prejudice,” which means, as the lawsuit progresses and more evidence is presented, there is a possibility of having the Florida governor brought back into it later on.
'Oxymoron': Nobel Prize economist dismantles 'neoliberal theorists' and 'unrestrained capitalism'
Alex Henderson -alternet
April 24, 2024
The late conservative economist Milton Friedman was an aggressive promoter of the "shareholder theory," arguing that corporations' main obligation was not to society on the whole, but to their shareholders. Friedman influenced many libertarians and neoliberal thinkers who equate a laissez-faire or hands-off approach to economics with personal freedom.
But in an in-depth essay/think piece published by The Atlantic on April 24, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz challenges those beliefs and stresses that "unfettered" capitalism isn't necessarily synonymous with freedom.
"(Economist) F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman were the most notable 20th-Century defenders of unrestrained capitalism," Stiglitz explained. "The idea of 'unfettered markets' — markets without rules and regulations — is an oxymoron because without rules and regulations enforced by government, there could and would be little trade. Cheating would be rampant, trust low."
The economist continues, "A world without restraints would be a jungle in which only power mattered, determining who got what and who did what. It wouldn't be a market at all. Nonetheless, Hayek and Friedman argued that capitalism as they interpreted it, with free and unfettered markets, was the best system in terms of efficiency, and that without free markets and free enterprise, we could not and would not have individual freedom."
Stiglitz goes on to lay out some reasons why his "conclusions" about economics are "radically different" from Hayek and Friedman's laissez-faire views — and why "neoliberalism" isn't necessarily an antidote to authoritarianism.
"It was because of democratic demands that democratic governments, such as that of the U.S., responded to the Great Depression through collective action," Stiglitz argues. "The failure of governments to respond adequately to soaring unemployment in Germany led to the rise of Hitler. Today, it is neoliberalism that has brought massive inequalities and provided fertile ground for dangerous populists. Neoliberalism's grim record includes freeing financial markets to precipitate the largest financial crisis in three-quarters of a century, freeing international trade to accelerate deindustrialization, and freeing corporations to exploit consumers, workers, and the environment alike."
Stiglitz adds, "Contrary to what Friedman suggested in his 1962 book, 'Capitalism and Freedom,'' this form of capitalism does not enhance freedom in our society. Instead, it has led to the freedom of a few at the expense of the many."
According to Stiglitz, "neoliberal theorists and their beneficiaries" are promoting — not discouraging — a dangerous "polarization."
The economist writes, "They forget that, for all the rhetoric, free markets can't function without strong democracies beneath them — the kind of democracies that neoliberalism puts under threat. In a very direct way, neoliberal capitalism is devouring itself."
But in an in-depth essay/think piece published by The Atlantic on April 24, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz challenges those beliefs and stresses that "unfettered" capitalism isn't necessarily synonymous with freedom.
"(Economist) F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman were the most notable 20th-Century defenders of unrestrained capitalism," Stiglitz explained. "The idea of 'unfettered markets' — markets without rules and regulations — is an oxymoron because without rules and regulations enforced by government, there could and would be little trade. Cheating would be rampant, trust low."
The economist continues, "A world without restraints would be a jungle in which only power mattered, determining who got what and who did what. It wouldn't be a market at all. Nonetheless, Hayek and Friedman argued that capitalism as they interpreted it, with free and unfettered markets, was the best system in terms of efficiency, and that without free markets and free enterprise, we could not and would not have individual freedom."
Stiglitz goes on to lay out some reasons why his "conclusions" about economics are "radically different" from Hayek and Friedman's laissez-faire views — and why "neoliberalism" isn't necessarily an antidote to authoritarianism.
"It was because of democratic demands that democratic governments, such as that of the U.S., responded to the Great Depression through collective action," Stiglitz argues. "The failure of governments to respond adequately to soaring unemployment in Germany led to the rise of Hitler. Today, it is neoliberalism that has brought massive inequalities and provided fertile ground for dangerous populists. Neoliberalism's grim record includes freeing financial markets to precipitate the largest financial crisis in three-quarters of a century, freeing international trade to accelerate deindustrialization, and freeing corporations to exploit consumers, workers, and the environment alike."
Stiglitz adds, "Contrary to what Friedman suggested in his 1962 book, 'Capitalism and Freedom,'' this form of capitalism does not enhance freedom in our society. Instead, it has led to the freedom of a few at the expense of the many."
According to Stiglitz, "neoliberal theorists and their beneficiaries" are promoting — not discouraging — a dangerous "polarization."
The economist writes, "They forget that, for all the rhetoric, free markets can't function without strong democracies beneath them — the kind of democracies that neoliberalism puts under threat. In a very direct way, neoliberal capitalism is devouring itself."
STUCK ON STUPID!!!
elected officials who owe their offices to stupid voters
Republican Gov Defends Bill That Denies Access To Information
The Louisiana bill would allow governments to withhold records on how they make decisions, including texts, e-mails, and calendars.
Kavanaugh Bizarrely Praised Nixon Pardon As Great Moment In History
Did Justice Kavanaugh have a few too many beers before the SCOTUS immunity hearing?
Kristi Noem, Dog Executioner
“I hated that dog,” Noem writes in her new book. Cricket was “untrainable” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.
Is Trump Tithing or Conning His Voters? Either Way, He Aims to Cover Legal Fees. Trump’s leadership PAC alone has spent almost $60 million on his attorneys’ bills since early 2023.
'So appalled': What witnesses told special counsel about Trump's handling of classified info while still president
(ABC News) In the summer of 2019, only hours after an Iranian rocket accidentally exploded at one of Iran's own launch sites, senior U.S. officials met with then-president Donald Trump and shared a sharply detailed, highly classified image of the blast's catastrophic aftermath. The image was captured by a U.S. satellite whose true capabilities were a tightly guarded secret. But Trump wanted to share it with the world -- he thought it was especially "sexy" because it was marked classified, one of his former advisers later recalled to special counsel Jack Smith's investigators, according to sources familiar with the former adviser's statements.
The New York Times Is Nothing More Than An Elaborate Burn Book
They admit it!
Susie Madrak — crooks & liars
April 26, 2024
Politico's magazine did a cover story on the New York Times and their feud with the Biden White House, and boy, was it enlightening. Well, maybe not. There wasn't much we didn't already guess, it was just weird to hear them say it out loud.
I find it so puzzling when the people who work there don't understand how much bad faith coverage it took to lose the support of liberal Democrats. After all, the Times was held in high regard for a really long time.
But they've pretty much beaten our expectations out of us. From the piece:
In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden.
“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
And there we have it. When it comes right down to it, the New York Times is nothing more than a Mean Girls burn book. (Sure, Sulzberger graduated from Brown, but it's forever high school at the Times.)
There was no risk to Trump in sitting down for interviews, because the Times doesn't gun for Republicans with the same delight and enthusiasm they reserve for the Blue team.
I give Biden points for understanding that trying to court the Times is a no-win game and deciding to do an end run. Their last minute exoneration of Trump's ties to Russia, what, the week before the 2016 election? Their breathless coverage of the Clinton Cash book, which turned out to be funded by Steve Bannon's foundation? The constant refrain of "But her emails!" That is the payoff.
There's so much more that I've suppressed for my own sanity.
I find it so puzzling when the people who work there don't understand how much bad faith coverage it took to lose the support of liberal Democrats. After all, the Times was held in high regard for a really long time.
But they've pretty much beaten our expectations out of us. From the piece:
In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden.
“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
And there we have it. When it comes right down to it, the New York Times is nothing more than a Mean Girls burn book. (Sure, Sulzberger graduated from Brown, but it's forever high school at the Times.)
There was no risk to Trump in sitting down for interviews, because the Times doesn't gun for Republicans with the same delight and enthusiasm they reserve for the Blue team.
I give Biden points for understanding that trying to court the Times is a no-win game and deciding to do an end run. Their last minute exoneration of Trump's ties to Russia, what, the week before the 2016 election? Their breathless coverage of the Clinton Cash book, which turned out to be funded by Steve Bannon's foundation? The constant refrain of "But her emails!" That is the payoff.
There's so much more that I've suppressed for my own sanity.
Bites from Real News
*4/26/2024*
*The Louisiana Town Where a Traffic Stop Can Lead to One Charge After Another Gretna, Louisiana, brings in more money through fines and fees than some larger cities in the state. Much of that revenue comes from motorists who rack up multiple traffic violations, according to a WVUE-TV and ProPublica investigation.
*HOW CITIZENS UNITED CLEARED THE WAY FOR THE BIGGEST POLITICAL BRIBERY SCANDAL IN OHIO HISTORY
*Texas School Districts Violated a Law Intended to Add Transparency to Local Elections
ProPublica and The Texas Tribune analyzed 35 Texas school districts that held trustee elections last fall and found none that posted all of the required campaign finance records.
*China stopped taking our plastic. Now America is drowning in it.
merica has long had a plastic problem. It's an urgent question — what do we do with the 40 million tons of plastic waste we produce annually? One year of plastic waste is roughly enough to smother the entirety of Manhattan a meter deep, and it has to go somewhere. For years, the answer was simple: Make a lot of it, dump most of it in the landfill, and make the rest of it someone else's problem — the US regularly exported 7 million tons a year to China alone. Some of it was melted into lesser plastic; the rest was incinerated or buried.
*10 Times as Much of This Toxic Pesticide Could End Up on Your Tomatoes and Celery Under a New EPA Proposal
Against the guidance of scientific advisory panels, the EPA is relying on industry-backed tests to relax regulations on acephate, which has been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders. “It’s exactly what we recommended against,” one panelist said.
*Nevada Supreme Court Allows Abortion Rights Ballot Initiative to Move Forward
The proposed amendment would guarantee a right to an abortion up to fetal viability.
*New Legislation Would Expand Access to Disaster Relief, Provide Help With Titles for Large Number of Black Landowners
The bills come after ProPublica’s reporting on land passed down informally within families, known as heirs’ property. Representing about one-third of Black-owned land in the South, it can be ineligible for aid and vulnerable to forced sales.
*'This guy couldn't get a job at the local mall': Brutal anti-Trump ad claims he's unfit
*Kremlin-linked Truth Social investor linked to dangerous 'sex pills' operation: reportOpinion
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts’ Earnings Jumped to $35.5 Million in 2023
PAYDAY
Amanda Yen
Breaking News Intern
Published Apr. 26, 2024 12:15PM EDT
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast, saw his earnings jump to $35.47 million in 2023, up 11 percent from the year before, Variety reported. That whopping payday breaks down to a $2.5 million salary, $15 million in stock awards, $9.2 million in stock options, and a $8.55 million cash bonus to sweeten the deal. Roberts, who oversees Comcast and NBCUniversal, is the son of Comcast founder Ralph J. Roberts and has a net worth of about $1.9 billion, according to Forbes. “Mr. Roberts is a strong and effective leader, at both the company and Board levels, who provides critical leadership in carrying out our strategic initiatives and confronting our challenges,” Comcast said in its proxy statement filed with the SEC on Friday. Separately, the company is expected to lay off as many as 1,000 employees for the U.K. broadcaster Sky this year, the Financial Times reported, as it shifts from a satellite to streaming model.
Doug Emhoff Quietly Called Columbia University Jewish Leaders
UNDER THE RADAR
Published Apr. 26, 2024 12:15AM EDT
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
As the White House faced a growing clamor to respond to pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses across the nation, Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, quietly reached out to two Jewish leaders at Columbia University this week. Politico reports that Emhoff, the first-ever Jewish spouse of a vice president or president, called Rabbi Elie Buechler of the Ivy League college’s Orthodox Union-Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus and Brian Cohen, executive director of the campus Hillel chapter to discuss antisemitism. “The Second Gentleman recognized that while every American has the right to freedom of speech and to protest peacefully, hate speech and calls for violence against Jews is both antisemitic and unacceptable,” a White House official said. Emhoff has been one of the White House’s point people on antisemitism and has previously criticized universities for failing to crack down on anti-Jewish rhetoric.
the key to republican support
*What's Inside*
SHATTERING DECEPTIVE MIRRORS: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE THE CHANCE TO BUCK THE BEAUTY INDUSTRY SCAM(REALITY)
BOTTLED WATER CONTAINS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PLASTIC BITS: STUDY
REALITY
THE GREAT MEDICARE ADVANTAGE MARKETING SCAM
CORPORATE CRIMINALS
2023 SAW RECORD KILLINGS BY US POLICE. WHO IS MOST IMPACTED?
GESTAPO USA
AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN UNITED. SO HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER?
COMMENTARY
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS: THE HIDDEN DANGERS AND THREATS TO PATIENT CARE
REALITY
A NEW STUDY DESCRIBES IN GROTESQUE DETAIL THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ULTRARICH HAVE PERVERTED THE CHARITABLE GIVING INDUSTRY.
REALITY
HOW TRUMP AND BUSH TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES BROKE AMERICA
REALITY
FROM 1947 TO 2023: RETRACING THE COMPLEX, TRAGIC ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
REALITY
RED STATE CONSERVATIVES ARE DYING THANKS TO THE PEOPLE THEY VOTE FOR
REALITY
HOW TEXAS BECAME THE NEW "HOMEBASE" FOR WHITE NATIONALIST AND NEO-NAZI GROUPS
AMERICA
HOW THE GOP SUCKERED AMERICA ON TAX CUTS
REALITY
ADVOCATES SUE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR FAILING TO BAN IMPORTS OF COCOA HARVESTED BY CHILDREN(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
RACISM AT HEART OF US FAILURE TO TACKLE DEADLY HEATWAVES, EXPERT WARNS
WHITE SUPREMACY
'MISLEADING': ALARM RAISED ABOUT MEDICARE ADVANTAGE 'SCAM'
REALITY
SLAVERY ISN’T JUST BLACK HISTORY — IT’S US HISTORY
RACE MATTERS
*late news of interest*
A Meditation On Practical Applications Of Stupidity
The Mystery of Anti-Vax & Anti-Mask
Kat Ignatz - DAILY KOS
Sunday August 01, 2021 · 5:00 AM PDT
...“The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity” seems as good a way as any to explain the insane situation we’re in. It’s speculative, but in my opinion, guessing is all we’ve really got right now.
In his essay, Cipolla divides human beings into four categories and builds his theory on these characteristics.
His categories are:
And he presents his theory as five laws:
Taking Cipolla’s laws and looking for correlations with anti-vax/mask behavior, you can map out anti-vax/mask actions like this:
And you could do the same matching of Cipolla’s laws with anti-vax/mask actions, and together, we could come up with a big, five-part list of parallels between Cipolla’s theory and the anti-vax/mask movement.
And it would prove nothing.
But looking at it might make you wonder, like me, if there’s anything but dangerous, illogical, and incomprehensible behavior there.
Cipolla doesn’t explain stupid people. He simply says that they exist, and they’re irrational, unpredictable, and hazardous. He states that irrational people can’t be understood by rational minds and cautions against getting involved with irrational people because it always comes with a cost that’s often a big cost.
He says the only hope is for rational people to create more gains than the losses that irrational people cause. He was an economist so his theory is all gains and losses, and another way to think about his four human traits is total gain, loss/gain, gain/loss, and total loss.
And maybe that’s the real answer here. Maybe, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with why anti-vax/maskers act like they do. Perhaps, we should simply accept them as an incredible danger to our country, states, cities, friends, families, and selves, and we should just do everything we can to do more good than they do harm.
I like Cipolla’s theory, and I find it to be a compelling model for many of the problems we’re experiencing—like, for instance, Republicans.
In this writings, Cipolla makes a point of dividing bandits into Intelligent Bandits and Stupid Bandits. Intelligent bandits cause an equal amount of loss and gain, and they get everything they take from others. Stupid bandits cause more loss than gain, and they only get part of what they cause others to lose.
When I read that, I think about how Republicans are actively working to crash the US so they can keep their wealth and power. And then I think that they’re going so far with it that they may have moved from being stupid bandits to fully stupid because it’s irrational to think they’ll keep much of anything if the country collapses.
I also start thinking about how prevalent stupid banditry is in the world—as if it’s the only way to do business. The “bigs” are especially dangerous: big agriculture, apparel, chemical, electronics, oil, pharmaceuticals, retail, etc.
We’re all losing our lives in one way or another to these dubious ventures.
But that’s my mind drifting on to a topic for another diary, and I’ll stop this one here.
In his essay, Cipolla divides human beings into four categories and builds his theory on these characteristics.
His categories are:
- Intelligent People whose actions benefit others and themselves
- Helpless People whose actions harm them but benefit others
- Bandits whose actions harm others but benefit them
- Stupid People whose actions harm others but don’t benefit them and may, in fact, harm them, too
And he presents his theory as five laws:
- Everyone always underestimates how many stupid people there are.
- Stupidity is unrelated to any other human trait.
- Stupid people cause losses to others without gain and, possibly, with losses to themselves.
- Non-stupid people always underestimate how harmful stupid people are.
- Stupid people are the most dangerous type of person.
Taking Cipolla’s laws and looking for correlations with anti-vax/mask behavior, you can map out anti-vax/mask actions like this:
- How many: 30% of the US population is hesitating, resisting, or outright refusing to get a coronavirus vaccine.
- Unrelated to other traits: Health care workers are protesting against getting vaccinated.
- No gain and possible losses: Not even the threat of death is changing anti-vax/mask behavior.
- How harmful: Who would have predicted that Missouri would end up in such terrible condition?
- Most dangerous: Anti-vax/maskers are bringing the systems we rely on for our safety and health to the brink of crashing.
And you could do the same matching of Cipolla’s laws with anti-vax/mask actions, and together, we could come up with a big, five-part list of parallels between Cipolla’s theory and the anti-vax/mask movement.
And it would prove nothing.
But looking at it might make you wonder, like me, if there’s anything but dangerous, illogical, and incomprehensible behavior there.
Cipolla doesn’t explain stupid people. He simply says that they exist, and they’re irrational, unpredictable, and hazardous. He states that irrational people can’t be understood by rational minds and cautions against getting involved with irrational people because it always comes with a cost that’s often a big cost.
He says the only hope is for rational people to create more gains than the losses that irrational people cause. He was an economist so his theory is all gains and losses, and another way to think about his four human traits is total gain, loss/gain, gain/loss, and total loss.
And maybe that’s the real answer here. Maybe, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with why anti-vax/maskers act like they do. Perhaps, we should simply accept them as an incredible danger to our country, states, cities, friends, families, and selves, and we should just do everything we can to do more good than they do harm.
I like Cipolla’s theory, and I find it to be a compelling model for many of the problems we’re experiencing—like, for instance, Republicans.
In this writings, Cipolla makes a point of dividing bandits into Intelligent Bandits and Stupid Bandits. Intelligent bandits cause an equal amount of loss and gain, and they get everything they take from others. Stupid bandits cause more loss than gain, and they only get part of what they cause others to lose.
When I read that, I think about how Republicans are actively working to crash the US so they can keep their wealth and power. And then I think that they’re going so far with it that they may have moved from being stupid bandits to fully stupid because it’s irrational to think they’ll keep much of anything if the country collapses.
I also start thinking about how prevalent stupid banditry is in the world—as if it’s the only way to do business. The “bigs” are especially dangerous: big agriculture, apparel, chemical, electronics, oil, pharmaceuticals, retail, etc.
We’re all losing our lives in one way or another to these dubious ventures.
But that’s my mind drifting on to a topic for another diary, and I’ll stop this one here.