10-29-24  •  The Essence of Civilization


Clara: I know everyone is talking about the comedian, Kill Tony, who opened for Trump at his Madison Square Garden rally. He said, "You know, there is a huge floating pile of garbage in the middle of the ocean. I think it's called Puerto Rico."

Anne: He's a roast comic. That's his form of humor.

I believe that better vetting needed to have taken place before the comedian came on to speak. I don't think that makes Trump a racist.

He doesn't have to be personally racist. Smart leaders know how to use the racism of others to get power.


Anne: That they do.......both major parties.

What do you regard as the Democrat equivalent?


Anne: Here's an example from former President Obama...when race is brought into the equation as a point of disappointment that black men aren't considering voting for Harris, it's an issue.

I see, thank you. Yes, I agree that Obama was grouping people by race.


I apologize, I should have said, Smart leaders know how to use the prejudice, bigotry, hatred, outgrouping, scapegoating, etc. of others to gain power. I don't think any of that was what Obama was doing and it's an important distinction.


Kim: “You ain’t Black…”


That seems equivalent to the MSG rally to you? See my clarification above.


Kim:I see it as much worse… With the rally that just happened, pretty much everyone called out the blatant and disgusting racism on all sides of the political field.

With Biden, the racism was thought of as ok…it was thought of as acceptable…predictable enough to be allowed.


Actually, I think everyone pretty much called that out too, and it was not thought of as acceptable, and he had to personally apologize later that same day.

"The remark sparked immediate pushback on social media, with liberal activists and conservatives alike jumping on Mr. Biden, 77, for acting as the arbiter of blackness."

Biden Gets Backlash from Across the Political Spectrum



Anne: Again, I strongly feel that racism and even shock/disappointment at WHO is voted for vs WHO it's felt they should be voting for seems to be an issue for both major parties.

I don't disagree. We should be long past race.

However, I don't agree that is the same thing as bigotry and hatred and scapegoating. That is when the leader tells a group who is suffering that their problems are all because of another group, the hated Others. It's not just a slip here and there, it's a deliberate policy of stoking racial hatred by consistently calling other groups inferior, vermin, usurpers. The occasional slips by Democrats cost them - it's not a route to power and it weakens them. In Republicans it is a route to power and it gives them strength.


Anne: We won't agree, SallyMae.

I appreciate that we can discuss important matters like this anyway. I thank you deeply.


Sue: It is equivalent, just passive aggressive. Both parties have problems with white supremacy and that is an example of how a lot of white liberals think.

It is one of many serious problems on the left, but I don't see it as equivalent because it's less immediately in danger of becoming fascism. Hatred and scapegoating are not just bigotry, they are the social enablers of pogroms. Biden's comments are vile, but will not likely increase hate crimes. Trump's rhetoric will.


Kim: Now it’s a pogrom…

This is why the left isnt taken seriously anymore…


It's not a pogrom yet. But they start with dehumanization and scapegoating from the top, exactly like this.


Kim: It’s not a pogrom at all, and it won’t turn into one… If anyone was going to hold a pogrom, it would be the leftists who are targeting anyone wearing a yarmulke on college campuses…

We can’t just ignore reality and act like sensationalism is going to fool people..


People who are scholars of fascism around the world are sounding the alarm about this kind of scapegoating. It fits a historical pattern, along with things like:

• Hearkening back to a previous time of greater glory
• Fear of difference
• Treating opponents as enemies
• Appeal to social frustration
• Calls for xenophobia
• Characterizing the enemy as both weak and strong
• Machismo and misogyny
• Hyper-nationalism
• Disdain for human rights
• Strongman leadership
• Militarism and glorification of violence
• Suppression of democratic institutions

I think ignoring this is ignoring reality.

You might be surprised that I agree somewhat about the college violence. I think it is a serious issue that has not been adequately dealt with, and it could result in mob violence. Democrats need to do better. But that's a fringe; this is the base. Certainly Harris is doing nothing to cause this; Trump is, on a daily basis. Democrats are not (currently) checking box after box on the list of dangerous social movements. Republicans are.

As I have said, both parties are sick but the Republicans are running a higher temperature. They are both dying of the same disease that is killing everything. That doesn't mean we should make it go faster by putting the sicker party in charge.



Sue: Passive aggressive white supremacy is definitely just as dangerous, if not worse. Sometimes I’d rather someone be honest vs. playing in my face.

I'm sorry you have to deal with it at all. Neither party is doing anything that will help much, sad to say. But one is a slower burn and you can do more about that.

The level of all violence - from riots to hate crimes to the insurrection - is being fueled by the same thing everywhere...ordinary people are not getting enough of this life to live, and it's intolerable. We could solve all this hatred and violence and struggle at a stroke, by simply sharing the world's resources a *little* more fairly, giving ordinary people a chance to thrive.

If we want to end the violence we have to stop fighting each other for survival. That is the essence of civilization and if we don't do it, we won't have one.


Linda: Ah, that’s a very nice view. Idealist, but nice. But, I'm Jewish, and all I can see is that my people are fighting for their lives in Israel right now. What do you do if someone wants to kill you? Doesn’t care about talking nicely about your differences, doesn’t care about negotiating with you, he just wants you dead and claims they will attack you over and over again until they succeed?

That is the world's hardest question, which few have figured out so far, so I can only describe what sometimes works:

Talk to someone else from that group, someone who has not attacked you, and offer them a really great deal to turn against the ones who are attacking you. I mean, a *really* great deal, like prosperity and equality and representation and a really good life for their children and grandchildren, with lots of opportunity and leisure. People who are not attacking you might turn against the ones who are, and if others saw what a great deal the alliance was, they might be interested too.

It might sound idealistic, but it has worked to end some very difficult conflicts where people hated each other as much as people ever do.

• The Iroquois had warred for centuries in bitter conflict between Mohawk, the Oneida, the Seneca and other tribes, but a peacemaker encouraged them to unite under a system of shared governance. He offered equality and representation to all within a “Great Law of Peace,” creating a Confederacy that lasted for generations.

• The Thirty Years War was ended by granting Catholics and Protestants equal rights and representation and a stake in the new political order.

• The Dayton Peace Accords ended the Bosnian War by creating a federation with guaranteed political representation and autonomy for Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs.

• The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland ended decades of conflict by creating a coalition government that represented both Unionists and Nationalists, provided economic investment and protected cultural rights.

• As apartheid was ending, Nelson Mandela and other leaders offered former adversaries a stake in the new South African government, economic concessions and amnesty for some actions.

• After the genocide, the Rwandan government promoted unity and economic opportunity for all groups, emphasizing a national identity over ethnic divisions, offering former enemies the chance for peace and prosperity.

I am sure you can explain why it would never work in this case, and maybe you are right. Perhaps the people there must fight forever. But this is how other people stopped fighting. It can be done.




10-22-24  •  Who Should Burn in Hell?


Note: See Hurricane Truth and Dangerous Misinformation for the previous exchanges referenced here.


Plexy: This is beyond low! Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic magazine, has just published an article. In it he claims that Trump promised the family of Vanessa Guillén, a soldier who was murdered, that he would pay for her funeral. But Trump became enraged when he got the bill, saying, "It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f---ing Mexican! Don't pay it." The bill was eventually paid by the Army and other contributors.

Kim: It’s really disheartening to see so many news outlets lying.


Skippy: Yeah but what if they just really believed it was true.


Kim: This is an actual lie, as told by someone who is supposed to be trusted.
It’s not a random dude on Facebook sharing a meme…

And not only is it a lie, it’s one that is incredibly hurtful to the family of a raped murder victim. The writer chose them and decided to take their daughter’s death and make it a sensational story meant to fool the public into voting differently. Imagine bringing that much pain to a family hurting beyond comprehension for your own gain…

He deserves to burn in hell.

I find your outrage incredibly selective. When Elon Musk and Trump himself were lying straight out in order to sabotage hurricane relief efforts, you found nothing wrong at all with it and said it was as good a time as any to "question" government spending. They chose to take the deaths of Americans and the destruction of their towns and make it into a conspiracy theory meant to fool the public into voting differently. Imagine bringing that much pain to millions of people who just lost their homes or worse for their own gain.

When a guy who called in to a radio show said these lies were scaring his relative into refusing FEMA help, you rejected the story as a lie by a nameless operative; when Trump said they are eating the cats and the dogs in Springfield - denied by all local authorities - you said, we have to believe the people on the ground. (Yet, Miss Sassy was just in the basement the whole time.) Again, selective belief.

I don't know what happened in this case but the family cannot refute the comment in question because they were not there. I'm sorry they got dragged into this but I'm also extremely sorry that the hurricane victims were dragged into this, and I found Trump and Musk to be just as hell-worthy for their stupid lying.

IF Goldberg is lying. He's a reputable reporter with an incredibly well-respected magazine, and he either just threw it all away, or he brought it up because he thinks it matters in the election how Trump regards the military. If he's telling the truth, then before the election is when he should be bringing it up. Either way, Trump and Musk are damned by this logic.





10-13-24  •  Kamala the Jezebel


Skippy: Can you believe this sexist, racist crap? This:

"Christian nationalist leaders are telling followers that Vice President Kamala Harris is under the influence of a “Jezebel spirit,” using a term with deeply racist and misogynistic roots that is setting off alarm bells for religious and political scholars.

"Wallnau posted a video on X in which he said, “with Kamala you have a Jezebel spirit, a characteristic in the Bible, that is a Jezebel spirit. The personification of intimidation, seduction, domination and manipulation,” he said, adding. “She can look presidential and that’s the seduction of what I would say is witchcraft.” In a different video, he said Harris represents “an amalgam of the spirit of Jezebel in a way that’ll be even more ominous than Hillary (Clinton), because she’ll bring a racial component, and she’s younger.” "

Kim: That means she's a slut. It's slut-shaming, not racist.

Skippy: Are you blind or just being obtuse? He said, "A RACIAL COMPONENT."



Kim: She does bring a racial component…Democrats are working extremely hard to separate people by race when it comes to how they attempt to pressure voters.

That’s what it means to “be more ominous”.



No, being not white is what is more ominous than Hillary. I can't believe you listen to this guy and then blame Democrats for what he is saying. He's being racist. That's what that is.


Kim:Democrats are saying things like “ You ain’t Black “ if you don’t vote for them… they’re saying things like “White people need to be held accountable for it” if Kamala doesn’t win… they’re saying things like “The Black vote” as though they’re all one big amalgamation of a singular entity, no individualism…

They’re doing their best to act as though Black people should all have to vote a singular way because of the color of their skin. That's racist.

That doesn't make it the cause of this. That's a reach.

Not every racist thing is caused by the Democrat's identity politics. Racism existed before that and still exists as that same thing. Some things are motivated by good ol' fashioned hate and fear, and that seems to be what this is.



Kim:It’s a reach to say that the way democrats are acting is why people believe there is a racial component to this election? No… it’s not.

It’s literally what democrats are saying.

It's a reach to suggest that's the main or only reason, when regular old hate and fear has obviously gone nowhere.


Kim:But this dude, the one you’re saying is racist, has a mixed family, compares Donald Trump to the greatness of the biblical King Cyrus, who was at the least half black on his mother’s side, and runs a charity that helps families of all races succeed in life.

Black people and people who have black friends and family are all capable of saying racist things. The comment was meant to describe the threat of Kamala Harris and that fear is because she is a woman of color trying to take what has almost always been a white man's position. He is speaking for white nationalists everywhere, and that is what they will hear, I guarantee it.


I do think race is a bit of a distraction here from what should be the main point, how deeply misogynist this is.


Kim: If you want to have at them for being sexist, have at it, you’d be right… racism just isn’t at play here.

Well, it's intersectional. But yes, the idea of a woman president deeply threatens the belief systems underlying centuries-old power structures. I mean, how could they be misogynists? They have wives! But being okay with a woman for a wife or friend or relative, or helping women with your charity, doesn't mean you want a woman in a position of great power. It's threatening at a basic level to traditional roles.


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


Skippy: At this point Idc if Biden is sleeping with half of Congress so long as things get done. As for Kamala so long as she didn't pay off a porn star with campaign funds, hey whatever.



Lol, you have a great way of putting things.

I think that's part of what makes this so deeply misogynist. The other candidate is the biggest slut in politics - not drummed-up smears, but really - and many people are fine with it when it's a guy. It just proves what a manly man-man he is. But if it's a woman, no matter what the reality - she's evil.


Kim: No argument…Men and women are held to totally different sexual standards in America.

Why do you think Buck Sexton supports Trump? Total cuck and loves it.


Kim: I'd imagine it's because he’s a conservative and conservatives go for Trump…

Speaking for himself and other conservatives, he explained their support for Trump, saying it's so obvious it should be no mystery, and it's nothing to do with conservative policy. It's because he's just such a manly man, a real alpha male, so successful, such a billionaire, with a hot supermodel wife, and nauseating so forth. Crushing hard. Guys like this see Trump's sluttiness as a sign of dominance. It presents no conflict with religious ideas of fidelity when it's the alpha male.


Kim: Oh for sure that’s true, and it’s made much more prominent of a belief now that guys like Andrew Tate are all over social media. There is a HUGE pushback right now of men wanting to become as ultra-masculine as possible right now.

Real men don't each quiche! I get it. But, gushing over how manly another man is does not give the impression of ultra-masculinity, lol. Quite the reverse as I have said.


Kim:It does to other men who are trying to feel more masculine.
The question is how to counter it…

It’s like being in an abnormal psych class… of course you’re not a psychotic murderer, but you’re trying to get into the head of a serial killer and figure out their motives and next move before someone else gets killed…

That’s what motivated predictive politics are lol…



(Note to self - Ew. That explains a lot.)

Upon reflection, I'm very glad I don't have any of these "ultra-masculine" wanna-bes in my life. My husband is tall and strong and smart and tough - a paratrooper who served in Special Forces - but he once teared up telling me the story of the RAF, the brave pilots who saved Britain during the blitz. Great with babies, was SAHD while I worked - then, top of his field when it was his turn in the office. Doesn't give a crap about masculinity, yet radiates it in his competence and leadership. I'm glad life is more complex than simple, traditional roles allow.



10-13-24  •  Bad Incentives


Lizi: There needs to be a do-over for both the Republican and Democratic parties and that has never been more evident than in the past 8+ years.

One person is not the fault. That goes for either party.

There's no longer a middle ground and the politicians who attempt bipartisanship and a moderate approach are too far between. We're now seeing both major parties filled with extremists.



It's not the people; that is, you could swap out every American politician for a better person and it would still be the same. The incentives of the system are wrong. They incentivize destructive behaviors. Even people who are good at heart cannot avoid corruption.

If we want ordinary people to be able to be politicians without fucking everything up, we have to change the incentive system. These incentives attract the worst and corrupt the best.




10-09-24  •  Hurricane Truth


Ruby: Emergency management authorities are complaining because Trump, Elon Musk and others are spreading disinformation about the FEMA response to Hurricane Helene. Trump said that Republican areas were deliberately neglected, and that you could lose your house if you cooperate with FEMA. Musk and Trump have said that Kamala Harris took "her FEMA money" and used it to house illegal immigrants. And Marjorie Taylor Greene said that "They can control the weather."



Skippy: Ironically, they are spreading fake news!



Kim: It’s all fake news until ten years later when it’s admitted to have been true…

Cloud seeding was all fake news until they admitted it… Chem trails were all fake news until they admitted it… I’m a little sick of this “they need to be held accountable” bullshit for repeating something they believe could be true.

Really can't agree. Verification matters. I think people should save their unhelpful unverified politically-motivated speculation until after the emergency so they don't get more people killed.


Kim: That’s just your way of saying Americans should be censored by the government when they disagree with something the government tells them…

When anti-war people were saying Vietnam was just a for-profit war… should they have been arrested for saying it?

When the government was actively killing Black men with syphilis and people exposed them, should they have been forced to stay quiet?



Ha ha, no. I didn't say the gov should stop them, that would be stupid. I said, they should wait until after the emergency, and they should. Not that they will.



Skippy: Idk who this "they" are that say chemtrails and cloud seeding are true, but whatever.



Kim: Why should anyone wait until after a hurricane to talk about how spread misinformation about how finances should be were distributed?

Fixed it for ya. Why? Because it would help, according to authorities who are managing the crisis.
Without mentioning Musk or Trump, FEMA leaders said Tuesday that misinformation is causing problems for Helene survivors, some of whom are being dissuaded from seeking help. They said it’s also harming emergency responders, whose morale has taken a hit amid threats to their safety.

The wave of false conspiracy theories “is absolutely the worst I have ever seen,” FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell told reporters on a Tuesday morning call. The agency has long had a rumor control page to combat the kind of scams that often flourish after a disaster, she added. “I anticipated some of this, but not to the extent that we’re seeing.”

“It’s just really unfortunate that [people] continue to try to create this level of fear in these communities that is impeding our ability to do our job at the level that we need to do it, but we’re not going to let it deter us,” Criswell added. “We are going to continue to be in these communities and support them for whatever they need.”


Kim:We have never been required to trust the government.

We should never be required to trust the government or face repercussions.

Again, who is being required? However, since FEMA actually IS there to help and actually IS helping, it would be good if people were not being lied to about them.

And anyway, when did people question cloud seeding? I never heard it wasn't real.


Kim: You don’t remember people not believing cloud seeding is real?

It was explained to me as a scientific process. Like, who thought it wasn't real? Newspapers?


Kim: The majority of Americans didn’t believe it was real.

It was thought of as a conspiracy theory only idiots believed…



Are you sure about this? I just cannot find a shred of evidence to suggest most Americans used to think cloud seeding wasn't real. It's been accepted science since the 1940s.


I have found an account of the U.S. attempting to use cloud seeding to disrupt troop movement along the Ho Chi Minh trail during Vietnam. Like a lot of crap in Vietnam, they did not inform the public at the time, but it did leak out later and people were shocked to learn about it. Perhaps that's the argument, you're welcome for actually making it, lol.

So sure, be skeptical of government, but none of that excuses spreading misinformation about political opponents during an emergency response.




Kim: Remember Hurricane Katrina! You cannot trust FEMA or the Government! FEMA mismanaged the crisis.



So you think that is happening again right now and being covered up, and Elon is the only one speaking up about it, while the government tries to force him to shut up?


Kim: No, I think they have proven that they can royally fuck up, and because they proved that it should not be a public response and topic of discussion that is thought of as illogical…



Of course. BUT that is a hundred thousand miles from claiming that it IS a disaster, and a deliberate one, when people on the ground, up to the governors of the affected states, are saying that the FEMA response has been good. That's not a logical public response, that's a bunch of misinformers trying to make things worse.

The head of FEMA isn't trying to censor anyone, she is begging them to find an ounce of humanity and voluntarily stop making things harder for them. Is that too much to ask?

_____________________________________________________



Kim:Am i sure? Lol I’m absolutely positive.

People did not believe in cloud seeding. And the ones who did believe, were mocked every time the subject was discussed.



Please, can you provide any historical evidence of this happening? What decade?


Vera: I think there is more of a conspiracy behind it, like actual cloud seeding to increase precipitation or snowpack is real but cloud seeding for the purposes of psychological control, biowarfare, or something like that, is not.



That would not be a very good example to prove Kim's point, which was, "It’s all fake news until ten years later when it’s admitted to have been true…Cloud seeding was all fake news until they admitted it."

There was never a time when cloud seeding was denied to be real and then later someone had to admit it was real, or when it was believed to be the stuff of idiotic conspiracy theory by most Americans. This makes no sense.





Kim: There’s people in this post who think that, like Skippy. I feel like it’s a little bit ingenuous that you “don’t believe” that people thought cloud seeding was a conspiracy theory…



I said I looked it up and can't find any historical evidence of it. No mention. In fact it's quite the opposite - the technology was discovered in the United States in 1946 and by 1949 the "Bandwagon Era" had begun, where people were experimenting with and adopting it all over the world. Zero record of widespread skepticism, no reports of anyone being mercilessly mocked. Zero record of the government denying that it existed or calling it "fake news". Zero record of the government having to retract that position, that I can find.

And, I seriously doubt Skippy really thought that cloud seeding was a conspiracy theory, she may have just lumped it in with chem trails without making a distinction. Of course she is free to clarify.

I don't actually have any beliefs about it, that's just what I found when I looked. I'd be interested in anything verifiable to the contrary. That's what verification is, and why it's important.


A Brief History of Weather Modification Since 1946

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journ ... _7_425.xml



Skippy: Ooops, I misspoke, sorry. I had forgotten cloud seeding was a reality. Thank my new kitten that's either in heat or freaked out over the weather. I'm not sleeping well.



______________________________________




Kim: It’s not a fact that they are lying…It can be a fact that what they are saying is untrue, but lying takes intention. We should not be calling them out publicly, shaming them on social media!



So what should we be doing?


Kim: Give Elon Musk his own television show where he can sit down in a discussion with the head of FEMA.



No, I mean what do you think we should do about dangerous misinformation being spread by chaos agents while the flood waters are rising? Nothing?


Kim: Nothing.

I mean, there should be information given by the experts and any trending questions should be addressed, but other than that , nothing. Anything more than that is too close of a step into totalitarian rule. Even the smallest steps matter.

For instance, If people don’t believe the truth about fema not being able to confiscate houses and they refuse to sign up for benefits, that is their choice and we are all responsible for our own choices. We should not do anything more than providing that person true information. If he makes the choice we think is absurd and ultimately damaging to his future, so be it. The choice should still be his to make.





No, I mean actual dangerous misinformation, like people could get killed if they believe it, and I don't mean just "the government." We, all of us.


Kim: Like what? Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater? We already have laws like that… there should be nothing else.



Well, that seems like giving up without a fight. Rescue efforts have been hampered and millions of dollars in public resources are being wasted on refuting lies. It will just get worse with time if we go on like this. Why just sink, further into the epistemic mire? For the sake of what?

On the contrary, I think there is a lot we can do.

1. We need standardized, real-time crisis fact-checking across many platforms, and misinformation should be "flagged and dragged" - prevented from algorithmic amplification.

2. Existing "Fire in a crowded theater" legal standards may be applicable to some of these lies, particularly if they result in stochastic terrorism.

3. Public calling out is appropriate. People spreading misinformation in a crisis are either evil (if they know the truth) or negligently lazy (if they can't be bothered to find out) and that should be roundly condemned.

4. We need to increase public trust through transparency, and create a verification standard for public information. A "Give A Hoot"-style campaign could go a long way to raise public awareness about polluting our public spheres with misinformation. A simple rule of thumb is, "I'm not making any decisions on who to hate about this until I verify the facts." If Republicans and Democrats alike would try this, we wouldn't need to waste millions of dollars countering misinformation.

Truth matters, almost more than anything else. Giving it the respect it deserves would make a difference.



Skippy: Now look what happened...on Saturday, FEMA workers had to halt their work in Rutherford County due to reports that National Guard troops saw “armed militia” threatening the workers, according to the Washington Post. It’s not clear if the threat was credible.



Kim: See, it's not clear if the threat was credible.



They still had to stop.

I think it's clear that if three human beings - Trump, Musk and Greene - had their social media posts flagged and dragged during this emergency, this interruption never would have happened. I don't think it presents any constitutional impingement. I think it would be worth it.




Skippy: Kim, would you please, just stop with that crap.



Kim: With what?

That I think our current laws are satisfactory?

Oooooohhhhh…. Ya got me. Lol





Ordinary Americans, in the country that I grew up in, would be appalled at reckless actions which impeded emergency services. You seem unappalled, and that's hard to understand.

I know people who are glad to see FEMAs operations hampered if it weakens public faith in government and/or helps Republicans win the election. By my moral reckoning, that's bad. You don't have to want new laws, but this should violate your sense of compassion and fair play. It's hard to see it just roll over you without any effect.

That's why Democrats are losing, by the way. They are demoralized by the callous disregard of Republicans for the public weal, while Republicans are energized by it. That's hard to beat.



Kim:I would talk about being super appalled if that’s all that mattered, but I don’t feel like I have that luxury anymore.


It does violate my sense of compassion, but too much of that leads to changed laws. And in this case, those laws would be ones to further limit our freedoms in this country.



No laws need to be changed. The ONLY thing that needs to change is you and 49% of the electorate have to be super appalled enough at the basic psychopathy of sabotaging rescue efforts to stand against it. That's all.

That is what you should do. Instead, you support the sabotage, on the ridiculous grounds that it *might* be a conspiracy theory that turns out to be true, like cloud-seeding (which was never a conspiracy theory) and chem trails (which did not turn out to be true.) More misinformation.

You will lose your freedom a lot faster under authoritarians who would overturn elections. Trump would like to have The Purge. When they tell you who they are, believe them.




10-01-24  •  Blue State Crime Wave (Not)


Ruby: Blue state hotel near major airport hub closes its doors after 56 years amid crime crisis

The Hilton hotel next to the Oakland, California, airport has closed its doors after 56 years, after many other neighboring businesses have already closed and residents have moved away due to ongoing crime in the area.

On Aug. 28, the hotel's final customer was checked out, and it was officially shut down. Among those who will be missed are the hotel cat, 16-year-old Miss Parris Hilton.

"We thought we were all going to retire there, but we were heartbroken," Egigu Lemma, known as "Gigi" by his colleagues, told Fox News Digital about the closure of the hotel, where he dedicated over 35 years as a bellman.



Paula: Looks like the zombie apocalypse took over...


Ruby:It's going strong in blue states...




Actually, crime is down in Oakland and nationwide.




"Recent data released by the Oakland Police Department reports a 33% drop in crime compared to the same time last year. Nearly all types of crime are down in Oakland, including burglary, robbery, car theft, larceny, arson, homicide, and assault."


Oakland Crime Statistics

Down by a third is a lot.

"Violent crime in Oakland, and nationwide, appears to be declining in 2024. Data from the nation’s biggest cities shows homicides, assaults, and robberies falling. "This data offers yet another indicator of a substantial reduction in violent crime in major cities across the country,” said U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in a statement."


Crime Down in Oakland and Nationwide

Also, from your source:

"Hilton officials did not say why they closed the Oakland airport hotel, but former workers believe it was the result of ongoing crime in the area."


Former workers don't know for sure why this hotel closed, they are only guessing, and could be wrong. I'm sure they are very concerned about crime in the area, but it's actually down. There's nothing here to suggest that Democrats mismanage blue states to cause more crime.



Paula:Meth related deaths are up by 1600% in the last five years…

They’re not doing well over there. Regardless of what the cause is, it’s happening…


The cause matters when trying to blame it on being "a blue state." Fact is, overdose deaths are up nationwide in the last five years, particularly in red states.

As of recent data, West Virginia leads with the highest overdose mortality rate, followed by Tennessee and Louisiana. Meth use, often combined with fentanyl, has exacerbated these overdose numbers. Other states in the top ten include Kentucky, Delaware, New Mexico, Ohio, Maine, and Pennsylvania, all showing concerning rates of drug-related fatalities.

Top 10 States with Highest Overdoses


Good news is, overdose deaths dropped nationwide in 2024:

Between April 2023 and April 2024, overdose deaths declined by about 10 percent nationally to roughly 101,000, according to preliminary data published recently by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That amounted to the largest decrease on record.

Overdose deaths decrease







09-18-24  •  Shoot an Immigrant for Jesus


Previously:

Carol: I can remember back when men used to settle things with their fists.

I once watched an old Twilight Zone marathon, c. 1950s. I could not believe how much of the interaction between the characters was big guys grabbing small guys by the lapels and shaking them to get them to do what they want. Like on street corners, even at the bank. That wasn't even the Twilight Zone part - it was depicted as normal interaction in the city.


Carol: That's the Hollywood version, lol.



___________________________

Then:

Carol: A Tennessee pastor is encouraging men in his congregation to “get five guns” to protect their families against illegal immigrants, adding, “When they start coming in here, they’re going to pay for it with their lives. . . . I sure hope they’re prepared for eternity.”

“You really need to protect yourself and your family,” McClung added. “You’re actually saying that in church? Yes. You mean I should go out and get a gun? No, go out and get five, and make sure every member of your family is armed, and they know how to use it.”



Riley: Umm...so?


Carol: So, do you really think THIS was the message of Jesus Christ? Just how does anyone who has read the Bible not see a disconnect between Jesus and what such pastors are preaching?



Riley: Because everyone interprets the Bible differently… "34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."


The bible is a Forer text, large and vague enough to "say" absolutely anything.


Riley: Read the passage about the money-changers at the temple. Jesus literally picked up a guy by the collar of his robes, threw him to the ground and started whipping him…

Carol: What verse says that?



Riley: Aren't you supposed to be a bibical scholar?

Carol: No, never claimed to be. I also don’t need to be to ask for your source of information when you make a claim.

Most people use John 2:13-16 to make the claim that Jesus was violent; however, that verse makes no mention of Jesus picking and throwing someone nor actually whipping them. That's why I asked.



Riley: So you *do* know which verse I mean. Shocker.

You think he made the whip just for show? Didn’t actually use it, but just pretended like he would?


Bytte: I always heard He used the whip to clear the animals out of the temple.


Riley:You think he wouldn't use a whip on people? El Greco sure got it wrong, huh? Lol.



Carol: You aren’t the first person to use those verses to justify violence or portray Jesus as violent. No, I believe like many actual Biblical scholars that Jesus used the whip to drive out the cattle and sheep from the temple. Who looks to paintings for accurate biblical interpretations?

Riley: You have your interpretation, I have mine. I happen to think that punctuation matters. I think he did grab them and throw them out and whipped them as they left...



That's the Hollywood version, lol. Always comes back to the lapels.


Riley: THIS is the "Hollywood" version?







Why do you think the classically great artists who depicted this scene show Jesus whipping the money changers? Do you think it could perhaps be because that is the version most universally accepted for hundreds of years? Or do you think the artists were not actually trying to be true to the Bible story they were depicting?


I'm not sure it matters. As I said, bible is a Forer text and you can literally make it support anything.

My "Hollywood" reference was a callback to an earlier post - I mentioned that old b&w TV depicts a lot of men grabbing other men by the lapels as a form of intimidation, as if it was a normal, everyday occurrence, and Carol called that the "Hollywood version." I was laughing at the fact that nothing changes in the depictions of how men interact...in ancient stories, in classical paintings, on modern TV. Audiences like to witness a whuppin.


Carol: That’s much of the problem. Hollywood, culture, etc. influence much of our beliefs rather than the traditions, creeds, doctrines, and sacred texts of the faith of your choice. This is how you get Christians thinking a pastor or even just a lay person talking about “loving your neighbor” or “turning the other cheek” are liberal talking points rather than actual Christian teachings.

"Jesus" is a collection of writings that were meant to portray the best wisdom they could pull together at the time. Sometimes it's wise to fight, other times it's wise to seek peace, so a wise Jesus could not fully be one or the other. He's there to support whatever rallying cry people want to make.

The most useful part of a biblical interpretation is what is says about the interpreter.



Riley: I’m asking if you think the artists were attempting to be true to the Biblical story.


How can I know? Paintings were the Hollywood of the time, and painters did embellish classical stories to make their paintings more interesting. Based on the Marvel poses, particularly in the top one, I'd say they were going for shock value. But, I also think the writers of the original story were going for shock value. And that's all there is.


Riley: You and Carol seem to think that this is some kind of new American right-wing twisting of holy scripture.

I am coming from the position that the interpretation of Jesus being violent with the moneychangers was the most widely accepted interpretation for hundreds of years. It’s not new, and it’s not a conservative-only belief…



What?

I never said it was new or conservative-only, I said the exact opposite - that depictions of men interacting, from ancient stories to classical art to modern movies, are all about the whuppin.

I also said the "holy scripture" was just as likely to have been produced for shock value as the paintings, and that Jesus could not have been depicted as wholly peaceful or wholly violent and encompass all the values of the time, so there are going to be inherent contradictions.

I'll also add that America did not invent being conservative and liberal, these currents exist in every social group throughout all ages.

I'm not sure what part of this if any you disagree with, but I enjoy chatting with you, so elaborate if you like.



Riley: Sorry, I must have misunderstood or mixed up your posts with hers.



No worries.


After some thought, my take is this. I don't think it really matters if portraying Jesus as violent is a more or less traditional interpretation. It really doesn't matter at all what previous people believed, or even really what was intended by authors of the original scripture, in another culture and language thousands of years ago.

We are here now, and like it or not we have inherited this tool - Christianity, a kind of moral operating system that millions of people are at least passingly familiar with. It's far from written in stone - anyone can do anything they want with it. I think it's important that *we* use Christianity to promote peace and cooperation.



Bytte: Hey, I like that.


Carol: Your last sentence I agree with; however, studying church history and trying to understand the intended meaning of the original authors of the Bible is an integral part of being a Christian or at least it should be. Many of our faiths wouldn’t be what they are today if not for the Christian leaders and thinkers of the past…John Calvin, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Bonhoeffer, CS Lewis, Martin Luther, St Thomas Aquinas, Augustine to name a few of the top of my head. We (Christians) still read and use these scholars in our seminaries and studies. To get to what we see in the OP, you have to ignore a lot of scholarship and biblical commands and verses that speak contrary to this sermon to wind up supporting or defending it. I understand why a non Christian wouldn’t care about church history or anything like that, but Christians should care. It’s more than a moral operating system or a tool. It’s a way of life, of communing with and knowing God, of developing community, and so many other things.

Of course you are right, Christianity is all those things, like every religion. It might surprise you to learn that I do care about church history and things like that, in fact I studied Aquinas and Augustine for my degree concentration on rhetoric. I understand that exegesis is an important part of many religious practices.

But, I know you understand what it means that the Bible can say anything. That makes it an incredibly powerful tool for persuasion, but not some kind of definitive guide. I think it's important for that to be understood more broadly. I also think that every single piece of writing, from scripture to interpretation, is just people talking like we do today. We are as qualified to decide what is really important as they were - or even decide that different things are important now.

I have my concerns about Christianity, but I've come to think we are lucky to have a message of peace and love deeply ingrained into our cultural traditions, and we could make deliberate use of that to promote peace and cooperation around the world. It's what Jesus would do. That's a really powerful framing.

"Team Trump welcomed, received, benefited from, and lied about Russian assistance," Benen wrote. "Team Harris didn’t welcome, receive, benefit from, or lie about Iranian offers of assistance, so the idea that the two are similar is absurd."



09-15-24  •  Hating Taylor Swift


Karina: Just...come on, guys. This isn't ok.




Oh, isn't he allowed to have an opinion? Can't he hate Taylor if he wants to? Doesn't he have free speech?!

Just getting that out of the way. Real, competent leaders don't do this. THAT'S the issue.




Mary: Bottom line, voters are free to support and choose who they want as POTUS.

That's the beauty of democracy.



It's less beautiful when my neighbors now think I support eating pets. Thanks, Trump. No matter who wins the elections, they hate forever.


Mary: People will think as they do, SallieMae. As long as they're not harassing you, blow them off.



It's not about me. It's about half of our society consumed with hate for immigrants, and threatening them, and the hate piling up high enough to make a town evacuate their hospital. They're not harassing *us.* Just blow them off! That's the beauty of democracy, right?

No, vilifying people and ginning up hate that will last a lifetime is not democracy. It's authoritarianism.




09-13-24  •  Dangerous Misinformation, Continued


_Previously_, after I predicted that Trump's claims about immigrants eating pets were going to cause violence:

Ohio town hit with bomb threats, buildings evacuated

"Officials in Springfield, Ohio closed City Hall Thursday after a bomb threat citing right-wing misinformation was issued to multiple facilities, the city said in a news release."

Threats in Springfield, Ohio

This is exactly what I said. "Where's the lie?" Portraying your neighbors as inhuman monsters results in violence. This campaign should be denounced from every corner for spreading this kind of hate speech. How do they still have a chance?


Riley: It's true...someone's neighbor's daughter's friend made a Facebook post about it.

I mean, it could be true. People should not immediately ignored and called liars if they speak up about something that is not within our cultural beliefs of good behavior.


Kel:The police in Springfield say there have been NO reports!

Riley: So, police officials say it’s not happening…

A bunch of people that live there and close to their say they’re seeing it happen…

Who to believe…



I can't understand what the stake is in trying to support this story.





Kel: He said it to demonize immigrants!



Riley: He said it to show that the current administration is failing at the goal they are trying to achieve with refugee placements, and because they’re ignoring the fact that there are cultural differences, the refugees are not assimilating into American culture properly.

There’s no question that he could have gotten the point across with a lot more eloquence… but should the question be brought up about requiring immigrants and refugees to assimilate into American culture if they are going to stay? I say yes…



That's a pretty big Sharpie around Alabama, lol.


Kel: So why didn't he just say that?


Riley:Because he’s an idiot who parrots what he hears on Twitter…

My only point is, just because you hear a parrot repeat a phrase, doesn’t mean the parrot is lying…



It means the parrot should not be President because he is endangering lives with every word.

The death threats and the bomb threats come out after every one of these fake outrage events.

This is not "ineloquence." It is "leading a hate movement."



Riley: To what degree are we responsible for the actions of others?

Leaders are responsible for what they are leading people to do. Especially with lies and hate speech.


Riley: Trump didn’t lead people into making bomb threats. He parroted what he heard on Twitter.



Those aren't mutually exclusive, and he absolutely did lead them to target Springfield, Ohio.


Riley: Should every democrat lawmaker be held responsible for every violent act a criminal who heard them speak and got angry enough to act on? Should we be blaming Biden for Trump’s assination attempt because he said “ It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye “ a week before? No… he shouldn’t.

Sure, we can say that Biden shouldn't have said that. Even Biden agreed it was a mistake and had to apologize. Notice those standards are not applied to Trump.


But I am talking about the continuous bomb and death threats that arise after FAKE outrage events inspired by lies and hate speech.

Biden is not inspiring a national hate movement. Keep in mind that for every overt bomb threat that is phoned in, a million more Americans don't make bomb threats...they just hate immigrants and Democrats more, and feel more aggrieved and fearful. When Trump says that Democrats want to kill babies after birth, when he says Kamala supports schools re-gendering children, when he says immigrants eat pets, when Musk says Kamala vows be a communist dictator, etc...those things are not just "ineloquent" ways of highlighting issues. They are a systematic dehumanizing that eventually makes political violence against family and neighbors acceptable. This campaign is doing it in order to win the election, but it won't stop there.

This is a well-documented tactic of authoritarians, it's dangerous and it inspires stochastic terrorism, and instead of sanewashing it, everyone here should be standing against it.




Riley: Trump thinks Kamala will act like a dictator, you think Trump will act like a dictator...neither one of you should be silenced...but I see those as identical.



Well perhaps you should be more discerning.

One big difference is that when I say Trump said he would be a dictator on day one, I am telling the truth, and when Musk says Kamala vowed to be a dictator on day one, he is lying.


Riley: Some do feel Kamala will be a dictator.



People have studied what societies do as they descend from democracy into authoritarianism, what tyrannical dictators do to secure Enabling Acts, and those experts are warning about the Trump campaign. I'm not suggesting anyone be silenced, never did. I am suggesting that this strategy is dangerous, as evidenced by the death and bomb threats, and should not be excused.


Riley: You dismiss what people feel?



If it can't be supported. For example, I know you say Republicans "feel" like the Democrats stole the election. But, there's no evidence.


Riley: There’s as much evidence as is needed to make people feel that way…



Well that's enough evidence for a lynching any day. What can't you justify by that standard? That's why we DON'T decide things that way.

If you are saying that Trump supporters are not doing critical thinking, or their standard of evidence is so low they can't be expected to support their arguments with facts, it sounds like you are describing a problem. It's certainly no reason to start thinking they have a point.


Riley: As I post this, please know that these are not my personal beliefs, they are beliefs that people I know hold, and even if I think they’re untrue, that has no bearing on whether or not they think it’s untrue, so I’m giving you their perspective.

You are the one defending Trump for saying that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are "eating the pets," even in light of resultant bomb threats and evacuations. I'd much rather talk to you.

I'd like to be clear, there is an understandable reason why people are supporting Trump. It is a reaction to the fact that our society is massively unfair to ordinary people, and they can't get by or enjoy simple health and security. Our society has grown no fairer at all in the years since Trump was president. The forces that propelled him into office could do it again, since nothing has improved and life has only gotten harder.

However just because supporting authoritarians is a well-documented response to worsening economics, doesn't mean it's a good idea. It will definitely not make things fairer. However some simple proposals like the ones Democrats offer, like improved health care, better access to education, more social aid, etc, will make things a little better. We can strengthen labor, invest in infrastructure, work to limit the influence of money in politics. We'll at least be able to keep trying.



Riley: Im saying there are reasons they vote the way they do and if you want to change that, addressing the reality of their fears would work a lot better than ignoring them in favor of acting like they are horrible people. You would get further with honey than vinegar…



Trump is making their fears worse, just exploiting them for his own gain. Certainly nothing that he did or proposes - like tax cuts for the wealthy, or tariffs - did anything to help them. The economy will almost certainly do worse.

Kamala Harris is an ordinary, boring politician who will do what Democrats usually do - modestly expand social programs to help more people get by. I don't think you, personally, really disagree. But, how am I supposed to explain this to people who already think I support killing newborns, school gendering, immigrants eating pets and communist dictatorship? I don't think *I'm* really the one acting like the people on the other side are horrible people.



Kel: Now they are having to close the hospital and evacuate the patients due to bomb threats!

Do we need four more years of bomb threats every time Trumpers demonize a new target? And that's just the tip of the hateberg.

These guys should not be in power. They should slink the fuck away in disgrace because everyone we know has stopped supporting them.




Read more in the Archives.