Georgetown U. Frosh Trumpster Falls Flat Trying To Defend His Hero In WSJ Op-Ed

"If da mainstream media go after the Donald, dey is me enemy!"

Samuel Dubke is reportedly, from his WSJ op-ed bio,  "a freshman this fall at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service".    This brief description appearing at the end of his piece entitled 'Why The Young Tune Politics Out' (p. A15, August 4).    This title supposedly bolstered by his 800 word essay and the "young" (mainly college age) demographic being turned off - according to Dubke - by the "mainstream media".  At the end of the op-ed I wondered whether Georgetown would withdraw its acceptance based on one of the most pathetic, ill thought out works to appear in public in a long time. But then again, maybe we can't hold a college freshman's naïveté  against him. It comes with the age, so to speak.

Young Dubke claims to be fairly saturated by news from MSNBC which is "turned to full volume" at the new organization for which he labors as an intern "5 days week, eight hours a day". Most kids his age would consider themselves lucky to have such a summer gig - especially in terms of experience - but the crass and callow Dubke is hard pressed to be grateful.  For him, he "would rather press the mute button and never have to listen to any of it".

One may inquire then as to what exactly is his problem?  Evidently we can sum it up from his own whining words as follows:

-  He's "dumbfounded by how obfuscating the media has been toward any news that contradicts their neatly packed punditry".   Oh and "how they have ignored much of the public's desire for unbiased an unsensational content".

First, let's recognize how off point his vocabulary is. By "obfuscating" we mean  - from any standard lexicon - the  obscuring of the intended meaning of communication by making the message difficult to understand.   So Frosh Dubke seems to be complaining the mainstream media, in his experience, is obscuring all the communications concerning "contradictory news".    But what is the contradictory news? In fact, as I have shown, it is almost entirely balderdash, i.e. fake news. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/07/skewering-another-right-wing-conspiracy.html


In fact, what young Dubke regards as "contradicting news" basically falls into the categories of half-baked conspiracy ideations - such as pizzagate and the Fusion GPS -DNC conspiracy rubbish, or out and out dissembling by  their hero. Into the latter we find the bunkum that he really won the popular vote, that he really won New Hampshire (which he also called a "den of drug abuse"), that Obama wiretapped him, and he had the biggest Inaugural crowds ever.

In each case had  this news intern done the most minimal research he'd have learned how the mainstream media fact-checked each and every one of those, showing how all were Trumpian BS,   horse pockey, nonsense, out right lies. So why in hell would any self-respecting news organization publish such bollocks?  Why would a respectable cable news venue broadcast it?  Just to appease dunderheads too lazy to check facts themselves? Dubke doesn't ask himself such questions. He's more miffed that the mainstream press has ignored proven dreck.

Which suggests to us one of two things:

Dubke can't recognize dreck when he sees it, hears it, or -

Dubke believes dreck ought to get a hearing, maybe for the weaker- minded,  to enhance their gullibility.

As for "ignoring the public's desire for unbiased (and unsensational) content", WHICH public? Are we talking about the serious, level-headed public that watches Rachel Maddow's excellent analyses of the Trump-Russia money laundering links on MSNBC? OR, are we talking about the low information, borderline uneducated who go to Breitbart New and FOX - as they feast on Pizzagate,  Alex Jones' Mars' child sex slave conspiracy crappola and other refuse?   It appears to me that our illustrious WSJ author Dubke is appealing for the mainstream media to descend to the same level of the fake news sites.   From this it appears he could sit right alongside other WSJ traders in pro-Trump bunkum such as Holman Jenkins, Kimberly Strassel and Dan Henninger.

Also,  what he's really jaundiced about is that the news organization for which he interns isn't tuned to FOX as opposed to MSNBC.

But this next chestnut really takes the cake - and makes one truly question this kid's basic competence and how he even managed to get an internship at a news organization:

"Every day we hear reports on another bombshell allegation about the Trump administration. Every day more Americans turn their televisions off."

Note the sequence of the two sentences, then their similar starting words "every day". This tells us the frosh is enlisting the  post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. That is,  trying to entice his readers to assume a causal relationship from a merely sequential one: Bombshell allegations about Trump.....Young Americans turning their TVs off.

The sequence is quite evident from the order in which he sets up the two sentences.  After all, it works against his modality to put the second sentence first. He obviously wants the careless reader to say "Oh yeah! Those bombshell allegations cause the young to turn off their televisions!"

But this also elicits the question of whether the intern and soon -to- be Georgetown frosh can even distinguish between an allegation and a fact. He doesn't cite any examples so we are clearly left to ferret them out for him. That is,  those of us who see his WSJ essay as merely a brief for accepting fake news. (Oh, and btw, if you are granted the privilege of writing in the esteemed Wall Street Journal we presume you have on your "big boy pants" so can sustain a proper criticism of what you put to paper.  No kid gloves!)

Let's look at a few of the "bombshells" the mainstream media highlighted this past week.

1) The contradictions of two claims made by Trump, concerning calls received from the head of the Boy Scouts, and the President of Mexico. In the first case, Trump claimed:

"I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech ever made to them."

The Boy Scouts responded:  "We are unaware of any such call."

Ouch! A bold faced LIE.  Press Secretary  Sara "Huckleberry" Sanders later admitted no such call was made by the Scouts to lying Trump.   And, btw, if Dubke believes this lying by Trump is small potatoes and a chief executive's truthfulness is of minor import, then he has no business in any news capacity, period. I'd also say he has no business in any foreign service capacity.  But it doesn't stop there. We then beheld:

2)Trump's claim at a cabinet meeting:

"Even the president of Mexico called me. They said for their southern  border very few people are coming because they know they're not going to get through out border. Which is the ultimate compliment."

But, the Mexican Foreign Ministry responded that President Enrique Pena Nieto "has not recently spoken to Donald Trump over the telephone".

So, another lie. Once more these lies disclose Trump a compulsive, pathological liar. This is of utmost importance, because if a president can't be trusted to speak the truth in everyday affairs how the hell can we trust him when a crisis erupts? I for one wouldn't trust a damned word he says if he asserted the North Koreans were planning an attack. Given his background I'd chalk it up to another lie. Why believe a compulsive, pathological liar?

Again, let us note these phone call claims made by Trump were not "allegations" but stone cold fact, although lies.  He did make the claims, the media didn't invent that, it's just that the claims of the calls' content were untrue. The same goes for the transcripts released concerning earlier conversations Trump had in January with President Pena Nieto and Australia's Malcom Turnbull.  Those were actual classified transcripts which some fearsome patriot leaked to show Trump's innate instability and not "allegations".

They each showed a chief executive with impaired speech as well as intellectual disability - a person who has no business being anywhere near nuclear codes.  Dubke may not like this exposure, in fact he may hate it, but ....tough shit. It's the truth.

The intern frosh from Georgetown also claims he "voted for Trump reluctantly" but this is hard to believe given how hard he's sucking up to him now, in his essay.   Indeed he admits:

"Like much of my family since the election I have been drawn toward nontraditional news sources from Fox News to Breitbart."

In other words, the kid gobbles up fake news.. His justification is even more incredible and outright hair raising:

"They may peddle biased and occasionally incorrect information but at least conservative news outlets welcome me with open arms."

And why do you think that is, sonny?  Because of your peerless news savvy and skills?  Or is it that they recognize a fellow  gullible low information moron and dummy?

More revealing still is this next bit of whining:

"I feel marginalized when I watch NBC or CNN or when I read the New York Times and Washington Post."

Why does the kid feel marginalized? If we set aside the possibility that he feels challenged by greater reading demands this leaves  only one logical explanation: young Dubke is afraid of the truth. (And the kid has admitted the news sources he favors "peddle fake news and incorrect information")

Dubke attempts to gain a sense of objectivity for himself by admitting "Donald Trump was a flawed candidate and is a flawed President"  but then seeks to deflect the issue by writing that he'd "like to repeat to journalists what I've been told in school: Show, don't tell".

Wowser! How original!   So Donald Jr's emails - which he himself exposed for all the world to see aren't showing? Trump's claims of phone calls received (which were outright lies) don't make the cut for showing? The transcripts leaked that show Trump's pathetic responses to Nieto and Trunbull aren't showing?

Trump, for god's sake, couldn't keep loyalty with his own AG Jeff Sessions. He humiliated ol' Jeff for most of the week before last, calling him a "loser" and musing about firing him. And doing so in tweets no less!

I would say the "showing" standard to meet the kid's demands was met and then some.

Reading the end of his essay is even more disheartening than the preceding segments. We are asked to believe or accept this new generation of young conservatives is simply too weak, unprepared or lacking in knowledge to take on liberals in hearty, no holds barred debate. They'd rather retire to a corner and whine and pout. He claims most of his peers "don't pay attention to politics" because they "don't want to get into an argument". As for himself:

"The reasons for staying informed are gradually being outweighed by the desire to be accepted...or at least left alone with our world view".

Which is perhaps the most pathetic statement ever made by an incoming college freshman, and one which one hopes Dubke can dispense with by the time he reaches senior year.  What "Mr. Right Snowflake" intern needs to ask himself is why so many millions of youth on the left - like my niece Shayl and sister Rori  - are highly engaged and energized with the resistance.  Say like being involved in the Indivisible Movement, see e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/karin-kamp/71133/how-the-indivisible-movement-is-fueling-resistance-to-trump

 Why the difference between the left's youth and the right's? Why are the former willing to argue, be politically active and ignore fake news? What is that "magic" ingredient that makes the difference?

Maybe they recognize what the devoted Trumpsters like Dubke do not. That Trump has done absolutely nothing for the average working man or woman. He has instead  championed his own Trump corporate kingdom and the  wealthy.  In other words, his presidency to date is grounded in ignorance, immorality, irrationality and ineptitude.

Maybe, to use Shayl's parlance, it's past time those like Dubke finally "wake up and start facing reality instead of running away from it."

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/74393/the-light-at-the-end-of-trumps-dark-tunnel

Stanford Study On Voter Preferences Leaves Out One Big Factor: Principles

A provocative new study by Gregory J. Martin and Ali Yurukoglu of Stanford University purports to investigate whether citizens' voting tendencies are affected by what they view on the cable TV stations- mainly FOX and MSNBC.  One curious finding from the work is that what people watch depends on the channel position in the cable or satellite line-up. (People are more likely to watch stations in the lower positions, e.g. 12- 40, than higher, 200-360).

In this regard both FOX and MSNBC have sometimes received advantageous channel positions, though here in the Springs, FOX is at 360 and MSNBC at 356.  Anyway, given this odd preference by channel position, Martin and Yurukooglu explored the relationships among channel positions across county -level presidential vote shares, intended votes and individual viewing habits.  With several large data sets they then tested the effects of watching Fox News and MSNBC.

One preliminary finding is that the respective stations have grown more ideologically defined. Eleven to twelve years ago a typical Democrat was no more likely than a typical Republican to watch FOX.  By 2008, a typical Democrat was 20 percentage points more likely to watch MSNBC.  In 2004, a Republican was only 11 points more likely than a Dem to watch FOX but that expanded to 30 pts. by 2008.

These findings are not too surprising given the background. By the middle of 2008, most liberals had had their full of the Bushies and looked for some respite or "salvation"  - some voice that echoed their own principles, ideals for the country. Many of us found that voice in Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" which pulled no punches in nailing the Bushie butts to the wall - whether on the concocted Iraq invasion, or how Cheney and Bush hocked the country to their oil pals like Halliburton, as well as set the stage for economic perdition via successive tax cuts.

More interesting in the Stanford  study is that the authors found both FOX and MSNBC have real effects on the way people vote. Basically, for those who opt to watch FOX ( say because of channel position) just four additional minutes of weekly viewing increases the probability of voting for the Republican candidate by 0.9 percent. Meanwhile, for those who watch MSNBC,  four such additional minutes decreases the probability of voting for the Repub candidate by about 0.7 percentage points.

With one hour of viewing per week (about what I have with MSNBC) the effects are greater. Thus, this increment with respect to viewing MSNBC decreased the probability of voting Republican by 3.6 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, watching FOX for an hour in 2008 increased the probability of voting Republican by 3.5 points.

It was pointed out that while the difference may not seem large at the individual level, the effects are significant across the U.S.   To fix ideas, the researchers estimate that if there had been no FOX News in 2004 and 2008, the Republican vote share would have been 4 points lower.  Similarly, if MSNBC had been more "moderate" - like CNN - the Republican share of votes would have been 3 points higher. (FOX evidently has more success in "converting" voters than MSNBC does.)

The claim then is that viewing habits, in terms of political content of stations, has a major influence on voting preferences.

To which I say, balderdash. Let me rephrase that: If a person's vote is determined by watching anything based on pundits' opinions on TV , s/he is an uninformed moron.  I voted liberal long before MSNBC ever existed and the reason is that I have always adhered to liberal principles.  These are established in the process of mental maturity, and then articulated based on one's own experience and education. This helps to formulate what one considers to be critically important for the nation's general welfare. These include:

1) Taxes are of BENEFIT to society and increased taxes are GOOD not bad for the nation!

2) Environmental threats, including climate change,  must be confronted – not dodged!

3) Wars (or invasions) must never be launched under false pretexts.

4) Recognition that the National Security state as it is presently configured is inimical to constitutional rights.

5) Economic inequality must be fought as it is the primary agent that destroys societies.


In other words, the Stanford finding - for what it's worth - is more about the lack of citizens' education and experience enabling them to forge an authentic political identity. The converse, a political identity confected by watching TV must always be bogus, inauthentic.

If this finding is true, and the effects of partisan TV viewing are reinforced over time, this country is in serious trouble.

MSNBC: Waxing Way More Neoliberal Than Liberal by Defending the Surveillance-War State

The reality of our modern, interconnected world is that information matters. Also, the authenticity and trustworthiness of sources. At specific times these become much more important than at others, such as in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives (mainly Iraqis) and trillions of dollars. Also, in the exposure of the extent of NSA surveillance on all of us by Edward Snowden, and the more recent news that the FISA courts approved a much broader definition of "relevant" to justify vacuuming up tens of millions of Americans' online and phone files indiscriminately.

As the Wall Street Journal reported this morning (and the WSJ is not exactly a left wing redoubt):

"The National Security Agency's ability to gather phone data on millions of Americans hinges on a secret court ruling that redefined a single word: "relevant."

In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed."


Well, what that means, essentially, is also that the definition of "terrorist" or "terror suspect" was expanded as I noted in an earlier blog ('Between the Skeleton Key and the COG"). Thus, the conservative definition was tossed out the window, just as the more judicious, conservative FISA court was tossed by the Bushies in 2006, to permit more widespread searches, often without approval of a proper FISA court- issued warrant. Solution? Just change the FISA law to make it compatible with the warrantless searches earlier conducted. We can thank our rat-ass congress critters for doing that.

The issue now before us then is WHO in the mainstream, corporate -owned media will tell the people the truth, echoing William Greider's book title (from 1991): 'Who Will Tell The People?'. The answer appears to be very very few even at the once proverbial :"liberal" network MSNBC.  As I previously noted (last Mail Brane)  Chris Hayes remains the only one who will tell it like it is and doesn't knee jerk diss Edward Snowden like his colleagues, e.g. Melissa Harris-Perry, Ed Schultz, and even Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow. All the latter appear to be captured by the "Man" and are spouting his bollocks to spread the PR that Snowden is-was the problem not the violation of our 4th amendment rights.

Thus Jeff Cohen's observation in his recent blog,

"The bipartisan consensus in support of our bloated Military/Surveillance State –which so  undermines our society as a whole– is reflected in Congress and both the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as mainstream media."


Appears to have validity and includes MSNBC. In terms of picking our culprits, whom I also term Neoliberal propagandizers, Cohen is blunt and hits on MSNBC's claimed liberal mouthpieces (except for Chris Hayes):

"a number of MSNBC talking heads have reacted to the Snowden disclosures like Fox News hosts did when they were in hysterical damage control mode for Bush – complete with ridiculously fact-free claims and national chauvinism that we’ve long come to expect from the “fair & balanced” channel.

As Snowden arrived in Russia from Hong Kong, MSNBC host Ed Schultz blustered on   about Snowden as a “punk” and “coward.” Railing about the “security of the country” in tones Hannity would approve of, Schultz questioned Snowden’s patriotism and credibility, asking: “If the United States of America is doing something so egregiously wrong in its surveillance program, how come he’s the only one speaking up?

  In O’Reilly-like blissful ignorance, Schultz seemed unaware of the three NSA whistleblowers who’d loudly spoken up way earlier than Snowden – and gathered for an illuminating USA Today interview a week before his tirade.


MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry has been condemning Snowden by contrasting him with civil disobedients who “love their country” and submit to arrest – while Snowden just wants to “save his own skin.”   She proclaimed: “This is different. This is dangerous to our nation.” Should we similarly dismiss Dan Ellsberg, who leaked the top secret Pentagon Papers to a dozen newspapers in 1971 by going on the lam from the FBI. Or Watergate’s “Deep Throat,” who saved his own skin by hiding his identity for 30 years after leaking secrets that helped crash the Nixon presidency?

  In a bizarre monologue attacking Snowden (who’s risked plenty, in my view), Harris-Perry hailed those who engage in civil disobedience for being willing “to risk your own freedom, your own body in order to bring attention to something that needs to be known. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested, attacked, smeared. Nelson Mandela went to prison for 27 years.”  Nelson Mandela? He wasn’t a civil disobedient who gave himself up. He was a fugitive, fleeing the apartheid police. He was on the lam domestically, like Snowden is now internationally. And some reports indicate that South African authorities were able to nab Mandela thanks to the U.S. CIA    

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has also disappointed. After doing a typically thorough presentation on the force-down of President’s Morales’ plane, she ended her report by expressing displeasure only that Washington had apparently gotten allies to go out on the limb “for nothing.” Her objection to the harassment seemed to be: it hadn’t succeeded. I didn’t hear opposition to the action had Snowden actually been on board and apprehended. "


I basically concur with these takes, especially on Maddow, who has earlier shown that she is not the pure- bred liberal she originally portrayed. For example, in an earlier blog: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/03/rachel-maddow-blows-it-on-her-gun.html I noted how she used the issue of gun reform to give credence to the "Oswald did it"  propaganda pushed by the now well discredited Warren Commission. As many long time  JFK  researchers have noted, this is the misshapen version of history pushed by those who would keep the people in the dark in terms of the Kennedy assassination.  Michael Parenti, author of the 'The Dirty Truth' has perhaps been most articulate in explaining what's at stake, what's been done by those who spread the "Oswald did it" hokum:


"To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects."

The question then becomes why is Maddow helping to protect this politico-economic order? A true liberal would not. Another disquieting aspect is how Maddow has never come out four square against the chained CPI plan to cut Social Security, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/03/asking-rachel-maddow-to-explain-herself.html

These are not small or insignificant issues, any more than Edward Snowden's disclosures concerning illegal (yes it is!) dragnet surveillance which certainly violates the 4th amendment.

Sadly, it appears Jeff Cohen is correct, that in certain instances and issues MSNBC can be as far off as FOX.

But then, this may be the nature of corporate -owned media. At least we must be thankful for some - like Chris Hayes- who won't just roll over for the power mongers! Truly courageous people who are able to articulate opposition to the state and its surveillance-war imperatives, instead of peddling PR pabulum that seeks to erode citizens' perceptions. Thereby converting citizens into accessories to their own constitutional subversion and people into sheeple.

EU Deserved Nobel Peace Prize!

The EU (European Union) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by its Committee. The award (like so many in the past, including for Martin Luther King Jr., Jimmy Carter, and Obama) hasn't gone down well among the media babblers, especially on the Right. In his Saturday morning program 'Up With Chris Hayes',  Hayes remarked: "The occasion triggered a whole lot of snark”. Which is an understatement.

Some of the examples cited by Chris:

Jeff Goldberg of the WaPo tweeted:  “Next Year let’s award the Peace Prize to puppies”

Moron Dave Weigel tweeted: “You know who else deserves a Nobel for not committing genocide? ME!”

Fox & Friends babbled:

“Really? Let Sports writers do it – they’re good at picking Cy Young!”

This led off a "special comment" by Chris that was memorable and not only included putting the EU jabs in perspective but the recurring laments over the "negativity" of the current U.S. presidential campaign.

Chris said:

"But to mock the EU is to lose sight of what a monumental accomplishment it has been: a small patch of earth that was the site of some of the most horrifying war, violence, brutality, sadism and genocide ever seen in the history of human life on the planet. At the end of six years at least 40 million people perished on Europe’s soil. And the EU was constructed as a means of bringing peace and stability to a continent that hitherto had known only war.”


Chris went on to point out the EU hasn’t a whole lot of defenders at this point, but this is understandable given that Americans haven’t had to face the level of bloodshed and slaughter on THEIR land that the Europeans have. Also, Americans are more worried about their portfolio (stock, 401k) balances and the impact EU monetary moves might have than that the continent has attained a kind of relatively peaceful political stability under its organization. Even the former German Wehrmacht soldiers I met in 1985 (while on a visit for the 40th anniversary of the end of WWII- See my blog from Sept. 30, 2010) agreed that the best step Europe could take to avoid another calamitous war on the scale of WWII is to unify – preferably both politically and economically.


Interestingly, Chris Hayes connected the ridicule of the EU Nobel Peace award to another complaint that bears on our own election’s perceived “negativity”:


“The mockery of the EU rests on the same impulse we see in the laments on the nastiness of the presidential campaign and the huffing and puffing about the inadequacy of Iran diplomacy”,  he said.


This, of course, was tied in to another of Radditz’s questions when she brought up “a decorated military vet” who bemoaned all the negative ads and asked the debaters whether they felt ashamed.”

Hayes goes on:

“In each case, the process may be ugly, messy and torturous but it’s almost always better than the alternative. Conflict is part of the human condition – there are limited resources, there are different interests, cultures and tribes and value systems with different conceptions of the good, with vastly different priorities and first principles.

Democracy is a system we’ve come up with to resolve those inevitable conflicts but there’s no such thing as a placid equilibrium in which those conflicts somehow disappear or are only articulate in the gentlest of fashions. THAT is the point: conflict is the underlying constant of human society. The question is what we do with it.

It’s only a slight exaggeration to say we either have people killing each other in the streets like dogs, or we have people running attack ads against each other. Bureaucracy, parliamentary procedure, multilateral talks, the back and forth of campaign ads are largely glory-less enterprises. In the grand sweep of history they are beautiful, sublime achievements that represent unthinkable progress and point the way towards a future a full human flourishing.”


Chris’ take is spot on, and I wish that when people wince or tune out the ads, they try to understand what the alternative would be. If they also see bloggers attacking each other the same way, well, it’s better than shooting each other in the streets. Or...emulating what transpired in the Congo not very long ago, when tribal passions were unleashed with nothing to keep them in check.

This is the point the Wehrmacht soldiers came to understand, and if they were alive today they’d be screaming it to the rooftops at all the snarky idiot Americans trying to disparage the EU and its much deserved Nobel Peace Prize! They'd likely reply: "So you have a problem with the EU? Would you prefer Europe return to genocidal warfare and drag you into it again, dumpkopfen!"

Oh, one final note: the Cuban Missile Crisis - for which we're commemorating the 50th anniversary this month- was a triumph of back scene diplomacy not mano-a-mano,  macho brinksmanship. It wasn't that Khrushchev and the Russkies backed down at the 11th hour, it was that JFK secretly negotiated a deal that allowed Moscow to 'win' even as it lost face at the superficial level with its missile-bearing tankers being turned back. The secretly hatched deal implemented the withdrawal, removal of all the U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey some 6 months after the main event.  It was THIS part of the deal that enabled the Russkies to have faith in JFK, and made them cooperate and turn their ships back.

It was also, in hindsight, plausibly one more nail in JFK's coffin when the Joint Chiefs (especially Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay) already saw him as an "appeaser" for not going into Cuba and bombing it into the Stone Age.