OK, Millennial, It's Time To Register To Vote In Hitherto Unseen Numbers!

It turns out that launching memes against a different generation, like the young sprats did with 'OK, Boomer' last year, is vastly easier than putting your own generational house in order.  That includes tossing your hat into the ring and getting politically involved-  thereby demonstrating you have the spunk,  moxie and insight to go to the mat when it counts.  That time is now, as we face the most critical election (and political crisis)  in U.S. history.  The question on everyone's mind is: 'What are the youthful potential voters going to do about it?'  

Are they going to sit back, pout, and express dismay at the candidate choice (in Joe Biden) and not vote, or even register? Or will they come to their senses and grasp that their own lives and futures are as much on the line as the rest of ours? And hence, we simply cannot afford the luxury of demanding some nebulous emotional rapport with a candidate before one deigns to cast a ballot.  Especially if the only option to take down Trump is to verily put on our big boy pants and VOTE - for Biden!  The issue then is existential, and I'd wager, especially for the millennial and Gen Z contingent.

The issue of millennial 'bad breaks' and likely hard futures came up in Gerald Seib's recent column - 'Young Voters Catch Another Bad Break', WSJ, April 21, p. A4).  Seib noted how the young fell into a terrible bit of back luck with "the worst recession since the Great Depression"  - which prevented having any chance getting the jobs originally promised. Not to mention being "loaded with student debt because the system encouraged you to do that." 

All of which is true, as well as dashing any hopes of buying a car, buying a house or having children along the way.  Yep, that sucks, big time! But as I see it, the youngsters have two choices: 1) Throw themselves a big pity party on how life and terrible luck dealt them a lousy hand, or 2) Get up and start fighting for a better future. And btw, that must be one in which the monster Trump is gone, if you are to have any remote chance at all. 

Hence, we in the older generations issue the challenge:  'OK, Millennial!'  

So what is the main way to start fighting back, owning your pain but vowing to do better?  Well, it starts with registering to vote, and then actually going out to vote for the coming November 3 election.  And for Joe Biden, not the moral reprobate Trump! Here's a first clue: staying home is not an option and neither is voting a 3rd party candidate,  especially as Justin Amash has graciously bowed  out.

What is disturbing so far is the lack of evident younger generation energy and  participation in the primaries.  As I wrote in my March 11 post:

"The lack of interest of the Young also contributed to Bernie's demise as he himself put it last night

"Let me tell you the bad news, to be honest with you, young people vote at much lower rates than older people. That is the facts. I hope all of the old people vote, that’s great, but I want young people to vote at the same rates.”

So what happened to all the young voters, the Millennials and Gen Z's who were supposed to turn out?  Well, they clearly believed the effort wasn't worth their time or energy, or perhaps there were too many hurdles - such as obtaining the  right IDs to be able to vote.  But what most of us (older voters) don't want to hear now is any more whining from the young uns about their student debt, oldsters getting all the benefits,  having to move back in with mom and dad, and so on.  

 But  if you don't vote, don't participate, you don't get to complain - or say "OK, Boomer."

A highly disturbing observation of Seib's regarding potential  youthful voters is the following:

"Before the coronavirus hit, the shocks millennials already had endured had left them feeling 'somewhat detached from the political system' says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake".

By contrast, despite the fact that Boomers in the 1960s endured the shocks of three major political assassinations (JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.) and the Vietnam War, we became more energized politically and registered to vote. 

Seib goes on (ibid.):

"Indeed, a report by the GQR  polling organization prepared early this year for NextGen America found that a majority of voters under the age of 35 were 'unenthusaistic' about voting in 2020.  Adding: 'A Basic dislike of politics keeps many from voting."

This is well nigh unbelievable to most Boomers, many of whom actually participated as "Freedom Riders" in the mid-60s:  going by rental bus into Klan-infested areas of Mississippi and Alabama to register black voters at great risk to themselves.   So to now learn that a major segment of the young voting block is "turned off" and "unenthusiastic" just doesn't cut it. It reeks of weakness or at least lack of any resilience.   In the more generous latter case, it echoes what I wrote in my November post 'OK, Boomer', quoting college psychologist Linda Bips:

"Many of today’s students lack resilience and at the first sign of difficulty are unable to summon strategies to cope. The hardship can be a failing grade on a test, a cut from the team, or a romantic  breakup. At the first sign of trouble many become unable to function and persevere. Often they even anticipate difficulties and their anxiety alone paralyzes them."

For his part, Seib recognizes that if the young demographic could awaken from their stupor and inertia (or lack of resilience) they could well be a force to be reckoned with, as he writes:

"If they do show to vote, it's clear they will be a force for the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden."

Pointing out that in a WSJ- NBC poll the young voters favored Biden over Trump by a "whopping 23 point margin". 

But that only translates into power if the votes are actually cast. Mere responses to polls don't count.   Millennials  now have a chance to show us Boomers they are much more than mere mouth, chutzpah and catchy memes. Also, that they have the resilience and pluck to stand up and be counted as genuine citizens as opposed to whiners, wimps and losers.  Besides, a generation seeking to change its fortunes - say reducing mounting student loan debt and having government work for you not against you - means voting. Not staying on the sidelines because you "dislike" politics.   As Democratic Pollster Celinda Lake told Seib:

"You can't see a big role for government if you don't take part in picking the government."

And as I wrote in my November, 'Ok, Boomer' post:

"Want to convince me you've "flipped the script"?  Then put down the cell phones and project your power in the real world. "

Projecting power now in this real world, means getting to the polls on Nov. 3rd (or using mail in ballots if that choice is available) and  playing a role in getting rid of Trump. Because if that doesn't happen, the pain and shocks Millennials experience now will be like a day at the beach compared to what will be in your future - hell, all our futures.

Sitting this election out is not an option. Voting for the Democratic candidate offers the chance to show the younger generations have finally become adults.

See Also:

2020 Elections | Donald Trump

Mission Imperative: Come November, Trump Must Go

by Michael Winship | May 13, 2020 - 5:50am | permalink

Excerpt:

"There must be one mission above all, one goal supreme: Vote this monster out of the White House. And along with him, tow to the nearest dump the clown car of malefactors who gave him license to cripple our republic.

Donald Trump’s defeat and the defeat of those in Congress who have enabled him with nary a word of protest are Priorities Number 1 through 100. Focus. Don’t be diverted by ideological hairsplitting and intraparty squabbling. Drive this creature and his army of creeps, leeches and miscreants back to the wet market from which they came."

Pelosi Playing "Three-dimensional Chess" On Impeachment? Actually - More Like Dodge Ball And She's The Trump Target

Nancy Pelosi - Playing three dimensional chess with impeachment, OR being steamrolled by Trump who perceives her fear and weakness in the face of his nonstop transgressions and unwillingness to do anything about it.

"When faced with a crisis of this magnitude, I cannot with a clean conscience ignore my duty to defend the Constitution. I cannot claim to be committed to a rooting out of corruption and putting people over politics and then not apply those principles and standards to all the work that I do."  - Rep. Katie Porter, D-CA  in an announcement yesterday.

"I think with the president now saying he is willing to break the law to win re-election that transcends partisanship and party lines.  This is now about the rule of law in the United States of America. This is about us doing our jobs".  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio - Cortez

"Maybe Howard Dean is right and there is this strategic patience and Nancy Pelosi is playing three dimensional chess.  But here's the thing, the rest of America is becoming more and more disengaged, the more they see no one is doing anything about Donald Trump."  Danielle Moodie-Mills, on All In last night.

"If they're worried about Trump's megaphone, stonewalling and controlling the narrative, Democrats do have this 'break glass in case of emergency' option.  Begin an impeachment process to take it away from him but also because it's the right thing to do."   Brian Beutler, last night on 'All In'


According to Howard Dean last night on 'All In', Nancy Pelosi is using a brilliant tactic of  "letting momentum build" in what he called "strategic patience".  Basically averring "she hasn't missed a step, she has Donald Trump's number".  Really?  Then why do I have the unsettling feeling Trump is wiping the floor with the Dems and the Constitution with each subpoena he blows off, each aide he refuses to let testify, each mockery he makes of our laws?  Hell, he even openly bragged about getting foreign help to win the next election - and had to be reminded it was against the law!

 In a nutshell, Dean insists Pelosi is basically allowing the polls to gradually build toward impeachment. Then, when they surpass a critical threshold - say 75% -  she will allow at least an  impeachment inquiry to begin.  In effect, Dean wants us to believe she is playing a kind of three dimensional political chess which either: a) will lead to an eventual impeachment when the polling hits that 'sweet spot' or b) wends towards the election 17 months away when Trump will finally be ousted by the voters themselves.

Of course, by that time - given 17 months is almost an eternity in an election cycle- this Republic could well be in a shambles, which is also one reason California House Rep Katie Porter has  come on board for impeachment (see her quote above - as presented on 'All In').  Katie, like 65 other House Dems (And one Republican, Justin Amash) grasps that the' wait and vote him out' strategy is a loser. Not only will it likely not work, given the Dem base will be totally de-energized by then, but also it will allow Trump to wreak even more terminal damage to norms and the Constitution as Nancy plays the ostrich - head in the sand - game.

So no, I am not buying that Ms. Pelosi is playing three dimensional chess. I am buying that she is in a defensive crouch in a months long game of Trump 'dodge ball' - in which she is trying to dodge his brutal hits but with very little effect.

Let's be frank, like most pols and pundits these days Pelosi is overthinking what is really a simple issue: Do you let your Article I powers remain in cold storage, unused while the criminal lout in the WH tramples with impunity over our laws, Constitution? Or, do you pull yourself out of your funk and delusions and bring the hammer down on Dotard's sorry ass?  In other words, do you exercise the powers available to you or continue to cower and cringe in the face of implacable resistance to the rule of law?

According to one recent WaPo story, Pelosi  "summoned her top lieutenants to a late-night meeting and hatched a plan — that six party leaders, speaking in unison, would make clear to the chairmen why impeaching Trump was a terrible idea."  We're then informed that Pelosi told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) "Republicans are stewing in their own juices, and that the party should devote its time to calling out Republicans for siding with a president trampling the Constitution,"

Neato, except while the Democrats are busy "calling them out" the Repukes are trashing more and more of the Constitution every day.  Is Pelosi and her sycophants in the House really going to allow 17 more month of this bull shit? Seriously?  Why sycophants? Because the other term for people who "fear that challenging her comes with the risk of grave cost to one’s career" is cowards.  Here I define a coward - a political coward- as one who puts his own interests or his party's above the nation and the Constitution which he swore to defend.  If you are more worried about a demotion or being replaced on a committee because of what you say to the Speaker, then you are to all intents a yellow -bellied coward.   This is not merely arrant, unjustified speculation, given we also learned from the WaPo:

 "Veteran lawmakers keenly remember how she rebuffed former Democratic Congress members Jane Harman (Calif.) and John Dingell (Mich.), two occasional thorns in her side, in their quest for chairmanships, moves many viewed as revenge for challenging her vision or authority."

But know what? If they challenged her authority on the basis of  a higher duty - to nation and Constitution - I give them props and kudos.  I give them those because they are not meek maggots seeking cover and security, but real heroes. What I envisage an elected Representative ought to be. Which is not a yes man or yes woman who believes the Speaker's will trumps all else.  This behavior to be applauded s opposed to the cowardly, spineless, sniveling deportment of a worm like Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.), who whined:

“It’s much better to be with her than against her,”

Or another cowardly cuck like Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.):

“One, you want to be a team player and support the leader’s position, but secondly you’re worried about your own self and . . . what can happen if you don’t follow along,”

So wait. You treat this tiny, 78-year old woman with a weak, raspy voice like she's Don Corleone giving orders from his Mafia den? Really?  Then you ought to be a dog catcher not  a people's rep.  Fortunately, more House Dems are coming around, like Rep. Katie Porter and Michigan's Andy Levin. Levin recently also announced the desire to begin an impeachment inquiry, greeted by thunderous applause at his town hall meeting.  And why not?  Latest polls show a majority of Americans now are for beginning impeachment (which is a process, not an end in itself) and  50 % now believe the Trump campaign "coordinated with the Russians".   As Chris Hayes observed last night: "It seems these Americans have a better grasp of the Mueller report than Trump does".

Well, of course, because there's no way Trump would read even 2 pages of said report. After all, he only reads at a third grade level, which also covers his cognitive capacity

This is especially as new polls find a majority of Americans now demand impeachment, as revealed last night at the beginning of 'All In' (after Howard Dean's framing of Nancy's stance as a 3D chess tactic.

Like Howard Dean, the spin from the D- Trump enablers and longtime Pelosi allies is that the fear factor is vastly inflated. Rather, they say it’s more that members respect the California Democrat, who has led them for 16 years and understands the political consequences of impeachment.  But to me, Janice and many others who are part of the base, it appears the opposite is true: If she really understood impeachment she'd grasp it's the only tool left (short of the House's jailing powers under the inherent contempt clause) that can halt a rush to lawlessness and trashing the Constitution  -rendering it only a piece of paper.

She also doesn't grasp that because a process may be "divisive" is not a sufficient reason not to employ when needed and when the survival of this nation in any recognizable form is at stake. So when Pelosi says:

“I don’t think there’s anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a president of the United States, and so you have to handle it with great car.It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there.”

I must respond:  How much more "truth" and facts do you require when Trump is ignoring your every subpoena and stonewalling on steroids, turning your caucus into cuckolds?  And he's also openly admitted he'd commit a crime (getting campaign info from foreign sources) if it meant winning the next election. It's staring Pelosi right in the face- the truth and facts of what this swine is doing - and she's meekly letting it occur under some ruse of a grand strategic design.

Right now, the GOP Trumpies and Dotard himself are laughing all the way to court with dozens of court challenges to subpoenas, given they have Dems locked in "process fights".  All they need to do is run out the clock and the Dems will lose, and waste time as they fight in the courts to try to get the traitors to respect House -issued subpoenas.  My take, and many more now, is for Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler and other House committee chairs to at least invoke the 1934 concept of "inherent contempt" and toss the asses of these stonewallers directly into the Capitol jail - marched there at gunpoint if need be.

As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe elegantly summed up in an interview 4 weeks ago:

"What we have here is a situation where the Mueller report shows without any doubt that a hostile foreign power attacked the United States in this (2016) election  That Donald Trump welcomed that attack, benefited from it and then - the last couple of years - tried to cover it up every possible way.  That was with ten instances of felonious obstruction of justice."

Combine all the above with the fact Trump's toady attorney (Consovoy)  is trying to make the case - in expedited court hearings - that even congressional oversight in Watergate was questionable, and you will finally grasp we are in a genuine constitutional crisis. Not just on the verge of one. And how the House Dems meet it, whether in crouched position or head-on, will largely determine our future.

A start right now would be to educate the American people more on the nature of impeachment, what it is and its purpose in the sort of situation we're in.  As Danielle Moodie-Mills put it last night:

"The Democrats need to educate their constituency which is what they are not doing. Right now you have a bunch of Democrats, like the ones in leadership, who are saying 'we're gonna slow walk ourselves to impeachment', 'we're gonna let Trump self-impeach'. And the reality is these polling numbers are ticking up and not because of pulling a Justin Amash. They're ticking up because the subject is coming up at town halls including why the Constitution matters. Why what Donald Trump is doing as a lawless president matters to your day to day lives.  Justin Amash is doing that but Democrats aren't."

This is a powerful set of memes to unpack, especially the last - the connection of Trump's lawless behavior to people's day to day lives, i.e. bread and butter issues. Because truth be told, if he believes he's bound by no laws, by no lawful institution or assembly, there's no reason he'd respect the welfare of citizens either.

As I'd written earlier (May 9):

"The Dems have no choice, especially if the Trumptards continue to refuse to respond to subpoenas. Thus, the only way to obtain the evidence needed is to take the crisis to the next level - of impeachment. The House Dems then become the lawful prosecutors and must be given the evidence, including the unredacted full report and all ancillary evidence.  "

The political overthinking and belief in some perilous "blowback" with impeachment was also skewered by  Sidney Blumenthal  over a month ago, also on 'All In'.  He noted that going ahead is especially cogent given Trump "is vastly overrated, and only appears to be strong because of  his bluster."  Adding, he's the lowest rated president since polls were ever taken of presidents and "has never hit 50 percent". This makes him ripe for the pickings. 

Former Senator and Watergate investigator Elizabeth Holtzman agrees, but adds Dems ought to hold hearings first to "educate the public".    But I think now the better option given Trump's stonewalling and not allowing aides to appear at public hearings, is to do what Justin Amash is doing - educate the public on impeachment at town hall meetings.

Make no mistake that Amash having come out bluntly against Trump - after reading the full Mueller report- delivered an impeachment boost "on steroids"   Amash probably beheld exactly what Mr. Blumenthal referenced in Part II of the report, i.e. "there are obvious cases of obstruction of justice that have been documented, stronger than those brought against Richard Nixon."  Blumenthal here emphasized it is the similarities to the Nixon case that bear attention, not those to the Clinton impeachment which was based "on a contrived and insubstantial case."

Meanwhile, Amash's points with regard to the Mueller report and Trump are equally compelling,  and lay out a blue print for impeachment given Pelosi seems too blind to see them, e.g.:

1- Attorney General Barr deliberately misrepresented Mueller's report.

2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.

3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.

4. Few members of congress have read the report.

Points 3 and 4 are especially noteworthy given they're aimed directly at Amash's GOP cohort: on the one hand protecting their party over the country, and on the other not bothering to read the full report, opting for Barr's crib note version instead.

What we now know is that the situation has reached crisis point and the House Dems need to act or be turned into laughing stocks or impotent clowns. The clock is ticking and will reveal whether in fact the Democrats have the testicular fortitude to bring Uzis and anti-aircraft cannon to this  political "gunfight" or stick with their letter openers - as Charles Blow fears.   

We need House Dems now to cease being pawns of Pelosi in her grand nebulous scheme for Trump to self-impeach, and to take it on themselves. The clock is ticking and will not be kind to the Dems next year if they miss the window for action.  

As media specialist Brian Beutler put it last night zooming in on Pelosi' often contradictory and cognitively dissonant babble:

 "I've covered Pelosi for a long time and how she's talking about impeachment is what she does when she's whipping against it.  She's saying mutually contradictory things about what impeachment means and when we should do it. She says we shouldn't do it for political reasons but in the next interview she'll say it's very divisive and we shouldn't just leap into it.  That's a political judgment that she's making and you can't have it both ways.
  
The reason she's trying to have it both ways is she needs a reason to explain away why she's not doing what the Constitution clearly contemplates her doing at this point."

The takeaway:  House Dems need to ignore Pelosi and tell her to either shape up or ship out, or they will find a new, bolder Speaker after she is recalled.  As Danielle Moodie -Mills put the final touch on the discussion:

"A  majority of people are now saying to being impeachment proceedings, at least. Not removal. And Nancy Pelosi out of one side of her mouth is saying 'the president belongs in jail'  and then on the other hand saying, 'Um. I don't wanna do it for political reasons'.  But I'm saying you're not making a decision based on political reasons  because you're saying we have time to wait before 2020 when he's told us he's ready to steal the election before then.  Just saying."

See also:

Impeachment

Why Are Democrats So Scared of Impeachment?

by Bill Blum | May 21, 2019 - 6:23am | permalink

And:

Donald Trump

"The Odious Influence of Trump"

The Fake Video Of Pelosi Isn't Just About The Morons Who Believed It- But The Media That Covered It

Trump has lied more than any other President in history. Americans need to process that.

Nancy Pelosi's rebuke of Facebook on account of being a willing party to a clearly manipulated video of her was more than justified (WSJ, yesterday, p. A2). Facebook's line at the time was that its members ought to be free to "decide for themselves" the veracity of media content, including an obviously doctored youtube video.  Alas, fifty years ago when the bulk of Americans were well -read and not chained to screens which lowered their IQs that may have been so. But no longer. We now must depend again on responsible media gate keepers to save 'Muricans from their own worst instincts and idiocy.

I first saw the fake Pelosi video on Chris Hayes' 'All In' show last Friday.  Like other mainstream media outlets, it was presented  side-by-side with the un-doctored footage of the House speaker.  This was in an effort to debunk the viral clips which had been created and circulated by Right wing Agitprop specialists to snooker and distract the lower IQ segment of our nation. 

Neither Janice or I would have been fooled even if we'd only been shown the doctored footage, of what has now become known in techie parlance as “deepfake” videos .   In the case of  the one circulated and touted on FAUX News as if real,  Pelosi's speech had been subtly slowed down and then pitch-corrected to make it appear as if the House speaker was drunk or incapacitated .   It was an obvious fake to anyone who's seen Pelosi, thus Janice and I concluded only an imbecile would be fooled by it.

Facebook did not remove the video but eventually added “fact check” links to the clips, which most users likely ignored or didn't see. Journalists and pundits debated the social networks’ decisions to leave the video up, while others lamented the rise of political misinformation, filter bubbles, the future of “deepfake” videos and the internet’s penchant to warp reality.

But what is needed here is a larger context examination of how the corporate media itself is being outplayed by the liars, propagandists and pro-Trump fifth columnists (such as embedded at FOX News) in our midst. It has even gone beyond millions of citizens accepting the fake video at face value, to whether too many in the so-called "serious" media are themselves being played like puppets.

Eric Alterman, writing in a piece ('Lord of the Lies') appearing in a recent issue of The Nation (June 5-10, p. 10) notes, for example:

"Daniel Dale of The Toronto Star, who tracks Trump's deceptions, says that most journalists rarely bother to mention that Trump's statements are filled with falsehoods. 'If you watched a network news segment, read an Associated Press article, or glanced at the front page of the city that hosted him, you'd typically have no idea that he was wholly inaccurate'.  Most coverage, Dale points out, reads something like 'Trump speaks to big, excited crowd, insults X and Y, talks policy Z'"

Which is a sorry, cartoonish template that - if Walter Cronkite were alive today - he'd laugh at. He'd wonder what school of journalism the perpetrators had attended - if they did at all.  Incredibly too, Trump often lies about the lies and the media almost never really hone in on it.  Well a few did when Trump blurted out in a tweet several days ago: "I had nothing to do with Russia helping to get me elected!"  Huh?  The detestable toad then denied it, insisting to the yapping press corps that he never said any such thing. A Freudian slip then?

Another egregious example cited by Alterman occurred when he addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September last year and trotted out of his favorites, i.e. he had "accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country."

Caught out by hundreds with IQs far superior to his - "the assembled audience burst into laughter".  He was "briefly left speechless"  before realizing he needed another lie to cover his humiliation, i.e. "he didn't expect that reaction".  So then  he ad-libbed the lie that "he meant to get some laughs."

But while this one was good for yucks, others have had more real world consequences, such as at a Green Bay rally  on April 27.  There he related this wholesale whopper to a crowd of drooling MAGA goons who accepted it without question (ibid.):

"The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully.  And then the doctor and the mother determine whether to execute the baby."

Did any of the local papers or media expose this claptrap? Nope, not even The Green Bay Press -Gazette, so perhaps it was outside their  reporting wheelhouse. But that lies at the heart of how our nation is getting mind-fucked day in and day out. The press repeatedly being left sucking air and unable to catch up with all the lies, because Trump is treated with excess respect instead of plain contempt - in the futile effort to appear "objective'".  And so, with little or no blowback from the 4th estate (bloggers like me with lesser audiences having to call out the crap)   such atrocious lies continue to make abortion providers targets of domestic terrorists  - even as assorted backward states pass abortion banning laws.

Another example that rivals the preceding in vileness was Trump on Memorial Day, siding with the most bestial, bloodthirsty tyrant on the planet - Kim Jong Un.  Asked a question by the ever somnolent mainstream Washington press corps, Trump responded he had to believe Kim,  who told him "Biden is a low IQ individual".  This degeneracy did get a reply from Biden's campaign manager Kate Bedingfield the day after, i.e. in The Denver Post (May 29, p. 17A):

"For anyone to appear on Memorial Day and to side with a murderous dictator against a fellow American and former vice-president speaks for itself."

Only mentioned near the very end of the piece was that a half imbecile member of the press corps had actually asked Trump about "the North Korean leader's (earlier) description of the Democrat's intelligence level."

WTF?! Why is this even in the question mix?  Only an ignorant buffoon would ask that knowing full well how Dotard would respond given his ongoing bromance with the N. Korean swine.  But it gets to the heart of how much of the media itself is responsible for the mess we're in. I mean if we can't depend on the press to be critical thinkers how can we expect the ordinary citizen to be?

Alterman near the end of his piece writes "thankfully most Americans don't believe Trump" - citing fewer than 3 in 10 according to a WaPO Fact Checker. However he also writes:

"What worries me, however, is that people don't realize how much more dishonest Trump is than any of his predecessors. Only about 50 percent of Americans think he is 'less honest' than any previous president".

Which thereby conflates most presidents as liars in some form and worse, fails to hurl Trump into the depths to which he belongs.  Much of this again, is because of the media and mainstream press which often repeats his idiotic tweets without criticizing them properly - merely assuming (as in the case of the Pelosi fake video) most Americans have the intelligence and sense to separate what's factual from rubbish. Well, they don't!

How to respond?  In particular how should the media treat them: as official communications with all the gravitas of a presidential official statement or announcement - through the orthodox, standard channels? Or as disruptive refuse no better than environmental toxic waste?

Some (e.g. Journalism prof Indira Lakshmanan)  have proposed repeating the tweets, but then doing a fact check. The problem with that is twofold: first, most people will have already seen the tweets say on the morning or evening news. Doing a follow-up fact check will then be too late and of minimal impact. Thus, Trumpers' erroneous beliefs and fables are merely reinforced in a kind of confirmation bias. (As manifested in a recent Justin Amash town hall, with one of  his conservo constituents, see e.g. the lead off link below.)

Second, the very act of repeating the offending tweet has the effect of dignifying it - even if unintentionally.  (The same, obviously, applied to the treatment of the Pelosi fake video).


Back to the fake Pelosi video which the FOX News trolls  (e.g. Laura Ingraham,  Tucker Carlson et al) actually broadcast and integrated into their newscasts as evidence she was unfit to be House Speaker.  That above all revived for me the danger of propaganda and its effects on the brain as shown in the excellent PBS documentary series, ''The Brain'.  The series  featured neuroscientist David Eagleman who explored the role of that organ in social connections, as well as genocide and propaganda.  His key finding? 

"A basic, single word label is enough to change your brain's pre-conscious response to a person in pain, in other words, how much you care about them."   

In this context, the impact on the brains of those who watched the Pelosi video -  and didn't detect the obvious distortions - would have interjected a virulent anti -Pelosi bias.  Even in the more benign media treatments, whether repeating the lie or attempting to knock it down, the predominant political narrative suddenly became squarely on Pelosi’s health, not her competence.

As the video views continued to climb, I had to concur with Charlie Warzel in a recent Times piece that our attention was successfully hijacked by a remedial iMovie trick.  It’s easy to fall back on the notion that the Pelosi viral videos are an example of a broken system. But that’s not exactly true. Many of the forces that led this particular doctored video to become news are part of an efficient machine designed to do exactly this. Our media distribution systems are working just as intended. They just weren’t designed for our current political moment. 

Alterman and other media critics like Robert McChesney and Norman Solomon estimate it may take the U.S. media ecosystem years, decades to adapt. But we don't have that time while a pathological liar and criminal Vulgarian fouls the nation and the presidency every moment he tweets or talks.

As Warzel also notes: Facebook, by virtue of the fact that it made $16.6 billion in advertising revenue last quarter, is a media company. But Facebook wasn’t designed to be a media company, especially not one in the middle of an information war. As a platform, Facebook has no real responsibility for the veracity of its content; as a media company, it most certainly does.

Similarly, the press has few answers for how to cover propaganda in an online environment that is designed to spread hoaxes. The heart of the reporting process breaks down when your adversaries’ only goal is to hijack attention.   (See David Brooks' recent column in the NY Times on how much of the net is ideally adapted to infiltration by pathological, psychopathic trolls. The type who traffic in wacko conspiracy theories  like Pizzagate and the QAnon deep state B.S.)

And then there’s the political reality; the media has even fewer answers for how to deal with a president and his associates who are as prone to trafficking in these wacko conspiracies as they are to breathe. The media  then becomes trapped in a vicious cycle of newsworthiness, diverting attention and outrage to false claims and viral hoaxes. After all, the Pelosi fakes weren’t newsworthy because they were high-tech, but because the lie was so blatant and spread by powerful individuals.

In other words, it’s not only our systems that our broken,  and being degraded by the day, but our whole political landscape. And it’s only going to get worse. We need a new handbook. And quick. We definitely need a more advanced form of journalism that can better adapt to compulsive liar leaders - especially those who cozy up to bloodthirsty tyrants.

See also:

Donald Trump

This Quote from a Trump Voter on the Mueller Report Shows How Deeply Right-wing Media Has Warped Its Viewers’ Reality

by Cody Fenwick | May 31, 2019 - 6:48am | permalink

And:

Media

The Mass Media Is Poisoning Us With Hate

by Chris Hedges | May 27, 2019 - 5:27am | permalink

Mueller's 9 Minutes of Fame Punts The Ball To Congress As Trump & Co. Continue Spinning More Lies

Robert Mueller delivering his nine minute statement earlier today, which left most Americans seeking courage, unimpressed.

"Bob, your trail of bread crumbs just isn't good enough. We're just not that smart anymore! America is now an aging shortstop.  You have to hit it right at us."  Bill Maher on Real Time, Friday, April 26, on why Mueller's indirect, detached approach is useless

"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."  - Robert Mueller, earlier today.


Well, at least one major milestone was passed earlier today, we finally got to hear Mueller's voice live and in person. No filters. The problem is it was mostly pro forma and the message enunciated: "If you want to see what I found, read the report."  Righto, like 100 million Americans will now rush to read it ASAP. Hell, I already published the 'juiciest' parts of Vol. II (with all the obstruction behavior involving WH Counsel Don McGhan that- propelled  GOP Rep. Justin Amash to call for impeachment) and  42  have read it to date. Not an auspicious sign.  On the upside, reading between the lines - or rather interpreting between Mueller's careful words- one beheld he wasn't letting Trump off the hook. Also, it was now time for House Dems & Pelosi to get some cojones and initiate impeachment inquiry - at least.

Bottom line: Mueller punted again but basically - in his Volume II - left the means to bring impeachment proceedings against the Vulgarian criminal fouling the highest office.  On the other hand, he isn't keen for any more public appearances, basically averring if the House Dems subpoena him to testify all he will do is read what's already been published, nothing more. Well, hell, at least it will be kinda like a parent reading a bedtime story to his kid - when the kid wouldn't have opened the book on his own.  It would be better than nothing, and hey, for each question Mueller could direct willing readers to the key parts of Volume I or II as he reads. It sure beats the Mr. Silent Sphinx Act we've beheld the past two years. At this point we will take anything, and so should Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems.  Pelosi claims she's still seeking facts and evidence of obstruction, but what do you call Trump's universal blocking of all subpoenas  - laughing them down, blowing them off - as he metaphorically pisses down the Dems' throats and laughs?

Finally launching an impeachment  might even shut up Trump and his top sycophant ass licker, Sara Sanders, who predictably came out with their own forlorn lying spin and distortions, yapping crap like "case closed", and "it's time to move on."  No, it's time for impeachment!

Mueller himself in his 9 minute spiel gave the usual reasons cited earlier for not going the whole hog and failing to issue and indictment: basically that DOJ policy (from the Office of Legal Counsel) "doesn't allow it".  Which is bull pockey. It's only a guideline, a policy after all, not an iron clad law or rule. And we've seen in the past two months how Dotard has spit on norm after norm blocking subpoenas  while congress is made to sit on its fingers fuming.  The correct interpretation of Mueller's citation of limits in issuing an indictment is:  "We found Trump guilty but the DOJ wouldn't allow us to say it."

Never mind. Dotard and his retinue of sycophants tried to spin this to mean "exoneration".   The first tool they used was to interpret a partial affirmation as a total negation. Thus, Mueller admitted he found "insufficient evidence" to identify a conspiracy with the Russians (in Vol. I). But Trump, his malleable cow press secretary Huckleberry Sanders and others tried to portray that as meaning "nothing was found" and hence "exoneration".  Nope, because insufficient evidence is not the same as zero evidence. One may have insufficient evidence a neighbor bludgeoned his wife with a hammer, as there are bloody fingerprints on it. But there is no confirming DNA evidence to match the suspect to the actual weapon and crime.

Mueller did (in Vol. 2) identify 10 incidents in which Trump attempted to obstruct justice, for example by firing the director of the FBI, though he stopped short of charging the Dotard with a crime.  Never mind, because again by the OLC guidelines Mueller's hands were cuffed on the issue of finding crimes. (As already explained.) But again, he clearly left the process open for congress to pursue "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Article I powers allotted to it.  

Mueller himself fucked up badly during his soliloquy,  asserting:

"A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.  That is unconstitutional."

No, it would not. As one legal specialist and former prosecutor noted on MSNBC, "there hasn't even been a court decision to render a verdict on constitutionality".  Adding, he could find just as many to assert it was constitutional as not. In the end it is an OLC "guideline" that appears no where in the Constitution per se.

As MSNBC legal specialist Ari Melber and others put it (e.g. former DOJ spokes person Matt Miller) it wasn't a 100 % nothing burger. There were some actual ounces of 'meat' in the statement terms of Mueller saying (between the lines, as it were): "I could not deliver a criminal prosecution but congress can still act on its own".

Bingo! But most Americans - even with IQs in the normal range- might have missed that. As Bill Maher once put it in a New Rules segment (see top quote) on Real Time, Americans are like aging shortstops. They need the ball hit directly at their midsections to make the play. Or in this case, the connections. The perfect illustration was one of the Michigan voters  highlighted at a recent question-answer session held by Justin Amash. This woman was astonished to learn- after Amash educated her- that Trump was NOT "exonerated" in the Mueller Report. She'd only heard that by having been isolated in the conserve media (i.e. FOX, Rush Limburger ) echo chamber the past 8 weeks.

At least a number of Senators - following Mueller's performance- have sounded the proper perspectives to counter the balderdash of Trump and his minions, e.g.

Julian Castro:

Mueller made clear this morning that his investigation now lays at the feet of Congress. No one is above the law—Congress should begin an impeachment inquiry.

May 29, 2019

Elizabeth Warren:

Mueller leaves no doubt:

1) He didn't exonerate the president because there is evidence he committed crimes.

2) Justice Department policy prevented him from charging the president with any crimes

.
3) The Constitution leaves it up to Congress to act—and that's impeachment.

May 29, 2019

Kamala Harris:

What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral. Now it is up to Congress to hold this president accountable.

We need to start impeachment proceedings. It's our constitutional obligation.

May 29, 2019

Again, I present the link to the full Mueller report which readers can access here:

www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Please read it yourselves to see why the above takes by the D-Senators are correct. If pressed for time, at least read my transcription of Vol. II to do with obstruction of justice involving Trump White House Counsel Don McGahn! (May 22 post).

Your country will thank you for it, and so will Democrats when they begin impeachment proceedings.  (IF they do!)  It will mean one less segment of citizens to have to educate.  In any case, I am for the Jerrold Nadler and House Judiciary Committee bringing Mueller in to testify - even if it means only seeing and hearing him read sections of his own report.

Something is better than nothing!   

See also:

Donald Trump | Robert Mueller

Mueller Also Had Accountability, but Evaded It

And:

Donald Trump | Impeachment | Robert Mueller

Mueller Just Invited Congress To Do Its Job: Impeach Trump

And:

Alex Henderson

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Donald Trump | Robert Mueller

Here Are 4 Key Moments from Mueller’s Stunning Statement on the Russia Investigation