What concerns me more than the collapse of many of our intuitions is the fact that the Neocons have emerged from the rubble. Regardless of party or political leanings there was a time when Neocons were universally reviled. Watching people like Bill Kristol, David Frum, and The Lincoln Project get so much press and attention makes my blood boil. Heck, they even brought out Dick Cheney(!!!) for the J6 anniversary.
I don't think the neocons will survive. It really feels like a last ditch effort to me. I'd say upwards of 90% of Republicans have turned on neoconservativism and the remaining 10% are more likely to vote Democrat where neocons are only welcomed as cheerleaders.
I think regardless of if he gets elected again, even if he only even serves one term, 50 years from now Trump's name is going to be plastered in more history books than any modern President before him (and possibly after). He truly did radically alter the party to an amount that will define different eras in political history.
I would guess it's because both parties are neoliberals since Reagan, and the D or the R is just culture war distraction. Sadly, the economic policy is all the same.
I understand the fight your picking, but really this isn't that much of an argument. "Mainstream media" makes mistakes. It has perspectives that leak through into interpretation. It has blindspots in coverage. But mainstream journalists almost to a fault genuinely view their job as bringing important facts to their audience, and they care about getting things right. That's just not true of the partisan press on the right, and you know it as well as I do. Let's actually measure:
Here are the biggest three headlines I see at nytimes.com right now:
"West's Resolve to Block Russia Grows Amid Fears of a Protracted War"
"Likelihood of Trump Indictment in Manhattan Fades as Grand Jury Wraps Up"
"Piles of Garbage, No Showers: What Lockdown in China Looks Like"
All seem eminently plausible, reasonably descriptive of the content in the article, and (except arguably the China article) not written from an argumentative perspective. I'd happily read any three of these articles and "trust" their content (I did read the Ukraine one).
Here are the three biggest headlines at foxnews.com, fetched within a few seconds of the list above:
"President Biden's close relationship with Hunter associate who led company with China ties exposed"
"Liberals lose it after Elon Musk's tweets about the Democratic Party"
"GOP rep grills Biden's secretary of state over Ukraine 'lies'"
Every single one is written from a decidedly partisan perspective. One contains a value judgement ("lose it"), one uses deceptive quotes to be able to call something a "lie" without evidence (someone else called it a lie, Fox technically didn't), the other is a guilt by association fallacy.
I don't trust a single one of those things to give me the whole story, and I'd be shocked if even partisan republicans did. If I want to know what's "really" happening on any of those issues I know a-priori that I need to find more sources, because this one isn't giving me the whole truth. Giving you the whole truth, essentially, isn't what Fox views as its "job" in the same way that the Times does.
>But mainstream journalists almost to a fault genuinely view their job as bringing important facts to their audience, and they care about getting things right.
What you call "mainstream media" I call "corporate media". And some journalists may feel that way however clicks, eyeballs, and stickiness take priority over their views. There’s too much competition for traditional media outlets to survive without adopting techniques that were once unthinkable. Corrections are rarely issued these days and edits are done in an almost stealthy manner. I had to stop following the Twitter accounts that tracked these changes because it became an endless stream of tweets.
The days of Tim Russert, David Broder, Jim Lehrer, Ted Koppel etc. are long gone. I would consider Matt Taibbi[1] one of the last journalists that followed in their footsteps but he is definitely not corporate and barely mainstream. Taibbi left Rolling Stone and uses Substack which has been attacked by the NYT, and others, as alt-right and misinformation which I find ironic coming from the paper that published Judith Miller’s WMDs propaganda. Even Jason Calacanis referred to Taibbi as a “right guy” on one of the recent All-In podcasts even though Matt is an ardent Sanders supporter. The Blob doesn’t like it when you don’t toe the line.
Corporate media is dead to me even though the vast majority of it is "Left".
>I understand the fight your picking, but really this isn't that much of an argument.
Really? I don't watch Fox News or any corporate media and you assumed I did. You might be shocked to learn that I worked in the Clinton administration and voted for Obama!
I don't understand the bit about Taibbi. While he has some background as a general journalist, the overwhelming majority of what he writes these days is opinion work. More or less by definition, he has a perspective that colors his interpretation, and he wants to convince you that he's right.
When you say you "trust" a broad news organization I generally expect you mean that you take what they report to be a reasonable representation of the truth and that they aren't hiding things from you or otherwise spinning the interpreation.
When you say you "trust" an opinion journalist, really all you mean is that you agree with them[1]. Taibbi doesn't give you the whole story on anything! He gives you his perspective. This is what he wrote yesterday, for example: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/savor-the-great-musk-panic?s=r Now, sure, you might agree with that take. But you wouldn't hand this to your grandpa if he asked what all this stuff he was hearing about The Twitter was about.
[1] Personally I find that brand of anti-anti-right leftist journalism really tiring. Taibbi takes shots against the center left that draw eyeballs from people who want to see those libs suffer and in broad service to entities (yes, including the Russian government) that oppose them. I can't think of the last time I saw him write about a problem that I, personally, would like to see solved. Instead he writes about the other problems (some of them legitimate) with people who are trying to solve the problems I do care about. Where is Taibbi on climate regulation? Where is Taibbi on income inequality? Where is Taibbi on police violence? Where is Taibbi on increasingly criminalized women's health care? Damned if I know either. But I know where he stands when the libs are upset about Twitter!
There isn’t much of a lobby on the radical left that can compete with the Murdoch empire. Yeah, you can pick some communist newspaper with strange views, but nothing close to Fox in the US or the Mail or the Daily Express in the UK.
Quit my job as the CTO at a small Bay Area startup. One too many failed startups had taken their toll, I felt like a boxer that had lost his chin.
Thought about culinary school and becoming a chef but after reading Kitchen Confidential, I changed my mind. Decided on welding/fabrication and ended up working on a ranch that had a metal fabrication shop. I enrolled in some classes at the local CC so I could improve my skills and ending up getting an AA in welding and a few classes short of one in machining.
Got a part time job teaching metal trades at the local CC which led to becoming a certified welding inspector through AWS, no the other AWS. I accepted a tenure track offer but switched to management after a few years.
I became the director of CTE department that oversaw the creation of a mechatronics and cybersecurity degree program as well as opening up a makerspace. I loved it because it really allowed me to leverage my eclectic skill set. However, due to a staffing shortage I ended having to train, not teach as I wasn't faculty anymore, incumbent workers as part of a industry partnership. So now I was working two jobs, one blue collar and one white collar. This led to working 12+ hour days and coming in on weekends so I could catch up. In a nutshell, my objections to the situation fell on deaf ears so I quit out of frustration.
After a short break I went back to university to finish my bachelor's degree with the tentative idea of pursuing a job in edtech. Right after I graduated lockdowns started so I took the time to explore some other avenues while I looked for a job.
Today, I'm solo dev working on my first indie game funded by selling some Bitcoins I had been sitting on for over a decade. With the current geopolitical situation aside, I couldn't be happier.
I made the switch to gamedev a decade ago after more traditional startups. If you’d like to chat about the industry I’d be happy to. I helped build a larger studio, then went indie with some moderate success, now I’m doing the build a studio thing again because I am an insane person.
No, he means the raw unedited videos, like the ones on channel he linked. The extensively edited and cherry-picked videos are the ones shown by corporate media and partisans.
> No, he means the raw unedited videos, like the ones on channel he linked.
Is it though? Things don't magically disappear from raw footage. Either you edit it out or not show inconvenient footage.
I mean, all this gaslighting requires you in the very least to accuse other footage from the same events and involving the same people of being fabricated.
You either didn't watch any of the videos from that night or don't know what trigger happy means. Rittenhouse made a number of mistakes but being trigger happy was not one of them.
If you wear a seat belt while driving a car do you intend to crash? Do you have any idea how many people were open carrying that night and never fired a shot? Rittenhouse hit every target he aimed at and all whom had attacked him. 100% of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse were not shot. That is not trigger happy. And Rittenhouse didn't even fire the first shot, Ziminski did.
Who is "normal" at a riot? The people firebombing immigrant owned businesses in the name of justice?
No, I illustrated that intent usually goes right along with bringing stuff with you. If you feel that that equates a sandwich to a gun then I don't know how to explain things to you for which I apologize.
Jacques, stop. You compared it to a sandwich. You don't get to complain that someone makes a comparison with a seat belt.
I'm European and extremely pro gun control / anti gun in general, probably moreso than you, by the way. You are blinded by your bias and it really shows in your posts.
Edit, to elaborate on why i think you're blinded by it: I am with you, it's utterly idiotic that people bring guns to these things and that this is somehow okay. But you can't judge US protester actions by EU standards, because over there and in that case, bringing a gun "just in case" with no intent to use it absolutely is standard.
The comparison with a seat belt absolutely stands, because it was brought "just in case". And yes, it's stupid that this is how things are over there, but you can't blame a seventeen year old for centuries of political idiocy.
And you are ignoring the events that led up to a kid walking around with powerful weapon in the middle of a riot. In your other post, that is now flagged, you talked about how other countries have a "monopoly on violence". That monopoly was lost in Kenosha when the cops didn't intervene and the governor of the state refused to call in the national guard to put in an end to the riots.
Dangerous political gamesmanship between Trump and various mayors and governors got people killed, destroyed a ton of property, and has done permanent damage to the social fabric of this country.
Fond memories of using BDB with Software.com/Openwave's InterMail software, which powered a large portion of the world's email back in the day. The name raised a few eyebrows during meetings with customers.
Macromedia Director, it was amazing how quickly you could create an interactive standalone app or CD-ROM.