Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Sunday, April 30, 2023

ROLLING STONE: The Online Racists Stealing Military Secrets

The Online Racists Stealing Military Secrets  
 Air National Guardsman Jack Teixiera, 21, seen here in an undated photo, faces two criminal charges after posting classified Pentagon documents on social media. (photo: Air National Guard/ZUMA)  
 

Jack Teixiera's turn from online racist to alleged classified-document leaker shouldn't be surprising

 Adam Rawnsley and Jim LaPorta / Rolling Stone

Jack Teixiera’s odyssey from online racist to alleged classified-information shitposter to federal inmate shocked many — but it shouldn’t. In recent years, the Defense and Justice departments have investigated a number of servicemembers for involvement in far-right groups — and found they also appear to enjoy sharing the government’s most closely held secrets with their bros.

While Republicans in Congress have played down the risk of extremists in the military, experts who follow the issue say they’re not surprised to see extremist beliefs and leaks of classified information coincide. In a 2021 hearing on extremism in the armed forces, Republican members of Congress wondered aloud whether the issue had really “proven itself to be a major problem” or whether the issue was merely “political theater” for Democrats to enforce a partisan ideological discipline on the armed services. Republicans in the House and Senate have blasted Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s training efforts to root out extremism and voted against legislation to track “white-supremacist and neo-Nazi activity in the uniformed services.”

“I don’t think we should be surprised at all,” says Don Christensen, a retired Air Force colonel who served as the Air Force’s chief prosecutor. “It’s clear that we at least have a subculture of racism and antisemitism within the military, and that there are people who are willing to act out by sharing classified information or making terroristic threats against those minorities or Jewish people.”

The military is one of the nation’s most diverse organizations, and only a small percentage of servicemembers are racially motivated extremists. But when it comes to leaks, even a handful of white nationalists can do a lot of damage.

Teixeira’s racism appears to have been more of an individual project, rather than organized, like other racist members of the military who have recently faced charges. A video of him at a shooting range obtained by The Washington Post showed the Air National Guardsman yelling racist and antisemitic slurs while popping off rounds at a shooting range. And on his Discord servers, users regularly posted similar memes. In a detention memo filed late Wednesday, prosecutors alleged that local police had denied him a gun permit because of violent, racist threats he made in high school remarks and had discussed building an “assassination van and an urge to “kill a [expletive] ton of people.”

It’s unclear what made Teixeira post volumes of sensitive documents on social media. He embraced right-wing conspiracy theories. including a false claim that the white supremacist massacre at a Buffalo grocery store was part of a secret government plot. But he mostly appeared keen to share classified documents in order to revel in the awe of the young teenagers who looked up to the 21-year-old in his small Discord server.

Other far-right members of the armed services have been more aggressive and extreme.

Take Ethan Melzer, for example. Melzer, a 21-year-old Army private, received a security clearance and a posting to Vicenza, Italy, where he regularly browsed jihadist propaganda from the Islamic State and chatted with neo-Nazi friends in the obscure, Satanic “Order of the Nine Angles” neo-Nazi cult on social media, according to court documents.

In 2020, the Army informed Melzer’s unit they’d be shipping out to guard Incirlik Air Base Turkey, a U.S. military base which is home to American tactical nuclear weapons. After receiving the orders, Melzer messaged fellow online racists with the sensitive information about his unit’s deployment time, location, and security vulnerabilities at the base where they were headed in hopes that they would carry out a mass-casualty terrorist attack on American troops and spark “another 10-year war in the Middle East,” according to court documents.

For his efforts, the government charged Melzer with illegal transmission of national defense information, in addition to a host of other charges related to the attempt to organize a terrorist attack on U.S. forces. A federal judge sentenced Melzer to 45 years in prison in March for his terrorist plotting.

Liam Collins, a low-ranked 20-year-old rifleman with 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, landed in similar trouble following the leak of chats from the neo-Nazi forum Iron March.

In November 2019, the independent investigative news site Bellingcat noted a data dump from the defunct neo-Nazi and white-supremacist message board. The screen names, IP addresses, and direct messages from the forum — including messages from Collins — were published anonymously.

After reporters publicly identified Collins as an active-duty Marine and participant in the neo-Nazi forum, prosecutors charged Collins and three associates with conspiring to carry out a terrorist attack on an electricity substation in North Carolina as part of a larger goal to create a white-supremacist homeland within the United States.

Collins hasn’t been charged with mishandling or retaining classified information, but there are signs that federal law enforcement found what it believed to be classified material on one of his devices. In early 2021, the Justice Department warned that it had recovered information from “one of the devices seized in October 2020 which appeared to be classified material” and “that evidence existed which indicated the defendants engaged in substantial sharing of other information.” Judge Richard E. Myers announced afterward that attorneys in the case “should be ready to discuss the Classified Information Procedures Act and its potential impact on discovery and trial in these matters.”

The Justice Department declined to elaborate further about the issue of classified information in the case. An attorney for Collins did not respond to questions from Rolling Stone.

Even in cases where extremists aren’t accused of sending their friends secret documents, a number of them have still managed to obtain security clearances. Federal prosecutors charged Killian Mackeith Ryan — a soldier in the 82nd Airborne who the FBI allegedly caught telling friends he joined the military to get “more proficient in killing n—-rs” — with lying on his security-clearance application.

Michael Miselis, a missile engineer defense contractor for Northrop Grumman, received a top-secret security clearance from the Pentagon while a member of the neo-Nazi “Rise Above Movement. Miselis and three other members of the group later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to riot after federal law enforcement identified them as participants in the white-nationalist riot at the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Brad Moss, a Washington attorney who specializes in matters of national security, tells Rolling Stone that the process of security clearances is “not designed to identify the personal politics or ideology of an applicant. Whether someone is an ardent liberal, a defiant conservative, or a run-of-the-mill libertarian is supposed to be completely irrelevant to the security vetting process.”

There’s an exception, Moss explains: “Unless, of course, those political views resulted in conduct that implicates another security concern, such as engaging in criminal conduct like the Summer 2020 riots or the Jan. 6 riots, or associating with foreign nationals of a particular political persuasion in a manner that puts the person at risk of exploitation.”

But the issue of far-right extremists creating intelligence community concerns is not a new one. Following the 1985 arrest of John A. Walker Jr., a Navy chief warrant officer who spent 20 years passing some of America’s most closely held secrets to the Soviet Union, reporters discovered that Walker had once applied to become a member of the Klu Klux Klan and joined the far-right John Birch Society.

“I think the starting point is to accept that this is happening and to find out to what degree it’s happening. I still think there’s a lot of denial that there’s a problem. I’ve seen retired generals and admirals pushing back on the idea that we have an extremist problem,” says Christensen. “I think it’s pretty clear we do. It’s just a question about how big of a problem it is.”

Putin doesn't need any more help from us than what Trump is already giving him.

Saturday, April 29, 2023

Why the Trump Rape Trial Now Looks More IMPORTANT to Me Than It Did

"You can just grab them by the pussy."

I’ve always been sympathetic to E. Jean Carroll’s wanting to hold Trump accountable for what -- I don’t doubt -- he did to her.

But compared to Trump’s assault on American democracy throughout his presidency, what Trump did with women — before he was President, when he was just a creep in the “private sector” — has seemed a secondary matter.

Keeping my eyes on the Prize, what’s been important to me about the Rule of Law taking Trump down is that Trump be stripped of his power to inflict fundamental damage on the nation.

But now I’m seeing how this Rape Trial can play an important role in doing just that.

The reports of Ms. Carroll’s testimony show her to be a most impressive witness. She seems to have been about as powerful and credible a witness as one could hope to script it. The reports show a sympathetic and entirely believable white middle-class woman presenting a picture of Trump to the nation that conveys dramatically what a monster Donald Trump is. 

It’s true, anyone should be able to see Trump’s monstrousness displayed in all his other crimes: his attempted coup, his treatment of Mike Pence, his extorting Ukraine, his jeopardizing American national security with documents he stole and would not give back, and a whole variety of other words and deeds that should suffice to drive any decent American to want Trump as far as possible from power.

But those other actions occur at an abstract level. One needs to make the mental bridge between political actions in a civilized society to the gut recognition of the evil man they reveal. Those other expressions of Trump’s monstrousness don’t register directly on the most fundamental and primitive level of our human moral consciousness.

But it’s different when we see a man inflict such wounds on a sympathetic woman that she apparently permanently lost her capacity to have a romantic relationship. When we see that, Trump’s monstrousness registers on that kind of basic, moral, human understanding that long precedes things like constitutional political orders.

That’s why this case now looks to me not only as a place where a particular woman will — it seems likely — get the good justice she seeks, but also as a drama that it will help turn even more of the American people against this terrible man.

This trial looks, in other words, like a valuable part of the overall strategy to sweep off our national stage this terrible man who has done so much damage to the nation, and threatens to do much more.

"If I were a rapist I wouldn't be carrying this bible around."  (But what's he got ahold of with his other hand?)

Friday, April 28, 2023

ALDOUS J. PENNYFARTHING: What's the real reason Tucker Carlson was fired? Here are three scintillating new theories

While competing theories have been flying fast and furious, so far the only explanation we can definitely rule out is that he wanted to spend more time with his family. In fact, the only theory that could be less credible than that is his family wanted to spend more time with him. 

That said, here are three new, tantalizing theories about Tucker’s sudden defenestration that have percolated up through the current media landscape.

Theory No. 1: Rupert Murdoch was turned off by Carlson’s religious extremism.

This one comes courtesy of the redoubtable Gabriel Sherman at Vanity Fair.

According to [a] source, Fox Corp. chair Rupert Murdoch removed Carlson over remarks Carlson made during a speech at the Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary gala on Friday night. Carlson laced his speech with religious overtones that even Murdoch found too extreme, the source, who was briefed on Murdoch’s decision-making, said. Carlson told the Heritage audience that national politics has become a manichean battle between “good” and “evil.” Carlson said that people advocating for transgender rights and DEI programs want to destroy America and they could not be persuaded with facts. “We should say that and stop engaging in these totally fraudulent debates…I’ve tried. That doesn’t work,” he said. The answer, Carlson suggested, was prayer. “I have concluded it might be worth taking just 10 minutes out of your busy schedule to say a prayer for the future, and I hope you will,” he said. “That stuff freaks Rupert out. He doesn’t like all the spiritual talk,” the source said.

[...]

Rupert Murdoch was perhaps unnerved by Carlson’s messianism because it echoed the end-times worldview of Murdoch’s ex-fiancĂ©e Ann Lesley Smith, the source said. In my May cover story, I reported that Murdoch and Smith called off their two-week engagement because Smith had told people Carlson was “a messenger from God.” Murdoch had seen Carlson and Smith discuss religion firsthand. In late March, Carlson had dinner at Murdoch’s Bel Air vineyard with Murdoch and Smith, according to the source. During dinner, Smith pulled out a bible and started reading passages from the Book of Exodus, the source said. “Rupert just sat there and stared,” the source said. A few days after the dinner, Murdoch and Smith called off the wedding. By taking Carlson off the air, Murdoch was also taking away his ex’s favorite show.

Not to defend Murdoch, who is to journalism what 19th-century smallpox was to blankets, but I wouldn't marry someone who called Carlson a “messenger from God” either—unless she clarified that God’s message was “eat hot death, Grandma.”

Theory No. 2: Murdoch got fed up with Tucker’s more extreme views, including his stance toward Ukraine.

This one comes from reporters Sarah Ellison and Jeremy Barr at The Washington Post.

[A]ccording to people familiar with their conversation and Murdoch’s thinking, the 92-year-old billionaire founder of Fox News had grown weary of some of Carlson’s increasingly far-right commentary on his nightly prime-time show — as well as some of the swaggering host’s behind-the-scenes attitude.

At that particular moment, he was disturbed by Carlson’s stance on Ukraine. A graphic on Carlson’s show had referred to Volodymyr Zelensky, president of the besieged nation, as a “Ukrainian pimp,” and the host had repeatedly excoriated the U.S. government for providing aid to its defense against Russian attacks.

These stances had made Carlson a star on Russian state-controlled TV. But they had drawn furious blowback from powerful Republicans who see U.S. support for Ukraine as a bulwark in a fight for freedom and democracy — some of whom had Murdoch’s ear. After one such on-air segment in mid-March, Murdoch joined a Fox newsroom meeting to loudly challenge Carlson’s message, according to people familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of newsroom confidentiality policies.

Wait, all it takes to get fired from an opinion show these days is to reflexively—and with increasing frequency—defend a bloodthirsty war criminal who indiscriminately bombs civilians and threatens the survival of liberal democracy around the globe? Weird.

Theory No. 3: Tucker called a top Fox executive the c-word.

This one seems the least likely, and not just because it comes from The Wall Street Journal, whose op-eds, at least, are what you might get if you suspended George Will from his bedroom ceiling by a pair of bespoke nipple rings and told him to fill 12 column inches on the history of the Laffer curve. Also, one might imagine Tucker used the c-word at least a half-dozen times before breakfast every day, so this feels a bit like ad hoc excuse-making.

Several weeks ago, as Fox News lawyers prepared for a courtroom showdown with Dominion Voting Systems, they presented Tucker Carlson with what they thought was good news: They had persuaded the court to redact from a legal filing the time he called a senior Fox News executive the c-word, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Carlson, Fox News’s most-watched prime-time host, wasn’t impressed. He told his colleagues that he wanted the world to know what he had said about the executive in a private message, the people said. Mr. Carlson said comments he made about former President Donald Trump—“I hate him passionately”—that were in the court documents were said during a momentary spasm of anger, while his dislike of this executive was deep and enduring.

Okay then! So to recap: Claiming one hates the worst man on the planet “passionately” is just something one says in anger, whereas an incident in which one refers to a superior as a “c-word” really needs to be part of the public record.

RELATED STORY: Calling Fox senior executive a c-word was apparently the last straw for Tucker Carlson

And so the mystery deepens. Why oh why would anyone ever give such an irreproachable human being a pink slip? Alas, the world may never know.

Carlson became a bigger Putey lapdog than even Trump.

Thursday, April 27, 2023

DAHLIA LITHWICK & MARK STERN: King Roberts

King Roberts  John Roberts, chief justice of the US Supreme Court. (photo: Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg)


Chief justice’s latest trick to ward off oversight ploy of a royal, not a judge

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern / Slate
 

Last Thursday, Sen. Dick Durbin invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about, well, to put it directly—the Supreme Court’s diaphanous ethics regime. On Tuesday evening, in his letter to Durbin in which he declined the invitation, Roberts finally named the problem: “Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence,” he wrote. In other words, the justices can enforce checks and balances on the other branches, but the other branches can enforce no checks or balances upon the justices. Which is precisely the problem the Senate Judiciary Committee is attempting to solve.

In an accompanying “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices,” presumably released for the public, the chief justice laid out the web of laws and practices and guidelines used voluntarily by each justice to determine their individual ethics obligations. Perhaps he was attempting to clarify things, but instead the document illuminates the problem. These obligations and commitments are advisory, unenforceable, and subjective. In response to the widespread concern that no person should be a judge in their own cause, the court has confirmed that it shall continue to be the sole judge of that. (Meanwhile, it will enforce this principle against other courts—which is great, but also … come on!)

Put aside for a moment Politico’s new report that Justice Neil Gorsuch failed to disclose that he’d sold his valuable Colorado property to a prominent lawyer with multiple cases before the court only nine days after he was confirmed, or Bloomberg’s new revelations that Harlan Crow, Justice Clarence Thomas’ GOP-megadonor billionaire friend, also had business before the court, yet his lavish gifts to Thomas were not disclosed because the justice said Crow had no business before the court. Note also that Gorsuch’s failure to disclose has been defended on the grounds that the justice was not friends with the purchaser of his land, whereas Thomas’ failure to disclose Crow’s gifts has been defended on the grounds that the justice was close friends with him. Which “friend” rule wins? Who can possibly know.

The justices themselves are wholly responsible for this high-octane ethics quagmire, which now drags into its fourth week. Any sane institution that relies wholly on public approval, when faced with multiple irrefutable reports of distortions and deception, would respond with a plan to do better. It speaks volumes that the Imperial Court’s response is a promise to simply continue to do the same. Why? Because it thinks the other branches won’t do anything about it. As Ian Millhiser noted in Vox this week, the Constitution makes it extraordinarily difficult to remove a justice, or diminish the court’s power. The reason it is set up this way, believe it or not, is because the framers thought the judiciary would rise above the partisan fray. In practice, however, the Supreme Court has proven remarkably easy for one political party to capture. Its members are selected through a flagrantly political process. It is formed by political imperatives. And yet the court pretends—and demands we all pretend—that it’s magically purified of politics as soon as its justices are seated.

In reality, it’s just a monarchy tricked out as the least dangerous branch, with black robes instead of bejeweled crowns. Indeed, the implicit argument that justices are somehow entitled to live like kings is part of the current ethics problem. For their part, the justices insist that it must ever be thus, not realizing that the only question that matters is whether that willful blindness can be imposed upon the country by fiat. Chief Justice Roberts appears to believe it can.

Perhaps the most depressing part of Roberts’ refusal to appear before the Senate is his claim that such appearances should be “exceedingly rare.” (The chief justice himself testified before Congress on ethics reform before.) It seems the rule is that it’s only ever the court that will determine when it has an ethics problem. Correcting that is precisely why Sen. Durbin invited him to testify. The fact that the chief justice thinks it’s up to him to let us know when it thinks it’s having a legitimacy crisis? That’s why it’s having a legitimacy crisis.

In truth, Roberts probably realizes that the court’s current policy of complete self-policing is indefensible. That’s why he didn’t try to defend it in his letter. In place of a justification, he churned out a brief book report on the history of chief justices testifying before Congress, the upshot of which is: It’s unusual. Well, yeah. It’s also unusual for a justice to break the law by refusing to disclose lavish trips and land deals with a billionaire benefactor.

While we’re on the topic of unusual things emanating from the highest court in the land, we could also mention Justice Samuel Alito spewing partisan gripes and taking swipes at respected journalists for reporting honestly on the court. Add in Justice Amy Coney Barrett blaming the press for undermining respect for the court in a speech delivered at the Mitch McConnell Center. We could toss in the fact that Justice Brett Kavanaugh once told the Senate he was the target of a vast Democratic plot designed to exact “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” when the Senate was holding a hearing about his fitness to serve for life on an imperial court. But what’s the point? Recall that, in 1969, Justice Abe Fortas was driven off the court for a scandal so quaint it barely registers today: He got paid $15,000 to teach a seminar and also received, then returned, a retainer from a financier friend. In 2023, we learned that Gorsuch hid the identity of the ultra-connected lawyer who bought his property, and it’s barely a one-day news story.

It’s unusual for multiple justices to commit, in the span of a few weeks, the caliber of ethics infractions that pushed Fortas off the court. But while most justices of the Warren and Burger Courts learned the lessons of the Fortas ouster—that it was worth it to behave impeccably—the takeaway on Roberts’ watch seems to be that denial and blame-shifting will suffice to allay public anxiety.

Unusual times call for unusual measures. A frank explanation from the chief justice is pretty much the least Durbin could’ve asked for.

If there is any legal analysis in Roberts’ letter, it’s limited to four words: The chief justice has “separation of powers concerns” about being called to testify before the Senate. How interesting. The court often uses this “concern” to box in other branches, limiting their ability to enact or enforce laws that address pressing problems today. But it steadfastly rejects the idea that, by undoing the results of democratic lawmaking, the judiciary itself might violate the separation of powers. Roberts has now taken this exceptionalism to a stratospheric new level: The chief justice of the United States can simply invoke the phrase “separation of powers” as a talisman to ward off any efforts at oversight. No need for actual constitutional analysis; just take Roberts’ word for it that James Madison would have hated for him to answer the Senate’s questions.

The public, on the other hand, seems to think differently. Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court is in free-fall. Despite Roberts’ brush off, Congress isn’t waiting for the justices to get their own house in order. Bills such as Sen. Chris Murphy’s Supreme Court Ethics Act and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act would finally impose actual rules on the justices’ conduct. In addition, Sens. Angus King (an independent) and Lisa Murkowski (a Republican) have just introduced the Senate’s first bipartisan bill to require the justices to write and adopt a formal code of conduct. There is a growing public appetite for new reforms and it’s not clear that hand-waving about inchoate separation of powers concerns will quell the storm. The same justices who feel harassed and exposed because reporters are combing through their undisclosed financial dealings right now could have solved this problem with candor and honest reporting of their financial dealings on the routine occasions on which they were asked. In the midst of the crisis, they eschew a commitment to candor to instead mutter something about the nature of checks and balances, with the proviso that they are susceptible to neither.

These are the ploys of emperors. Unquestioned, unlimited authority may befit a ruler who reigns by divine right. But the chief justice, like all government officials, ultimately draws his power from the people. He wields a gavel, not a scepter. And the Constitution grants him no overarching right to insulate his entire court from the kind of minimal accountability without which no democracy can thrive.

Coke Can Clarence shares words of wisdom from the bench of the highest court in the land.

 

Wednesday, April 26, 2023

MARGARET SULLIVAN - THE GUARDIAN: Tucker Carlson became Fox New's biggest liability


 Tucker Carlson was Fox News’s biggest star. Then he became its biggest liability, Margaret Sullivan, The Guardian

Carlson has been far more than a cable-news host over the half-dozen years since he took that prominent evening slot and became Fox’s most-watched personality.

He has been America’s chief fomenter of populist resentments, its go-to guy for the politics of grievance and – despite his smarmy demeanor, and aging prep-school appearance – he’s been a twisted kind of working-class hero.

“Carlson has been uniquely dangerous and damaging – the leading figure in the right’s larger undertaking of making stuff up and inciting a hate-filled narrative against the educated, cosmopolitan elite,” said Linda Hirshman, an author and cultural historian who studies and writes about social movements.

Tucker Carlson was doing something different — and darker — than most Fox hosts, Andrew Prokop, Vox

And that’s why his departure really matters.

It might sound odd to claim that a TV host losing his program is seismic news for American politics, but with Tucker Carlson’s exit from Fox News, that claim is justified.

Like the rest of his Fox colleagues, Carlson’s main job was winning eyeballs to the network — and he was very successful at that.

But he was also engaged in a different and more ambitious project from, say, Sean Hannity. Rather than just cheerleading for Trump or the Republican Party or the Fox News company line, Carlson was articulating an ideology.

Some call it conservative populism, or national conservatism, while critics say it’s akin to white nationalism. It’s an ideology that panders to many Americans’ bigoted and xenophobic impulses, their resentments and their grievances. It welcomes in voices denounced by others as racist, and delights in mocking “woke” liberals. It promotes conspiracy theories. It admires foreign leaders denounced by others as authoritarians. It denounces “elites,” the traditional establishments of both parties, and the long-held commitments of US foreign policy. 



Tuesday, April 25, 2023

DAVID A. GRAHAM, THE ATLANTIC: Tucker's Successor Will Be Worse

Tucker's Successor Will Be Worse  
Tucker Carlson. (photo: Richard Drew/AP)
 
 
The history of Fox News shows that the network and its issues are larger than any one anchor.
David A. Graham / The Atlantic

Tucker Carlson’s rise to become the defining conservative-media personality of the Donald Trump period was a surprise. His abrupt departure from Fox News, announced this morning, is even more shocking.

“FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways,” the company said in a terse statement. “We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor.”

Carlson transformed himself from a bow-tie-clad smart aleck playing the role of liberals’ favorite conservative into a MAGA hero, able to channel the grievances of the Trump coalition despite his patrician upbringing and reputation—or perhaps, like Trump, because of it. In the process he became Fox’s biggest star, talked about as a potential presidential candidate. Carlson was a font of dangerous rhetoric and preposterous lies, and Fox’s viewers absolutely loved it.

The reasons for Carlson’s departure, and the steps he might take next, are still unclear. But Fox will probably be fine without Carlson, and anyone who hopes that his disappearance from the air will improve the political discourse in this country is too optimistic. When prior bogeymen for the left—people such as Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck—have been pushed out of Fox, the network has always found a new figure to replace them, while the hosts themselves have struggled to match their past success. There will be a new Tucker Carlson, and it’s a good bet he or she will be even worse.

The exit comes at a time of flux for Fox. Its founder, Rupert Murdoch, is 92 and has faced recent health struggles. Fox just settled a lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over election-related lies for almost $800 million, and faces several more. The discovery process that led up to the settlement was embarrassing for Fox and for Carlson. Internal messages showed that Carlson and his colleagues knew that many of the claims they made about election fraud after the 2020 election were nonsense. They also showed Carlson furious over Fox journalists accurately reporting facts, which he worried would hurt ratings, and saying that he hated Trump. (This revelation didn’t prevent him from conducting an obsequious interview with the former president earlier this month.)

When the settlement was announced last week, I argued that no matter the hefty bill, it was just the cost of doing business for Fox. The network settled the suit, but airing the lies achieved its goal of vanquishing smaller, upstart conservative rivals. Fox is and remains larger than even its most important figures.

Carlson will not go away, but recent history suggests that he’ll have a hard time maintaining his current profile. Before Carlson, there was Bill O’Reilly, who was the leading conservative figure of his era and equally reviled by progressives. When O’Reilly was finally forced out of Fox in 2017 over sexual-misconduct claims, many critics hoped it would improve the state of the country and the press. Instead, it cleared the way for Carlson. O’Reilly has kept writing best-selling books but has become a more marginal figure in politics.

This pattern has repeated itself over the years. After O’Reilly, the long-time star Sean Hannity became Fox’s marquee name. His influence was such that he was sometimes referred to as Trump’s real chief of staff. But Hannity was unable to sustain his success, and though he remains at Fox, he was eventually eclipsed by Carlson.

A second-tier Fox star of the Obama years was Glenn Beck, a shouty and excitable host whose rise seemed to threaten O’Reilly’s seat on the throne. He was pushed out in 2011, and though Beck’s career has continued since, his plan to challenge Fox’s supremacy with The Blaze came up short, and he’s never matched the relevance he had on Fox.

The original mastermind of Fox News was Roger Ailes, the veteran TV executive and former Richard Nixon aide who recognized the market for an avowedly right-wing channel. When Ailes was forced out in 2016 (also related to sexual misconduct), many liberals hoped that it would doom the channel. But Fox is still Fox—the leader in ratings and the center of conservatism.

More details about why Carlson is leaving will surely emerge soon. Though he was connected to the Dominion lawsuit, as well as to other defamation cases against the company, a more serious offender was Maria Bartiromo, who remains at Fox (at least for now). Carlson is also implicated in a lawsuit by Abby Grossberg, a former Fox producer who has claimed that she experienced an appalling work environment while working on Carlson’s show. The Washington Post reported that Carlson’s messages criticizing Fox’s top leadership “played a role in his departure,” and his political ambitions and his penchant for dishing to reporters could easily have created tensions with bosses.

Any rising conservative TV star would love to grab for the crown Carlson has doffed, or that’s been taken from him. The audience, influence, and money involved make it irresistible, but his career arc illustrates the hazards. To remain on top at Fox, hosts have to be ready to continually ratchet up their rhetoric, because the network’s business model depends on continual audience outrage. But audiences eventually become inured and require new and more extreme input. Providing that is a challenging and soul-leaching job—and someone will be delighted to have it.

Sunday, April 23, 2023

Marjorie Taylor Greene attempts to explain climate change is fake - it goes badly

"You say it's round.  I say it's flat."
 
ScreenShot2023-04-15at6.30.59PM.png

Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks “climate change” science is bogus, and its proponents are grifters. She presented her case in a tweet. She starts,

“If you believe that today’s “climate change” is caused by too much carbon, you have been fooled.”

Her “scare quotes” say she does not believe in climate change. However, she leaves it unclear whether she denies the planet is getting hotter — or if she accepts the increase in global temperature but denies it is due to carbon.

More telling is her use of it the passive voice — “you have been fooled.” In doing so, she avoids saying who was doing the fooling. Her opening sentence is both unclear and wishy-washy. It is the hallmark of someone lacking confidence in their argument.

In the second paragraph, she lays out the groundwork for her argument.

“We live on a spinning planet that rotates around a much bigger sun along with other planets and heavenly bodies rotating around the sun that all create gravitational pull on one another while our galaxy rotates and travels through the universe.

Technically the Earth, other planets, and heavenly bodies “revolve” or “orbit” around the sun — a mass rotates around its axis. As for these “heavenly bodies”, my best guess is she means asteroids and comets.

She is correct that our galaxy — the Milky Way — does rotate and travel through the universe. And she is also right that all masses in the universe exert ”gravitational pull” on each other. (Note, astrophysicists no longer believe gravity is a pulling force, but I am probably splitting more hairs.) Overall, Greene offers a reasonably accurate, if simplistic, explanation of things.

Her vocabulary reveals the genesis of her ideas. Her use of “heavenly bodies” illuminates her religious approach to astronomy. ‘Heaven’ is, of course, not a scientific concept.

Then she arrives at her QED moment.

“Considering all of that, yes our climate will change, and it’s totally normal!”

She has left us hanging. She does not explain how all this movement leads to climate change — although it is good of her to acknowledge that our climate is changing.

My best estimate is that she has heard the sun drives climate and weather on Earth and has tossed in the rest because Republicans believe in baffling with bullshit. Call it ‘the more words, the merrier.’

As for “it’s totally normal,” I hazard that she is referring to the conservative climate-apologist tactic of pointing out that the Earth has had climate change in the past — without bringing up time scales. What used to take centuries or millennia is now happening in decades. Who knows what Greene means — I doubt she could explain it.

Next, she gets to her comfort zone — conspiracy theories.

“But there are some very powerful people that are getting rich beyond their wildest dreams convincing many that carbon is the enemy and that if humans sacrifice enough energy producing things we can actually control the climate.”  

She dodged bringing up these anti-carbon activists before by using the passive voice. Now she obfuscates who they are by not naming these “very powerful people”. The genius of her argument is that if you stay fact-free, it is harder to be fact-checked. And it takes far less time and effort to blame shadowy cabals rather than take on the scientific community.

Greene again befuddles her audience by warning that humans may potentially “sacrifice enough energy producing things.” Does she mean fossil fuels? If so, why not just say so? The answer is that her scattershot writing is just more of the watery gruel Greene serves up as a solid argument. Who can blame her? Her readers will not question it.

She closes with a warning.

Don’t fall for the scam, fossil fuels are natural and amazing. They produce an abundance of energy that we all need to survive along with more products than you can possibly imagine.

Who are the scammers? We still do not know. Fossil fuels are natural and amazing. However, so are funnel web spiders, belladonna, and mosquitos. The first can be fatally venomous; the second, fatally poisonous; and the last spread malaria, which has killed innumerable people over time. “Natural and amazing” is not necessarily the asset Green thinks it is

Greene is correct that fossil fuels produce an abundance of energy — and we need that energy to survive. But humans have invented better alternatives to the old ways throughout our existence. The internal combustion engine replaced the horse. EVs will replace gas-powered cars. It is what we do. There is no need to stop with fossil fuels when so many renewable, clean, efficient, and non-carbon energy sources are available or within our grasp.

Greene is also correct that we make a lot of stuff from fossil fuels. Petroleum products are the basis of many artificial fibers. Manufacturers use them in cosmetics, medicine, packaging, and food dyes. Ironically, one use is to make the plastics that go into solar panels.

However, while the citizen should be concerned that many petroleum-based products are not biodegradable, making consumer products from oil does not add CO2 to the atmosphere — if manufacturers power their plants with alternate energy. CO2 is generally only released when we burn fossil fuels.               

Greene finishes with her clincher — a picture that shows a decline in chemicals released into the atmosphere as fossil fuels increase. She is either a moron or a cynic. The decrease in airborne pollution results from ecological policies enacted under the 1970 Clean Air Act and enforced by the newly created EPA. An act and an agency today’s GOP wants to disembowel and diminish.

But far more egregiously, it does not measure the greenhouse gas that Greene is the crux of Greene’s tweet — carbon dioxide, CO2. This omission is not a surprise as the source of this misleading graph is FossilFuture.com — a website that promotes Alex Epstein, a fossil fuel advocate with a computer science/philosophy degree.  

If she were an honest dealer, Greene would have used this chart (source: NASA). But that would have shredded her already piss-poor argument.   

ScreenShot2023-04-15at5.52.05PM.png

Friday, April 21, 2023

Marjorie Taylor Greene finally shuts up. But of course, it wasn't her decision

Today in political theater gone wrong, we have performance artist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. On Wednesday, during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, Greene went too far with her vitriol even for Republicans when she impugned Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas by calling him “a liar.”

Greene’s five-minute tirade began against both China and Rep. Eric Swalwell, the latter whom she slandered by claiming he had a “sexual relationship with a Chinese spy—and everyone knows it.” Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman of New York moved to have Greene’s words taken down. But after the Republicans on the committee voted to table the motion, Greene continued on. And she did not stop being offensive for the full five minutes.

The tirade ended with her being muzzled for the remainder of the hearing.

RELATED STORY: MTG offers up ludicrous series of questions with fake 'facts' during committee hearing

When she finally got around to (sort of) asking Mayorkas a question, it came in a high-octane run of, “Where China is poisoning America’s children, poisoning our teenagers, poisoning our young people, how long are you going to let this go on?” Mayorkas attempted to answer, saying that nobody was “letting this go on,” when Greene interrupted him, saying, “No! I reclaim my time! You’re a liar!”

Greene’s bile, the concentration of everything the Republican Party stands for at this point, is a whole lot harder to take when meeting in the more intimate space of a committee hearing. Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi immediately moved to have Greene’s words “taken down.”

At this point the Republican chairman of the committee, Mark Green, made his ruling:

“It’s pretty clear that the rules state that you cannot impugn someone’s character. Identifying or calling someone a liar is unacceptable in this committee; and I make the ruling that we strike those words.”

Now, this is where it became a special kind of awesome. Goldman asked if the ruling was the one that Thompson asked for: to have the words “taken down,” versus having them “stricken” from the record. The distinction is an important one because having the words “taken down” also means the speaker—in this case the Tasmanian devil from Georgia—would no longer be recognized in the hearing.

Possibly realizing she was about to be shut down completely, Greene attempted one of her patented make-believe moves, saying, “Point of personal inquiry,” to which Goldman responded, “There’s no such thing.” Teehee.

The fact that Greene’s existence in all settings is a waste of space is nothing new. But in this circumstance she not only effectively nullified her entire political theater performance, she nullified her party’s own usual political theater performances by forcing them to punish her instead of spending their time blaming President Joe Biden for fentanyl.

After a moment of conferring, Green broke the news that her words would be struck from the public record and “the gentlelady is no longer recognized.” The Republicans then decided the only win they could get was to say that Greene’s pretty slanderous attack on Swalwell didn’t break the rules.

Goldman gave a clear response to that, saying out loud that Greene’s statement was “bullshit.”

RELATED STORIES:

Marjorie Taylor Greene's chief of staff freaks out after being fact-checked

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's committee debut was exactly as disgraceful as expected

Thursday, April 20, 2023

Why Are Americans Being Shot for Knocking on the Wrong Door?

 Why Are Americans Being Shot for Knocking on the Wrong Door? 

‘In Kansas City, Missouri, Ralph Yarl, 16, was shot in the head and critically wounded by 84-year-old Andrew Lester, whose door Yarl knocked on, in error.’ (photo: AP)

 
Francine Prose / Guardian UK

In the past week, two people have been shot, in separate incidents, for making an innocent mistake. In Kansas City, Missouri, Ralph Yarl, 16, was shot in the head and critically wounded by 84-year-old Andrew Lester, whose door Yarl knocked on, in error. Yarl had come to pick up his younger brothers, who turned out to have been with friends at another house with a similar address. In rural upstate New York, 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis was shot and killed when she and her friends, having lost their way, drove up Kevin Monahan’s driveway. The car was turning around to leave when Monahan, 65, fired two bullets through the car window.

I live in the country. It’s easy to lose your way. Mailbox numbers flake off. Satellite signals vanish. Our packages have been delivered to the raccoons in the empty house down the road. I can’t count the times we’ve gotten lost en route to a friend’s, taken the wrong turns, stayed on the wrong dirt road until we could turn around. What would have happened if one of those driveways had belonged to Kevin Monahan, who, according to neighbors, had a “short fuse” and was enraged about trespassers?

Once, 15 years ago, a young man driving to work at five in the morning swerved off the road, tore up our lawn, demolished two lilac trees and smashed into a corner of my husband’s studio. We’d been asleep. We ran outside. It never occurred to me that he was a terrorist or a criminal fleeing the cops. It couldn’t have been more obvious: He’d fallen asleep at the wheel and missed the curve. Dazed but apparently unhurt, he lowered his window, handed us his phone, and asked us to call his brother.

The differences between that upsetting but not fatal experience and the recent shootings in Missouri and upstate New York are a measure of what has changed in a decade and a half. It’s hard to pinpoint the reasons why things have taken such a dire turn. The increase in gun violence has put us all on edge. An uptick in impulsive, explosive, trigger-happy rage ramps up the fear and paranoia that has us warily eyeing our fellow passengers and shoppers.

Race may well have determined a white octogenarian’s decision to shoot the Black child who’d come to the wrong address, but we can’t assume that without knowing more about the shooter. Age might have played a part, too. There’s no indication that drugs or alcohol factored in either of these two cases, but these substances can fuel the paranoia that might inspire a driveway or a front-porch shooting – road rage without leaving the house.

Everything we hear, read and observe for ourselves about the deep divisions in our country comes with a more or less veiled threat: the other side is out to get us. While the right confronts the specter of Ruby Ridge, of Randy Weaver’s wife and child killed by FBI agents, the left is haunted by racially motivated murders and random mass homicides. Anyone could start shooting at any moment as we remain locked in a series of struggles: red v blue, white v Black, men v women.

Obviously, we can scale down the violence and death by limiting access to guns, but there will always be guns. So how do we change the belief that it’s a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later? How do we repair this broken chromosome in our nation’s cowboy DNA?

Given that Breaking Bad, The Wire and The Sopranos are among my all-time favorite TV series, I hesitate to advocate dialing down the violence in our entertainment. On the other hand, we might want to consider the fact that Yarl’s shooting was headline news. An alternate scenario – Andrew Lester calmly telling Ralph Yarl that he was on Northeast 115 Street, when actually he was looking for Northeast 115 Terrace – would never have been reported.

Violence is news. If it bleeds, it leads. It’s our daily diet, the disease we can watch proliferate in prime time. Do Andrew Lester and Kevin Moynahan watch TV? Have they seen cops shoot multiple bullets into a Black man before one word is exchanged? For some, the lesson of that sort of footage is: it’s something guys do. It happens.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t see those films. We need to know that this strain of violence isn’t going away. But we might consider the downside of prurience, of the numbing effects of sensationalism, of watching the same chaotic body-cam clip night after night. Perhaps we need to consider the balance between normalizing and reporting.

It’s hard to imagine someone being shot for knocking on a stranger’s door in Finland, Spain or Canada. We Americans seem to have a national anger-management problem, which grows even more toxic when it interacts with racism, sexism, jingoism, homophobia, transphobia and a slew of other “reasons” for hatred.

I can’t imagine the magic cure for an epidemic of impulse murder. It’s too huge, too systemic, too ingrained in the fabric and the moment. It’s as if our population needs therapy or guidance. At the least, we need to learn not to kill strangers who may need our help – but rather to ask if they are lost.

Oh, for the good old days when you had to reload after every bullet.