[News] Post a Political News Story

Ongoing discussion of the political news of the day. This thread is for 'smaller' stories that don't call for their own thread. If a story blows up, please start a new thread for it.

So is libertarianism the political version of The Prisoner’s Dilemma?

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

So is libertarianism the political version of The Prisoner’s Dilemma?

It's the political version of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules. And it will always be "he's."

I'd like to thank San Francisco for being a perfect encapsulation of That Brand of liberalism, the one living in a city where the cost of living is a dystopian joke, there are homeless encampments under every overpass and local residents and lawmakers bitterly fight any attempt to build more affordable housing, but thank God they took the time to label the NRA domestic terrorists, a vacuous, empty decision that ultimately serves no purpose but giving FOX News six months of red meat to throw on the grill.

EDIT: Also, and I'd assume this wouldn't need f*cking saying, but you should be VERY SPECIFIC, CLEAR-EYED AD RIGOROUS about who and what you call a "terrorist," because, as Chris Hayes pointed out on Twitter, expanding that concept can abso-f*cking-lutely blow right back up in your face. Not that these morons gave any thought to this.

Nevin73 wrote:

Yeah, but aren't the old Democrats the current Republicans? So it's really just the same group, just a different name.

The current Democrats were quite happy to gerrymander throughout the 90's and 2000's. But ... why does it matter? Does the "good guys" doing it make it okay?

Aetius wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Yeah, but aren't the old Democrats the current Republicans? So it's really just the same group, just a different name.

The current Democrats were quite happy to gerrymander throughout the 90's and 2000's. But ... why does it matter? Does the "good guys" doing it make it okay?

No.

Gasp!

Aetius wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Yeah, but aren't the old Democrats the current Republicans? So it's really just the same group, just a different name.

The current Democrats were quite happy to gerrymander throughout the 90's and 2000's. But ... why does it matter? Does the "good guys" doing it make it okay?

No, but do we just throw up our hands and allow Republicans to do it now since Democrats did it earlier? My guess is that was a rationale Democrats put forward in the 90s - some previous time Republicans did it before. And I bet those Republicans said it was ok because Democrats did it before that...etc., etc.

Is there nothing we can say is wrong if anyone, anytime did it before?

That’s not at all what Nevin meant, but kudos to Aetius for successfully doing a #bothsides with this issue.

I think what Nevin meant is that given that the parties flipped ideologically in this time frame it’s likely that some of the exact same people were involved in gerrymandering on either side.

DSGamer wrote:

That’s not at all what Nevin meant, but kudos to Aetius for successfully doing a #bothsides with this issue.

I think what Nevin meant is that given that the parties flipped ideologically in this time frame it’s likely that some of the exact same people were involved in gerrymandering on either side.

Thanks DS, took the words from my brain.

Why Steve King’s Supporters Are Staying Loyal

The last sentence of this really encapsulates so much, so perfectly.

I'd like to thank San Francisco for being a perfect encapsulation of That Brand of liberalism, the one living in a city where the cost of living is a dystopian joke, there are homeless encampments under every overpass and local residents and lawmakers bitterly fight any attempt to build more affordable housing, but thank God they took the time to label the NRA domestic terrorists, a vacuous, empty decision that ultimately serves no purpose but giving FOX News six months of red meat to throw on the grill.

Sorry but they cleaned up the encampments under the over passes. At first they push them out from under the over passes. So they spilled onto the streets in protest. And now, it is scary to note that who the f*ck knows where they went now?

Though we can have both, can't we? Affordable housing should not replace the ability to label the NRA a terrorist organization.

Prederick wrote:

Why Steve King’s Supporters Are Staying Loyal

The last sentence of this really encapsulates so much, so perfectly.

“Liberals gotta quit insulting people,” he explained later, as we wrapped up our interview. “They’ve got to quit calling us names.”

Does anyone, even for a moment, think he doesn't use the term "lib-tard" and laugh?

New York To Investigate Facebook Over Possible Antitrust Violations

I find it hilarious that she announced this on Twitter.

Prederick wrote:

Why Steve King’s Supporters Are Staying Loyal

The last sentence of this really encapsulates so much, so perfectly.

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?” King asked the paper.
...
Reflecting on King’s Times interview, Leonard told me that even if the paper’s quotes were accurate, the congressman hadn’t said anything factually incorrect: The term white supremacist shouldn’t be offensive. “Look at what actually the word supreme means. It doesn’t mean ‘better’; it means ‘dominant,’” Leonard said. “Whites are supreme in this country—that’s a fact … I don’t know [that white people] are trying to run the country and the businesses to the detriment of anybody else, though.”
....

Ummmm, actually:

Supreme: superior to all others

Hmmm, I wonder how aaanybody could possibly think that “white supremacist” is offensive. Hmmm...

Prederick wrote:

Why Steve King’s Supporters Are Staying Loyal

The last sentence of this really encapsulates so much, so perfectly.

I prefer the sentence from the preceding paragraph:

“Loyalty is not a character flaw,” Leonard told me.

True, Leonard, but blindness to other's character flaws is in fact, itself a character flaw. And one that invalidates any modicum of honor from the subsequent loyalty to said flawed characters.

farley3k wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Why Steve King’s Supporters Are Staying Loyal

The last sentence of this really encapsulates so much, so perfectly.

“Liberals gotta quit insulting people,” he explained later, as we wrapped up our interview. “They’ve got to quit calling us names.”

Does anyone, even for a moment, think he doesn't use the term "lib-tard" and laugh?

"Dumbass white supremacists gotta quit making us liberals drag your ignorant cracker asses into the 21st century," OG explained, as the vein on the side of his temple started to throb. "You little snowflakes have got to stop being afraid of everything not white and just accept that this isn't your granddaddy's America anymore...and that your granddaddy's America was a sh*tty place for everyone who didn't look like him."

It was even a sh*tty place for most of the people that looked like him...

OG_slinger wrote:
farley3k wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Why Steve King’s Supporters Are Staying Loyal

The last sentence of this really encapsulates so much, so perfectly.

“Liberals gotta quit insulting people,” he explained later, as we wrapped up our interview. “They’ve got to quit calling us names.”

Does anyone, even for a moment, think he doesn't use the term "lib-tard" and laugh?

"Dumbass white supremacists gotta quit making us liberals drag your ignorant cracker asses into the 21st century," OG explained, as the vein on the side of his temple started to throb. "You little snowflakes have got to stop being afraid of everything not white and just accept that this isn't your granddaddy's America anymore...and that your granddaddy's America was a sh*tty place for everyone who didn't look like him."

I've noticed that "Look what you're making me do" is a well-trodden excuse. They have no personal agency.

In other news, that entire Epstein thing has already faded into the cultural background, which is BERSERK.

Prederick wrote:

In other news, that entire Epstein thing has already faded into the cultural background, which is BERSERK.

Earlier this week I saw a tabloid at the grocery store, the Globe maybe, whose cover said something about Epstein and had a picture of Bill Clinton. So I guess that's the level it's being treated at now rather than actual journalists investigating the connections.

More big government from those small government republicans.

Four automakers bucked Trump policy on emissions. Now they are under antitrust investigation

The Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into four major automakers who have rejected the Trump administration's relaxed air pollution and mileage regulations.

The four automakers — Ford (F), Honda (HMC), Volkswagen and BMW — agreed in July to meet the tougher standards set by the California Air Resources Board rather than the Trump administration's rules, which would roll back standards put in place under former President Barack Obama.

Actively encouraging climate change. Next they'll start fining motorists who don't "roll coal" or who drive electric cars. f*ck 45.

The Trump administration also recently sh*tcanned new requirements to make commonly used light bulbs more energy efficient, which were set to go into effect at the beginning of the new year. Incandescent and halogen bulbs would have been gradually phased out and replaced with LEDs bulbs.

The new requirements came from bipartisan legislation signed by the Bush administration that was finalized under the Obama administration. Now Trump's Energy Department is claiming that the new standards were developed "in a manner that is not consistent with the best reading of the statute." Critics say that the more efficient light bulbs would reduced greenhouse gas emissions and saved consumers $14 billion from their electric bill.

These two news items are related because they were both part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which pledged to deliver "energy security through improved vehicle fuel economy" and "energy savings through improved standards for appliances and lighting."

Prederick wrote:

In other news, that entire Epstein thing has already faded into the cultural background, which is BERSERK.

Ronan Farrow's got you covered. How an Elite University Research Center Concealed its Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein:

The M.I.T. Media Lab, which has been embroiled in a scandal over accepting donations from the financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, had a deeper fund-raising relationship with Epstein than it has previously acknowledged, and it attempted to conceal the extent of its contacts with him. Dozens of pages of e-mails and other documents obtained by The New Yorker reveal that, although Epstein was listed as “disqualified” in M.I.T.’s official donor database, the Media Lab continued to accept gifts from him, consulted him about the use of the funds, and, by marking his contributions as anonymous, avoided disclosing their full extent, both publicly and within the university. Perhaps most notably, Epstein appeared to serve as an intermediary between the lab and other wealthy donors, soliciting millions of dollars in donations from individuals and organizations, including the technologist and philanthropist Bill Gates and the investor Leon Black. According to the records obtained by The New Yorker and accounts from current and former faculty and staff of the media lab, Epstein was credited with securing at least $7.5 million in donations for the lab, including two million dollars from Gates and $5.5 million from Black, gifts the e-mails describe as “directed” by Epstein or made at his behest. The effort to conceal the lab’s contact with Epstein was so widely known that some staff in the office of the lab’s director, Joi Ito, referred to Epstein as Voldemort or “he who must not be named.”

The MIT Media Lab, aka the place where most of the stuff you're reading this post on was invented 20 to 30 years ago.

Ah yes, that. I imagine the Director was hoping no-one would find out about this because he has resigned with the quickness.

MIT President Reif sent out a letter at 5 today; Joi Ito resigned completely from the Media Lab and MIT, and the general counsel is to bring in a "prominent" outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation. He's calling acceptance of the Epstein gifts a "mistake of judgment".

Several million dollars of mistakes of judgement. Including emails referencing that the mistakes need to be made anonymously, lest someone discover my mistakes of judgement.

This is definitely the same as when I showed up under-dressed for that funeral.

The stories from the MIT Media Lab are...wild. When you have Epstein showing up in person with an...entourage...that goes a bit beyond making a mistake about who you took money from and edges into complicity.

So does the Epstein-MIT story wander into “nothing this guy did is ok because some of what he did was incredibly bad” territory? I’m trying to understand why the MIT Media Lab would hide funding from a whatever-you’d-classify-Epstein-as.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

So does the Epstein-MIT story wander into “nothing this guy did is ok because some of what he did was incredibly bad” territory? I’m trying to understand why the MIT Media Lab would hide funding from a whatever-you’d-classify-Epstein-as.

Yes. In a just world he would have been in prison years ago, all the people he blackmailed would be there with them. And their money would be confiscated. Use that money to fund MIT research.

In this case MIT failing to disclose their funding meant they were actively aiding and abetting child rape. The institution should pay a heavy penalty for that.

DSGamer wrote:

In this case MIT failing to disclose their funding meant they were actively aiding and abetting child rape. The institution should pay a heavy penalty for that.

....
There's the leap that I don't understand. What is the connection between MIT and child rape? Note that I'm not defending either party at this point. Epstein did awful things; Epstein gave money to MIT. I don't see the connection between MIT and awful things. Now, this may change once it comes out why the money was obfuscated, but saying the MIT helped Epstein do awful things feels like a lot of a stretch.

It's called prestige washing. Epstein was a convicted criminal. He has trouble having that reputation. He donated money to MIT Media Lab, which both gave him favorable press and let him influence the things they were researching. Epstein becomes known as a philanthropist. Epstein gets prestige in exchange. Plus he gets invited to events, gains more connections, and so on. People in high society mostly aren't familiar with the details of his conviction, but do remember him as a philanthropist. Epstein can show his face in public and has access to more resources for trafficking minors for sexual purposes. Epstein rapes more girls.

Here's a twitter thread about that and related things from someone who resigned from a Media Lab associated thing after he found out about the Epstein connection.

In addition MIT as a whole explicitly banned Epstein from donating to the school, so they knew this was bad news. Not to mention the related details: Joi Ito intentionally started this relationship with Epstein five years after his first felony conviction. Joi Ito visited Epstein's personal residences. When Epstein visited (in secret!) he brought along two young women from Eastern Europe. Stuff like that.