HomeOpen ThreadInternational Worker Day & Open Thread
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

We need a tip jar, thanks Mags.



These videos seem suitable for this discussion.


Jamarl weighs in..

Don midwest
Don midwest

An election tracking system at Naked Capitalism

This one is covering the primaries. He has a coding. Of the 23 candidates pushed by DCCC, only 3 are M. three more are fM – faux M



FAKE “PROGRESSIVE” Candidates Deployed Under Guidance Of Hillary Clinton Cronies–by Jamarl Thomas


Excellent satire in WaPo. Doesn’t happen too often. This is worth reading. Since it’s the beginning of the month, you can get a free read of it. (FYI, Greenwald likes it too)

We must rally around Joy Reid

Joy Reid deserves everyone’s support. The most destructive and insidious hacker in journalistic history is on the loose, ready to snatch another career.

Reid, who hosts “AM Joy” on MSNBC, is somehow hanging onto hers. On Saturday morning she addressed the controversy relating to a stack of homophobic posts that piled up on her long-shuttered blog, the Reid Report. “I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things because they are completely alien to me. But I can definitely understand based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past why some people don’t believe me,” said Reid on “AM Joy.”

Who are these disbelievers? What more evidence could they possibly demand to prove that Reid was wronged by some bad actor who spent years inventing a new form of hacking just to create the impression that she wrote a few more offensive things in the 2000s than she was willing to admit to? Isn’t that what hackers do these days? When has anyone ever made up a claim about hacking anyway?

And do the skeptics doubt Reid’s claim that her long-ago writings now look “alien” to her? Here are some examples of that material:

A post in which she some darned hacker supported the anti-gay comments of former NBA star Tim Hardaway: “Most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing… Most straight people had a hard time being convinced to watch ‘Broke Back Mountain.’ (I admit that I couldn’t go see the movie either, despite my sister’s ringing endorsement, because I didn’t want to watch the two male characters having sex.) Does that make me homophobic? Probably.”

A post identifying several “totally not gay celebrities of the year” — possibly closeted people who she some darned hacker riffed about.

A post in which she some darned hacker riffed about gene manipulation to prevent gayness.

Those are pretty distinctive thoughts. Distinctive enough that Reid, if she had written them, surely would have remembered them. And the reference to the sister’s movie review? Classic fraudster move.

If you prefer, Secular Talk did a segment yesterday about the cover up, and includes some commentary about TOP. He makes some excellent points about how MSNBC has really lowered the bar for its journalists just as Fox already has with Hannity’s show.


Interesting study, mainly surveying Trump voters, seems to parallel what went on at TOP’s (especially Markos) defense of Reid’s fabrications :

In each instance, rather than insisting the falsehood was true, Ms. Sanders and Ms. Conway implied it could have been true. Logically speaking, the claim that more people could have attended the president’s inauguration in nicer weather does not make the crowd any bigger. But psychologically, it may make the falsehood seem closer to the truth and thus less unethical to tell.

To find out if this strategy actually helps get politicians off the hook for dishonesty, I recently conducted a series of experiments. I asked 2,783 Americans from across the political spectrum to read a series of claims that they were told (correctly) were false. Some claims, like the falsehood about the inauguration crowd, appealed to Mr. Trump’s supporters, and some appealed to his opponents: for instance, a false report (which circulated widely on the internet) that Mr. Trump had removed a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office.

All the participants were asked to rate how unethical it was to tell the falsehoods. But half the participants were first invited to imagine how the falsehood could have been true if circumstances had been different. For example, they were asked to consider whether the inauguration would have been bigger if the weather had been nicer, or whether Mr. Trump would have removed the bust if he could have gotten away with it.

And what were some of the findings?

The results of the experiments, published recently in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, show that reflecting on how a falsehood could have been true did cause people to rate it as less unethical to tell — but only when the falsehoods seemed to confirm their political views. Trump supporters and opponents both showed this effect.


Again, the problem wasn’t that people confused fact and fiction; virtually everyone recognized the claims as false. But when a falsehood resonated with people’s politics, asking them to imagine counterfactual situations in which it could have been true softened their moral judgments. A little imagination can apparently make a lie feel “truthy” enough to give the liar a bit of a pass.

These results reveal a subtle hypocrisy in how we maintain our political views. We use different standards of honesty to judge falsehoods we find politically appealing versus unappealing. When judging a falsehood that maligns a favored politician, we ask, “Was it true?” and then condemn it if the answer is no.

In contrast, when judging a falsehood that makes a favored politician look good, we are willing to ask, “Could it have been true?” and then weaken our condemnation if we can imagine the answer is yes. By using a lower ethical standard for lies we like, we leave ourselves vulnerable to influence by pundits and spin doctors.

In this time of “fake news” and “alternative facts,” commentators worry that people with different political orientations base their judgments of right and wrong on entirely different perceptions of reality. My research suggests an additional concern: Even when partisans agree on the facts, they can come to different moral conclusions about the dishonesty of deviating from those facts. The result is more disagreement in an already politically polarized world.

I’m bombarded with the tripe that Russian bot farms pushed content (via FB and other places) that was fake about Clinton. Yet, it appears it doesn’t matter if it was pushed polled or not. And Joy Reid benefited from that false belief.

Except for Chris Hayes, I’m going to continue my limited viewing of MSNBC programs. Too many fake progressives otherwise.


Well it’s not surprising that people are more willing to give a break to politicians they align with politically. But it’s also true that Republicans, starting with Trump, tell a lot more lies (and more egregious lies) than Dems. So the damage of people giving a pass to their lies is a lot worse because there are so many of those lies.


One thing for sure. No one will ever accuse Trump of being modest.


President Trump’s former personal physician claims that Trump dictated the 2015 letter he wrote praising the then-presidential candidate’s health.

“He dictated that whole letter. I didn’t write that letter,” Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. “I just made it up as I went along.”

“His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” read the letter, which Bornstein had initially said he wrote himself. “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”

Bornstein now says that Trump had dictated the language as the doctor and his wife drove across Central Park.


In order to make sure that the letter wouldn’t be disputed.


This is for people who like Panda Bears.

It is worth a click.

Skip to toolbar