The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label MSNBC The Last Word. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSNBC The Last Word. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2018

Fox News Demagogue Suffers Advertiser Abandonment (Video)



Fox News Demagogue Fails To Consider The Power of Young activist and corporate responsibility


Image result for laura ingraham show advertisers

David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.) https://t.co/wflA4hWHXY— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 28, 2018
You know David Hogg as a leader in the flourishing #Our Lives Matter movement. Is it possible to possess a rational mind and fail to recognize the downside and gutter cesspool acts of attacking a 17-year-old who dares speak out against the guns Americans gun culture?  

How did the 17-year-old activist respond?  He responded as a person with social media wherewithal, rational thought processes and the activist he responded with a huge weapon. A weapon which carried a stinging lesson for consumer products companies which advertise on Fox News.  His Twitter response. 

After Hogg took to his Twitter account with an exhortation to flood Ingraham's advertisers with concerns about their support for the Fox News demagogue, show advertisers quickly responded. Yesterday afternoon four advertisers dropped the show; as of this morning, eight advertisers have withdrawn ads from the demagogue's show. 

Ingraham's apology (CNBC)

Of course, Americans who are of rational mind know Laura Ingraham is a far-right demagogue who can find no wrong in anything Trump, nor any wrong in anything anti-NRA or anything pro-gun restrictions.  Those same Republicans know more about Ingraham. She now has a show on FOXPEN (Fox Propaganda and Entertainment Network) as well as a radio show.  If you are aware of the daily propaganda mission of Trump's most admired TV network you know she is now on Fox solely due to the firing of the network's former flagship demagogue, Bill O'Reilly. 

Ingraham fills O'Reilly ratings laden Fox broadcasts slot like an expensive leather glove. She feeds Right-wing viewer propaganda sponges comparable to O'Reilly with a slightly less inclination for on-air racism.  While she is less inclined towards weekly forays into feeding the bigoted minds of Fox News viewers, she never misses a beat when she finds an opportunity. How better to tickling her Twitter audience while offering favored remarks to the NRA than to attack one of the now very visible Parkland Shooting survivors?

Cable news has covered Ingraham's grotesque tweet, but as is generally the case MSNBC exceeds other networks in exposing the Fox News underbelly.  I don't believe there is an on-camera response to Ingraham which surpasses the scope and depth of comments from Republican Steve Schmidt (MSNBC contributor). 

"Another example of an adult acting terribly". MSNBC contributor Steve Schmidt (Republican..Correction: rational Republican)



Of the 13 advertisers posted in Hoog's Twitter post, nine have to return corporate decency via dropping Ingraham. O'Reilly was fired from Fox News due to an avalanche of fleeing advertisers. Wonder how long FOXPEN with value Ingraham's entertainment potential as the day progresses?

Let's end with a segment from The Last Word (it includes additional comments about Ingraham's advertisers) along with a quick segment regarding #OurLives Matter as we move towards the November mid-term elections. Steve Kornacki and potential election impact (poll data). 

The Last Word

StumbleUpon

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Delusion, Pathological Lying; Tendency for Authoritarianism (Bad Recipe)




Haven't We Observed This Picture Before

MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL ...AGREED | image tagged in texas church,trump,nra,mental illness | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

No matter your politician inclinations, if you are a perceptive person and person who exercises any degree of rational thought, you know Trump is exhibiting behavior which is well outside of the norm for an adult. You should also recognize the behavior well outside the universe of acceptable for a US President.

The word "delusional" is increasingly floating around media and social media. Well, let's take a look at the word and how it may fit Trump.  Needless to say, the word sees to fit like a $2,000 pair of gloves. 




Psychology Today




Delusional Disorder

Definition

Delusions are fixed beliefs that do not change, even when a person is presented with conflicting evidence. Delusions are considered "bizarre" if they are clearly implausible and peers within the same culture cannot understand them. An example of a bizarre delusion is when an individual believes that his or her organs have been replaced with someone else's without leaving any wounds or scars. An example of a nonbizarre delusion is the belief that one is under police surveillance, despite a lack of evidence. 
Delusional disorder refers to a condition in which an individual displays one or more delusions for one month or longer. Delusional disorder is distinct from schizophrenia and cannot be diagnosed if a person meets the criteria for schizophrenia. If a person has delusional disorder, functioning is generally not impaired and behavior is not obviously odd, with the exception of the delusion. Delusions may seem believable at face value, and patients may appear normal as long as an outsider does not touch upon their delusional themes. Also, these delusions are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse.

Web MD
There are different types of delusional disorder based on the main theme of the delusions experienced.  
The types of delusional disorder include: 
Erotomanic: Someone with this type of delusional disorder believes that another person, often someone important or famous, is in love with him or her. The person might attempt to contact the object of the delusion, and stalking behavior is not uncommon. 
Grandiose: A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.  
Jealous: A person with this type of delusional disorder believes that his or her spouse or sexual partner is unfaithful.  
Persecutory: People with this type of delusional disorder believe that they (or someone close to them) are being mistreated, or that someone is spying on them or planning to harm them. It is not uncommon for people with this type of delusional disorder to make repeated complaints to legal authorities. 
Somatic: A person with this type of delusional disorder believes that he or she has a physical defect or medical problem.  
Mixed: People with this type of delusional disorder have two or more of the types of delusions listed above.



Alas, we offer the opinion of the non-medical professional. Yet, an opinion which is becoming very apparent.  







Of course, Harwood isn't a psychiatrist, nor are we, with skills in diagnosing conditions of the brain. We are, however, intelligent human beings and we recognized over-the-top abnormal behavior which should have been kept far from the US Presidency and responsibilities as Commander-In-Chief. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly obvious Trump's mental state requires deep scrutiny and discussion with associated conversations about where we go as a nation or how we fix the electoral mess. Trump will not change, and his mental state will never reverse to that of a simple real estate mogul and reality TV celebrity.

While we are reading reports of mental health professionals commenting on Trump's behavior, MSNBC hosted a discussion towards the end of November which warrants an embed. The segment is eleven minutes long and laced with opinion oriented less than complimentary Trump comments, but the comments from the psychiatrist are relevant. 

MSNBC The Last Word, November 29, 2017
Psychiatrist Lance Dodes

Psychiatrist: Trump's mental state an 'enormous present danger'



Suffering any stage of delusion is a problem for a national leader.  Suffering what seems a case of "mixed" delusion can be a nation killer when coupled with another psychological malady. Trumps pathological lying, when coupled with what could be mixed delusion, is a clear and present danger.

We only have to visit Trump's impromptu to interview with the New York Times. While Trump's talking heads are accepting invitations to appear on CNN with sweet icing comments about the 30-minute talk, the interaction is proving to be yet another indication of an unstable mind.

We past linked, below a few articles related to the interview (which actually was a non-interview). 


Esquire

Trump’s New York Times Interview Is a Portrait of a Man in Cognitive Decline

I don’t care whether Michael Schmidt was tough enough. We’ve got bigger problems.


The Washington Post

CNN
The 47 most outrageous lines in Donald Trump's New York Times interview

Delusion and pathological (serial) lying is not a healthy state of being for a President of the United States.







StumbleUpon

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Obstruction?, Investigation?, Trump; "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (VIDEO)


Do you recall this mess from the late 2016 General Election campaign?


Trump took the stage on a daily basis in late October and early November with pure carnival barking to sycophantic minions, to spew what is turning into "The Man In The Mirror" rhetoric. (NOTE: I did not refer to them as "deplorable")

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. Yet, Trump won the election due to a seriously flawed process of electoral votes.  And check out the aftermath of his rhetoric.

Investigation?


Trump warned of endless investigations of Clinton. Instead, the focus is now on him

Endless investigations. The biggest scandal since Watergate. Coverups. An inability to govern. A possible constitutional crisis. These were all arguments that Donald Trump made against Hillary Clinton in the closing days of the 2016 presidential election. But now with the Washington Post reporting overnight that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, it’s worth recalling the rhetoric Trump used in the final two weeks of the ’16 presidential campaign.
October 28 in Cedar Rapids, IA
“As you’ve heard, earlier today the FBI after discovering new emails is reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton… The investigation is the biggest political scandal since Watergate and it’s everybody’s hope that justice at last can be delivered.”
November 2 in Miami, FL
“If Hillary Clinton were to be elected, it would create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis. Haven’t we just been through a lot with the Clintons, right?”
November 2 in Orlando, FL
“Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years, probably concluding in a criminal trial.”
November 2 in Orlando, FL
“She'll be under investigation for years. She'll be with trials. Our country, we have to get back to work.”
November 4 in Wilmington, OH
“Hillary has engaged in a criminal massive enterprise and cover-ups like probably nobody ever before.”
November 5 in Reno, NV
“There's virtually no doubt that FBI Director Comey and the great, great special agents of the FBI will be able to collect more than enough evidence to garner indictments against Hillary Clinton and her inner circle, despite her efforts to disparage them and to discredit them. If she were to win this election, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial.”
November 5 in Denver, CO
“Her current scandals and controversies will continue throughout her presidency and we will make it honestly, look, it's gonna be virtually impossible for her to govern. Now, the Republicans have talked very tough and the Democrats. It's gonna be just another mess for another four years, folks. A mess. We've got to get back to work, right? I mean, we have to get back to work.”
November 6 in Minneapolis, MN
“First thing you should do is get rid of Clinton. Hillary Clinton will be under investigation for a long, long time for her many crimes against our nation, our people, our democracy, likely concluding in a criminal trial.”
November 6 in Moon Township, PA
“The investigations into her crimes will go on for a long, long time. The rank and file special agents at the FBI won't let her get away with these terrible crimes, including the deletion of 33,000 emails after receiving a congressional subpoena. Right now, she's being protected by a rigged system.”
 Life comes full circle and the carnival barker is exposed.

MSNBC The Last Word (16 minutes)







StumbleUpon

Monday, January 13, 2014

Rubio And Block Grants! A Sign Of A Deeper Probem

Rubio goes black grants...How easy is it to take away such Grants?

"State's Rights" is at the deep core of conservative principles. As you and I both know, core principles guide us throughout our lives and basically, set the paradigm under which we accomplish life. Marco Rubio's proposal for state black grants is classic state's rights with all associated flaws.

"State's Rights" is dangerous. It is an unfortunate reality, US History is replete with evidence of authority to legislate and to govern spread across decentralized state governments has a deleterious influence on federal governance. Despite conservative, libertarian, and GOP principles, federal governance has provided necessary tweaks for the betterment of society throughout the history of the 'republic.' (e.g., Labor Law, Civil-Rights Laws, congressional war powers). Conversely, a nation with decentralized authority (power) spread across 50 very diverse geographic and legislative realities, in my mind, lays the groundwork for absolute nation killing disaster. 

Think of current national issues that would fall into the realm of states rights if the "New Federalism" was the accepted norm.  Abortion rights, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Transportation systems, potential dismantling of federal agencies, election laws, Human and Civil Rights, are issues that would join with other issues to create a national (or 50 states) "kerfuffle." 

I recently read an extensive article published just after Marco Rubio week ago visit to camera and microphone to speak about his perception of LBJ's former "War on Poverty." It should be noted Senator Rubio spoke to his audience the day after he voted against extending unemployment insurance payments to millions.

The article from Perrspectves Dot Com deals directly with the essence of Rubio remarks. Under the title, "The GOP's Worst Idea to Fight Poverty? Federal Block Grants to the States" the author takes apart the fallacy of "State Block Grants."  

Jon Perr wrote....

Article excerpt
Americans can be forgiven their skepticism. After all, whether concerning health care, education or basic safety net programs, the likes of Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor and their ilk are offering the same failed formula: slash federal budget and hand over the reduced outlays over to the states to spend as they wish. Yet as night follows day, the certain result is a shredded safety net as federal funds redirected to private companies and religious charities undermine public institutions while failing to assist the very people they intended to help.
Take, for example, this week's "major" poverty speech from Florida Senator and 2016 GOP White House hopeful Marco Rubio. As McClatchy reported Wednesday, "Rubio wants states, not U.S., to lead second wave in war on poverty." Complaining that "federal government is incapable of delivering" what he deems (though not defines) as "innovative and highly targeted solutions," Rubio proclaimed:
Therefore, what I am proposing today is the most fundamental change to how the federal government fights poverty and encourages income mobility since President Johnson first conceived of the War on Poverty fifty years ago. I am proposing that we turn Washington's anti-poverty programs - and the trillions spent on them - over to the states. Our anti-poverty programs should be replaced with a revenue neutral Flex Fund. We would streamline most of our existing federal anti-poverty funding into one single agency. Then each year, these Flex Funds would be transferred to the states so they can design and fund creative initiatives that address the factors behind inequality of opportunity.
If you think you've seen this movie before, that's because you have. It's called the Paul Ryan budget 95 percent of Republicans in Congress voted for three years in a row. And we know how that movie ends.
Jon Perr's piece as poignant.  

GOP economic policy continues to fall into the flawed theories of Ronald Reagan's "Trickle-down/supply side" Economics. While I am not an economist, and often argue with people who have studied the many variations of economic theory, I can assert Reagan's policies have failed as we consider the greater society. When we factor-in Paul Ryan's elitist beliefs straight from the writings of NON-economist Ayn Rand, we end with a mixture that can only benefit top income earners. 


While we will not bore you with the pro (s) and con(s) of Ayn Rand, we will provide a basic definition of her in individualist "objectivism."



Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand dramatized her ideal man, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy. Rand laid out the details of her world-view in nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness andCapitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others. Politically, Objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, a strictly limited government protects each person's rights to life, liberty, and property and forbids that anyone initiate force against anyone else. The heroes of Objectivism are achievers who build businesses, invent technologies, and create art and ideas, depending on their own talents and on trade with other independent people to reach their goals.

We find Paul Ryan's affinity for tenets of Ayn Rand's philosophies typical of GOP leaders and endemic in modern conservatism. Ryan and other who subscribe to Rand's writings and philosophies often 'cherry-pick' for that which fits conservative paradigms and modern-day conservatism activism. Numerous writings about the misuse of power, tramping of the rights of the minority (excluding race), and government help to business, seem to be avoided by the GOP. The three areas draw particular attention to Paul Ryan's "cherry-picking" as the embody the essence of Paul Ryan's "Cherry-picking." 

Jamie Frater's December 2007 list of Rand's top 25 quotes includes quite a few social philosophies Paul Ryan's GOP and conservative movement chooses to ignore. they ignore Ayn Rand's Social consideration in favor of  her much more convenient "Individual Objectivism." We chose top 25, "6" and "8," for expediency and linked the webpage.


6. Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.

8. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).


You may not agree, but I personally do not find any current GOP doctrine that embraces the social tenets of  Ayn Rand's writings. 


From another perspective, we find an abundance of Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" imbued in every facet of conservative thought and GOP life. Marco Rubio's 'state grants' is a classic example. His speech also speaks to the danger of  the 50 states in the context of "individualism" vs the good of centralized collectivism via the authority of federal governance.  Again, I cite the misfortune of 10 million Americans who live in states denied expansion of Medicaid under the ACA and states where GOP governors refused to setup ACa exchanges.

Rubio's states block grants also sounds like good conservative policy. We suggest his comments a mere sophisms. And, there-in lies our innate aversion to all things conservative. 

Rubio and his political party (and social movement), have no affinity for services and benefits to people who are much less fortunateThere are only few and rare societies on Earth where there is no "under-class." There are no societies on Earth that is without forms of privilege or elitism. Well, possibly those hidden from the ills of modern society in the Jungles of South America, Australia and maybe in Africa, may escape the horrors of elitist privilege, even those societies have endemic hierarchies. Endemic hierarchies that support preserving the society, while providing order within the society. Rubio's GOP and its choice to not follow Ayn Rand's anti-support for business, manifest in political preservation for business while nurturing policy that ignores the needs of mission in society.

Mitt Romney's 47% "takers" is a classic example of the a paradigm of which we speak. His comments also speak to the fallacy of Rubio's speech.

State's Rights is basically the ultimate dream of modern conservatism. They want the right for each state to decided how best to manage society for the good of constituents and residents. Is it such a wild thought to contemplate evidence of how the states (via their legislators) have become targets (willing targets) Of the uber wealthy via organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)?  If state legislators are the subject of lobbyist who funnel money into their campaigns (and we hope the buck stops there), how can the average citizen to expect state's rights to serve as a viable form of government.  If I look 
again at the Jon Perr state map figure above, how can I find rational cause to have faith in a political party that derives bedrock support from the very states shown as most impoverished? Is there an indication economic policy issue there? Moreover, could we expect to see an inordinate influence from religious organization an groups, if the GOP has its way with "Block Grants."


We also suggest it is impossible to separate human paradigm regarding race in state districts which have proven (post SCOTUS Title VII Section Four and Five dismantling) to harbor preferences based in race. If political party will uses race as political campaign mantra (southern strategy), the party will also legislate and manage with regard to race. It would be an expectation of the voters who handed the politician the election. If the same political party maintains a member that is 92% white, we posit that party is incapable of administering in a far and balanced manner when it come to matters of governance, race, gender, women's rights and sexual orientation.

If you have never researched which political party is better for the US economy you should do so.

If you do not understand, nor appreciate,  the good from social programs like Social Security, Medicare and food to dependent children, you should stop listening the GOP and do a bit of research.

If research is not your 'cup of tea", we offer a five minute broadcast segment from Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC The Last Word, and a segment of just how wrong the GOP has been in matters of governance across the full spectrum of Us history.  O'Donnell spins a story with the ACA at its core, but if you listen carefully you will see and hear major failings from the right as been consistent during our life-time.

http://on.msnbc.com/19cDwUg


Marco Rubio is posturing for a run for the GOP nomination in 2016. He is working to "plug the dam" with far-right voters who left him long ago as he spoke about Immigration Reform.  His remarks about "block grants" makes as much rational sense as 50 states maintaining standing armies completely independent of each other. 

Jon Perr's piece simply (with fine details) nails Rubio and GOP false doctrine. We hope you will read the piece to reinforce what we hope is your sensibility regarding handing programs over the variety of the 50 states. 

One has to look only at the current mess in New Jersey ("Bridgegate") to know that state governance lends itself to the power of the few and the misguided decisions of the few at the top.
StumbleUpon