The Pardu

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

As Trump's World Turns: Manafort (VIDEO)

Image result for manafort russia

Trump on the day Paul Manafort official enacted leaving the Trump campaign:
"This morning Paul Manafort offered, and I accepted, his resignation from the campaign," Trump said. "I am very appreciative for his great work in helping to get us where we are today, and in particular his work guiding us through the delegate and convention process. Paul is a true professional and I wish him the greatest success."
According to Slate, Trump and Manafort have a relationship which spans well over thirty years. As a Roger Stone protege, Trump may have been introduced or came to know, Manafort as far back as the days of Ronald Reagan.
Manafort greeting PresidentGerald Ford in 1976
Manafort with PresidentRonald Reagan and then Vice President George H. W. Bushin 1982

Manafort greeting PresidentRonald Reagan in 1987

Of course, Manafort and Trump were not reported to have been everyday cronies over the full curse of their pus 30-year acquaintance, but somehow they ended their public relationship via federal charges against a former Trump campaign head.  While Trump offered the ever-present trump lie regarding Manafort's time with his campaign, we found the political-operative served Trump for five full months (Vs Trump's 45 days claim).  Is it ever possible to consider words from Trump as Truths?  The question is rhetorical; the answer: of course not

Paul Manafort Mugshot.jpg

Slate's October 2017 piece lied, here.

Why is Manafort in jail and facing a trial which with Jury selection starting today?

Image may contain: 1 person

Huffington Post published an even better timeline of Trump/Manafort including details about Manafort's work for Russian oligarchs and a vanquished Ukrainian leader, Yanukovich.

We mentioned the word "question" before. The relevant questions if: How does someone as seemingly seeded and crooked as Manafort end up leading the presidential campaign of a person who eventually won the Presidency?

Well, if we think a moment the answer maybe lie in a form of rhetorical structure.  How about an old adage: "Birds of a feather stick together."

People who hold themselves to the highest of personal standards and value credible decency do not associate with unsavory characters.  More simply stated, "Crooks do to hangout with people who are not crooks".  

Friday, April 18, 2014

Tax Policy, The GOP, And You.... Part II

On April 15th (Tax Day) Fox News managers and producers broadcast a segment that smacks the face and psyche of Americans who understand and abhor income inequity born of GOP economic policy since the early 1980s.  Take a look at Ed Schultz's "Vulture Chart."  Do you notice the red (upper income) trend line took off in the early 1980s? 

Now, for Fox New's Hemmer and Varney.  Hemmer actually comments the about down sides of taxes (granted non of us care for taxes), and regulation. The host is big with mantra and talking points, but he should consider use of the word "regulation" as we consider our recent history of unregulated capitalism.

The segment speaks without any opaqueness about the Fox News audience.  

Income inequality is (excuse the colloquial phrase) "as serious as contracting cancer." Those of us who earn significantly less than the nation's top income earners are literally relegated to equally significantly shorter life-spans. Talking Points Memo published a piece today, with "death charts" illustrating the stark reality of "income privilege" Vs. the the less expanded life span. 

The stark reality....

The Curry County Democrats
A Giant Statistical Round-Up of the Income Inequality Crisis in 16 Charts
The Atlantic, Derek Thompson
To understand the full story, you have to look at capital income — from assets like housing and stocks and bonds. This is where income growth for the top 1% has positively exploded, taking income inequality to record highs.

The chart, one of 16 in the Atlantic piece, provides an irrefutable illustration of income inequality. The also takes GOP and conservative mantra to the point of comical manipulation. The only problem with the comedic blabbering from the Right: People are not  paying attention. When we fail to pay attention to our growing oligarchy and growing income inequality, it simply grows and metastasizes. 

Growing income inequality should rightfully, lead to higher income tax burden for people at the top of the income strata. Conversely, middle income Americans and lower income Americans should rightfully pay lower federal taxes. We do have a progressive tax structure! 

It is interesting to watch how right-wing media runs interference for people who provide potential for contributions and funding, and does so without regard for people who earn less and are earning less on an ever-increasing basis.

While the Wall Street Journal recently published the following graphic, SLATE very adroitly dealt with the graphic message. Thus placing interpretation of the graphic along-side Right-wing false interpretation of data reality.

Excerpt (read carefully)
There is nothing wrong with having that debate—most liberals, I think, welcome it. There is something very wrong, however, with how the Journal presents America’s shifting tax burden, which it traces in the graph below. The chart is supposed to tell us that the entire top 20 percent of households—the group shown in red, which includes “couples with two children making more than $150,000,” as writer John McKinnon puts it—is now responsible for paying a vastly larger share of all federal taxes than it was at the start of the Reagan era. It’s not just the ultra-rich who are doing the heavy lifting. It’s the upper-middle class, too.
That is only true if you lump together the top 1 percent with the next 19 percent of taxpayers. Break them apart (as I’ve done below, using the same data sets as the Journal), and it’s clear that the only cohort responsible for a notably larger share of the country’s tax bill is the top 1 percent. (The graph includes a break where it shifts from Congressional Budget Office data, which ends in 2010, to figures from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center).

If you only look at federal income tax liability—so no payroll taxes or corporate taxes—then the entire top 10 percent has seen its share of the burden grow quite a bit. But that brings us to the bigger point: Income inequality is rising. And as long as we have progressive taxation, that means the rich will naturally pay a larger share of the tax tab. The Journal, to its credit, acknowledges this. What it fails to point out is that, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center, only one group is paying a higher average tax rate than it did during the Bush era. Again, that’s the top 1 percent.
Right-wing media knows its viewers and ultimately knows who pay their "freight."  

MSNBC's Alex Wagner, Ezra Klein and Janell Ross, The National Journal, discussed the American tax experience.

The average American knows the wealthy have a form of conferred privilege. They have such singularly due to their wealth and opportunity inherent in wealth.  We also know the average American has enough tax knowledge to know that wealthy pay the progressive tax and they know the progressive rates mean we pay less.  Ah yes, the voting public and the non-voting public have some knowledge of the progressive tax, the public has no information feeds that provide easy to find relational perspectives.

Also on Tax Day Media Matters published a piece among pieces that addressed the information void and the lack of information dissemination via network news (ABC, NBC, CBS). 
Relationship Between Income Tax Rates And Income Inequality

If as indicated by both Gallup and Pew Research, Americans get their news from television, and the three major networks didn't provide coverage of the relationship between taxes and income inequality over the course of the past year, one should ask why? The rational person should think in terms of how can public opinion focus on issues critical to matters of importance to the non-wealthy, if media shone such issues.  

Now, do you think media inadvertently avoids issues of growing income disparity?  Surely, you wouldn't be so naive.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Meghan Kelly Knows How To Tickle Her Audience: "White Santa; White Jesus!" UPDATE: Harris Responds...

Seriously Kelly, do they declare such with the IRS?

On December 10, Aisha Harris published a piece for SLATE that included a few non-commonly accepted thoughts about Santa Claus.  First, let's for the record state a few things before we delve into what has to be the most racist of remarks I have heard from a Fox News host in many years. Meghan Kelly took great exception to Ms. Harris writings about Santa and issues shrouded in race.  The Fox News host is supposedly an intelligent Attorney; exemplifies exactly why racism cannot be relegated to the feeble of mind. We should also remember this is the same Meghan Kelly who sat with Bill O'Reilly and followed his script into calling Pepper Spray akin an application of vegetables and just burns your eyes.  (The actual effects of Pepper Spray) Kelly made the reference in relation to the University of California-Davis student protest pepper spraying. Our point is Meghan Kelly is of questionable character and could readily compete with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh regarding statements that fall outside the realm of sanity. We wonder if Ms. Kelley would have subjected herself to pepper spraying (A vegetable shower); we know O'Reilly would never do such. 

Kelly and her "snow white" panel exhibited the perfect example of the Fabric of Oppression.  If for no other reason, the exclusion of a person of color from the panel is the epitome of bias inherent to oppression.  

Fabric of Oppression for those who prefer not to read and assimilate more from images (i.e., kinetic learners).
Obviously, the dome top rung relates to 'privilege classes' or perceptions of such in the Untied States (and a good part of the world).  We often refer to the top rung as that area in social interaction that has grabbed and fought to maintain "conferred privilege;" Privilege via birthright.

And something for our readers.... (our auditory learners)
Fabric Of Oppression
Another theory of socialisation that "describes the structural arrangement of privileges, resources and power," but it is based on the liberal view of how institutions can create inequities. The Fabric of Oppression itself creates some groups that are dominant by it and others that are oppressed by it, which has a slight Culture of Power ring to it, as once again there is a central group that profits and a marginalised group that does not. The similarity becomes even more apparent when the article explains that once again males have more access to power than what females do, which was another proponent of the Culture of Power argument. The theory contains definitions such as bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, social groups, social power, resources and privileges and oppression.  
The Fabric of Oppression relies heavily on Institutionalised oppression, which refers to "the web of organisations and systems that perpetuate unequal access." This can be both legal (overt), illegal (covert) or self perpetuating and systematic. Targeted members of groups may be subject to internalised oppression, this occurs when "an individual takes external misinformation, stereotypes and negative images about their group and turns them inward. A term used to explain how those in power secure the social submission of those who are not in power is called hegemony. 
The fabric of oppression is summed up with a diagram that looks like a cage, with those in power at the top, and those targeted at the bottom, no matter what, somehow you end up in the cage and are placed into a certain category, most people would end up either 50-50 or mostly in the targeted area, showing that once again, like the culture of power, those in power or in the 'in' groups are in retrospect a very small margin, whereas the targeted group is overcrowded.

Let's take Kelly's remarks in some semblance of order, if that is even possible when dealing with racism.

Conferred Privilege:  The author of the SLATE article exercised her right to express the heartfelt reality of bias.  Santa Clause is not a real person, correct?  We suggest the spirit is more akin to the tooth fairy.  If the spirit is part of the inner psyche of the beholder, why is it unacceptable for the spirit to take on an aura that is within the realm of the beholder. In other words, why is it unacceptable for Santa to be either colorless or within mental realm of the race of the beholder? Specifically, why can't Santa be a black person, Latino or Asian. We assume that Kelly would have no problem with Santa as a Jewish person.  Is the an answer, "because white people do not want Santa to be white?" Therein lies a problem if one takes the premise beyond Fox New's "92%" viewing audience.  (NOTE: Ms. Harris was careful in developing verbiage that placed Santa as a non-human vs. pushing a form of nationalism.) 

Kelly went on to validate the roots of race as part of her psyche and that of her employer.  She stated that "Jesus is white, right..." Well, to be frank and within the realm of reality if we consider the geography of the fabled Jesus's birth and life, it is impossible to have been "white." (more appropriately Caucasoid)


We realize European culture ha performed a 'faith grab' on Christianity, we have issues with forcing these images on all Christians

We can ignore million of years of evolution, but we cannot ignore the universal fallacy of Kelly's assertion that Jesus was 'white." Since, she did not clarify that she meant in the "minds-eye," we have to assume she meant it literally.

Also note Kelly spoke to "kids" with declaration of Santa is white. Did you wonder how many Santa aged kids really watch Kelly late night show? The message was as clear as the driven snow and it was aimed at the Fox News "92%" audience. 

Isn't it pathetic when alleged media takes on the role of 'social police' for the Right.  How different is Kelly's protest and declaration Of "white Santa; White Jesus" than those of the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists?   What message does her demagoguery send to people regarding their children and raising those children with hopes of an equal playing field. When US demographic changes take "conferred-privilege" away from American whites will Santa have potential for being non-white?"  

And, maybe just maybe, one day those who have affinity in the faith of religion will give-up on images as those posted above.  Unless, they know something we do not know about errors in the Bible relative to geography. 

Kelly and Fox News should be ashamed of the messages they broadcast on a daily basis.  While I have read the education level of many of their on-air hosts falls well shy of that of the Bachelor's degree, and they may appear to and share an audience with Rush Limbaugh (that is obviously under-educated) there should be an expectation the network would not practice overt racism.

We posit Kelly's broadcast was utterly racist and was focused on racial divisiveness for her adult audience.

Wonder if Kelly thinks Santa "Knows when she is awake?"

UPDATE: from Aisha Harris via TPM.....

Slate Blogger Reality Checks Megyn Kelly: 'Santa Isn't Real' 

AP Photo


Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Marip Piperni And The GOP End To Racism!

Re-blog from Mario Piperni Dot Com.

Rosa Parks, Racism and The Modern GOP

Rosa Parks  -

Glad to see the RNC being called out on their idiotic Rosa Parks tweet for their suggestion that racism has ended.

03-12-2013 3-54-33 PM

Oh, okay.

Nothing to be shocked or surprised at here. It’s business as usual for a political party whose very existence is based on being able to attract America’s entire lot of racists and bigots. As was clear during the Trayvon Martin uproar, the GOP operates on the premise that racism is a thing of the past…or, at the very least, this is what they’d like their mindless sheep to believe is true. If there’s no racism to speak of in America, then every bigoted racist move they pull (e.g. voter ID laws that target black Americans, Confederate flags at Tea Party rallies, birtherism…) can’t be racism, can it now? Pure bullshit, of course, as Ron Rosenbaum explains in a 2012 Slate piece.

I’m not saying all Republicans are racist. I’m saying that as a party, ever since Goldwater and Nixon concocted the benighted, openly racist “Southern Strategy” in the ’60s, the Republican Party has profited from overt and covert racism.
The Southern Strategy was designed to capitalize on Southern white resentment of court-enforced busing to end school desegregation, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of discrimination in interstate commerce, of enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to prevent historically racist Southern counties and states from discriminating against blacks who sought to exercise their right to vote where once they’d been effectively barred. By playing on these issues, Nixon and other Republicans of this era won many traditionally Democratic votes in the South. Later, GOP opposition to affirmative action, race-based hiring “quotas” and all other methods of compensating for the debilitating legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation fed into what was one of the momentous shifts, a total turnaround in just more than a decade (1970 to 1984) from a solidly Democratic South to a solidly Republican one.
Which is how the RNC tweet like the one above came to be.
The first truth is that this staffer, whoever it was, in all likelihood made this slip for a reason. She or he has been schooled to believe that racism did end, and that all present-day discussion of the problem is just whining from society’s takers. We might call this a central tenet of the right, although the word tenet dignifies it too much. It’s more like a fact-free conviction, held by people who are never capable of imagining walking a hundred yards, let alone a mile, in another person’s shoes.
Whoever this tweeter was, s/he has been hearing the refrain since the day s/he got into the game. Yes, there was racism, and it was wrong. But racism, she’d have been tutored to believe, was a Democratic problem (check that; a Democrat problem, her tutors would undoubtedly have said). She’d have heard all about how it was really Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen who passed the civil-rights bill (which is like saying the Serbs defeated the Nazis—they were on the right side, but they hardly carried the heavy artillery). She’d have been instructed to repeat “Party of Lincoln!” at the necessary intervals, and she’d have been coached in the phony, euphemistic language that Republicans use to acknowledge certain past sins but to press forward, sunnily noting that all of that is “behind us.”
[...] It’s amazing that it’s been six decades since Rosa Parks did what she did, and there hasn’t been one prominent national Republican leader who has said simply: “We were wrong. We, the white people of the South, the evangelicals, George Wallace’s famous beauticians and firemen, the beating heart of today’s GOP—we were wrong.” I’d like to see that tweet come out of the RNC, but I’m not holding my breath.
You want something else not to hold your breath hoping it’ll ever happen?
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Bob Dylan said:
This country is just too fucked up about color. … People at each other’s throats because they are of a different color. It’s the height of insanity, and it will hold any nation back—or any neighborhood back. … It’s a country founded on the backs of slaves. … If slavery had been given up in a more peaceful way, America would be far ahead today.
Yes: “A country founded on the backs of slaves.” And a party cravenly unashamed to base its existence on the backs of slaveholder states. Journalists, start telling the truth about the GOP.

The Rosa Parks and bus diagram images are works of the U.S. federal government and therefore in the public domain.

Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook and Twitter.