Sunday, May 27, 2018

Sen. Flake (R) on truth and lies

Flake is retiring so even though he's Republican he can start telling the truth (starting at 3:25 in the video below.) He gave a commencement speech at Harvard Law School where he criticized Dump for interfering in the administration of justice. He calls for others in his Party to call out Dump when he lies, otherwise they are complicit in those lies. He said that many of them are very alarmed by Dump, yet fail to speak up because they're more concerned with retaining their power then they are about the welfare of our country and its people.

Wonderboy Thompson got robbed

And these analysts agree. Granted Till won round 5 but Thompson had more strikes throughout the other rounds with Till doing virtually nothing except stalking around the cage. Till got the unanimous decision given these fixed results, two judges ridiculously scoring it 49 - 46 for Till.

Deb Halland misinforms about Martinez

Both are running to represent District One in NM. Halland said today on FB that Martinez is "massive amounts of dark money that Trump donor Republicans are pouring into this race." The facts from opensecret.com are something else. According to this reliable source Martinez has received $80,402 in out-of-state contributions compared to Haaland at $299,065. Also see the 2nd chart showing Martinez gets most of his contributions within his district, whereas Haaland gets most of her's out of district.

Warriors force game 7

With a dominant performance by Thompson and the team. Both series now head to game 7 to decide who goes to the final.

Bonnita Roy interview at Emerge

 Titled: "How to speak across paradigms: Where Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Ezra Klein go wrong."

Why are young white men attracted to Peterson?

Good article on the end of the modern era, the necessity of the postmodern to question its assumptions, and the transition to a new era: "The emergence into a novel relational mode [...that] seeks dialectically to reconcile modern modes of thought based largely on reductionist materialism and the differentiation of logical, rational capacities (roughly correlated with the Aristotelian material and efficient causation almost exclusively privileged in modern science) with affective, intuitive, and somatic epistemologies generally more highly developed in premodern and primal world views (often correlated with Aristotelian formal and final causation)." Some excerpts:

"What is clear is that he consistently misuses profound ideas, especially those of C.G. Jung, to justify his misogyny. The primary problem with Peterson’s interpretation of Jung is that he conceives the archetypes too literally, especially as they relate to gender. [...] But the larger problem is that he uses this misreading of Jung as essentializing gender roles to rationalize a pernicious sexism masquerading as a defense of free speech and common sense. This message, framed as psychological theory and supported by questionable data, is resonating with many young men, providing an easy answer to a crisis of historical proportions. His response is to reject feminism and postmodernism (or at least his caricature of these movements), and essentially return to traditional gender roles, which Peterson argues are more biologically intrinsic than socially conditioned."

"He evidently wants to return to unquestioned patriarchy by paradoxically claiming that “the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.” This is an insidious sleight-of-hand in which, by denying that patriarchal oppression ever existed, men can continue to ignore what many women have been saying for centuries, from Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir to Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Kate Manne."

The real welfare queens

The lost revenue from these corps is exponentially more than we spent on poor people that really need help.




My Q&A w/Lakoff on negative framing

Here's the FB Q&A, copied below.

Me: You've said that when we frame something with 'no' before it that just reinforces that thing. Yet Trump repeats the phrase "no collusion" and his followers do not think he's committed collusion. So how come Trump's "no collusion" frame doesn't do what you say it should?

Lakoff:  It does not fit their frame. Trump’s staunchest supporters will not shift. That’s a key idea in Don’t Think of An Elephant. The question is how to reach biconceptuals - people with conservative and progressive views on different subjects. With these, “no collusion” does reinforce the frame. Public surveys bear this out. On the other hand, Trump’s die-hard conservative supporters might remain loyal to him even if he went on TV and confessed. They don’t care about his wrongdoing. They only care that he is a vehicle for the conservative agenda.

The real fake news

Pox Views leads the way in this category. Politifact check here. Also check out this story that said: "Fox News has been documented in spreading lies and doing so often via fake news that it only sometimes retracts and rarely apologizes for."


UN launches war crimes investigation into Israel

For slaughtering innocent, unarmed women and children. 29 nations voted in favor of the resolution, 2 were opposed (the US and Australia) and 14 cowards abstained. The resolution condemned “the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians.”