Crusading against evil since ...
2658 stories
·
1 follower

Charles Dickens on Seeing Poverty

2 Shares

Charles Dickens wrote what has become one of the iconic stories of Christmas day and Christmas spirit in A Christmas Carol. But of course, the experiences of Ebenezer Scrooge are a story, not a piece of reporting. Here’s a piece by Dickens written for the weekly journal Household Words that he edited from 1850 to 1859. It’s from the issue of January 26, 1856, with his first-person reporting on “A Nightly Scene in London.” Poverty in high-income countries is no longer as ghastly as in Victorian England, but for those who take the time to see it in our own time and place, surely it is ghastly enough. Thus, I repeat this post each year on Christmas Day.

Economists might also wince just a bit at how Dickens describes the reaction of some economists to poverty, those who Dickens calls “the unreasonable disciples of a reasonable school.” In the following passage, Dickens writes: “I know that the unreasonable disciples of a reasonable school, demented disciples who push arithmetic and political economy beyond all bounds of sense (not to speak of such a weakness as humanity), and hold them to be all-sufficient for every case, can easily prove that such things ought to be, and that no man has any business to mind them. Without disparaging those indispensable sciences in their sanity, I utterly renounce and abominate them in their insanity …” 

Here’s a fuller passage from Dickens:

A NIGHTLY SCENE IN LONDON

On the fifth of last November, I, the Conductor of this journal, accompanied by a friend well-known to the public, accidentally strayed into Whitechapel. It was a miserable evening; very dark, very muddy, and raining hard.

There are many woful sights in that part of London, and it has been well-known to me in most of its aspects for many years. We had forgotten the mud and rain in slowly walking along and looking about us, when we found ourselves, at eight o’clock, before the Workhouse.

Crouched against the wall of the Workhouse, in the dark street, on the muddy pavement-stones, with the rain raining upon them, were five bundles of rags. They were motionless, and had no resemblance to the human form. Five great beehives, covered with rags— five dead bodies taken out of graves, tied neck and heels, and covered with rags— would have looked like those five bundles upon which the rain rained down in the public street.

“What is this! ” said my companion. “What is this!”

“Some miserable people shut out of the Casual Ward, I think,” said I.

We had stopped before the five ragged mounds, and were quite rooted to the spot by their horrible appearance. Five awful Sphinxes by the wayside, crying to every passer-by, ” Stop and guess! What is to be the end of a state of society that leaves us here!”

As we stood looking at them, a decent working-man, having the appearance of a stone-mason, touched me on the shoulder.

“This is an awful sight, sir,” said he, “in a Christian country!”

“GOD knows it is, my friend,” said I.

“I have often seen it much worse than this, as I have been going home from my work. I have counted fifteen, twenty, five-and-twenty, many a time. It’s a shocking thing to see.”

“A shocking thing, indeed,” said I and my companion together. The man lingered near
us a little while, wished us good-night, and went on.

We should have felt it brutal in us who had a better chance of being heard than the working-man, to leave the thing as it was, so we knocked at the Workhouse Gate. I undertook to be spokesman. The moment the gate was opened by an old pauper, I went in, followed close by my companion. I lost no
time in passing the old porter, for I saw in his watery eye a disposition to shut us out.

“Be so good as to give that card to the master of the Workhouse, and say I shall be glad to speak to him for a moment.”

We were in a kind of covered gateway, and the old porter went across it with the card. Before he had got to a door on our left, a man in a cloak and hat bounced out of it very sharply, as if he were in the nightly habit of being bullied and of returning the compliment.

“Now, gentlemen,” said he in a loud voice, “what do you want here?”

“First,” said I, ” will you do me the favor to look at that card in your hand. Perhaps you may know my name.”

“Yes,” says he, looking at it. ” I know this name.”

“Good. I only want to ask you a plain question in a civil manner, and there is not the least occasion for either of us to be angry. It would be very foolish in me to blame you, and I don’t blame you. I may find fault with the system you administer, but pray understand that I know you are here to do a duty pointed out to you, and that I have no doubt you do it. Now, I hope you won’t object to tell me what I want to know.”

“No,” said he, quite mollified, and very reasonable, ” not at all. What is it?”

“Do you know that there are five wretched creatures outside?”

“I haven’t seen them, but I dare say there are.”

“Do you doubt that there are?”

“No, not at all. There might be many more.”

”Are they men? Or women?”

“Women, I suppose. Very likely one or two of them were there last night, and the night before last.”

“There all night, do you mean?”

“Very likely.”

My companion and I looked at one another, and the master of the Workhouse added quickly, “Why, Lord bless my soul, what am I to do? What can I do ? The place is full. The place is always full—every night. I must give the preference to women with children, mustn’t I? You wouldn’t have me not do that?”

“Surely not,” said I. “It is a very humane principle, and quite right; and I am glad to hear of it. Don’t forget that I don’t blame you.”

“Well!” said he. And subdued himself again. …

“Just so. I wanted to know no more. You have answered my question civilly and readily, and I am much obliged to you. I have nothing to say against you, but quite the contrary. Good night!”

“Good night, gentlemen!” And out we came again.

We went to the ragged bundle nearest to the Workhouse-door, and I touched it. No movement replying, I gently shook it. The rags began to be slowly stirred within, and by little and little a head was unshrouded. The head of a young woman of three or four and twenty, as I should judge; gaunt with want, and foul with dirt; but not naturally ugly.

“Tell us,” said I, stooping down. “Why are you lying here?”

“Because I can’t get into the Workhouse.”

She spoke in a faint dull way, and had no curiosity or interest left. She looked dreamily at the black sky and the falling rain, but never looked at me or my companion.

“Were you here last night?”

“Yes, All last night. And the night afore too.”

“Do you know any of these others?”

“I know her next but one. She was here last night, and she told me she come out of Essex. I don’t know no more of her.”

“You were here all last night, but you have not been here all day?”

“No. Not all day.”

“Where have you been all day?”

“About the streets.”

”What have you had to eat?”

“Nothing.”

“Come!” said I. “Think a little. You are tired and have been asleep, and don’t quite consider what you are saying to us. You have had something to eat to-day. Come! Think of it!”

“No I haven’t. Nothing but such bits as I could pick up about the market. Why, look at me!”

She bared her neck, and I covered it up again.

“If you had a shilling to get some supper and a lodging, should you know where to get it?”

“Yes. I could do that.”

“For GOD’S sake get it then!”

I put the money into her hand, and she feebly rose up and went away. She never thanked me, never looked at me— melted away into the miserable night, in the strangest manner I ever saw. I have seen many strange things, but not one that has left a deeper impression on my memory than the dull impassive way in which that worn-out heap of misery took that piece of money, and was lost.

One by one I spoke to all the five. In every one, interest and curiosity were as extinct as in the first. They were all dull and languid. No one made any sort of profession or complaint; no one cared to look at me; no one thanked me. When I came to the third, I suppose she saw that my companion and I glanced, with a new horror upon us, at the two last, who had dropped against each other in their sleep, and were lying like broken images. She said, she believed they were young sisters. These were the only words that were originated among the five.

And now let me close this terrible account with a redeeming and beautiful trait of the poorest of the poor. When we came out of the Workhouse, we had gone across the road to a public house, finding ourselves without silver, to get change for a sovereign. I held the money in my hand while I was speaking to the five apparitions. Our being so engaged, attracted the attention of many people of the very poor sort usual to that place; as we leaned over the mounds of rags, they eagerly leaned over us to see and hear; what I had in my hand, and what I said, and what I did, must have been plain to nearly all the concourse. When the last of the five had got up and faded away, the spectators opened to let us pass; and not one of them, by word, or look, or gesture, begged of us.

Many of the observant faces were quick enough to know that it would have been a relief to us to have got rid of the rest of the money with any hope of doing good with it. But, there was a feeling among them all, that their necessities were not to be placed by the side of such a spectacle; and they opened a way for us in profound silence, and let us go.

My companion wrote to me, next day, that the five ragged bundles had been upon his bed all night. I debated how to add our testimony to that of many other persons who from time to time are impelled to write to the newspapers, by having come upon some shameful and shocking sight of this description. I resolved to write in these pages an exact account of what we had seen, but to wait until after Christmas, in order that there might be no heat or haste. I know that the unreasonable disciples of a reasonable school, demented disciples who push arithmetic and political economy beyond all bounds of sense (not to speak of such a weakness as humanity), and hold them to be all-sufficient for every case, can easily prove that such things ought to be, and that no man has any business to mind them. Without disparaging those indispensable sciences in their sanity, I utterly renounce and abominate them in their insanity; and I address people with a respect for the spirit of the New Testament, who do mind such things, and who think them infamous in our streets.

The post Charles Dickens on Seeing Poverty first appeared on Conversable Economist.

Read the whole story
DGA51
12 hours ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Targeting the News Media

1 Comment

Trump On the Offensive Against Freedom of the Press

Now the news is rising from Donald Trump’s raucous interactions with the news industry itself.

The ever-angry Trump, who has a wide choice among half the country in finding political opponents, is following through on threats to “go after” those in the news media and elsewhere who write, speak or do research that puts what he says and does in poor light.

What puts this adopted Trump aggressiveness into a dangerous category is the speed with which other sources of accountability — Congress, courts, the law itself, business — are caving to the reality that Team Trump has the reins. By comparison, a news industry that just does its normal job of holding a mirror to Trump actions and speeches is looking more to him as a source of opposition than a first attempt to capture current history.

Clearly emboldened by a settlement with ABC last week over a lawsuit alleging defamation for a star host referring to Trump having been found “liable for rape” rather than “liable for sexual abuse,” Trump is creating headlines by suing The Des Moines Register over a pre-election poll he found objectionable.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the poll results — which turned out to be wrong when the votes were counted in Iowa — consumer fraud. Ann Seltzer, the pollster in question has since retired but insists that the pro-Kamala Harris tilt of her results is what she got from her polling. This case looks to be a relatively weak lawsuit, but that seems secondary to its filing in the first place.

Anyone believing this will be the last news industry challenge should re-check the MAGA retribution scorecard. Trump and members of his inner circle like Kash Patel, tapped to take over the FBI, have threatened to de-license major television networks, and to pursue both civil and criminal charges whenever the fancy strikes him, or a publication takes a position involving him that he hates.

This is about intimidation.

An Air of Withdrawal

The worst effects may not even be from the warning note from Trump for the news media to back off. With few exceptions, the worst may be in news industry moves to withdraw in aggressiveness in covering an incoming administration, whether for fear, greed, or some kind of appeal for audience from those turning away. The Guardian, among others, calls it “The Great Capitulation.”

Just last week, Patrick Shoo-Shiong, biomed technology billionaire owner of The Los Angeles Times killed an editorial  that questioned qualifications of some of Trump’s Cabinet choices unless the editorial staff could produce — on deadline — an intelligible column or editorial that presented the opposite point of view, that Trump’s choices are good ones. That, of course, obviates the need or purpose of an editorial.

Shoo-Shiong has been pursuing a campaign at the newspaper to present “balanced” views that would allow readers to choose which is more “true.” He wants an AI-written “bias meter” attached to articles — he now says he will use it in the opinion section rather than the news sections — to allow readers better editorial orientation to what they are reading. But it comes across as protecting Trump from public criticism.

At The Washington Post, owner Jeff Bezos, who had ordered an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris for president, held back, now has joined the Big Tech billionaires visiting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago — meetings that seem aimed at “normalizing” relations with a president who repeatedly shows disdain for the role of journalism in our society or any protocols involving respect of law that do not serve him.

The Morning Joe crew that went to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago off the record is still trying to salvage any perception of independence — for a news commentary show.

The right-leaning media are having a field day ridiculing any efforts to question Trump’s appointments, for example, as opposition rather than discovery about who they are, what they stand for, and what conflicts of interest they may be bringing to a government post.

The inside reports on why ABC News and its owner, the Disney corporation, reached a settlement with Trump suggest that the error or overstatement of charges by anchor George Stephanopoulos about “rape” rather than “sexual assault” came about more out of worry about the jury pool in Florida and comments from the judge about the legal shakiness of their defense than over a commitment to journalism. Nevertheless, ABC News has now made itself a target for constant examination of whether they are holding back in rigorous pursuit of journalism involving the president.

And they have provided Trump with $15 million to go after other news organizations.

The Point: Back Off

It is that withdrawal that is the Trump point, after all.

These shots across the journalistic bow are meant to tell reporters and editors that even normal journalistic practices that end up with articles that Trump may see as unsupportive will generate retribution, whether through lawsuits, tax filings, unwarranted FBI investigations, Congressional subpoenas and more.

With corporate ownership of news organizations increasingly mightily, an audience of readers who prefer social media over-simplifications to articles that can survive rigorous editing, and an attitude that may favor access over the appearance of opposition, we’re heading into turbulent waters for journalism.

The clear media trend is that audiences are turning to podcasts and their own social media postings to follow the news rather than tuning in to professional news outlets. The weekend’s messy government shutdown dance reflected the power of an Elon Musk to send hundreds of tweets in a day to rile up a MAGA base towards a legislative defeat of a bipartisan budget deal.

What reporters must do is follow through on policies and appointments, to detail the effects of Team Trump actions and statements on the full range of policies being proposed. Where are the stories from Ohio about pet-eating immigrants — did the pet-eating just go away with a 1% “landslide” vote margin in the election? Where are the stories analyzing how egg prices are continuing to rise after the election rather than fall or how housing is no more available now than two months ago?

Trump is in war mode against the people who cover his administration with anything but flattery. News organizations trying curry even the appearance of favor in preemptive legal defense are in appeasement mode.

The alternative is aggressive, rigorous journalism that measures results, holds behavior against what was said and that exposes misstatements and hypocrisy.


CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

The post Targeting the News Media appeared first on DCReport.org.

Read the whole story
DGA51
12 hours ago
reply
They don't care much for factual reporting.
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Blast from the Past, 1950

1 Share

This one is older than I am by a couple of years. Seems appropriate. Tip of the hat to the WaPo for resurrecting it. Have as Happy Holidays as possible.


Read the whole story
DGA51
1 day ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Plutocrats and Authoritarian Leaders: Like Flies to Flypaper

1 Share

Curtis Yarvin, darling authoritarian ideologue of many tech billionaires, is back in the news, along with his deep links to J.D. Vance, via Peter Thiel. It’s no secret that plutocrats tend to be off-the-charts economic libertarians, with extreme hostility even to wildly popular programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which cost them nothing. So, if they were principled thinkers, it would seem logical for them to oppose dictators and wannabe dictators. But no, more and more tech bros are fans of Trump and Yarvin’s very Trumpy brand of authoritarianism. Elon Musk is the most visible tech bro fan; there are many more. What gives?

Well, first, it should be clear that they are not principled libertarians. Principled libertarians believe in formal equality of negative liberty rights. You know, my right to swing my fist stops at your nose. Whereas the authoritarian-loving tech bros want absolute impunity to do whatever they like, without regard for anyone else’s rights or interests. Here, for example, is Marc Andreessen explaining who his enemies are:

Our present society has been subjected to a mass demoralization campaign for six decades – against technology and against life – under varying names like “existential risk”, “sustainability”, “ESG”, “Sustainable Development Goals”, “social responsibility”, “stakeholder capitalism”, “Precautionary Principle”, “trust and safety”, “tech ethics”, “risk management”, “de-growth”, “the limits of growth” . . .

Our enemy is the ivory tower, the know-it-all credentialed expert worldview, indulging in abstract theories, luxury beliefs, social engineering, disconnected from the real world, delusional, unelected, and unaccountable – playing God with everyone else’s lives, with total insulation from the consequences. . . .

Our enemy is the Precautionary Principle, which would have prevented virtually all progress since man first harnessed fire. The Precautionary Principle was invented to prevent the large-scale deployment of civilian nuclear power, perhaps the most catastrophic mistake in Western society in my lifetime. The Precautionary Principle continues to inflict enormous unnecessary suffering on our world today. It is deeply immoral, and we must jettison it with extreme prejudice.

So, full-speed ahead on building nuclear power plants without any safety regulation at all! Trust the genius tech bros, who will install safety equipment or not, just as they please, because they are the saviors of humanity whose judgment must never be questioned by experts with college degrees. Blindly trust them on everything they do, even though their contempt for everyone who expresses the slightest hesitation on giving them total impunity is absolute.

Who, exactly, is being “delusional, unelected, and unaccountable – playing God with everyone else’s lives, with total insulation from the consequences” now?*

(Andreessen’s p(doom) is 0%, which seems rather low to me. Not because I fear that AGI will have a malicious mind of its own. Rather because sociopaths and megalomaniacs would do catastrophic damage harnessing AGI to their own ends.)

Yet it’s not even their supposed lack of impunity that enrages them against their “enemies.” In fact, Democrats have given the tech bros and other plutocrats de facto impunity for years. Obama failed to hold any of the Wall Street plutocrats accountable for the fact that they brought down the world economy in 2007-8. In fact, he bailed them out. His Attorney General Eric Holder was the great practitioner of deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements with criminal corporations. These essentially say “we’ll let you get away with crime this time, but only if you promise to be very conscientious in the future. And if you commit the same crime again, we’ll throw the book at you.” Except, all too often, criminal corporations, even ones not big enough for you to have heard of them, face trifling consequences (far lower than the profits from their crimes) even after repeating their crimes again and again.

No, what really enraged the Wall Street plutocrats against Obama was not that he held them to account, which he didn’t, but that he criticized them. He called them “fat cat bankers.” And in their rage at Obama’s insult, they threatened to seize up the economy again by refusing to loan money. They were still enraged even after Obama backed off his remarks. This is what you get when you join immense wealth and unaccountable power with infinite narcissism.

The authoritarian-loving tech bro set is no different. They already have practically unlimited wealth and impunity. What these wounded narcissists demand is to be worshipped, Ayn Rand style. Democrats, liberals, academics will never give that to them. They are too prone to fact-checking, too skeptical, too critical of the established order that put the plutocrats on top.

But Trump is happy to flatter the tech bros and all their malignant prejudices if they show love for him in return. Never mind that Trump’s flattery is entirely transactional. Narcissists don’t mind if the flattery is conditional, insincere, or even created by themselves. Trump boasts of fake golf championships. Musk got his employees to tweak the X algorithm to boost his posts over Biden’s.  Andreessen demands that his megalomaniacal self-glorification be accepted by everyone else without question, lest he brand them enemies of humanity.

Where will this end? Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, argued that the central psychosocial motive driving inequalities of wealth and power is the desire for superior esteem. People compete to acquire more wealth and power than others, because that is what people come to admire above all as inequality increases. (As early 20th century oil magnate Haroldson L. Hunt said, “Money’s just a way of keeping score.“)

Rousseau claimed that, in the absence of a republican social contract putting brakes on inequality, the rise of private property and commercial society will lead to runaway inequality and ultimately to despotism. In the end, even the rich will become slaves to the despot, forced to bow and scrape before him.

We are even seeing it now, before Trump has been sworn in, much less crowned. Jeff Bezos has bent his knee to Trump at Mar-a-Lago; Musk is constantly in his company. Both, of course, have their fortunes tied to lucrative government contracts. They are slavishly flattering the guy who has promised to abuse his power in awarding or taking away these contracts. Now they are trapped. Couldn’t these towering geniuses have gamed this out ahead of time? No, because their own narcissism got in the way.

*I’m no enemy of well-regulated nuclear power, BTW, although I suspect that the economic case for new civilian plants is probably limited to a few extremely energy-intensive industries, given how inexpensive and rapidly deployable wind, solar, and storage are. But the tech bros can’t point to the safety record of highly regulated nuclear power to claim that unregulated nuclear power wouldn’t be playing God with everyone else’s lives.

 

 

Read the whole story
DGA51
1 day ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Trump, Rape, and ABC News

1 Share

The Threats Within is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Donald Trump raped a woman. A jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.

Let me rephrase that. A “jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Those words are not mine (thus why I added quotation marks.) They are a direct quote from Federal District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan as written on page five, lines 2-3 of his Memorandum Opinion Denying Defendant’s Rule 59 Motion, filed on July 19, 2023 in the Southern District of New York.

Next quote: “Donald Trump has been found liable for rape.”

Those are the words of George Stephanopolous, the host of This Week with George Stephanopolous. See any difference of the sting inflicted by the statement of Kaplan and that of Stephanopolous. No? That’s because there isn’t one.

So how can it be that Trump sued Stephanopolous and ABC News for saying exactly what the court found to be a proper way to refer to the jury’s verdict? And why in the world would ABC settle? The answer to those questions underscore one thing: Trump, and the MAGA Supreme Court, are waging war against the First Amendment. And if Americans don’t pay attention, the news media may become little more than a version of Pravda under the Soviet Union.

To explain what’s going on, let’s first take a look at a different crime. Over the past few decades, the news media and the Justice Department have people been described more than 10,000 times of having been convicted of insider trading. Yet, under Trumpian interpretations of law and linguistics, each of those instances is libelous. No one has been convicted of insider trading, the Trump logic argues. Instead, they have usually been found guilty of wire fraud and mail fraud. There is no criminal law that specifically names insider trading as a crime (except for recent legislation signed by Joe Biden making insider trading by members of Congress illegal.)

So, in the Trump world, (except a member of Congress) anyone who has been convicted of insider trading could sue a member of the media for saying they had been convicted of insider trading. That is because there is a huge difference between statutory language and the English language. We are not automatons who use the legal terms to describe what those words mean when speaking to the general public. No one who bought or sold stocks while in possession of material, non-public information would just be described as having been convicted of mail fraud and wire fraud in the news media or in description of the crime by prosecutors. It’s insider trading, regardless of the statutory language.

This brings us to one of the two civil lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll against Trump. This will get blunt, because unfortunately it has to in order to explain the absurdity of Trump’s lawsuit.

The jury found that Trump had attacked Carroll by penetrating her vagina with his fingers, but not with his penis. The case required the jury to use the language in the New York Penal Law which uses a “narrow, technical” (words from Judge Kaplan) definition of rape, that is, forcible vaginal penetration with a penis without consent. In fact, had Trump engaged in forcible anal penetration with his penis, that also would not be rape under the statutory language. Or if he forced someone to perform oral sex on him without consent.

But could you imagine Trump suing because someone described it as rape when he forcibly penetrated a woman anally rather than vaginally? After all, the statutory language says specifically rape in the first degree only encompasses vaginal penetration with a penis. (The absurd statutory language has been fixed this year.)

God, this is getting sickening. But sorry, it has to be explained.

Trump was found to have forcibly penetrate Carroll’s vagina with his fingers. Just like if he had penetrated her anally with his penis, under the narrow, technical statutory language in New York, this was not rape under the narrow, technical statutory language in New York.

Subscribe now

Now go to Alaska. It’s rape. Same in California. And Delaware. And Indiana. And Kansas. And Maryland. And in the military. And in state after state. Under Trumpian use of language, there are no rapists in Arizona, Arkansas, Conneticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and many other states. That’s because none of them use the actual word “rape” in their laws - instead they use words like “sexual abuse,” “sexual battery,” “criminal sexual conduct,” and other terms. But in all of those, Trump would have been found to have violated the law against rape, and thus would be a rapist.

In fact, when politicians say something about the number of rapes going up or down, in the Trump world, the numbers they use are false. But they are relying on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report Summary Reporting System, which defines what Trump was found to have done as rape.

Return to the concept of common usage, which is the standard for journalism. According to the dictionary, it’s rape. Even in Black’s Law Dictionary, the standard for all lawyers, it’s rape. And as for relying on the dictionary to define the meaning of words, that’s a tactic that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has used in upholding cases brought by religious groups and in raging against extending rights to transgender people.

This all is why, heading back to the words of Judge Kaplan, “the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump’s argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury’s verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of “rape” to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump.”

So, if Stephanopolous had said, “Donald Trump was found to be a rapist as defined in the dictionary, almost every state in the country, under federal law, and in the words of the judge in the case,” it would have been fine. But in a bizarre ruling by a judge in Florida, none of that matters because, relying on the narrow and technical terminology of New York Law, the jury did not find it to be “rape” because standard use of language is not relevant. And while yes, they referred to Judge Kaplan’s words, they didn’t do it soon enough in the report.

Under libel laws, ABC should also have been protected because Trump is a public figure. In that instance, for Stephanopolous’s words to be libel, he would have had to have used them with a reckless disregard for the truth. They also should have been protected under the “substantial truth” standard, which means a statement that contains small factual inaccuracies may still be considered true if the "gist" or "sting" of the statement is true. And given that, in almost any state, under federal law, in the military, in the dictionary and so on Trump would have been found to have committed rape, it is hard to describe Stephanopolous’s words as anything other than a substantially true statement.

Which leads to the question, why in the world would ABC settle? In any other time over the last few decades, they never would have. But now we have judges who are more concerned about dancing on the head of a linguistic pin and ignoring the colloquial meanings of words rather than ensuring this country has a free and fair press. We have a rage-filled group of Americans known as MAGA who, like any good cultists, believe that anything Trump says is true. We have a media owned by large corporations - in this case, Disney - that are more concerned about endless headlines that might damage their other businesses rather than the principles of journalism. And we have a Supreme Court that has jurists who have already salivated over the possibility of throwing out the precedents that protect journalists in telling people in this country what is going on.

Put on top of all of it: We have a president-elect who has made clear the standards of his administration will not be abiding by the law, but rather waging war against anyone he perceives as his enemies, including the media. Already, CBS, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and more have been hit by Trump lawsuits because they said things he did not like.

It may go against everything that profit-obsessed corporations believe in, but if they are going to own news organizations, they need to defend the news. That means, when a company like Disney caves out of fear of public anger against their other businesses, then those who believe the First Amendment matters should be prepared to relentlessly criticize, verbally attack, and boycott every business they own. (Turnabout is fair play, after all.) In this instance, if you want to know the business owned by this company that believes the Constitution is less important than earnings per share, here is the list - feel free to boycott:

  • ESPN (80% stake)

  • Marvel

  • Lucasfilm

  • A&E (50% equity holding with Hearst Corporation)

  • The History Channel (50% equity holding with Hearst Corporation)

  • Lifetime (50% equity holding with Hearst Corporation)

  • Pixar

  • Hulu

  • Core Publishing

  • The Fox Network Group

  • Disneynature

  • Lucasfilm

  • Marvel Studios

  • 20th Century Studios (formerly 20th Century Fox)

  • Searchlight Pictures (formerly Fox Searchlight Pictures)

  • Pixar Animation Studios

  • ABC Television Network

  • ABC Entertainment

  • ABC Television Studios

  • ABC Digital

  • ABC News

  • WLS-7 Chicago, Illinois

  • KFSN-30 Fresno, California

  • KTRK-13 Houston, Texas

  • KABC-7 Los Angeles, California

  • On The Red Carpet

  • WABC-7 New York City

  • WPVI-6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  • WTVD-11 Raleigh-Durham

  • KGO-7 San Francisco, California

  • Live Well Network

  • Disneyland

  • Disneyworld

  • Disney Cruise Line

There are lots more. But that’s enough. Normally, I would rage about the settlement and leave it at that. In this case, though, since a large part of Disney’s settlement and knifing the First Amendment involved protecting its businesses from MAGA, perhaps they should learn to fear the rest of this country’s reaction when they kowtow to an authoritarian regime.

Finally, what should we say about Trump in the news media? He doesn’t want anyone to say he was found to have committed rape? Fine. So from now on, let’s say, “the jury found that Trump attacked a woman in a department store, forcibly jamming his fingers inside her vagina, which in most states in this country is called rape.”

I doubt he will think that’s much better than what Stephanopolous said. In fact, I would say it’s worse. So feel free to say it.

The Threats Within is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Read the whole story
DGA51
3 days ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Narrowly Escaping a Shutdown

1 Comment

You Can’t Tell Who’s In Charge Among Trump, Musk or Congressional Leaders

From all that Donald Trump has said in these weeks leading to inauguration, he was intent on getting an early start on his programs with loyal appointees and control of all three governmental branches. In fact, he acknowledged coming across as demanding to underscore that he wanted to enter the White House without anything to derail his prime objectives.

In that vein, he has been bullying with Senate confirmation practices for his most challenging appointees, disdainful of ethics and procedural delays, insistent on leaning on foreign leaders to settle their wars and conflicts, and loose about any need to adhere to legal or constitutional norms.

That hope for a ready stage for a Trump triumphal entry on Jan. 20 already has been dashed with a forced, intra-party budget fight that has left the country facing a partial government shutdown on the holiday week — all because Trump and billionaire buddy Elon Musk want to wring last-minute political points from the outgoing Congress.

Instead, Trump now faces open rebellion among a sizable number of congressional Republicans, ridicule from Democrats, and a full slate of obvious problems resulting from the closing of many non-emergency government services. Expecting that TSA, air controllers, and airport workers will show up to work without pay during the nation’s traditionally most busy travel week, for example, sounds like a bad bet since it will undoubtably mean longer waits and rising anger. A shutdown will prove expensive, wasteful of time and effort, and solve exactly no public problems.

Picking a last-minute fight to eliminate the nation’s debt ceiling laws and try to tag it as part of the Joe Biden administration is fooling exactly no one. And insisting that money approved in a bipartisan bill that aided hurricane victims, farmers hit by storms, and cancer research for children as unnecessary Democratic pork doesn’t seem to be sticking.

It was not clear that Republicans third escape plan to force separate votes on three months of continuing spending as is, and separate votes on hurricane and farmer aid and defying Trump’s demand for debt ceiling elimination, would pass without Democratic votes.  We should just buckle up for barb trading over blame for a shutdown that needn’t have happened.

Seeking Clues to Resolution

Beyond the immediate, what Trump and Musk have accomplished in this egoistic challenge to Congress is to set a tone for an incoming administration that borders on incompetence and chaos, with supporters and opponents agreeing that they can’t tell who’s in charge among Trump, Musk or congressional leaders. There can be no negotiated settlements if no one is clear about who is signing off on any deal.

Musk wants spending and regulations cut. Trump wants to spend more, just on different things, like rounding up migrants and making tax cuts permanent that benefit the nation’s wealthiest. Musk wanted the House bipartisan budget “continuing resolution” dumped because it was more spending; Trump wanted to add elimination of the debt ceiling to avoid having to ask for it later, when he gets the tax cuts and spending he wants.

Members of Congress don’t want to be told what to do, and a higher-than-expected number of the most conservative think that even a stripped-down version of the budget bill spends too much money. It was a numerical certainty even before the shutdown brouhaha broke out on Thursday that Speaker Mike Johnson would need the votes of Democrats, and those votes will not be forthcoming for throwing out everything that Democrats thought would be in the package. By offending everyone, Johnson should be making plans for how he will enjoy his post-Speakership years.

Trump is getting a double slap. He is not the dictator of legislation, and his ideas about spending still run afoul of his most conservative party members. Plus, the talk of an unofficial President Elon Musk can only be irksome to him. Musk is not even being clear about what should be in the bill, just what should not be included.

Meanwhile, this whole incident is over a three-month extension. We will be back here shortly, with absolutely no trust for any deal-making.

Meanwhile, the very people who demeaned the “deep state,” who insist on populism over expertise and experience, are showing they don’t know how to drive the governmental car. They are bad at it. They certainly seem not to care about the effect on you and me, who depend on government services.

It needn’t have happened. It can still be fixed, with a modicum of embarrassment.

Maybe voters can keep that in their heads when they next go to the polls.


CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF OUR NONPROFIT NEWSROOM

The post Narrowly Escaping a Shutdown appeared first on DCReport.org.

Read the whole story
DGA51
4 days ago
reply
Who's in charge? Beats me.
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories