Here’s a CNN article on a father of a Sandy Hook victim receiving death threats from a woman who believes Sandy Hook was a hoax created by gun prohibitionist activists.  While it is of note regarding just the narrow gun policy discussion, I’d like to work it at a higher level.

As most should know by know, my understanding of humans is that they reject fact that conflicts with their values.  In this case the woman crying hoax has a strong right to bear arms perspective.  With it comes an impulse to deny any evidence that owning and carrying weapons might be problematic.  Not just on this issue, but on any issue, there is a common notion that one can doubt to disregard any media outlet that presents information one doesn’t like.  I recall a broad dismissal of the NY Times recently on this forum.  There are bunches of folks who wouldn’t recommend Breitbart as precisely fair and balanced.  Thus, the notion of rejecting major events as media fabrications fits with how lots of folks think about the media these days.  It’s all lies.  One can disregard what one doesn’t want to hear.  One can embrace and practice hate speech and death threats based on what one does want to hear.

I’ll mention climate science denialism as another issue where both the scientific and main stream press is frequently dismissed in favor of what one wants to hear.

Various dystopian novels and movies warn of how in the dark future propaganda and lies will be used by the dark ruling elites to snooker the common man.  Orwell’s ‘doublespeak’ from 1984 will stand as one example.  Real world autocratic governments who seize control of the media to present state propaganda is another example of how falsehood might be pressed on the people.  Neither approach seems to be quite matching the reality of the modern Big Lie.  There are large numbers of media outlets providing a smorgasbord of assorted truths for consumption according to one’s tastes.  If one is a rabid fan of unquestioned unrestricted owning and carrying weapons, one can find outlets that will turn Sandy Hook into a liberal mainstream media hoax.  If one favors any sort of off the wall theory, one might well be able to find a set of media outlets that will tell one what one wants to hear, the more clicks the better.

This isn’t exactly a new observation.  I just thought I’d start a thread centered on this sort of thing.

Of course Trump was rated as having more ‘pants on fire’ than most anyone in history.  He understands what certain people want to hear quite well.  He seems ready to assume that he can get away with telling certain folks what they want to believe.  Zillions of illegal voters.  He never endorsed lots more countries getting the bomb.  He will use the Big Lie blatantly and openly, no matter how easy they might be to debunk.  Worse, it seems to work for him.

It’s a problem far easier to describe than fix.  What issues do you feel are being pushed as Big Lies?  What might be done to return to reality based thinking?

When Obama was elected, as a supporter, I formulated a report card on what I wanted him to do, giving that I had voted for him.  The grade was based on six things:

1. Prevent a Depression and initiate a bull market.
2. Implement a form of universal health care.
3. Take some significant action to address climate change.
4. Kill Osama Bin Laden
5. End torture, close Guantomano and roll back the surveillance state and use of drones
6. Make sure you are succeeded by  Democrat.

Obama got  a B-, four A's and two F's (#5, 6).

I did not do Bush, since I did not vote for him, but it I had done so, this is what I would have wanted:

1. Pass at least one major tax cut and restore the deficit and cut regulation.
2. Pursue a humbler foreign policy (i.e. keep up out of unwinnable conflicts)
3. Prevent any financial collapse arising from (1) from killing my portfolio (i.e. pass TARP).

Bush also got a B-, two A's and one F (#2).

I also did not do any of the other presidents before 2000, but if I had it would have been one on thing (he deficit).  SO it goes as:

Reagan F
Bush I C (hell he tried)
Clinton A
And then there is Carter whom I gave an F--I was fucking 21, give me a break .

So now I will write up the report card on which I will grade Trump (assuming I had voted for him)

1. Reduce net immigration rate by at least 40% (the 1924 law decreased immigration by 45%).
2. Deport at least 1 million undocumented aliens per year for a total of 4 million by end of 1st term
3. Reduce American force posture in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East/Central Asia (except for operations against ISIS).  No new wars.
4. Enact tariffs against US trading partners with which we have very large trade deficits (particularly China and Mexico).
5. Pass a major tax cut.
6. Do nothing about a financial collapse arising from tax cut: i.e. no TARP, no deficit spending (stimulus), allowing me to buy at the most optimal price.

Before I get all sorts of confused responses, I will point out, this "report cards" is based on the assumption that I voted for Trump, which I did not. I do not favor forcibly deporting 4 million people from this country.  But if I had voted for Trump then I would be OK with this, seeing is as an evil, but a necessary one (like a just war).

http://www.thelocal.se/20161202/happy-25...-press-act

Quote:Today marks the 250th anniversary of Sweden's Freedom of the Press Act, and at a time where both freedom of information and questions over what the media publish are increasingly in the spotlight, the pioneering document is particularly relevant. Here are five facts you should know about it...



http://www.thelocal.se/20161202/happy-25...-press-act

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...4cfb1e75de

Quote:Now is the season for democracy’s doomsayers. Between the election of Donald Trump and the rise of the far-right nationalist parties in Europe, some of the world’s most vigorous democracies have been shaken up by political movements with distinctly authoritarian shadings, who have threatened democratic institutions like tolerance, the rule of law, and the free press.  “The challenges confronting western democracies as 2016 draws to a ragged close are of a breadth and intensity not seen since the early 1980s,” The Guardian declared recently.

Some of the best evidence has come in the form of research by political scientists Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk that shows that more and more citizens of established democracies are becoming skeptical of democracy’s worth. “[M]odern democracies, including America’s, are far more vulnerable to hostile takeover than you might think,” Mounk wrote recently in a op-ed...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...4cfb1e75de

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...eplacement


Yummy!

files.soylent.com/pdf/bar-nutrition-facts-en.pdf

https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/55622-6...nomic-boom

Quote:
 
We're Entering a New Reagan Boom--NOT!

Trump first dazzled American pop culture with his gaudy hotel logo and celebrity interviews in the 1980s. In fact, the Donald still looks like a slightly older version of an ‘80s yuppie—a me-first “master of the universe” sporting everything but the power suspenders. So is it so far-fetched to think that he might overhaul today’s economy by turning back to that 1980s magic?
 
Many policy pundits are hailing the idea, so much so that you might think that the “Again” in “Make America Great Again” is a direct reference to the Gipper’s success in slaying inflation, downing the USSR, and building a 600-ship navy. Even notable leaders of the original “supply side” revolution are remaking their appearance in (or near) the Trump coterie: Art Laffer, Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore...


https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/55622-6...nomic-boom

Looking on Google Books and news sources, it seems proposed Gen Z starting dates are evenly split between 2004/5 or 1995/6. Depending on who you ask, the generation starts on either side of the year 2000, which is quite a massive gap (10 years).

Which of these dates do the forum members find more fitting? I believe the mid 90s dates are based on growing up in a post-September 11th world and the rise of the Internet with the release of Windows 95, while the mid 2000s dates are based on memories of growing up in a post-Obama and post-Great Recession world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...l-america/

Quote:U.S. Rep. Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota is one of the last members of a dying breed: the rural conservative Democrat. He has represented Minnesota's 7th Congressional District for a quarter-century, since 1991. The district encompasses most of the western half of the state. It's farm country, a broad swath of fields and open prairie running from the South Dakota border all the way up to Canada.
The people Peterson represents are overwhelmingly white and moderately conservative. According to the Cook Political Report, Peterson was one of nine Democrats sent to Congress from a district that voted for Romney in 2012.
Most counties in Peterson's district swung hard toward Trump this year, by margins of 20, 30, 40 percentage points or more. But Peterson himself still earned 52.5 percent of the vote, enough to head to Congress for a 14th term...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...l-america/

Some time ago I wrote this essay about the saeculum and morality. Specifically it aligns the generational cycle (archetypes and turnings) with Aristotle's four moral characters. 

http://home.mindspring.com/~saecularpages/Morality.html

I present it here for the forum's consideration. Would love to know what people think.