Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Examples of Obama's Constitutional transgressions, Lituya?
Summary executions of US citizens?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
How ‘Vice’ Explains Trump’s Appeal
Hollywood’s self-congratulatory, maddening false portrayal of the Bush administration shows us why Republicans fled into Trump’s arms in 2016—and why they’re likely to do it again in 2020.
By MATT LATIMER January 06, 2019
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/06/vice-movie-trump-appeal-223692
(Excerpts- emphasis added)
Despite its pretenses to the contrary, VICE, of course, doesn’t attempt to challenge—at all—the pat, conventional liberal narrative about the Bush era. You don’t win Oscars that way. So, in that sense, this garbage bag of recycled Bob Woodward/Oliver Stone/Michael Moore revelations is completely unremarkable. And yet in another sense, this film’s existence, coming this year in the Trump era, is extremely important. Because it is a vivid demonstration of why Donald Trump won in the first place—and why he’s got an excellent chance of winning again.
Vice’s self-congratulatory, arrogant, maddening mix of half-truths and glaring omissions explains why conservatives believe the “mainstream” world offers nothing for them. It also explains why they are so easily seduced and manipulated by conservative outlets and no-nothing political leaders who at least make an effort to take them, and the leaders they admire, seriously. It is easy for conservatives to believe Trump’s claims that the media and the “elites” despise them. Movies like this, with a narrative supported by a broad media consensus, prove that point. And they tick people off.
I watched these various scenes of people I knew and worked with, at first bemused. But over time I became annoyed. Then angry. I thought: Who the hell are these people to so totally rewrite history in order to support some left-wing fantasy?
I think Trump as a general rule has been a disaster as president. But after this film, I’d be lying if I said somewhere in my head a thought didn’t flicker: Trump is right about these guys. Then I wondered, as I’m sure many, many others have, What’s in it for me to side with a left-of-center cohort that doesn’t care about inconvenient facts any more than he does? That’s the real vice of VICE.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
And I'm sorry but you're full of sh!t.
Mushroom cloud
Yellow cake
Duct tape- code orange
Valerie Plame
Enron- Get Shortie
California rolling blackouts
Halliburton
Black Water
Rendition
Mission accomplished
Etc., etc., etc...
Trump won because many white men hate women and minorities.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
With the help of Vlad
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
Examples of Obama's Constitutional transgressions, Lituya?
DACA, for one. Can you guess the others?
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
So far, the courts don't seem to agree with you on DACA, Lituya.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
It's quite telling how impressionable ST liberals are when it comes to movies produced by, ummmm, other liberals. Confirmation bias at its finest.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
You said that 'Obama made Trump look like a piker' in regards to constitutional transgressions. I really can't recall any such transgressions that stuck after court reviews. I'm happy to be educated, though...please share.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
Willfully ignorant, you are.
While we're waiting for you to seriously consider, I think you should tell us all how Trump has transgressed the same. (Yes, we know you don;t like him--and we don;t either. But please, try to stay on task here.)
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Contractor, I tend to agree with you in regards to the realistic impacts of the Bush/Cheney years- a net-negative, to be sure.
That article is more interesting to me in regards to the writer's view of how media bias exists towards the left (this movie being a prime example), and how that plays a role in driving more voters towards the Right.
I can see his point of view to a degree- I think there is a leftward bias within Hollywood, and it is reflected in the majority of the films that are produced and promoted. Whether these films should be taken literally as historical accounts is largely beside the point- cumulatively, they do play a role in shaping the public's view of past events.
Unfortunately, the response from some on the Right doesn't make much sense, either- creating another set of 'facts', no matter how detached from reality they may be, and repeating them loudly until they become accepted. That's a pretty dysfunctional response, and no better than the media bias they are trying to 'combat'.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Lituya, I'm not going to play that game. You made the comment...you provide the evidence.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
Apogee, I understand you're point and I know you to be reasonable. I'll be very disappointed if or when the liberal wing proposes to pile debt on my children in pursuit of their agenda, or to raise taxes on the wealthy beyond a sustainable level. Dancing in the endzone should not be tolerated. We ultimately will need conservatives help to diminish the stain the Trump family has left upon all of us.
What I can't let go of or accept is the conflation of right and left wing media bias and the level to which each opposing consumer group is willing to buy into the spin or outright lies. Remember, one of the most popular liberal and zealot talking heads was run off cable news by his own(Keith Olbermann). He was a moderate by measure of Hannity and Limbaugh. By contrast, reactionary media personalities are apparently running our government by way of their mind control on the 25%.
Agreed- Lituya has become completely irrelevant with his ingenious little quips.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Well, in spite of the overwhelming amount of 'information' that is available these days, as always, it's up the reader to delve deeper than a meme they receive from their peeps on FB, and get to good information. Unfortunately, that takes effort & time.
|
|
Pete_N
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
Jody referenced an article in this thread some days ago that claims a recent study failed to demonstrate a correlation between California's firearm background check laws and subsequent rates of gun deaths. Here's the link he provided: https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/?fbclid=IwAR2_TMVuhBwxoouXOH8Ou7aYTZfyU-qPwaq8h2tULR7IbL6HdRXqnzAokMs. I wanted to respond, because his is a classic example of poor journalism (aka fake news) and the topic--gun control--is an important one.
I'm not familiar with the Foundation for Economic Education, the organization which posted the article, but, briefly, the study in question (1, 2) found no change in the rates of gun deaths (homicide & suicide) in the 10 years after CA mandated comprehensive background checks and prohibited gun purchase or possession by persons convicted of violent misdemeanors. This was the basis of the FEE article and would appear to support their argument that gun control laws do not reduced homicide or suicide by firearm. While the study reported lower firearm suicide rates after policy implementation, there was a comparable reduction in non-firearm suicide. Regarding homicide, there was no net difference in the rates before and during the 10 year post-policy period. The researchers, however, attribute these results to inadequate data on background-checks and the absence of what appears to be the most effective legal approach to reducing gun violence (3), a permit-to-purchase provision among other factors. Other studies show a strong effect of permit-to-purchase laws on reducing firearm mortality (e.g. 3-5).
If a legal approach to addressing gun violence (and suicide) did not work, then I would agree that another strategy was necessary, but the evidence is very strong--to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. Clearly, where you get your information is critical, but you've also got to take the time to read what's offered. The headlines alone are insufficient.
(1) UC Davis study, press release (easy to read): https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362
(2) Original study (more challenging; access will cost you unless you go through a university; if you really want the pdf, let me know and I'll send it to you): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.10.001
(3) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-018-0273-3?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst
(4) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2673375
(5) https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/PTP-policy-brief.pdf
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
This pretty much says it all. Ties to the Koch Brothers
The Foundation for Economic Education is listed as a partner organization of the Charles Koch Institute.[3]
FEE has received funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation:
$31,000 in 2014
$7,000 in 2010
$15,767 in 2009
$8,000 in 2000
$5,000 in 1999
FEE has also received funding from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, "two funds that have been closely tied to the Kochs but which obscure the percentage of their grants coming from Koch money.[4]
$100,000 from Donors Capital Fund in 2014
$82,600 from DonorsTrust in 2014
$100,00 from Donors Capital Fund in 2013
$58,500 from DonorsTrust in 2013 From the Source Watch.
|
|
Bargainhunter
climber
|
|
The movie Vice was excellent. I highly recommend it. Cinematically clever, very well executed, and tells an important story. The biased review above panned it because it doesn't tote the Fox News propaganda bias.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
I agree
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
Pete_N posted the following well researched rebuttal to Jody
From my reading of the below I believe Jody's contention is completely discredited
I invite Jody to reply
Jody referenced an article in this thread some days ago that claims a recent study failed to demonstrate a correlation between California's firearm background check laws and subsequent rates of gun deaths. Here's the link he provided: https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/?fbclid=IwAR2_TMVuhBwxoouXOH8Ou7aYTZfyU-qPwaq8h2tULR7IbL6HdRXqnzAokMs. I wanted to respond, because his is a classic example of poor journalism (aka fake news) and the topic--gun control--is an important one.
I'm not familiar with the Foundation for Economic Education, the organization which posted the article, but, briefly, the study in question (1, 2) found no change in the rates of gun deaths (homicide & suicide) in the 10 years after CA mandated comprehensive background checks and prohibited gun purchase or possession by persons convicted of violent misdemeanors. This was the basis of the FEE article and would appear to support their argument that gun control laws do not reduced homicide or suicide by firearm. While the study reported lower firearm suicide rates after policy implementation, there was a comparable reduction in non-firearm suicide. Regarding homicide, there was no net difference in the rates before and during the 10 year post-policy period. The researchers, however, attribute these results to inadequate data on background-checks and the absence of what appears to be the most effective legal approach to reducing gun violence (3), a permit-to-purchase provision among other factors. Other studies show a strong effect of permit-to-purchase laws on reducing firearm mortality (e.g. 3-5).
If a legal approach to addressing gun violence (and suicide) did not work, then I would agree that another strategy was necessary, but the evidence is very strong--to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. Clearly, where you get your information is critical, but you've also got to take the time to read what's offered. The headlines alone are insufficient.
(1) UC Davis study, press release (easy to read): https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362
(2) Original study (more challenging; access will cost you unless you go through a university; if you really want the pdf, let me know and I'll send it to you): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.10.001
(3) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-018-0273-3?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst
(4) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2673375
(5) https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/PTP-policy-brief.pdf
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!