Geoff > Status Update

Geoff wrote: "Yeah, if the leak of a series of rather innocuous emails means you still lose the presidential election to a giant pile of wadded-up Big League Chew with a marmot on its head, then the leaks aren't..."

Didn't even have to know what BLC was to have a good laugh at this. When I looked it up, the cheesiness of its packaging only helps. Whoever it was who mentioned the increasing creativity of insults, damn right.

Though I'm still burnt out on debating stuff the Trump govt might do. We're in this weird dead, limbo time you guys have between election and inauguration. (During which the losing side tends to suffer collective panic attacks.) Why is it that way? Why doesn't the new govt just get straight on with things, as in most other democracies?

Antonomasia wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Yeah, if the leak of a series of rather innocuous emails means you still lose the presidential election to a giant pile of wadded-up Big League Chew with a marmot on its head, then th..."

Yeah, the Donald also has this annoying habit of using the phrase "big league" as a superlative like some man-child; he actually said at one point "I'm gonna bring back jobs big league, and she's [Hillary] not gonna bring back jobs big league." In a presidential debate. And then won, etc.

Geoff wrote: "Yeah, the Donald also has this annoying habit of using the phrase "big league" as a superlative like some man-child;."

Oh I thought he said "bigly" - bigly jobs. Like some man-child avant-garde competing with Bush Jr's English. Come to think of which, Republican choice of last two presidents says something about the sort of books they read, or don't.

Jibran wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Yeah, the Donald also has this annoying habit of using the phrase "big league" as a superlative like some man-child;."

Oh I thought he said "bigly" - bigly jobs. Like some man-child ..."

Yeah a lot of people thought he said "bigly" which would be atrocious too, but no, listen to him enough and you realize he uses "big league" as a superlative fairly often. It's just so dumb.

And the fact that he's somehow actually the color of Big League Chew makes it an irresistible comparison.

Jibran wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Yeah, the Donald also has this annoying habit of using the phrase "big league" as a superlative like some man-child;."

Oh I thought he said "bigly" - bigly jobs. Like some man-child ..."

Either way it makes me fucking CRINGE:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/4990738...

Yeah it's definitely "big league", I've heard him use it in many other instances. I find it so juvenile. Or, like, the kind of talk you'd hear at a Wall Street three-martini lunch in like 1983. Which makes sense.

ATJG wrote: ""

That made me lol

Antonomasia wrote: "Though I'm still burnt out on debating stuff the Trump govt might do. We're in this weird dead, limbo time you guys have between election and inauguration. (During which the losing side tends to su..."

I don't know the answer to this other than the logistics of staffing and transitional requirements for jobs, fiscal planning reasons. SNOOZE

Wow. So some people really thought he said "bigly?" I thought I was the one who invented the homophonic spin on it. A downside of not using any social media besides GR and Whatsapp. I knew it was big league when I first heard it. But yes, both are atrocious, but I think bigly is more atrocious than big league.

Jibran wrote: "Wow. So some people really thought he said "bigly?" I thought I was the one who invented the homophonic spin on it. A downside of not using any social media besides GR and Whatsapp. I knew it was b..."

Bigly is more atrocious but big league is dumber, so both work for the Don.

Manny wrote: "This is interesting: The Guardian and Breitbart are accusing each other of reporting fake news.."

Maybe both accusations are true. I mean both are false. I mean where are Kripke and Tarski when you need them.

Another question is whether the Grauniad's typical quinoa-ate-my-hamster and genderless-bathrooms-for-cats-THE-TIME-IS-NOW story can be seriously considered 'true' or 'false' at all.

The genderless bathrooms for cats story is true big league.

I think Frankie Boyle put it well when he said: "Amusing to see a mainstream media that facilitated austerity & gave Trump and Farage unlimited [free] airtime blame the rise of fascism on blogging".

Except it's not amusing. You should see how the Graun hammered Sanders and how it hammers Corbyn daily.

I think it's about time we stop believing that the so-called mainstream media has any credibility left. Maybe there are some fine outlets here and there but, taken whole, it's become a laughing stock. Mainstream has increasingly become a megaphone of the establishment, of big business and vested interests, and I don't see how can one rely on journalists on their payroll. Not a directly relevant example but one only needs to see the fiction that's being reported in the name of credible news from Syria. The dubious sources, 7th grader simplifications, and partisan propaganda is truly astounding.

That people are increasingly moving to other sources is not so much a consequence of the rise of social media than it is a failure of the mainstream media, with the downside that people absorb news that confirm their already held beliefs and prejudices.

Jibran wrote: "I think it's about time we stop believing that the so-called mainstream media has any credibility left. Maybe there are some fine outlets here and there but, taken whole, it's become a laughing sto..."

I don't know, Washington Post and NY Times do great, important work. Many papers are still valuable beyond belief, in my opinion, and we take them for granted.

WaPo was virulently anti-Trump and had editorials from the editorial board many times a week pointing out his lies and dangers.

Jibran wrote: "I think it's about time we stop believing that the so-called mainstream media has any credibility left. Maybe there are some fine outlets here and there but, taken whole, it's become a laughing sto..."

I think, at least in American journalism, you have more problems than just MSM and alternative media. You have the differences between 1) print journalism, 2) cable news networks & radio and 3) ad-revenue-driven online/social media. And within each one, you have the varying qualities of ethics, veracity, etc.

I think there is good stuff there in some areas - there isn't a decent UK rival to the Guardian environment section, for instance, but on party politics it probably isn't going to please anyone except a small group of people who are both Blairite and very very PC. The need for advertising inevitably means a certain acceptance of neoliberalism and consumerism.

They now seem to be merely ignoring Corbyn rather than being critical. It's as if the Labour party mostly now consisted of female MPs who get threatened on Twitter. And Tony Blair's supposed comeback.

Geoff wrote: "Many papers are still valuable beyond belief, in my opinion, and we take them for granted."

Agreed. I'm not sure many people have seriously contemplated what it would be like if they weren't there any more.

But I wish they would cut out most of the consumer (fashion, home decoration, travel) content. Not that that's going to happen. (Back to the 70s)

Mainstream media's downfall began when they changed from being monitors of power with an independent voice to another-big-business - too big for their own good - that must run like any other corporate entity. Which is why I believe their independence shouldn't be taken for granted. This perception is a carry over from the good ol' days but I think the forces of globalisation, at least since the 80s, have radically changed the nature of big journalism. And apropos Ian's post, I think television is a lot worse than print journalism.

The top papers the world reads, they are so big, so influential, so ideologically subtle, that it's very hard to break the cycle of consent manufacturing that happens without most of us realising.

And of course a world with journalism is a better world than one without it, which would be like a scary dystopia where power goes totally unchecked; but we need more diverse voices than hear the same voice with a different accent and a different language from every hilltop and every street corner.

Jibran wrote: " it's very hard to break the cycle of consent manufacturing that happens without most of us realising."

Great way to put it. I have had a bit of an epiphany this year re. centre-left media and consumerism, and really wish a lot more people would. (And that I had when I was a lot younger...) I think it's easier to spot with political stuff - I've always been aware of clear advocacy of policies I disagreed with; it's the background atmosphere that it's apparently normal to have all that stuff, the existence of charts like "the year's top 50 gadgets" that is, for some of us at least, really insidious.

BUT WITHOUT GADGET LISTS HOW WOULD I KNOW WHICH GADGETS ARE NECESSARY AND SUPERIOR

Jibran wrote: "And of course a world with journalism is a better world than one without it, which would be like a scary dystopia where power goes totally unchecked; but we need more diverse voices than hear the s..."

Media is very diverse now. You can get your media from anywhere from Breitbart through to whatever the modern equivalent is of the Morning Star. A lack of voices isn't the problem...

Regarding TV vs print: what I've gathered is that, in the absence of the BBC, America has traditionally relied on its major newspapers who for most of last century aimed to be largely consensual, neutral news sources - while the early adoption of cable and satellite TV allowed the proliferation of TV news channels, who competed by taking more polarised positions. [It probably helped the press that America's federalism and size allowed 'local' papers to amass huge readerships, so there wasn't a need to always compete aggressively in the national market]. By contrast, in the UK, where the number of channels was extremely small until recently and most channels had at least an element of state funding, TV news has traditionally been seen as more or less neutral - whereas the print news is a pool of ideologically-hidebound sharks.

[Obligatory famous Yes, Prime Minister sketch on press readership.]

Quoting self:"They now seem to be merely ignoring Corbyn rather than being critical."

The Guardian must have heard people bitching - now the headline story is about "relaunching his image" as a leftwing populist. I'm not sure if it's me being cynical about the idea (he's really not an image person, BTW I met him briefly years ago and he came across as very nice, genuine, modest) or the Guardian's cynicism subtly ingrained in the wording.
(The problem with the idea is that one of the main planks of contemporary populism is being anti-immigration, and he really really isn't. Sanders didn't mention immigration much, that was how he worked it, but Corbyn is widely known for being pro immigration and I don't see how the party can turn that around.)

I'm patenting this, so no one steal my idea!-----> A gadget rating gadget.

Oh yeah, and my next career-----> Critic of the media's criticism of itself.

Zadignose wrote: "I'm patenting this, so no one steal my idea!-----> A gadget rating gadget."

Dude get that on the showroom floor before the holidays you'll be rollin' in them $$$s

Oh but HEY WORKING CLASS TRUMPISTS! The Don's cabinet picks have a combined wealth of more than a third of the country combined!! See, they're like you! They understand your pain! Oh holy fuck we're all gonna die aren't we!

http://qz.com/862412/trumps-16-cabine...

Another novel foretelling the Rise of Rump ::

Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Another novel foretelling the Rise of Rump ::

Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!"

So begins the vivid fictional account by political activist and bestselling author Ralph Nader that answers the question, "What if?" What if a cadre of superrich individuals tried to become a driving force in America to organize and institutionalize the interests of the citizens of this troubled nation? What if some of America's most powerful individuals decided it was time to fix our government and return the power to the people? What if they focused their power on unionizing Wal-Mart? What if a national political party were formed with the sole purpose of advancing clean elections? What if these seventeen superrich individuals decided to galvanize a movement for alternative forms of energy that will effectively clean up the environment? What if together they took on corporate goliaths and Congress to provide the necessities of life and advance the solutions so long left on the shelf by an avaricious oligarchy? What could happen?

What could happen indeed

It's uncanny, he's predicted everything in such detail!

As Atlas Shrugged fans, I assume they more or less have the alternative form of clean energy in the bag already? That must be why they're dismantling the EPA, it's served its purpose.

Manny wrote: "It's uncanny, he's predicted everything in such detail!

As Atlas Shrugged fans, I assume they more or less have the alternative form of clean energy in the bag already? That must be why they're d..."

Yes, their alternative form of clean energy is dirty energy, and then oxygen tanks for the wealthy in their high rises guarded by Blackwater security forces.

Geoff wrote: "Manny wrote: "It's uncanny, he's predicted everything in such detail!

As Atlas Shrugged fans, I assume they more or less have the alternative form of clean energy in the bag already? That must be..."

Earth's going to be wiped out in a couple billion years, so why try?

Ian wrote: "Earth's going to be wiped out in a couple billion years, so why try? "

Yep, this sounds like a very good reason for suicide.

Does anyone else think it's psychologically amazing, given all the creepy incestual stuff he's said about Ivanka, that she is essentially now acting as his first lady? All of his deepest fantasies are coming true! (But hey what's that thing Lacanians always say about entering the fantasy?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...

Jibran wrote: "Ian wrote: "Earth's going to be wiped out in a couple billion years, so why try? "

Yep, this sounds like a very good reason for suicide."

Speaking of suicide, got on the bus this morning behind a guy with a Trump/Pence button on his backpack. Duder proceeded to play music VERY LOUDLY out of his phone for the duration of my ride. To make matters worse one of the songs he played was Nickleback. Made it impossible to focus on my Cicero.

Ugh it just doesn't stop. You can't even stop to breathe and something else phenomenally pants-shitting happens. A leading contender for chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers is Larry Kudlow, a talking head from CNBC:

Kudlow, a fervent supporter of deep tax cuts and a senior contributor at CNBC, has neither a graduate nor undergraduate degree in economics.

ATJG wrote: "Nickleback"

Oh lord why can't the concentration camps be for Nickleback fans. I'd get behind that kind of totalitarianism.

ATJG wrote: "Speaking of suicide, got on the bus this morning behind a guy with a Trump/Pence button on his backpack. Duder proceeded to play music VERY LOUDLY out of his phone for the duration of my ride. To make matters worse one of the songs he played was Nickleback. Made it impossible to focus on my Cicero.
"

I'm impressed with your patience. I'd probably have smacked him on the head with my Cicero.

Oh sorry I thought it was Joe.

And now all this shit going down in North Carolina! Bonkers. The GOP has lost its marbles. If it ever had any marbles. I mean, is it really that important to have a United States? I'm about ready to let this shit go and say secede. We have a sensible country and you folks go do whatever the hell it is you're doing. Good luck!

Oh but then we'd have all those failed GOP-run nations on our borders - because they can't survive without all the federal aid they rant against and then take in greater proportion than blue states.

Trump is focusing in threatening and cajoling media and internet companies now ( the exclusion of Twitter execs from his internet company powwow is such a signal to play ball or else). If you think we had a palace court press and media under W, it will be infinitely worse under Trump. It will be straight up propaganda for the administration by most outlets and it will happen very fast. Free speech may or may not survive but it won't matter because mass media will become an apparatus of the Trump regime.

Peter wrote: "Trump is focusing in threatening and cajoling media and internet companies now ( the exclusion of Twitter execs from his internet company powwow is such a signal to play ball or else). If you think..."

Can't wait.

A stray thought: Obama really cuts a pathetic figure whingeing about Russian election interference. This is not to deny Russian hacking role, but Obama still appears a sorry figure unable to do anything. I feel for him. But no, I don't, as if America hasn't fought its own cyber wars against other states. It has.

I have a little conspiracy theory, the CIA and other establishment forces are very worried so they are using Obama's last month in office to bring the anti-Russia case to a fever pitch to frustrate the promise of the love affair between Trump and Putin and hinder a smooth taking off of their nouveau special relationship.

It would be interesting to see how Trump deals with it when he's finally sworn in. [expletive] I can't wait...

Yeah, it sort of epitomizes his presidency in a way, verbal gestures + real world impotence... I don't know, maybe he did the best he could and we the people let him down. The new deal was only possible because of the mass mobilizations at the time. So maybe it's not fair to blame him for not being FDR.

In the scheme of things he might be a footnote. His successor is going to be the real world historical figure : (

This article sort of fleshes out what me and my man Jibran was saying about Russia

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_an...