School for Scamdal category archive
Josh Marshall steps back for a closer look at the Trump wiretapping scamdal. A snippet:
The real story here is that the President, by force of his office and audacity, was able to inject into the national conversation a preposterous claim which the country has spent two weeks debating. True, most people may not believe it. But virtually everyone has gone through the motions of probing the question as though they might be true. Intelligence communities have been briefed, statements have been made, a number of news conferences have been dominated by it. Perhaps most notably, members of his party have only been willing to say that there is as yet no evidence to back up the President’s claims – not that they are obviously false and represent a major problem in themselves.
I would say that this ability – both the President’s pathological lying and our institution’s inability to grapple with it – is the big, big story. The particulars of the accusation basically pale in comparison.
Phillip Lopate argues that the election postmortems are missing the point. It’s not anger that was the primary motivation of Trump voters; it was the desire for entertainment and excitement. They became a willing audience to his reality show. He also makes some interesting points about what makes a phony scamdal a successful political scandal.
Here’s just a tiny little bit of his article.
The liberal-progressive commentators all blamed themselves afterward for failing to take into sufficient account the “anger” of the “forgotten, disenfranchised” white working-class voters who had turned the tide. Now, anger is a very sexy notion for commentators to latch onto, but I think it has been overstated. I am sure it may have factored into some rural or working-class pockets in their decision to vote as they did; but given that Obama has rescued the economy from its deep recession and that millions of jobs have been added in the past eight years, and given the record of businessman Trump in stiffing American workers or campaigning against raising the minimum wage, it would seem puzzling that anger should be seen as the motivating factor swaying them to vote against their economic interests. Rather, I would say what mattered more was the desire to have fun, to be entertained, to do mischief and see chaos break out—what the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin called the “carnivalesque” turn. Electing a rogue who had never put in a day of public service in his life, who admitted to not paying taxes, was rather like the time the normally staid Minnesota voters swept the clearly unprepared ex-wrestler Jesse Ventura into the governor’s mansion. Boredom and spite, more than righteous anger, were at the wheel. Dostoevsky’s Underground Man argues that sometimes the only way to feel free is to spite our best interests.
And there is also the excitement of hating.
My own take is this: In the phrase, “white working class” of which the punditocracy has become so fond, “working class” is not the operative. The operative word is “white.”
I have no patience with the nattering about whether more visits to this state or that state, different nuance on platform statements, and the like might have changed the results. This election was not a strategic failure on the part of a candidate or a campaign.
It was a moral failure on the part of the voters and, perhaps especially, of the non-voters.
Remember, the “Hillary Clinton scamdals” are 99% Fox News lies and one per cent nobody’s perfect.
Mike Malloy rips James Comey over the Hillary Clinton email scamdal.
Warning: Heated language, NSFW.
It’s as if Comey implicated Clinton in the Kennedy assassination because Comey heard she may have once been in Dallas.
I’ve said before why I think the Hillary Clinton email scamdal is rightwing con job fueled by hatred of all things Clinton mixed with ignorance of how email, computers (those magickal mystickal black boxes), and networks work, stirred with the Fox News Mixmaster, and baked in wingnut fever dreams.
Accordingly, I paid little attention to yesterday’s kerfuffle other than to form two opinions:
- It would eventually become clear that, once more, there was no there there.
- The FBI screwed the pooch.
Eventually seems to have come sooner than I expected.
BadTux, more patient than I, has dug into the details. I commend his analysis to your attention.
In related news, the Inky endorsed Hillary Clinton. That is no surprise. I call your attention to the endorsement for the skillful way it skewered the Republicans’ Hillary Clinton scamdals (emphasis in the original).
What about Benghazi? After two years of Republican-led investigations, there were no findings of malfeasance by Clinton. That’s not to say mistakes weren’t made in how the military responded to the terrorist attacks on U.S. government facilities in Libya and how the incident was initially characterized as spontaneous by Obama administration officials. But the various investigations all concluded that Clinton wasn’t principally responsible.
What about the emails? An exhaustive investigation by the FBI concluded that Clinton had carelessly risked national security by using a private server at her home to read emails that at times included classified information — but that her actions were not criminal. That conclusion upset Republicans who had lavished praise on FBI Director James Comey, himself a registered Republican, before he announced his decision. Some continue to call for Clinton’s arrest each time more emails are released. But their tirades smell more like political gamesmanship than a genuine search for truth.
No one knows how many previous secretaries of state mishandled classified material. Colin Powell reportedly used an AOL account to correspond with foreign officials on his laptop. Who knows what John Foster Dulles, Cyrus Vance, Dean Rusk, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, or James Baker did when they wanted to take their work home? Email didn’t exist. The point isn’t to excuse Clinton’s behavior, which she has admitted was a mistake, but to put it into perspective.
Follow the link for the complete editorial.
Thom and Dr. Daniel Levitin discuss how to separate the “wheat from the digital chaff.” The substantive portion of the discussion starts at about the 3:24 mark.
Seth Meyers dissects the disparate treatment.
Via Raw Story.
Headline of the day: Analysis: Why people don’t trust politicians, in one Chris Christie interview
I’ve been considering how to address the DNC email leak but the gelatin has not yet completely set.
I was going to make two main points.
- As with most of these things, there’s no there there. There is no indication that the thoughts and musing were ever turned into action. Politics can be a dirty business (Donald Trump’s entire campaign q. v.); that political operatives might consider dirty tactics even to discard them should surprise no one but the naive and the stupid.
- In a fact that has been too often ignored by the corporate media, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He joined the party only to run for its nomination. That his deciding to join to party for that reason alone might have engendered some resentment among those who have been laboring long and wearily in the Democratic Party vineyards should also surprise no one but the see above.
Fortunately, Dick Polman decided to write the post so I don’t have to. Here’s bit of his piece; the excerpt opens with a reference to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s sudden resignation from the chair of the DNC:
Chairman Schultz’s sudden resignation yesterday, prompted by the hacked release of DNC emails that showed a committee tilt toward Clinton’s candidacy, was not the best way to launch a convention. The DNC had claimed that it was neutral in the Clinton-Sanders fight, but some of the emails confirmed what we generally suspected anyway, that party headquarters looked more favorably on the candidate who had spent 40 years doing spadework for the party – as opposed to the guy who wasn’t even a member of the party. Shocking.
Yes, it was abhorrent that some staffers suggested making an issue of Sanders’ religion – or lack of religion – in a few southern primaries, but two quick points: (1) the staffers made suggestions that were never acted upon, and (2) these were just DNC staffers, not Clinton campaign staffers.
Prepare for the coming scamdal about the fact that there is no there, there in yet another Clinton scamdal.
The fact that the mud has not stuck will not keep Republicans, Fox News, and their dupes, symps, and fellow travelers, from continuing to throw the mud.
After all, it’s their mud. They created it out of lies and innuendo, they sustain it, it’s all they got.
In a sane world, they’d be hiding under a bridge somewhere.
Via Juanita Jean.
Barry Ritholtz discusses the mechanics of misinformation.
However, there is a disconcerting trend that has gained strength: agnotology. It’s a term worth knowing, since it is going global. The word was coined by Stanford University professor Robert N. Proctor, who described it as “culturally constructed ignorance, created by special interest groups to create confusion and suppress the truth in a societally important issue.” It is especially useful to sow seeds of doubt in complex scientific issues by publicizing inaccurate or misleading data.
Follow the link, where he analyzes the role of “agnotology” in Britain’s Brexit vote. Left unanswered is this question:
How the hell does “agnotology” differ from propaganda or, for that matter, a plain old lie, and why did we need a new word with more syllables for it?
I haven’t paid much attention to the Hillary Clinton email scamdal because I knew from the git-go that it was yet another Republican lie in a long parade of lies about the Clintons, a parade reaching back to and beyond the Republican fever dream that the Clintons somehow murdered Vince Foster.
One does not have to be a fan of the Clintons to be disgusted by the Republican lies.
Now Cynthia Dill has sacrificed her time to plough through the bureacratise of the report on Hillary Clinton’s email scamdal so we don’t have to. Her findings come as no surprise. As with an email sent to /dev/null, there’s no there there.
Here’s a bit (emphasis added):
This was no covert operation, for heaven’s sake. It’s not like Clinton was secretly selling arms to Iran and funding the Contras. The Clintons paid out-of-pocket for a few techies to work in their basement keeping this server humming and free from cyber breaches. Staffers from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security inspected the email system, looked at the logs and communicated with these people on a regular basis. The bureau even refused to help fix it when Hurricane Sandy disrupted power “because it was a private server,” according to the report.
Clinton reasonably believed her private server was allowed because the bureaucrats in charge of security allowed it. This present-day conviction for violating rule 12 FAM 544.2 after the fact means nothing of any consequence. Nobody was hurt. No security was breached. Who cares?
I think one reason that this particular scamdal has had some staying power is that, to most persons, an email server–hell, a computer–is a dark magic box, mysterious and alchemical.
An email server is, actually, nothing more than a program that relays mail from the persons who write it to the recipients over a network and from a network to the recipient(s).
You too can have your own email server, if you wish. I know folks who do. It’s a bit complex, but it’s not magic, it’s not alchemy, it’s not voodoo; it’s just a computer program. (If you think government servers are somehow magically more secure than other servers, think again. Governments don’t do security better than anyone else, except possibly Sony.)
(Be sure to check your ISP’s terms of service before setting up your own mail server; most US ISPs forbid public-facing servers–news, web, database, mail–unless you have a business-class account. That’s why I don’t run my own mail server–my ISP’s TOS forbid it for my level of account. Otherwise I’d set one up just to see whether I could make it work. I like crossword puzzles too.)
Coleen Carlstedt-Johnson considers the complaints about Hillary Clinton and decides that there’s no there there. Here’s her take on one of them (emphasis in the original):
She’s too guarded. You would be a little circumspect about what you said and how you said it, too, if you had suffered 25 years of brutal verbal abuse, lack of respect and outright degradation by the opposing party. If I were she, I’d be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Wouldn’t you prefer a president who thinks about the ramifications of her statements before she speaks, rather than someone who blurts out what is expedient at the moment, then changes his stance, so that you can never rely on what he says?
Follow the link to see what she said about the others.
Remember, the Clintons have been targets of a quarter-century of conservative calumny. It’s effective to the extent that the lies have been repeated so relentlessly that folks who don’t pay close attention have come to accept them as true.