Thought for the Day

[filghy2]

I sort of understand the conflict between Facebook and the Australian Government, but then maybe I don't. How did the Government, as appears to be the case, become dependent on Facebook as a source of news and advice on policies over which it has total control and indeed, which presents its policies on its own websites. Has the public chosen Facebook over the Government? And what if Facebook did not exist? It cannot mean Australians being ignorant of their own Government's policies and advice- or can it?

Facebook -nice to have, not need to have. I don't use it and I am reasonably well informed. What's the big deal? Looks to me like the Australian Govt is whining like a spoiled brat. Get a grip, Bruce.

The issue is not that the Government chose to depend on Facebook: it's that so many of its citizens have chosen to rely on it as a convenient information source, which has given Facebook and a few other tech giants so much power. Most people don't want to spend hours researching like you do. They just want to get a quick news summary while they are eating breakfast or riding the train or bus to work.

Most people have never got government information directly from government sources: they've always relied on media reports. Facebook has just taken this step further in aggregating those reports in one place. No doubt people will find other ways to get their news, and some of them may find that they don't need Facebook so much, which is the risk the company is taking.

[Stavros]

You make a good point, as usual. I don't really know what these 'news bites' or 'news on the go' look like, they are probably more influential than I realise. I was persuaded to create a Facebook page some years ago but have never used it, so I don't know what the news feed looks like. I wonder if they are neutral or have a bias. I do believe Facebook and similar sites are an important part of civil society and that they are essential in an open democracy, but as with all forms of publishing, there is no unimited freedom of speech, and the question is thus focused on content and whether or not is is illegal, which may be easy to determine, or immoral, which is harder to define. Without any proper regulation I suspect a lot of offensive material gets through, but how does one define 'offensive' which may be obvious to me, but not to you.

In addition, there was Kevin Rudd's attack on the Murdoch press in Australia and his claim that politicians are scared of Rupert and Lachlan, which is astonishing, even if true, given that they are not even Australians and I don't think have lived in the country for years. These days Rupert, that outstanding American, lives in the UK -why?

[filghy2]

In addition, there was Kevin Rudd's attack on the Murdoch press in Australia and his claim that politicians are scared of Rupert and Lachlan, which is astonishing, even if true, given that they are not even Australians and I don't think have lived in the country for years. These days Rupert, that outstanding American, lives in the UK -why?

Murdoch become a US citizen in 1985 only in order to purchase a TV network, which became the basis for Fox News (foreigners were limited to 25% shareholding).
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...rdoch.business

The Murdoch press accounts for more than half of all newspaper readership in Australia. It's among the most concentrated media markets of any democratic country.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...d-in-the-world

There's data here on the impact of Facebook's move on traffic to Australian news sites. There's been a significant fall, so people haven't just shifted to other platforms as yet, though there might be more movement over time.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-...nberg/13171568

[Stavros]

I have been puzzled to see some of the headlinees that refer to the recently deceased Rush Limbaugh as a 'Conservative'. I admit I don't know much about Limbaugh other than what I have read, and the snippets of his radio show I have seen, such as the one from about a year ago in which he sneers at anyone taking Covid-19 seriously- 'its just the common cold, folks' or words to that effect. Judged from what I have read, I don't consider him to be a Conservative, but the problem is deep enough now, because as more and more people like him and Trump form the centre ground of the Republican Party, it can no longer be considered a Conservative Party. I woud suggest Limbaugh was an anarchist, or a Libertarian, and definitely not a Conservative.

Fundamental to Conservatism, as its name implies, is hostility to, or suspicion of change. On that basis, there hasn't been a Conservative President since Eisenhower, but on one level, a refusal to change Wall St and the power of Capital does suggest a lingering Conservatism when it comes to the 'heights of Capitalism in the USA' -but Democrat Presidents have made a pact with Wall St and Corporate Finance not to rock their boat, and Obama rescued 'them' from the mess they created without addressing in a serious way the causes of the 2008 crash. So Conservatism on a policy by policy basis might endure, but doesn't need a self-proclaimed Conservative to practice it.

It is plainly stupid to claim any President or Party believes in Fiscal Responsibility, that has not been part of American Government since, again, Eisenhower. In fact, Republican Presidents and the Republican Party have presided over profligate spending, have created debt mountains and liabilities and have thus been shown to be poor stewards of the US economy compared to Democrats- so anyone who says Democrats are bad for the economy is talking verfiable rubbish.

But the key now, is the extent to which there is a cult of personality around Donald Trump, because if there is one thing that a Conservative Party is not, it is a slave to idolatry. And yet we read that a majority of Republican voters willl not support a candidate for their party if he or she has voted against or is opposed to Trump, and Trump has been persuaded not to create a separate party even though a majority of his supporters say they would vote for it. And none of this has anything to do with Conservative policies, just the realization that if he creates a third party, Trump cannot challenge incumbent Senators and Congressional Reps in their primaries, thus creating a division among Republican voters on election day that splits the vote and lets in the Democrat.

Roger Scruton was opposed to Margaret Thatcher's liberal economics of the 1980s because, as an English Conservative, he did not believe freedom was expressed in free markets, and he was right. It is true that there has been a division in the party over the role of the State and Markets since the 19th century, and is also true that Thatcher was in the end, a little bit Liberal, and a lot of State Power Conservative, but here the differences with the US diverge owing to the role that Monarchy has played here. Moreover, the two most serious splits in the Conservative Party occurred over the Corn Laws in the 1840s, and Tariff Reform in the early 1900s -arguments about ideas and policy, not individuals.

But in the end, the question in the US, What is a Conservative? doesn't seem to me to have a coherent answer. If the Republican Party is the party of Rush Limbaugh and Trump why does it engage in the manipulation of State laws on elections to make them more 'efficient' when in reality, it should declare its belief that Black Americans must be denied the right to vote? To oppose Abortion is to oppose a Constitutional Right -how can any Conservative claim to be one if they adopt a policy that not only opposes the Constitution, but takes away the Rights of citizens that the Constitution is supposed to guarantee?

A personality cult rather than a rational party. Debt mountains rather than Fiscal Responsibility. Attacks on, and defiance of the Constitution, rather than its protection. The language of hatred and division targeted at American citizens, rather than the simple acceptance that all citizens are equal. The demands for change, from a party historically opposed to it. (Was Abraham Lincoln a Conservative? Or, when did the Republican Party claim to be a party of Conservatives?).

-who, now, in the USA at the level of State and Federal politics, is a Conservative? And that private army of liars such as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Donald Trump Jr -are they Conservatives?

[filghy2]

But in the end, the question in the US, What is a Conservative? doesn't seem to me to have a coherent answer.

I think in the US a 'çonservative' is defined mainly by being against whatever 'liberals' are for. However, given the Americans have also managed to screw up the meaning of liberalism that may not be too enlightening.

'Authoritarian populist-nationalist' is probably a more fitting descriptor than 'conservative'.

[Nick Danger]

But in the end, the question in the US, What is a Conservative? doesn't seem to me to have a coherent answer.

I think in the US a 'çonservative' is defined mainly by being against whatever 'liberals' are for. However, given the Americans have also managed to screw up the meaning of liberalism that may not be too enlightening.

'Authoritarian populist-nationalist' is probably a more fitting descriptor than 'conservative'.

Just FYI you guys didn't have to admit to me that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

But I'm always here to help.

Liberal: 1. A person who believes in reliance on the state for sustenance and protection. 2. A simple-minded and/or unskilled individual who's most comfortable when his fate rests in the hands of others. 3. A "simp" or "beta."

Conservative: 1. A person who believes in reliance on himself for sustenance and protection. 2. An abstract thinker who understands that the structure of society reflects his actions, not vice versa. 3. A "boss" or "alpha."

[broncofan]

Just FYI you guys didn't have to admit to me that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

But I'm always here to help.

Liberal: 1. A person who believes in reliance on the state for sustenance and protection. 2. A simple-minded and/or unskilled individual who's most comfortable when his fate rests in the hands of others. 3. A "simp" or "beta."

Conservative: 1. A person who believes in reliance on himself for sustenance and protection. 2. An abstract thinker who understands that the structure of society reflects his actions, not vice versa. 3. A "boss" or "alpha."

Conservative: 1. A man who rails against homosexuality and also gets railed.... against his kitchen counter.

You have to admit that kind of duality has become a notable conservative feature. Doing it from the pulpit is an even bigger hallmark. Denounces homosexuality then has sex with a man in a bathroom stall. I only mind the hypocrisy.

[Stavros]

I think in the US a 'çonservative' is defined mainly by being against whatever 'liberals' are for. However, given the Americans have also managed to screw up the meaning of liberalism that may not be too enlightening.

'Authoritarian populist-nationalist' is probably a more fitting descriptor than 'conservative'.

It is not difficult to find out how Conservatives define their politics, but where for years the definitions were made by people like William F. Buckley, and Bill and Irving Kristol, and based in part on their reading of the Constitution, and their alternative to the State-Economy relations as they were shaped first, by the New Deal Administration of FDR, and its 'last gasp' in the policies of LBJ, so you should be able to trace the descent into incoherence since Reagan's first term. Famously, in his first inauguration speech he said 'Government is not the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem' -and then proceeded to expand Government and its costs leaving office with the highest public debt in US history.

Now fast forward to two of today's news items- a) as more Repubicans de-register, the remaining cohort being loyal Trumpits make it easier for him to either get the nomination for 2024 and/or 'primary' candidates not part of the Cult. B) It has been stated today, and it is a truly remarkable statement in American history, if that is not too pompous-

"Jason Miller, said: “Trump effectively is the Republican party. The only chasm is between Beltway insiders and grass-roots Republicans around the country. When you attack President Trump, you’re attacking the Republican grass roots.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-2024-nominee

There is no Conservatism here, it is pure idolatry, the transformation of American politics into a clash of civilizations, those who believe in the America of 1776 -civilization-. and those who believe only in Donald Trump, a man who is uncivilized and rejects all that it represents in order to line his pockets and hear the crowd roar.

How such a man came to literally embody the Republican Party will be the subject of many histories, assuming they live to tell the tale. "'Authoritarian populist-nationalist'" -? Not even close. As Brecht once put it, albeit in another context, 'Truly, I live in dark times'.

[Stavros]

I think in the US a 'çonservative' is defined mainly by being against whatever 'liberals' are for. However, given the Americans have also managed to screw up the meaning of liberalism that may not be too enlightening.

'Authoritarian populist-nationalist' is probably a more fitting descriptor than 'conservative'.

It is not difficult to find out how Conservatives define their politics, but where for years the definitions were made by people like William F. Buckley, and Bill and Irving Kristol, and based in part on their reading of the Constitution, and their alternative to the State-Economy relations as they were shaped first, by the New Deal Administration of FDR, and its 'last gasp' in the policies of LBJ, so you should be able to trace the descent into incoherence since Reagan's first term. Famously, in his first inauguration speech he said 'Government is not the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem' -and then proceeded to expand Government and its costs leaving office with the highest public debt in US history.

Now fast forward to two of today's news items- a) as more Republicans de-register, the remaining cohort being loyal Trumpits make it easier for him to either get the nomination for 2024 and/or 'primary' candidates not part of the Cult. B) It has been stated today, and it is a truly remarkable statement in American history, if that is not too pompous-

"Jason Miller, said: “Trump effectively is the Republican party. The only chasm is between Beltway insiders and grass-roots Republicans around the country. When you attack President Trump, you’re attacking the Republican grass roots.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-2024-nominee

There is no Conservatism here, it is pure idolatry, the transformation of American politics into a clash of civilizations, those who believe in the America of 1776 -civilization-. and those who believe only in Donald Trump, a man who is uncivilized and rejects all that it represents in order to line his pockets and hear the crowd roar.

How such a man came to literally embody the Republican Party will be the subject of many histories, assuming they live to tell the tale. "'Authoritarian populist-nationalist'" -? Not even close. As Brecht once put it, albeit in another context, 'Truly, I live in dark times'.

[Nick Danger]

Conservative: 1. A man who rails against homosexuality and also gets railed.... against his kitchen counter.

You have to admit that kind of duality has become a notable conservative feature. Doing it from the pulpit is an even bigger hallmark. Denounces homosexuality then has sex with a man in a bathroom stall. I only mind the hypocrisy.

I assume you're talking about Senator Larry "Wide Stance" Craig? Oh he's not the worst of American hypocrisy but that was pretty fun to watch.

Americans are a pretty cynical lot, and also totally unforgiving. If you're a politician and you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar or your cock in the wrong honeypot, you're canceled, period, and that's not based on "cancel culture," it's always been that way.

There are exceptions. Bill Clinton rivals John Gotti when it comes to being made of Teflon. My personal opinion is, to escape America's wrath behind any public scandal, you've got to be EXTREMELY likable. People continued to like John Gotti even after being 100% convinced he was a murderous thug, because he was exactly our idea of what a murderous thug should be - unrepentant, cocky, and just plain dangerous to know. And people continued to like Bill Clinton even after being 100% convinced he was a serial adulterer because anyone could easily understand why someone would cheat on Hillary.

Larry Craig? Not so likable.