Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Propaganda watch
I gave this one its own thread

It was to needed on its own legs
this is more of a bookkeeping entry to keep the list in my files and links
After Mattis's Remarks to U.S. Troops, Is a Military Coup In The Cards?

Quote:video clip of Defense Secretary James Mattis speaking with troops deployed in Jordan has been making the rounds on various social media outlets, with varied and strong reactions.

Upon seeing the clip, I noted on Twitter, “Mattis is reflecting a line I have from many (mil esp but also civ): society is gone to hell and mil is only + last bastion of virtue.”

Talking Dirty With David Simon, George Pelacanos and Richard Price About HBO's 'The Deuce'

A lively discussion ensued between current and former military personnel, academics and national security professionals about what he said. Some praised him, while others wrung their hands with worry.

These contradictory reactions to his comments perfectly exemplify the civilian-military divide. The debate left me wondering: Should I be picking out my outfit for the impending military coup? Or should we all just chill?

First, what did Mattis say exactly? While his comments were part of lengthier remarks, here are the critical points:

Keep on fighting…You are buying time. You are a great example for our country. …It’s got some problems….problems we don’t have in the military…Hold the line until our country gets back to understanding and respecting and showing it….being friendly to one another.

His message to the troops in short: Don’t allow the passions and divisions back home diminish your morale or affect your ability to do what you need to do while deployed.

[Image: a2b34ae3b9f29d848b2a1f9f3796a91f]Former US Marine Corps General, now Secretary of Defense, James Mattis testifying before the Senate Armed Service Committee on July 27, 2010 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty

This seems like a fairly straightforward pep talk from an experienced military commander to those he leads. That was certainly how many military Twitter followers, and some civilians as well, interpreted what Mattis said.

They heard the “ warrior monk ” encouraging fellow warriors and invoking a common theme of his: the lack of “friendliness” and civility in contemporary American society.

However, Mattis makes two points that require deeper reflection.

First, the troops are to stay the course out there/here on the battlefield until things right themselves back at home.

Second, the issues plaguing society at home are not present in the military, in other words, that the military has respect, understanding and friendliness. This view is hardly unique to Mattis.

As I noted in my tweet, the view implied in this part of the statement is one that I have heard in military circles for many years. I have heard it from colleagues, from family members and friends, and I’ve come across it in my research on military ethics and culture. Journalist and author Thomas Ricks notes the issue in his discussion of the civilian/military culture gap in his book Making the Corps .

Don't miss: 
Who is Kenneth Storey? Professor Fired After Tweeting That Hurricane Harvey Was Karma for Texas Republicans

Plus, numerous studies since Vietnam have demonstrated the public esteem and trust given to the military. The public, if these polls are correct, does view the military as honorable and ethical — and therefore trustworthy — in ways that other public institutions are not.

And here we arrive at the civilian/military cultural divide that was so evident in the reaction of civilian national security professionals and academics on Twitter who expressed concern and even moderate outrage at his comments.  

These folks argued that his comments worked to widen the divide between the military and the civilian society they serve.

Some also feared that the growing divide could create favorable conditions for an assertion of even greater military involvement in civilian institutions, if not a military coup.

Those concerns were prompted by the claim of military moral superiority that they thought Mattis expressed in his comments and, for some, this resonates with the experience of Latin American countries where similar sentiments have led to military takeover of democratic institutions.

Loren DeJonge Schulman, who served on the National Security Council and at the Defense Department during the Obama administration, observed, “Mattis is doing well and getting admiration for his Mattisisms. He is also setting enormous precedent – hugely difficult to break at DOD.”

I presume Schulman would not take her point as far as a military takeover even in time of acute crisis, but it is important to ask the question how far toward the insertion of military authority in democratic and civilian life could such sentiments lead.

So is this just another pep talk to the troops or is something else much more concerning afoot? I want to emphasize that this is not about Secretary Mattis.

I am reasonably certain that he is an honorable man dedicated to serving his country as a civilian now, while continuing to live out Marine Corps values and military professionalism. While I would not count myself as a member of the Cult of Mattis, I am not questioning his character.

Instead, I’m much more interested in whether there is a precedent being set. His comments were so striking because they seemed to point to larger attitudes and assumptions held by both civilians and members of the military.

The real questions here are about how the two sides hear what he said, what they might conclude from it, and how they will act? On the military side, how will this be heard?

The concern is that troops will hear an endorsement of military moral exceptionalism and a claim that those in the military are essentially more virtuous than their fellow citizens. They could also hear that civilian society, of which they are not seemingly a part, has these problems and that they have to be sorted out by civilians and are of no concern to the military.

They are on the wall defending; that is their only concern.
Most popular: Women Are More at Risk From Disasters Like Hurricane Harvey

On the civilian side, what could be heard is a growing culture divide that has profound importance for our national life. That perception grows up in a time of  the increasing influence of former and current senior military officials in political leadership positions (notably in the current administration, but not exclusively so) and the politicization of the officer corps.

Civilians could also hear the claim of moral superiority (with which some people actually agree) as an assumption that members of the military are generally imbued with some moral character from their service that civilians do not and cannot possess.

This claim can have a powerful political logic to it: eroding the idea of the military as a politically neutral player devoted only to the Constitution and protection of the Nation.

My point here is that language matters, not just in terms of what the speaker meant, but in terms of how these words and attached meanings are perceived and acted upon. Mattis cannot be responsible for that, but his words highlight something that is present and needs to be addressed.

First, we have civilian control of the military as a basic Constitutional principle and a core value of professionalism within the military. These values require a level of engagement and support from the civilian side that seems to be eroding.

The American people and some of their leaders seem more and more content to hand matters over to the military (because they are competent, moral and trustworthy) and essentially say, “We trust you. You handle this.”

This serves several purposes for the public, including: shifting the political and moral risk away from themselves, avoiding difficult decisions and public debate, and refraining from more directly addressing the costs of war.

This was highlighted quite starkly in President Donald Trump’s recent speech on Afghanistan, where he emphasized his desire not to “micromanage” the military as it carried out its mission there.

Second, the military is a part of our society – not a separate fortress. Today’s service members came from society and they will return to it. Sebastian Junger and others have aptly documented the difficulties many in the military have with returning to civilian life and the alienation and separation experienced by veterans.

There is disappointment, frustration, and sometimes, contempt and scorn directed toward civilian society that is often part of this alienation. Thinking of the military as not involved or implicated in the passions and conflicts roiling society today contributes to this, as well as being false and problematic on its own. Indeed, just another slice of this complex puzzle is the involvement of vets in militia groups on American soil.

The military does have a different culture in many ways, but it is one informed by core values that are instilled as part of the training process, then enforced by incentives and in certain cases, coercion to be maintained.

Given this, one would expect military culture to be different! On the other hand, many of the problems and conflicts consuming the American public are present in our contemporary military.

The Fat Leonard and Marines United scandals remind us that strong moral character is not a given in the military. There are discipline problems, racism, sexism, sexual assault, political radicalization, infidelity, drug addiction, lying and theft in the military, just like civilian society.

As an experienced commander, Mattis obviously knows this, even if his remarks do not reflect it in this case. The unified and clear comments of all the service chiefs condemning violence and bigotry following Charlottesville is further evidence of this recognition by commanders that the military is part of society and potentially plagued by the same threats.

In short, Mattis’s remarks and the challenge they pose should be seen as a good opportunity to shift from the civilian/military culture gap to thinking about a civilian/military partnership.

The military does have to hold the line, but they cannot and should not do so alone. Civilians need to reassume much of the moral and political risks of war that they are trying to outsource to the military and be a fully engaged partner – before, during and after conflicts.

What’s more, civilian society is, one might say, a hot mess, but we need the best people of character, commitment and experience to help sort out the myriad issues we face. The military is trained for moral and physical commitment and discipline, so they know what it takes and have practice and training that many in the civilian realm simply lack.

These distinctions could make the difference in facilitating dialog and solutions to our common problems. But it’s short-sighted to fault civilians for not having military training. Better for the military to consider what character, skills and commitment civilians have due to their experiences, education and training that also contributes to the common good.

I think we can all breathe easy that a military coup is not around the corner. I do commend Secretary Mattis for provoking an important discussion, reminding us that there is much work to be done. We need to think seriously about his words: What will the next Marine who hears those words take from them? What will she do?

What will the ROTC cadets who come through my classes hear and take with them when they are commissioned? What will the next president and other future leaders hear and take from them?

How can we as a society, military and civilian, not just learn but train to be better citizens and become, in Mattis’s words, more “friendly to one another”—both across the military-civilian divide not just within one side of it.
Pauline Shanks Kaurin is Associate Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, WA.
More from Newsweek

Wow is all I can say

It hits a lot of points but the story behind the view is quiet east to see

Remember as you read this it was not about Mattis

What emotions did you get from reading this
Klan's Ambition Finds Foothold With Trump

Quote:Rachel Maddow looks back at how the Ku Klux Klan flexed its muscles in national American politics in the 1920s and how those same racist political ambitions are finding accommodation with Donald Trump.
Watch TV shows, movies and more on Yahoo View, available now on iOS and Android.
About The Rachel Maddow Show

[Image: b8e9ee90fd58ed02e664a29cad0d33cb]

Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life - as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise. [url=]See More

Pure and utter bullS#$%

Grasping at straws..

She glosses over a single fact.. The democrats are the KLAN!

So as an american I am supposed to get pissed when two different wings of the Democrat party are bumping heads

Propaganda smoothly delivered

No achohol to trump

pretty linking but utter bs

Someone forgot to tell her that King was a republican for a F#$%ing reason..

(09-05-2017, 06:50 PM)Armonica_Templar Wrote: Klan's Ambition Finds Foothold With Trump

NFL fans burning jerseys in rage over teams' support of protests

Quote:As the quandary of protests during the national anthem has run from the NFL‘s sideline to the White House and back to the 50-yard line, several fans have taken matters into their own hands … and lit them on fire.

The NFL’s protests began more than a year ago as a move to highlight racial inequality and bring attention to police brutality. On any given weekend, no more than a handful of players, initially led by then-San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, would sit or kneel during the national anthem.
But then President Donald Trump got involved, and that changed the entire equation. After Trump blasted the NFL and its players on Friday nightwell over 200 players protested during Week 3. And in response, fans of those players’ teams have shown their displeasure by torching their jerseys, gear and season tickets, then uploading the videos to social media.

Here’s one Pittsburgh Steelers fan, invoking the memory of his veteran grandfather:

[Image: 5jB06Vhhtv38Psa1.jpg]


[Image: RJjNa4No_normal.jpg]GRANT J. KIDNEY [Image: 1f1fa-1f1f8.png] @GrantJKidney
After the Pittsburgh Steelers refused to participate in the national anthem, many fans will be torching their gear. #TakeTheKnee
12:42 PM - Sep 24, 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Here’s a New York Giants fan igniting his tickets for next week’s Chargers game:

Here’s another fan, burning an absolute pile of Steelers gear:

Here’s a Kansas City Chiefs fan turning his back on his team after 50 years:

Here’s an Oakland Raiders fan burning his jerseys; language alert for tender ears:

[Image: hubVg6knd5ktqBxS.jpg]


[Image: 4uHEqtTx_normal.png]Busted Coverage 

Former Raiders fan 'Bob' makes a bold statement by burning his JaMarcus jersey...keep sending me videos like this! [Image: 1f525.png][Image: 1f525.png]
11:41 AM - Sep 26, 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy

… and so forth, all following the same format: fans staring into the camera, taking a long time to tell us their belief that players shouldn’t tell us their beliefs, then putting the flame to jerseys or tickets …  which tend to ignite with awkward slowness.

For those keeping score, then, these are protests of the protest to the protest. It’s impossible to know whether there’s any significant number of fans torching their jerseys, or whether the ones filming themselves orating over the flames are the outliers.

From one perspective, it’s an admirable demonstration of priorities, valuing the flag even over and above one’s beloved football team. But from another view, it’s a pretty rash decision to make with such little contemplation. If you’ve spent decades of your life rooting for a team, spending money on them, defending them in innumerable bar arguments, shouldn’t you perhaps give them the slightest opportunity for explanation? Don’t you respect those you love enough to hear out and contemplate their views, which might be slightly different from your own?

Eh, maybe not.

In the wake of the president’s critical remarks, NFL teams across the league issued statements in support of their players’ right to speak, without actually endorsing (or, really, even mentioning) what they were speaking about. Sure, it was a PR move, done to tamp down brush fires that could spread into uncontrolled wildfires (see: NASCAR), but the fact that it was done at all shows the teams have at least some small measure of respect for their players’ voices. That, apparently, was too much for many fans to handle.

One key element of the protests is the idea of freedom, the idea that even if you don’t support what the players are protesting, you support their right to do so. It’s a bit of nuance lost on the love-it-or-leave-it, burn-it-all-down segment of NFL fandom. But the great thing about America is that even those basic all-or-nothing views are accepted. And the great thing about the NFL is that they’re always willing to sell you on the shield, no matter what you’ve said before.

Because you’re always welcome back in the NFL as a fan. Every team has a fresh, unburned replacement jersey just waiting for you.

[Image: 20e0ef378c7bf314083daedd929f4b40]
Fans burning jerseys across NFL. (Via screen shot)

Jay Busbee is a writer for Yahoo Sports and the author of EARNHARDT NATIONon sale now at Amazon or wherever books are sold. Contact him at or find him on Twitter or on Facebook.

two points here

1) the link from yahooo

Angry NFL fans take absurd action against protestors

This is the title of the link which I screen shooted and posted to propaganda (my other place posting all the propaganda links

2) this statement

Quote:For those keeping score, then, these are protests of the protest to the protest. It’s impossible to know whether there’s any significant number of fans torching their jerseys, or whether the ones filming themselves orating over the flames are the outliers.
Impossible to know
yet in a link that is embeded (not sure right word)
44% of americans say XXXXXX
This is propaganda aimed at readers to control narrative
And people seem to be waking up to it
[Image: acc.gif] [Image: 9df.gif]
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
The high cost of freedom in America

Quote:The high cost of freedom in America
[Image: b8a23750-94e1-11e6-86b6-b35ffeea45c2_finance.jpg] Andy Serwer 11 hours ago 
  • Reactions

  • Like

  • Reblog on Tumblr

  • Share

  • Tweet

  • ?subject=The%20high%20cost%20of%20freedom%20in%20America&



  • [Image: 0a2cd090-a926-11e7-b1ac-9d2f6ab9da77_Scr...-39-PM.png]

  • [Image: 00ec96b0-ad30-11e7-b4cc-d1f3e693ab52_AP_...102106.jpg]
    Now Playing

  • [Image: 9a31d370-ad13-11e7-9f4f-81cbb9acfb70_117...00d973.jpg]

  • [Image: 0850be70-ad14-11e7-9765-0588f25bf8b6_201...iginal.jpg]

  • [Image: eafd37a0-ad03-11e7-8737-6db372c045c0_AP_...949866.jpg]

  • [Image: 26438390-ad05-11e7-b156-3bbb784b2f19_AP_...798466.jpg]

  • [Image: b6e7b9d70f32238c918ad0f08938e39d]





Yahoo Finance Live: Market Movers - Oct 9th, 2017

Freedom isn’t free.

You may think that statement is trite. I actually think it makes a ton of sense.

Americans are rightfully proud to live in the Land of the Free. We have more freedom than most countries in all sorts of awesome ways: religion, speech, movement, etc. As they say, it makes us the envy of the world and is the primary reason why immigrants — legal and otherwise — still flock to our borders and shores.

Of course, there are limits to our freedom. We are not free to murder and pillage, sell heroin, run naked onto an NFL field. These are easily agreed upon taboos. Reason being is that the cost to society of allowing that much freedom is simply unacceptable and/or morally reprehensible.
There are also what I call ‘debatable freedoms,” those which we have hashed out to decide whether or not they are worth exercising. Our acceptance of them evolves over time. Think legalized marijuana or same-sex marriage.

And then there are other societal freedoms many of us seem to believe in that come with huge, often under-recognized, and to my mind, hard-to-defend costs. Three examples here are free, unfettered financial markets; a wide-open internet; and nearly unlimited access to firearms. Many of us believe passionately in these freedoms, but I wonder if we fully understand the price we pay for them.

Let’s take them one by one.
Free, unfettered financial markets

You could argue that the financial crisis of 2008/2009 came about in large part because of deregulated or under-regulated financial markets. Speculation in credit derivatives and mortgage-backed securities, along with accompanying risks that were poorly understood, created systemic risk, which badly damaged our nation’s economy and much of the rest of the world’s as well. How much did these free financial markets cost us during the Great Recession? It’s hard to pin down exactly, but I’ve seen estimates of anywhere from $12 trillion to $22 trillion  yes, with a ‘T’.
[Image: 1ef7a648963818f705cca2fe36aa9125]After Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, policymakers advanced a slew of regulations intended better prepare the financial system for market and economic volatility. REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files
A few points here. Of course our free markets have created trillions more than that in wealth. And I’m not talking about implementing thousand of pages of myriad arcane derivatives regulation. I’m thinking mostly about increasing the amount of capital for securities firms. Simple stuff. Next financial crisis, make shareholders pay, not Jane Q. Public. So I’m arguing that with more capital requirements, which is a form of less freedom (I know, hard for Americans to swallow if it’s put that way) and yes adding cost, we could optimize our capital markets. A most worthwhile exercise, I say.

A wide-open Internet
Next the Internet. First let’s acknowledge that the internet isn’t completely free to begin with, even in the U.S. You cannot legally post child pornography or sell opioids on the web, for example. So there are limits already. Again, I know Americans will hate to admit this, but clearly we need more regulation. Why? Because the costs are too high not to.

Right now, we are paying an unquantifiably high societal price and then spending blindly to clean up after the fact. For instance, how much did the hacks on our parent company Yahoo cost? After one breach was announced, Verizon lowered its purchase price by $350 million. As for the Equifax breech — and dozens more — who knows.

And there are the real biggies: What is the cost to our society of Russian trolling and fake news on Facebook and Twitter? Examples: Fakes news roils an Idaho town. A guy goes to shoot up a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C. over a bogus viral story. Count: Millions and millions of dollars.
[Image: dbd203eac4f9f6ded5cbe78604acec84]Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. REUTERS/Stephen Lam

And then maybe you saw that Facebook just announced that it was hiring 1,000 people to review its content. That figures to be a $100 million cost. But these millions are just snowflakes on the tip of an iceberg of costs.

This is obviously a hugely complex problem, but clearly we need to re-think many facets of the web security and social media. For example, we need to replace our Social Security number system. And social media companies like Facebook and Twitter need to disclose who is paying for ads on their platforms. Finally, these companies must own up to one degree or another that they are responsible for all content on their platforms.

The cost here is massive. But the cost of allowing Russian trolls and Macedonian teenagers the unfettered ability to destabilize our society is far higher.

Free, nearly unlimited access to firearms
And finally we have the freedom in America to buy nearly any kind of firearm our heart desires, even if these guns aren’t designed for hunting or self-defense. Are there costs associated with that? Yes. Huge costs that are escalating every month. Let me give you an example: The shootings in Columbine in 1999 cost an estimated $50 million. And that’s in 1999 dollars.

And the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando last year? Ted Miller, a researcher with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, estimates that cost as much as $390 million. Miller also says that a typical day in America costs $600 million for shootings. Miller’s tallies include medical and insurance costs, the cost of police and first responders, the cost to employers and the dollar value of lives lost.

(Just an FYI, a life in the United States is now valued in excess of $7 million according to government agencies.)
That suggests to me that the Las Vegas shooting will end up costing over half a billion dollars. Mind-boggling, right?
[Image: d960894213431a3ff6134f1dcb92917d]An exhibit booth for firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson is seen on display at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Chicago, Illinois, October 26, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young
Limiting access to guns reduces shootings, which among other things reduces costs to our society. Am I worried that limiting the public’s access to assault weapons will confer too much power to the government? Not so much that I wouldn’t make the trade-off in a second.

So, you see what I say all that freedom not being free. But maybe it’s not so much about framing it as reducing the amount of freedom we have in the financial markets, or on the web, or in buying weapons. It’s understanding the costs and the trade-offs and then making smart decisions.

this is a hit piece well designed to hit the target audience

Lets look at their narrative

1)free markets

do not exist except on paper
the markets you mention are NOT free

Free markets means zero..

for the narative deconstruction that means ZERO, nothing, Nada, zilch
government interference

what you describe good sir is still an interfered with market..
the numbers are much different..

what you mention is a correction from years of Cali/detroitism
with a side note for fiat currencies and what they always do
magic word is reset to zero

please go back to you classroom and pick up a dictionary and then talk with economicist that are rich from building businesses
they will explain your error in liberalese

2)open and free internet

a simple question is then begged
who watches the watcher good sir

free speech is free
apparently you have no concept of what this means

so lets take look at history

What has enabled the internet revolution to take place in america

I will give you a hint
net nuetrality

but if you want to have a good dose of government interference
lets be real

How about we hold all the news to the same standard advertisers are held to
or political ads are held to
massive fines in billions leveled on companies and the writers for false news
like say for propaganda not listed as such

3Fire arms

the real goal of your aim here

Let me ask you a question

Do you feel the need good sir for you yourself to be banned from owning a sidearm because you are a danger?

the whole issue is not the cost of firearms

I find your research to be at the wikipedia level (propaganda deserves propaganda response)
what about the cost when firearms are not allowed to be present

How much do the rapes cost society when the female was unarmed..
How much is the deaths cost from unarmed people

If the writer of this article feels like discussing this.. I am willing to listen..

It appears they are adapting.. A new type of ploy..

Moi's Opinion
Quote:A subtle strawman argument

She is purposely mixing confirmation bias with meritocracy

As for her main example.. Wall street

It is about power and control.. My thought is very prowoman on this.. If women were mixed better as she expounds upon.. We would never had found it, and if it came to light.. Scapegoats would have been more readily made.. Pound for pound women are more competent (my own personal bias)..

the idea in business you are promoted on your skill and ability, no identity politics..

The issue she mentioned is again strawman.. The issue is not in promotions but training.. This tells me her training regimens for her company are lackluster..

Also she has bypassed potential company assets in favor of ideaological based hiring, training, and promotion..

Maybe I should write a non fiction for companies.. How to make billions with Darwinism?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)