Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
conix, Weiss certainly has a tendency to simplistic superficiality at times
Political views
According to The Washington Post, Weiss "portrays herself as a liberal uncomfortable with the excesses of left-wing culture",[70] and has sought to "position herself as a reasonable liberal concerned that far-left critiques stifled free speech".[71] Vanity Fair described Weiss as "a provocateur".[6] The Jewish Telegraphic Agency said that her writing "doesn't lend itself easily to labels".[72] Weiss has been described as conservative by Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot, and Business Insider.[73][74][75][76] In an interview with Joe Rogan, she described herself as a "left-leaning centrist".[77] The Times of Israel recounted that her public fight with the New York Times made her a hero among some conservatives.[78]
Weiss has expressed support for Israel and Zionism in her columns. When writer Andrew Sullivan described her as an "unhinged Zionist", she responded saying she "happily plead[s] guilty as charged".[79] As of 2024, Weiss had visited Israel over 15 times, including after the October 7 attacks, and compared pro-Israel social media commentators to former Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky, whose years in prison made him an icon of the movement to free Jews from the Soviet Union.[78]
In 2018, she said she believed the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but questioned whether they should disqualify him from serving on the Supreme Court because he was 17 when he allegedly committed the assault against Christine Blasey Ford.[75] After backlash in the press, Weiss conceded that her sound bite was glib and simplistic, and said instead that Kavanaugh's "rage-filled behavior" before the Senate Judiciary Committee should have disqualified him.[6]
Following the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh, Weiss was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher in early November 2018. She said of American Jews who support President Donald Trump:
---
I hope this week that American Jews have woken up to the price of that bargain: They have traded policies that they like for the values that have sustained the Jewish people—and frankly, this country—forever: Welcoming the stranger; dignity for all human beings; equality under the law; respect for dissent; love of truth.[80]
---
In 2019, The Jerusalem Post named Weiss the seventh most influential Jew in the world.[81]
In January 2022, Weiss was criticized by a doctor appearing on CNN for her comments on the late night talk show Real Time with Bill Maher criticizing COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, citing that the COVID-19 pandemic response had resulted in mental health issues and that as a result she was "done with COVID".[82]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#Political_views
Wow. Miles Russell, 15. Also, it sounds he has some good people looking after him
"“I am honored to be receiving an exemption into the 2024 Butterfield Bermuda Championship,” Russell said in the AJGA release. “I have dreamt of playing on the PGA TOUR my entire life and to have that dream coming to fruition later this year is a feeling that I cannot describe. I am grateful to the tournament and the AJGA for their partnership that is allowing me this incredible opportunity.”"
Next week, eh. Hope he goes well and that he has all it takes. The more like Aberg the better.
Thanks. Yep, Scheffler does have that tiny extra something that makes him outstanding among the world's best.
Elon Musk and Anthony Albanese's church attack spat isn't about free speech. It's about power
"Anthony Albanese and Elon Musk feud over X's bid to show graphic stabbing footage, as conservative senator shares footage
"Meta more Aussie hassle -- eSafety commissioner orders X and Meta to remove violent videos following Sydney church stabbing"
Surely the spat is not only about power. No, it's about both free speech and power.
By political correspondent Brett Worthington
Posted 8h ago, updated 8h ago
VIDEO - Anthony Albanese says Elon Musk is an "arrogant billionaire who thinks he's above the law".
It takes a special kind of person to attract universal criticism across Australia's federal political landscape.
For Elon Musk, the controversial owner of the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, the backlash he's facing is likely something he'll wear as a badge of honour.
He's been called an "egotistical billionaire" by cabinet minister Tanya Plibersek, a "narcissistic cowboy" by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, an "absolute friggin' disgrace" by the Tasmanian independent Jacqui Lambie and an "arrogant billionaire who thinks he's above the law" by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
The Coalition too wants in, putting aside its usual defence of free speech rights to suggest Musk is pursuing an "insulting and offensive argument" in his refusal to remove graphic footage of a stabbing in a Sydney church last week.
PM and Elon Musk feud
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and billionaire Elon Musk trade barbs, as a feud continues over
his social media platform's bid to display graphic stabbing footage from the Sydney attacks.
Read more > https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/albanese-musk-feud-x-removal-stabbing-footage/103756722
That incident, which authorities quickly called an act of terrorism, saw Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel hospitalised with lacerations to his head after being lunged at with a knife during a mass that was being broadcast online.
Footage of the incident spread across social media platforms, prompting Australia's eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant to order websites take down content referencing the Wakeley stabbing.
Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, agreed, while Musk's company X threatened its legal action in a bid to fight the government.
If it was a legal fight that Musk was wanting, he got it. Inman Grant beat him to the court and won a two-day injunction against X for only blocking the content in Australia .. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-22/esafety-commissioner-seeks-injunction-against-x/103755874 .
At the time of writing, the video remains online and is actively being promoted by a crossbench senator .. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/albanese-musk-feud-x-removal-stabbing-footage/103756722 .. elected under Clive Palmer's party.
Case sparks questions about the reach of Australian law
The whole saga offers a timely reminder of how far the world has come in such a short time.
It was only in 2008 that Supreme Court Justice Betty King banned the crime drama Underbelly from being broadcast in Victoria .. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-12/judge-bans-underbelly/1040072 . It was a simpler time. TV episodes were broadcast weekly, streaming was barely a thing and getting the episodes to Victoria almost required the shelving of a USB (maybe don't Google that at work) to get it across state lines.
Now we live in a globally connected world, where technology and media companies have wide-reaching platforms that share content across international jurisdictions.
The Musk-Inman Grant matter sits in the hands of the courts to determine how far-reaching Australian laws are.
Should a country be able to ban content being shown globally? Where does the line exist? Could a country, say Russia, have the ability to demand X remove content beyond its borders of Ukraine's military resistance?
These are questions for the nation's sharpest legal minds to determine. But there is more at play here than simply matters of the law.
Elon Musk is finding few federal political friends wanting to support his response to the terror attack in Sydeny.
(ABC News)
Both Musk and Australian politicians are using the case to fight political battles in their interests.
For Musk, it's a chance to further bolster his free speech credentials. It's in his interests to pick a fight with a government he thinks is overreaching. It's a chance for him to be seen sticking it to "the man".
But there is more at stake than just speech. His commercial interests lie at the heart of this dispute.
Musk knows that other nations are closely watching the laws Australia makes for the social media giants. Just look at how Australia's plain packaging of tobacco has been adopted internationally. Further social media crackdowns here could come with greater crackdowns in bigger markets like the United States and the United Kingdom.
The X owner says the footage should stay up because it doesn't breach the company's standards.
Musk also seems to forget that free speech doesn't mean it's free of consequences. Global tech companies might have long been able to influence governments of the day, but it is the law of the land, not his commercial interest, that determines what is legal and what isn't.
For Albanese and the broader Australian political class, this too is about standing up to "the man".
The government sees a political virtue in pushing back against Musk and his platform, which has repeatedly been found to foster a toxic discourse. They've determined that the spreading of a terrorist act is a bridge too far in the public's eyes.
Labor likely sees another use for this scandal. It's been threatening greater action against the social media platforms to curb the spread of misinformation. This unrelated scandal offers cover for advancing new laws against the tech giants.
It's little wonder Meta, knowing the threat it is facing, was so keen to be seen to have followed Inman Grant's orders .. https://medium.com/meta-australia-policy-blog/metas-response-to-the-recent-attacks-in-sydney-0109a8f8ddcc . (Also, did someone say schadenfreude?).
Julie Inman Grant has powers to compel social media companies to release information. (ABC News: Adam Kennedy)
The former US president Theodore Roosevelt is often quoted as saying you can go a long way if you "speak softly and carry a big stick".
It's a sentiment that embodies the American-born Inman Grant's approach to her tenure as eSafety commissioner.
Inman Grant is a former senior official at Twitter. She knows X's soft underbelly and has repeatedly shown an ability to find the spot to inflict pain on the company when it fails to meet community standards.
Her job comes with enforceable powers which means if the companies don't answer her questions, they face daily fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's these powers that have allowed her to accuse X of failing to police hate and failing to meet anti-child-abuse standards .. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-16/social-media-x-fined-over-gaps-in-child-abuse-prevention/102980590 .
That big stick that Inman Grant carries has brought with it not just shame but financial pain for Musk's X.
He's now taken to calling her the "Australian censorship commissar", a move straight out of Donald Trump's playbook to dismiss her as a Communist or Soviet party official.
Having touched a nerve, Musk might not be the only one wearing a badge of honour.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/elon-musk-anthony-albanese-church-court-injunction-x/103757040
Anthony Albanese and Elon Musk feud over X's bid to show graphic stabbing footage, as conservative senator shares footage
"Meta more Aussie hassle -- eSafety commissioner orders X and Meta to remove violent videos following Sydney church stabbing
"Google must face video ad company's antitrust lawsuit, judge rules
'Meta says Facebook cannot solve media industry’s ‘issues’ as it defends ending payments for news in Australia
May, 2022 - "Australia's Standoff Against Google and Facebook Worked—Sort Of'""
By political reporter Jake Evans
Posted 16h ago, updated 9h ago
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Elon Musk's comments expose him as an "out of touch" billionaire.
(ABC News: Nick Haggarty)
* In short: Anthony Albanese and Elon Musk are feuding over the billionaire's fight for X to be able to display violent content.
* Following a temporary order to remove graphic videos of the Wakeley church stabbing, a federal senator has reposted the clip.
* What's next? X has vowed to continue fighting the eSafety commissioner's order.
A federal senator has shared the unedited violent footage of the Wakeley church stabbing attack as a feud continues over X's bid to be able to host it on its site.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Tuesday morning hit back at "arrogant" billionaire Elon Musk after he made comments goading Mr Albanese on his social media platform X.
Mr Musk is feuding with Australia's eSafety commissioner over an order to remove graphic footage of last week's Sydney church stabbing, and on Monday night faced a defeat in court when it ruled X must temporarily pull the posts from its site .. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-22/esafety-commissioner-seeks-injunction-against-x/103755874 ..until the next hearing date.
Overnight Mr Musk twice posted comments mocking Australia's prime minister, suggesting X's refusal to remove the violent videos left it alone among social media platforms as a defender of free speech.
"I’d like to take a moment to thank the PM for informing the public that this platform is the only truthful one," Mr Musk wrote.
Don’t take my word for it, just ask the Australian PM! pic.twitter.com/ZJBKrstStQ
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 22, 2024
Unfortunate, but true.
Reminder - Trump administration broke law in withholding Ukraine aid, watchdog says as Senate prepares for impeachment trial
"[...] Matter of: Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security
Assistance"
Published Thu, Jan 16 202010:05 AM EST Updated Thu, Jan 16 20207:20 PM EST
Dan Mangan @_DanMangan , Kevin Breuninger @KevinWilliamB
Key Points
* The Trump administration broke the law by witholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine over the summer “for a policy reason,” a top government watchdog said.
* The report by the Government Accountability Office came a day after the House of Representatives sent articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump to the Senate for conduct related to the withholding of that aid to Ukraine.
* Trump held back the funds while pressuring Ukraine’s new president to announce investigations by that country of former Vice President Joe Biden, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
More -- https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/trump-administration-broke-law-in-withholding-ukraine-aid.html
Unpacking the alleged crime that made Trump’s alleged crime a felony
"Trump’s Trial Challenge: Being Stripped of Control
"Prosecutors Want to Ask Trump About Attacks on Women"
Analysis by Philip Bump
National columnist
April 22, 2024 at 2:31 p.m. EDT
Donald Trump, left, attorney Michael Cohen and adult-film actress Stormy Daniels. (AP)
All links
Attorneys offered opening arguments in the criminal trial of Donald Trump on Monday in Manhattan, beginning the process of presenting to the jury the state’s case against the former president. The jury will ultimately be asked not whether Trump is guilty of a crime in the abstract but, instead, whether the state provided enough evidence to eliminate any doubt that he violated the letter of the law. This means that the letter of the specific law undergirding the charges in the indictment against Trump is crucially important.
In that indictment .. https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf , Trump is charged with 34 felonies, each predicated on his having allegedly falsified business records. Specifically, prosecutors argue, he caused the Trump Organization and his personal trust to record payments made to attorney Michael Cohen in 2017 as retainer fees rather than as reimbursements for the $130,000 that Cohen paid to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
Falsifying business records is not always a felony. But if the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof,” the New York criminal statute reads .. https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/NACF91AF08C9211D882FF83A3182D7B4A/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29 .. , it can be charged as one. As it was in each of the charges against Trump.
So what is the “another crime?” It isn’t articulated in the criminal indictment. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) was somewhat vague when the indictment was handed down, saying that the intent was “to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”
Offering his opening statement Monday, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo made clear that the crime was centered on Cohen’s payment to Daniels.
“This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election,” Colangelo said, “to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures, to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior, using doctored corporate records. It was election fraud, pure and simple.”
Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, rejected that idea.
“There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election; it’s called democracy,” he said during his opening statement. “They put something sinister on this idea as if it was a crime. You’ll learn it’s not.”
Except that it can be. And in this case, almost certainly is.
VIDEO Trump’s shifting story on the Stormy Daniels payment 1:25
In 2018, President Donald Trump denied knowing about a hush money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.
Later that year, he changed his tune. (Video: JM Rieger/The Washington Post,
Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
At issue is another fairly esoteric body of law: campaign-finance limits. These laws limit how much money people can contribute to political campaigns and how campaigns have to report what they take in and how they spend it. Outside parties can spend money on promoting candidates, too; those are called independent expenditures. But they can’t coordinate with the campaigns or candidates on how they plan to do so.
The goal of those laws — an important aspect of the issue at hand — is centrally to limit the corruption that could follow from a big donor bankrolling a candidate’s entire campaign. If, say, Google could simply put up a candidate and spend $1 billion getting her elected to the Senate, it would be hard for anyone to compete — and Google would have a presumably loyal senator sitting in D.C.
So with those prohibitions in mind, consider what Cohen did — as he admitted when pleading guilty .. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax .. to federal campaign-finance charges.
Cohen and a representative of Trump’s campaign (later revealed to be Trump) met with David Pecker — then chairman of American Media Inc. and publisher of the National Enquirer — in August 2015. Pecker offered to help the campaign by buying stories that would reflect negatively on Trump and then burying them. AMI and Pecker confirmed this story in a non-prosecution agreement reached with the government.
Already, you can see that this is an offer to benefit the campaign that involved coordination with agents of the campaign; that is, with people empowered to act on the campaign’s behalf. That’s Trump himself, of course, but also Cohen, who would represent the campaign publicly and discussed campaign strategy with Trump.
When Pecker later bought a similar story from former Playboy model Karen McDougal for $150,000 intending to bury it, it 1) was an action taken to benefit the campaign, as per the August 2015 meeting and 2) was not an independent expenditure, since the McDougal payment was made in consultation with Cohen. Cohen pleaded guilty to “causing an unlawful corporate contribution” — since corporations like AMI can’t legally contribute .. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/#:~:text=Corporations%2C%20labor%20organizations%2C%20national%20banks&text=National%20banks%20and%20federally%20chartered,%E2%80%93federal%2C%20state%20or%20local. .. to campaigns, and the $150,000 was a non-monetary contribution to Trump. AMI and Pecker offered testimony, resulting in that non-prosecution agreement.
In October 2016, a month before the election, Pecker informed Cohen about Daniels’s story. Cohen reached a deal with Daniels’s attorney — also McDougal’s attorney — for $130,000, but didn’t pay immediately. Only when Cohen learned that Daniels was thinking of going public elsewhere in the days before the election did Cohen finally pay the money.
Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign-finance charges related to this as well. That plea didn’t depend on arguing that Cohen was an agent of the campaign, though; instead, it argued that Cohen made the contribution “in cooperation, consultation, and concert with, and at the request and suggestion of one or more members of the campaign.” A later filing identified that member of the campaign: Trump .. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/07/government-implicates-trump-trump-campaign-federal-campaign-finance-law-violations/?itid=lk_inline_manual_30 .
Some on the right have argued that the payment to Daniels didn’t violate campaign-finance law. Earlier this month, Trump shared on social media a 2023 article .. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/no-cohens-guilty-plea-does-not-prove-trump-committed-campaign-finance-crimes/ .. written by the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, making that case.
The timing, McCarthy argued, “was just common-sense hardball” on the part of Daniels and McDougal, “striking when their leverage against the notoriously parsimonious Trump was at its height; it didn’t mean that [nondisclosure agreements] — which Trump had plenty of other personal, political, and business incentives to pay for — were necessarily in-kind campaign expenses.”
Perhaps this could be an argument made against such charges, albeit a dubious one. After all, Cohen recorded a September 2016 conversation .. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/24/four-important-points-that-arise-from-the-trump-cohen-recording/?itid=lk_inline_manual_36 .. with Trump in which they discussed the McDougal case and, in another context, the need to bury negative information until after Election Day. The idea that Trump and Cohen didn’t view the Daniels payment as related to the campaign is ridiculous — especially since it first came to their attention immediately after The Washington Post published the “Access Hollywood” tape, drawing new scrutiny to Trump’s interactions with women.
But Trump’s defense team isn’t trying to make McCarthy’s argument anyway.
“There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election,” Blanche told jurors Monday. “It’s called democracy.”
So if Trump was admittedly trying to influence the election by agreeing with Cohen to pay off Daniels, then Cohen — as he admitted in federal court — violated campaign-finance laws. And therefore, if the repayments to Cohen were falsified to obscure their intent — remember, the Cohen-Daniels story didn’t become public until 2018, after the reimbursements had been made — it seems as though that was done to “conceal the commission” of those campaign-finance violations.
Proving Trump actively caused the records to be falsified is the central job of Manhattan prosecutors. Demonstrating that the records were allegedly falsified to obscure this other crime seems a much easier task.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/22/trump-hush-money-trial-charges/
They had some top scientists .. “Operation Paperclip.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-us-government-brought-nazi-scientists-america-after-world-war-ii-180961110/
Lime Time, You thunk like a lemon. Scholars once thought earth was the center of the universe, some non-scholars even now see it as flat. Sex orientation has moved us past you bipolar vision. Science is a wondrous study. Read. Consider Learn.
B402, Fuck off with your conservative bleat. It's a big deal because of your conservative culture war creation. The sexual continuum is a biological fact and your conservative camp's inability to cope with it is at the basis of the unhealthy extremist controversy your far-right has created. Your side's lack of realistic policy has resulted in your manufactured culture war. What else to do your Rufo .. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171727736 .. said. Administrators and athletes were handling it with little relative fuss until your rabid anti-trans zealots stirred the pot.
Attacks on Ohio transgender community a calculated political ploy to scapegoat the vulnerable
One shelf in our trans library -- https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174078624
Plenty more you should study before making such a silly post again.
Lime Time, No comments re moderation, tia. And if we were into stickies yours would not be in contention.
Have always felt that.
Att: livefree..., conix, Your Niall rang a bell (still can't figure why you won't/don't include the author)
The case for cuts was a lie. Why does Britain still believe it? The austerity delusion
Paul Krugman
In May 2010, as Britain headed into its last general election, elites all across the western world were gripped by austerity fever, a strange malady that combined extravagant fear with blithe optimism. Every country running significant budget deficits – as nearly all were in the aftermath of the financial crisis – was deemed at imminent risk of becoming another Greece unless it immediately began cutting spending and raising taxes. Concerns that imposing such austerity in already depressed economies would deepen their depression and delay recovery were airily dismissed; fiscal probity, we were assured, would inspire business-boosting confidence, and all would be well.
[...]
Part of the answer is that politicians were catering to a public that doesn’t understand the rationale for deficit spending, that tends to think of the government budget via analogies with family finances. When John Boehner, the Republican leader, opposed US stimulus plans on the grounds that “American families are tightening their belt, but they don’t see government tightening its belt,” economists cringed at the stupidity. But within a few months the very same line was showing up in Barack Obama’s speeches, because his speechwriters found that it resonated with audiences. Similarly, the Labour party felt it necessary to dedicate the very first page of its 2015 general election manifesto to a “Budget Responsibility Lock”, promising to “cut the deficit every year”.
Let us not, however, be too harsh on the public. Many elite opinion-makers, including people who imagine themselves sophisticated on matters economic, demonstrated at best a higher level of incomprehension, not getting at all the logic of deficit spending in the face of excess desired saving. For example, in the spring of 2009 the Harvard historian and economic commentator Niall Ferguson .. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jun/11/the-crisis-and-how-to-deal-with-it/?pagination=false , talking about the United States, was quite sure what would happen: “There is going to be, I predict, in the weeks and months ahead, a very painful tug-of-war between our monetary policy and our fiscal policy as the markets realise just what a vast quantity of bonds are going to have to be absorbed by the financial system this year. That will tend to drive the price of the bonds down, and drive up interest rates.” The weeks and months turned into years – six years, at this point – and interest rates remain at historic lows.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/mailbox.aspx
Hello, Vexari. Agree you are priceless.
If he had any future as a basketballer, you'd probably have heard before now. You talked
me into it .. https://people.com/all-about-barron-trump-donald-trump-son-7507615 .
Agree. Still IF, i would. It's for the individual act. That's all.
You've done well without it, maybe better than you would have if you'd
gone because the experiences you had instead have served you well.
It's overrated. And muchly by the emphasis put on a degree by employers.
Does he play basketball? An NBA star not good enough, i guess. I read somewhere
she was the only one Donald was afraid of. You think there is anything in that?
gunner5757, You are an ignorant , and overly nasty piece of work. You have a problem, let's call it TDS Trump
Demolition Syndrome. Won't say it's been nice knowing you, but you get what you wanted i guess. You are gone.
Agree totally and never would. Just credit for doing what he did there. No more.
No less. If Trump decided to plead guilty to something i'd give him credit for it.
Thanks, a good decision for once. Hoping, lol, to maybe be a little chunk of history was part of it, and
thinking others might have only one left of him and be saving that one for the PGA was part of it too. Got lucky.
Ok. So you think she could be lining Barron up for the presidency. I thought he was
sort of a shy guy. No real reason to think it as haven't looked about him almost ever.
You are right on conix. For years she has posted myths about unis, and doesn't matter what she is given she ignores it. It's little more than a right-wing talking point she latches onto like a pup pulls a carpet.
You mentioned nobody cares how students or profs vote, i'd guess that's right, The real question, if there is one, is how much does any uni. education actually affect an individual's values or political positions. I'd guess, in general not all that significantly.
This overseas study i'd guess would be mirrored, at least roughly, in the States. I'm not 100% what it's conclusions are. These sorts of efforts take time to study to really digest. Anyway:
June 2022, 102471
Electoral Studies
Does university make you more liberal? Estimating the within-individual effects of higher education on political values
Author links open overlay panel
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102471
Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access
Abstract
An individual's level of education is increasingly significant in explaining their political attitudes and behaviour, with higher education proposed as a new political cleavage. However, there is limited evidence on the causal effect of university on political attitudes, due to self-selection into educational pathways. Addressing this gap, this article estimates the change in political values that occurs within individuals who graduate from university by applying longitudinal modelling techniques to data from the 1970 British Cohort Study, overcoming the selection problem by accounting for time-invariant confounding. It provides the first causal estimate of higher education specifically, finding that achieving a degree reduces authoritarianism and racial prejudice and increases economic right-wing attitudes. This has important implications for the study of politics: as populations become more highly educated on average, we should expect continuing aggregate value change towards lower levels of authoritarianism and racial prejudice, with significant consequences for political behaviour.
Previous article in issue
Next article in issue
Keywords
Political values
Prejudice
Authoritarianism
Education
University
Selection effects
Longitudinal
Panel estimation
Two-way fixed effects
Linear mixed effects modelling
1. Introduction
Within established democracies, an individual's level of education is increasingly significant in explaining their political attitudes and behaviour (Norris and Inglehart, 2019), with some suggesting that higher education in particular could represent a new political cleavage in Western Europe (Ford and Jennings, 2020). One potential explanation for this observed effect of higher education is through changes to political values. Studies have shown that these values are valid consistent constructs that vary by education level (Evans et al., 1996) and are more often influential on party identification than the other way around (Evans and Neundorf, 2018). This analysis focuses on three such values: racial prejudice, understood as hostility towards racial out-groups (Kinder and Kam, 2010, p. 8); authoritarianism, or support for social order over individual liberty (for example, the death penalty or harsh sentences for criminals); and economic Left-Right values which captures views on inequality and the role of the state in the economy (Evans et al., 1996).
Competing explanations are given for the particular effect of higher education on these different values, whether it is the graduate premium leading to higher earnings, and so lower support for redistribution (Surridge, 2016); the liberalising influence of faculty and university culture (Dey, 1996); the impact of peer socialisation in what remain relatively elite institutions (Mendelberg et al., 2017); or the effects of increased cognitive sophistication (Gelepithis and Giani, 2022). However, given self-selection into educational pathways (Persson, 2015), an important first step is to determine whether this difference is causally attributable to university. Previous studies have attempted to address this selection problem by leveraging exogeneous changes in educational participation attributable to variation in policy regimes (Bullock, 2021; Cavaille and Marshall, 2019; Marshall, 2016) or randomised encouragement designs (Sondheimer and Green, 2010). However, these well-identified studies do not estimate the specific effect of higher education, instead tending to focus on the effect of increased years of secondary education.
It is this gap that this article addresses, adopting a longitudinal approach to estimate the change in values that occurs within individuals who graduate from university. Specifically, it applies two-way fixed effects and linear mixed effects models to data from the 1970 British Cohort Study to account for all time-invariant confounding, finding that achieving a university degree reduces an individual's authoritarianism and racial prejudice and makes an individual more economically right-wing. In so doing, it makes three main contributions. Firstly, it provides the first causal estimate of the effect of university specifically on these values. Second, it does so for a validated multi-item scale for authoritarianism for the first time, which matters given the growing significance of this ‘second’ dimension for contemporary politics. Third, it extends the previous causal literature in this area by providing an estimate of the effect of higher education among a more nationally representative sample, therefore allowing us to be more confident in drawing general conclusions. The findings have important implications for the study of public opinion and political attitudes, as it suggests that as the population becomes more highly educated on average, we should expect current trends of aggregate value change towards lower levels of authoritarianism and racial prejudice to continue, with significant consequences for political behaviour.
2. The significance of political values
From an initial position of scepticism about the existence of underlying, consistent attitudes among much of the voting public (Converse, 2006), there is now broad acceptance within political science that many individuals hold essentially consistent underlying positions in terms of racial prejudice, left-right economic and liberal-authoritarian social values throughout their adult lives (Evans et al., 1996; Sears and Levy, 2013). In part, this change in perspective can be attributed to the difference between searching for stability in individual survey items, which do demonstrate inconsistency partly attributable to measurement error, and stability in the latent constructs which selections of these items are designed to estimate (Ansolabehere et al., 2008).
[...]
To take the hypotheses in turn and start with racial prejudice: the results indicate that achieving a degree has a moderate and statistically significant negative relationship with this outcome, meaning that graduates become less prejudiced on average, accounting for the effects of selection. The results are remarkably consistent across the three estimators, suggesting that graduating from university results in a small reduction in prejudice, of around 0.15 of a SD. We can therefore accept hypothesis 1. Moving on to review the results for authoritarianism, we can see that higher education demonstrates its strongest effect here. The results show a significant reduction of around 0.3 of a SD among those who achieve a degree. This effect is corroborated with greater precision by the multiple imputation estimates. This provides strong support for hypothesis 2.
Finally, the results indicate that achieving a degree renders an individual significantly more economically right-wing, although the estimators differ in the exact magnitude of the effect. Those using the complete case sample estimate a similarly-sized effect to that on racial prejudice, of just over 0.15 SD – yet the REWB model applied to the multiply imputed data suggests a much larger effect, of around 0.35 SD. This larger effect may be attributable to differential attrition affecting those in the control condition, where cohort members from more disadvantaged backgrounds (and who therefore would be less likely to achieve a degree and more likely to hold economically left-wing views) were less likely to continue with the study. This result provides evidence in support of hypothesis 3, and is in line with previous literature, where authors have attributed this change both to peer socialisation and to economic allocation effects.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379422000312
I agree Trump's demeanor suggests at least mini-narcissistic collapses fairly frequently
"One sign of narcissistic collapse is lashing out in anger or rage, often with inappropriate
and uncontrollable outbursts. In fact, it's one of the hallmark signs of this phenomenon."
A link, missing from yours -- https://www.mentalhealth.com/disorder/narcissistic-personality-disorder/narcissistic-collapse .
Hmm, never thought of that. How could she if not a natural born American.
How Mike Johnson Got to ‘Yes’ on Aid to Ukraine
"About bloody time - Ukraine Aid Bill Clears Critical Hurdle in the House as Democrats Supply the Votes
"Putin's irrationality meant no one could have prevented war: Canada's envoy to Ukraine""
Intelligence, politics and personal considerations converted the Republican speaker, who had largely opposed aid to Ukraine as a rank-and-file member, into the key figure pushing it through Congress.
Video transcript 0:00/0:59 - ‘History Will Judge It Well,’ Speaker Johnson Says of Aid to Ukraine
Speaker Mike Johnson successfully defied the anti-interventionalist wing of the Republican Party and got the House
o approve a $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
“I know there are critics of the legislation. I understand that. It is not a perfect piece of legislation. We’re not ensured that in a time of divided government and in a time where there are lots of different opinions. But there is no question whatsoever that the House has made many strong improvements to the Senate bill and the product that we’ve sent over there is much better. This is an important matter. I think it’s timely. I think you’ve heard from leaders around the world, including in Ukraine, that this is being done on a timely basis, and the House had to have the time to deliberate and do this in the right manner. I think we did our work here, and I think history will judge it well.” Reporters: [unintelligible] “Mr. Speaker, you’re being asked to resign. Will you?” “Have you spoken to Mr. Jeffries about that? And do you plan to if it’s brought?” “No, listen, I — as I’ve said many times, I don’t walk around this building being worried about a motion to vacate. I have to do my job. We did. I’ve done here what I believe to be the right thing, and that is to allow the House to work its will. And as I’ve said, you do the right thing, and you let the chips fall where they may.”
By Catie Edmondson
Reporting from the Capitol
April 21, 2024
For weeks after the Senate passed a sprawling aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, Speaker Mike Johnson agonized over whether and how the House would take up funding legislation that would almost certainly infuriate the right wing of his party and could cost him his job.
He huddled with top national security officials, including William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, in the Oval Office to discuss classified intelligence. He met repeatedly with broad factions of Republicans in both swing and deep red districts, and considered their voters’ attitudes toward funding Ukraine. He thought about his son, who is set to attend the U.S. Naval Academy in the fall.
[Insert: [...]According to some, the very detailed intel briefings that come with
the job convinced him that his earlier ideas on the subject were wrong.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174286098]
And finally, when his plan to work with Democrats to clear the way for aiding Ukraine met with an outpouring of venom from ultraconservatives already threatening to depose him, Mr. Johnson, an evangelical Christian, knelt and prayed for guidance.
[Assuming Johnson consulted as he said he was would always
do, Good God. Well done, that God. Well done this time. ]
“I want to be on the right side of history,” Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, recalled the speaker telling him.
Mr. Johnson’s decision to risk his speakership to push the $95 billion foreign aid bill through the House .. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/politics/ukraine-aid-bill-gaza-johnson.html .. on Saturday was the culmination of a remarkable personal and political arc for the Louisiana Republican. It was also an improbable outcome for a man plucked from relative obscurity last fall by the hard right — which had just deposed a speaker they deemed a traitor to their agenda — to be the speaker of a deeply dysfunctional House.
As a rank-and-file hard-liner, Mr. Johnson had largely opposed efforts to fund Kyiv’s war effort. And early in his speakership, he declared he would never allow the matter to come to a vote until his party’s border demands were met.
But by the time he made clear he planned to band together with Democrats to muscle through the aid package over the objections of many in his party, Mr. Johnson was speaking a starkly different language.
“History judges us for what we do,” he told reporters at the Capitol last week. “This is a critical time right now. I could make a selfish decision and do something that’s different. But I’m doing here what I believe to be the right thing. I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important.”
Mr. Johnson attributed his turnabout in part to the intelligence briefings he received, a striking assertion from a leader of a party that has embraced former President Donald J. Trump’s deep mistrust of the intelligence community.
“I really do believe the intel,” Mr. Johnson said. “I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. I think he might go to the Baltics next. I think he might have a showdown with Poland or one of our NATO allies.”
Mr. McCaul, who repeatedly huddled with Mr. Johnson and the chairmen of the other congressional national security committees in a secure room of the Capitol where lawmakers can review classified material, described Mr. Johnson’s journey as “transformational.”
“All of a sudden, he’s realizing that the world depends on this,” Mr. McCaul said. “This is not some little political game on the floor.”
One of the most impactful briefings, according to people familiar with the discussions, came in February in the Oval Office .. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/us/politics/biden-congress-shutdown.html , when congressional leaders met with Mr. Biden to discuss government funding and aid for Ukraine. At that meeting, Mr. Burns and other top national security officials sought to impress upon Mr. Johnson how rapidly Ukraine was running out of ammunition, and how dire the consequences would be if their air defenses were no longer reinforced by American weaponry.
Convinced that they would come around to his way of thinking, Mr. Johnson repeatedly urged Republicans who opposed the funding measure to go to the secure space at the Capitol and receive the same intelligence briefings, according to people he spoke to.
Mr. Johnson was also struck by the stories he heard in meetings with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and others about the magnitude of the misery Russian forces have unleashed across the embattled nation. All of it tugged at Mr. Johnson’s sense of Christian faith.
[Guarantee all of the stories tugged at many non-Christian heartstrings too.]
The speaker also faced mounting political pressure to act. Senate Democrats had struck a deal with Republicans to pair the aid to Ukraine with strict border measures, as the G.O.P. had demanded, but after Mr. Trump denounced it, Republicans rejected it .. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/us/politics/congress-ukraine-israel-aid.html .. out of hand. Then the Senate passed its own $95 billion emergency aid legislation .. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/politics/senate-ukraine-aid.html .. for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan without any immigration measures, and the onus was on the House to do the same.
[NOW, no surprise, Trump has flipped on it too.]
Adding to Mr. Johnson’s predicament, he found himself badly out of step with the three other congressional leaders, most notably Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who vocally supported bolstering Kyiv and saw it as a critical part of his legacy.
That was evident at the White House meeting in February, which Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, described as an “intense” pile-on.
“Everyone in that room was telling Speaker Johnson how vital” sending aid was, he said then ..
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/us/politics/biden-congress-shutdown.html .
Privately, Mr. Johnson was huddling with his allies and puzzling over what measures they could include in a national security package to make it more palatable to Republicans. At retreats in Florida in February and West Virginia in March, he was already in discussions with Representative French Hill, Republican of Arkansas, about the REPO Act, which would pay for some of the aid by selling off Russian sovereign assets that had been frozen.
That provision, which he described as “pure poetry,” later became a key part of Mr. Johnson’s effort to sell his conference on the aid bill.
Around the same time, Mr. Johnson began — first privately, then loudly — telling allies that he would ensure the U.S. would send funding to Kyiv.
“I think he always understood the importance of this and believes in the importance of this,” Representative Mike Lawler, Republican of New York, said. “The function of being speaker is to try to build consensus, and I think he wanted to find consensus among the conference. Unfortunately, there are some folks that are just unwilling to compromise.”
In a small meeting with lawmakers, Mr. Johnson “made it pretty clear that if we didn’t get this done in April, that it could be too late for Ukraine,” Representative Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska, said.
[Ah, finally the election is mentioned.]
Patience among politically vulnerable Republicans who wanted to cast a vote in support of Ukraine also was running out. Mr. Johnson told reporters on Thursday that he believed that if he did not act soon, G.O.P. lawmakers would try to circumvent him by using a procedure called a discharge petition .. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/us/politics/congress-discharge-petition-ukraine.html .. to force a vote on the Senate bill.
“If the House did not do this better policy and process — allowing for amendments on the floor in the process tomorrow — we would have had to eat the Senate supplemental bill,” he said.
By the time he agreed to advance an aid package, he had to contend with a wave of anger from his political home — the right wing of the Republican conference — whose members accused Mr. Johnson of betraying them, and repeatedly urged him to change course.
In a heated scene in the back row of the House chamber last week, a group of hard-liners surrounded the speaker and urged him to tie the foreign aid package to stringent anti-immigration measures.
Mr. Johnson pushed back, replying that he would not have enough Republican support to advance such a measure. He told them he was not worried about his own speakership, but was seriously worried about Ukraine’s ability to hold off Russia without U.S. aid, according to a lawmaker on the floor for the discussion.
“My message to the speaker has been: ‘Stay true to the mission,’” Mr. Hill said. “You know what has to be done. And you know that you have to do the best you can, with the circumstances that we found ourselves in.”
The passage of the aid package unleashed a fresh wave of fury among hard-liners. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who is leading the charge to oust Mr. Johnson, promised that more Republicans would rally to her side.
“This is the third betrayal by Mike Johnson,” she fumed on the House steps minutes after the vote on Saturday, citing the government funding bills and legislation he advanced to renew an expiring warrantless surveillance law as his first two transgressions.
“A foreign war package that does nothing for America?” she continued. “It’s unbelievable. I’m thankful that America gets to see who this man is.”
For his part, Mr. Johnson skipped a victory lap on Saturday, never taking to the House floor to make the case for any of the aid bills — as speakers almost always do when matters of major import come before the chamber — and staying away as lawmakers cast their votes. After the legislation’s passage, he offered clipped remarks about the importance of the aid and chastised Democrats who had waved Ukrainian flags on the floor, noting that the only flags that should be displayed in the chamber were American ones.
But earlier in the week, Mr. Johnson had been more reflective, telling reporters that during tough times, he took comfort in an adage about former President John Quincy Adams’s time in Congress.
Another lawmaker asked Mr. Adams why he continued bringing up the same resolution to end slavery, only to see it fail each time. In Mr. Johnson’s telling, Mr. Adams replied: “Duty is ours. Results are God’s.”
“To me, that’s a very liberating thought,” Mr. Johnson said. “I’m going to do my duty, and the results are not ultimately up to me. I’m comfortable with that. We’ll see what happens, and we’ll lay the chips down on the table.”
Catie Edmondson covers Congress for The Times. More about Catie Edmondson
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/21/us/politics/mike-johnson-turnaround.html
100% on that.
I wouldn't have thought she would be thinking of it. Hope
there isn't yet something more i missed in that post on her.
Damn, always miss something!
Thanks, mick.
Thanks, Eli, i haven't got back to trusting myself working it all out after stuffing a recent one. And, oh, oops, we don't do the Zurich eh. In wondering why i didn't get it, but did get Bolton's Power Picks for it .. 3h ago ..
https://www.pgatour.com/article/news/power-rankings/2024/04/22/power-rankings-zurich-classic-of-new-orleans-patrick-cantlay-xander-schauffele-rory-mcilroy?webview=1
Any idea why Fantasy Golf misses it??
Same. Must be temporarily broken, mick.
You're right. Johnson remains a far-right religious zealot. Still at the time, on that issue, Johnson measured up. Credit where credit is due, i always think, no matter how hard it is to feel it. Surely, the fact it's an election year was at least a tiny factor too.
LOL My talent must have been innate. Imagine, after all these years i finally know.
LOL nice thoughts but .. but .. butt .. hot air from her.
Agree, his mind would be on himself, I was thinking he would be picturing himself as Buddha.
I get it that you see even thinking the name would be a stretch for him. It is a hilarious image.
Our leader Albanese not in so many words has labelled Musk an arrogant billionaire 'going to court for the right
of allowing violent content on X.' It's a stoush. Sometime today will connect an article to one i put up earlier .
The Zurich is on this week. Can't see your week off there.
Looks our Diehard site has problems, check out the schedule folder beside
RBC Heritage .. https://fantasygolf.pgatour.com/roster/29064?league=156 ..
there. At least my folder just now only shows Sept-Oct. And is stuck.
RBC too close to call until it's official from Eli here. Except my guys, 'cept Scheffler, ouch, limped home.
LOL Trump would be thinking, Buddha beautiful. Can see the sign on his forehead.
Trump now sees an election on his highway. That's why now he is saying Ukraine is worthy of American aid. Could even be why Johnson shifted. Trump's most vocal admirers still have his ok to oppose. Just days ago Trump was still saying Europe should be giving more, even to the extent of him lying about European countries having large surpluses.
Don't forget Trump's catering to his base by preaching his U.S.A. isolationist line. Back to 2020
Decision
Matter of: Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security
Assistance
File: B-331564
Date: January 16, 2020
DIGEST
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from
obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security
assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine
apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances
unavailable for obligation.
Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own
policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds
for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB
violated the ICA.
DECISION
In the summer of 2019, OMB withheld from obligation approximately $214 million
appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine. See Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-245, div. A, title IX, § 9013, 132 Stat.
2981, 3044–45 (Sept. 28, 2018). OMB withheld amounts by issuing a series of nine
apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances for the
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) unavailable for obligation. See Letter
from General Counsel, OMB, to General Counsel, GAO (Dec. 11, 2019) (OMB
Response), at 1–2. Pursuant to our role under the ICA, we are issuing this decision.
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344,
title X, § 1015, 88 Stat. 297, 336 (July 12, 1974), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 686. As
explained below, we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an
Page 2 B-331564
unauthorized reason in violation of the ICA.1 See 2 U.S.C. § 684. We also question
actions regarding funds appropriated to the Department of State (State) for security
assistance to Ukraine.
OMB removed the footnote from the apportionment for the USAI funds on
September 12, 2019. OMB Response, at 2. Prior to their expiration, Congress then
rescinded and reappropriated the funds. Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020,
Pub. L. No. 116-59, div. A, § 124(b), 133 Stat. 1093, 1098 (Sept. 27, 2019).
In accordance with our regular practice, we contacted OMB, the Executive Office of
the President, and DOD to seek factual information and their legal views on this
matter. GAO, Procedures and Practices for Legal Decisions and Opinions,
GAO-06-1064SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2006), available at
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1064SP .. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1064SP ;
Letter from General Counsel, GAO, to
Acting Director and General Counsel, OMB (Nov. 25, 2019);
Letter from General Counsel, GAO, to Acting Chief of Staff and Counsel to the President, Executive
Office of the President (Nov. 25, 2019); Letter from General Counsel, GAO, to
Secretary of Defense and General Counsel, DOD (Nov. 25, 2019).
OMB provided a written response letter and certain apportionment schedules for
security assistance funding for Ukraine. OMB Response (written letter); OMB
Response, Attachment (apportionment schedule). The Executive Office of the
President responded to our request by referring to the letter we had received from
OMB and providing that the White House did not plan to send a separate response.
Letter from Senior Associate Counsel to the President, Executive Office of the
President, to General Counsel, GAO (Dec. 20, 2019). We have contacted DOD
regarding its response several times. Letter from General Counsel, GAO, to
Secretary of Defense and General Counsel, DOD (Dec. 10, 2019); Telephone
Conversation with Deputy General Counsel for Legislation, DOD (Dec. 12, 2019);
Telephone Conversation with Office of General Counsel Official, DOD (Dec. 19,
2019). Thus far, DOD officials have not provided a response or a timeline for when
we will receive one.
[...]
CONCLUSION
OMB violated the ICA when it withheld DOD’s USAI funds from obligation for policy
reasons. This impoundment of budget authority was not a programmatic delay.
Page 9 B-331564
OMB and State have failed, as of yet, to provide the information we need to fulfill our
duties under the ICA regarding potential impoundments of FMF funds. We will
continue to pursue this matter and will provide our decision to the Congress after we
have received the necessary information.
We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional
significance. GAO’s role under the ICA—to provide information and legal analysis to
Congress as it performs oversight of executive activity—is essential to ensuring
respect for and allegiance to Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. All federal
officials and employees take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and its
core tenets, including the congressional power of the purse. We trust that State and
OMB will provide the information needed.
Thomas H. Armstrong
General Counsel
https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2020/01/16/OMBDecisionJan16.pdf