- Wikipedia: SantaCon
- The Village Voice: Ho, Ho, Bro: How SantaCon Went From Joyful Performance Art to Reviled Bar Crawl
No one is saying it’s a bug. Why not Signal?
Yes, the Democratic Party Did Abandon the Working Class
It’s not as if the Democratic Party was ever “the party of the people” – at least not in the mystical sense depicted by both party loyalists and some on the left who are nostalgic for the liberal tradition established by Franklin Roosevelt and carried forward by Lyndon Johnson.
But the party was, at one point, quite responsive to democratic pressure from below – and systemic change has always been prompted by movements, not party leaders.
The New Deal was possible not because Roosevelt was a benevolent warrior of the working class, but because, as the historian Robert Brenner has put it, “starting in Detroit auto plants in spring 1933, you got a series of ever larger and more encompassing strikes, mobilizing ever broader groups of workers on the shop floor and the streets – organized and unorganized, employed and unemployed, in an ascending wave.”
“Programmatic demands and ideas that seemed pie in the sky were now, with the increase in workers’ power, plausible and actionable,” Brenner concludes.
In the decades following Roosevelt’s time in office, however, the reforms that imperfectly but substantially enhanced worker power and protected laborers from the ravages of capitalism were gradually and systematically rolled back. Commentators frequently begin the story of the New Deal’s demise in the 1970s with the Powell memo, a “call-to-arms for corporations” that urged business leaders to push back against a perceived “assault on the enterprise system” by “Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries.”
In reality, though, resistance against the reforms of the New Deal began as soon as they were implemented, as Kim Phillips-Fein documented in her study Invisible Hands. And, as Phillips-Fein emphasized, pro-business reactionaries led the fight. From the beginning, they viewed the struggle to peel back progressive gains as one that would take place over a long stretch of time – and one that would require tireless coalition-building, message-making, and influence-peddling.
Surveying the political and economic landscape today, a scene beset by incredible corporate power and soaring income inequality, it is impossible to deny that their efforts, which continue to this day, have been a staggering success. And the Democratic Party, it must not be forgotten, played a key role in institutionalizing these successes.
Because Democrats, too, were susceptible to the pressures imposed an increasingly aggressive business class, and it was under Jimmy Carter, not under a Republican, that neoliberalism began to take hold.
“The austerity so often associated with the Reagan presidency actually began with Carter, under whom spending on welfare, for example, contracted more rapidly than it ever would under Reagan,” notes the historian Paul Heideman. “Carter also moved to deregulate huge sections of American industry, including the airlines, trucking, and, perhaps most saliently today, banking.”
This rightward trend continued in the aftermath of the Reagan-Bush years; Bill Clinton, in fact, quite explicitly ran on a platform of continuing the right turn that characterized the Carter presidency. Clinton ambitiously declared that “the era of big government” – by which he clearly meant the New Deal and the Great Society – “is over.” He went on to destroy welfare, as promised, and to continue the deregulation of industry that began under Carter. He also signed into law the North American Free Trade Agreement, which rapidly accelerated job loss.
This history cannot simply be wished away – and it cannot be ignored when discussing the present.
Over a period of decades, the composition of the Democratic Party, as scholars and commentators have emphasized, rapidly transformed. It can now rightly be considered an “unruly coalition,” one that brings together high-income, white-collar professionals and low-income workers, many of them minorities.
Unsurprisingly, given its wealth and political clout, it is the former faction that exerts the most influence.
You could try Proton’s other domains first, because they might not all be blocked. Another option is to use a different company’s mail aliasing/forwarding or for these rare cases.
Some websites do that. They block at the domain level. It tends to become a escalating game of spinning up new alias domains.
https://proton.me/support/creating-aliases#additional
If you have a paid plan, you can create at least 10 additional addresses (depending on your plan) with any Proton domain (@proton.me, @protonmail.com, @pm.me, or @protonmail.ch) or a custom domain, if you have one.
I have a custom domain, which websites never block, because they have no way of knowing that I use it for aliases.
Exposing the “PIE” Influencer Disaster - (Same Developers as HONEY)
After an excellent video highlighting the predatory practices of “Honey” (made by “MegaLag”)… I wanted to add my voice, and talk about an offshoot of that same company (with the same founders, staff, and apparent business model) that seems to go even one step further, and position itself as a detriment to the entire social media Creator ecosystem.
After Honey was successful in tricking almost all of YouTubes largest influencers (from Mr Beast, all the way to MoistCritikal) it was then seemingly acquired by PayPal, with this new project from its founder popping up, as we are given a rare opportunity to be pro-active in the pursuit of shutting down predatory practices on YouTube… before they officially take root.
It will undermine CIA/NED/RFA-backed color revolution bots, too.
President Musk’s power play to protect his investments in China.
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
People are fed up with zombie neoliberalism. The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters. — Antonio Gramsci
What did you expect? Sun bathing won’t get you any cleaner than dog bathing. You have to bathe yourself.
By now, you’ve probably heard about Honey.
Nope, I guess because my ad blockers work and I skip over in-feed ads 🤷
My timepiece of choice.
I understand, you’re a very busy person, so here’s my summary:
https://lemmy.ml/post/12705767/8913172
But muh Media Bias/Fact Check says it checks out!
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/
Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. >Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.
Van Zandt is some hobbyist who was in the right place at the right time: the “post-truth” moment of Clinton’s loss to Trump and the string of Russiagate conspiracy theories and Kellyanne Conway’s alternative facts and the Cambridge Analytica hysteria.
The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:
The core bias of corporate media is the bias of the capitalist class, but people like Van Zandt don’t seem to understand this.
The inner workings of corporate media were explained about forty years ago in Inventing Reality and Manufacturing Consent.
A five minute introduction: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
https://lemmy.ml/post/13566156/9605612
I said “these kinds of graphs,” of which there are many https://duckduckgo.com/?q=media+bias+chart&iax=images&ia=images
But you’ve sparked an idea for an interesting project: use MBFC’s API to create one of these graphs from t>heir own data. Doing a little googling, it seems that scripts and data dumps aren’t hard to come by.
I think armchair media analyst Dave M. Van Zandt is going on vibes. I don’t think he understands corporate & think tank media. Does he know who Walter Lippman or Edward Bernays were, or what the Council on Foreign Relations (“least biased” 🤡) is or made note of its prominent media members? Does he know about the Powell memorandum or the Trilateral Commission’s report, The Crisis of Democracy?
No results found for
site:mediabiasfactcheck.com "manufacturing consent"
.I’ve seen The Grayzone debunk the New York Times’ lies many times, and yet:
Also, in what universe is the neoliberal, anti-labor NYT center-left? And if the Grayzone in the ultraviolet territory, where does that leave the explicitly Communist Monthly Review, outside of MBFC’s Overton window? Surprise, it’s to the right of it:
https://lemmy.ml/post/17665401/12094932
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.
This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.
Homelessness isn’t really a thing, though. As to the recent housing bubble, the Chinese state intentionally popped it and left the capitalists out to dry.
.
“We will scale up the building and supply of government-subsidized housing and improve the basic systems for commodity housing to meet people’s essential need for a home to live in and their different demands for better housing,” an English-language version of the report said.
Compare that to Obama, who bailed out the private banks at the expense of people with home mortgages, banks that knowingly wrote those bad mortgages. Michael Hudson, 2023: Why the Bank Crisis isn’t Over
The financial sector is the core of Democratic Party support, and the party leadership is loyal to its supporters. As President Obama told the bankers who worried that he might follow through on his campaign promises to write down mortgage debts to realistic market valuations in order to enable exploited junk-mortgage clients to remain in their homes, “I’m the only one between you [the bankers visiting the White House] and the mob with the pitchforks,” that is, his characterization of voters who believed his “hope and change” patter talk.
The Federal Reserve is just the cartel of the US private banks, whereas banking in China is predominantly state owned. The Chinese state both runs these banks and has fiat monetary sovereignty, so it’s not captured by the private finance capitalists like the US state is.
Speaking of fake, this is from a Falun Gong-affiliated outlet, and Falun Gong is a NED/CIA-backed religious cult. https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Falun_Gong
I see several relevant posts in the past week: https://lemmy.ml/search?type=Posts&listingType=All&sort=TopWeek&q=terrorism
Have you considered that, as an admin, I have access to information about votes and user accounts that you don’t?
This article is about how, instead of making concessions to garner union endorsement, Harris told labor she did didn’t need them and didn’t give a fuck about them. And then she lost.
Maybe she would have lost anyway; we’ll never know. But labor can’t just give the Democratic Party limitless support, because Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.