Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
This is an attack on free speech - which also covers SATIRE. Or being stupid / highly biased / uninformed / too lazy to fact check / having cognitive dissonance / or doing social experiments. It is NOT election interference if U.S. citizens do it, or if they organize. Unless they give wrong information about election dates and sites (that offense is covered by laws). But even that could be an honest error or a typo.
Having a fake alias / user: not a crime.
A white young man posing as black older female ? Not a crime.
Is it honorable to pretend that Hillary Clinton would introduce the draft for females ?
No.
It is also a pretty lame lie.
It is so dumb that it could be a liberal political scientist doing social experiments.
And if it is conceded that the voters fall so easily for such dumb lies / wrong information that they even consider prosecution (and media outlets casually report on that) - what does that say about the failure of civics, education, the traditional media that have gambled away all institutional trust, and also how much division was allowed to fester in society. That started (in modern times) with Nixon and the Southern strategy. Then Newt Gingrich and the witchhunt on Bill and Hillary clinton. Big tobacco lies - the same grifters then continued to lie about global warming.
The liberal networks do not deny global warming - they just chose to hardly ever mention it. As opposed to Fox who are the haven for the deniers. The political and real world outcomes of both offenses are not that different. Nothing happens.
Social experiments:
We followed a fake news creator into the suburbs
See npr audio and transcript from Nov. 2016 (that was after the election, turns out the fake news creator was a registered L.A. Democrat with a degree in political science that said - and it was believeable - that he had voted for Hillary Clinton)
I highly recommend reading that. That man and his co-creators (freelancers) invented stories and launched them on far right sites and platforms. He got interested in that before the 2015/2016 campaigns. Well birtherism was a thing long before, or ACA death panels. Or Obama being a Muslim from Kenya.
He found out: the right wing online communities are very receptive to wild lies. They do not fact check. (the same concept did not work on liberal or left wing sites, there would always a moderator, or someone in the comment section that busted them).
They made up crude stories that were easy to fact check, it was hard to predict but every once in a while one of them went viral. And they created sites that had the look of websites of local news (incl. weather and obituaries). And adresses that sounded like a news station. Something like denvernews or denverherald for instance.
The story that triggered the investigative piece of npr.
A story gone viral - about a current murder-suicide of a sheriff and it had to do with a cover up for an alleged crime of HRC. Everything was made up, the name of the town, the name of the victims or investigators - so that should be easy to fact check even for lay persons with little time.
Instead it was shared and shared. npr decided to find out who was behind that and they had some savvy investigators. I assume the ways they got the information who paid for the domainS * were not perfectly legal. That is where the savvy investigators (probably former law enforcement) and being npr came into play. npr then paid that man a visit and when he declined they left him with a business card. He called them a few hours later. They even published his name.
* once they started to investigate they found also other sites that looked like local news but were only online to give some wild story (red meat for the rightwingers) credibility
(they did not find out right away who was behind denvernews (dot) com but they found other sites that were paid for by the same person / entity / mail adress. Eventually they found the owner (likely some credit card info)
1
-
1
-
Democratic polticians are also not always truthful. also not about their opponents. Or the pied piper strategy that MSNBC discussed with the Clinton campaign (elevating extreme Republicans like Trump or Ted Cruz, if they would win the primary it would be a piece of cake for HRC in the general). a) how did that work out. b) is that election interference by MSNBC ?
I seem to remember that a Democrat tried a disinformation stunt on a Republican in ? Alabama. The one rightwinger that hit on teenagers. They tried to make up a fake facebook site with claims that would infuriate the base of that right winger (like he would agree to gun reform, or something like that). The Democrat was found out. The Republican lost anyway and w/o shady tactics (the offenses were not prosecuted - statue of limitation and it was more verbally improper behavior, as far as we know).
And if the now prosecuted twitter trolls intentionally lied and admit to it, should they be hindered to do social experiments, to prank people, to do satire ?
At least that is a lie that would be EASY to factcheck, and common sense should tell you how unlikely that is. The draft has not even been used for males since the Vietnam war. And males would put up a major resistance if the draft would be reinstated, never mind forcing females.
The deception of Corporate media is unfortunately much harder to spot. One gets a feel for the drift - but it is a lot of work to figure it all out in all the details. And it is even harder to PROVE the intent to deceive (on behalf of the advertisers and the rich owners).
Also - the reporting here indicates that the reporters are completely clueless or cavalier about the HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC first amendment issues behind the case. So the reporting is woefully inadequate and incomplete, they do not inform the audience at all about ALL that is relevant or at stake.
OR: they (and the editors !) know and do not care because they too have an ideological bias. which in the end could also influence politics and elections. Arguably NBC has a larger platform than those twitter trolls.
The first amendment also covers stupidity - WHO would get to decide what is TRUE. Raising the minimum wage costs jobs (not true, but that does not hinder the large networks and politicians to claim that. Every. Single. Time. Countless studies have been done about the effects on employment. the effects are zero or slightly lower or slightly higher unemployment. sightly also means - could have happened anyway, is within the margin of error.
the mails that were published by Wikileaks in summer 2016 and showed the INTENSE collusion between the liberal networks and the Hillary Clinton campaign. The networks have considerable influence on public opinion, and in a way the unpaid advertising (giving friendly and a lot of exposure to few candidates - that are seen as positive for the interests of the rich owners and the advertisers - while completely ignoring other candidates is even more effective than paid ads. Voters do not mute what they perceive to be "content" and they assume they get a genuine opinion or facts - when it aligns with the commercial and ideological interests of the owners and often also the hosts that are or aspire to be rich.
A carefully selected collection of facts can be as deceptive as an outright lie. Lying and deceiving by omission.
See how they built up mayor pete versus how hard they tried to ignore Andrew Yang. With all the unpaid friendly advertising pete got (worth many millions !) - Yang might have gotten much farther.
But if the Republicans can deny Global Warming, when they brought attack ads about ACA leading to death panels - that is also not honorable.
At all.
GW or ACA were highly important issues for elections.
And in other nations Fox would not have a broadcasting licence, period.
Bush started a war based on lies. Still waiting for that to be prosecuted.
Krystal Ball when she was with MSNBC was told by the editor that she should not cover the issue of TPP, "the audience is not interested in trade deals".
It will be hard to prove that the editor LIED about it. it is very likely. He /she can't shouldn't be that clueless.
But can the network be made to have well informed editors and do opinion polling before they chose what they cover. And more importantly: what not.
If they push some issues over others for ratings (ebola scare sells), when it bleeds it leads that too can become relevant for the outcomes of elections.
New York Times and CNN got a "curated" leak from a meeting of John Kerry with the Syrian opposition.
To have a clue about the history of trade deals in the U.S. and what they did to the jobs in the U.S.
TPP and the collusion with Democrats that pushed it (like Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton) Maybe he/she is woefully inept, has no clue and was hiding under a rock when Ross Perot won 19 % of the popular vote as Independent in 1992. Bush lost that election to Bill Clinton. Later Bush2 signed the Chinese agreement (that the Clinton admin had prepared) a few months after 9/11. That made it safe and lucrative for U.S. companies to outsource to China. MILLIONS of jobs were lost within a few years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Normally a grid that is an "island" has higher prices. Texas is unusual - they have so much fossil fuel (and good condtions for solar and wind, too) that they can have cheap prices despite being a closed off market. But they need (wasteful) consumption to match that.
If Texans would become more energy efficient, their providers cannot start exporting. TX politicians opted to not be part of the larger grid (90 %) in order to evade being subject to federal regulation.
TX would be a natural exporter of electricity (and powerlines that can handle the load would also allow to import a lot in case of an emergency) - well TX providers have nowhere to go with a surplus that they would like to sell.
No export / imports on a larger scale.
Not as part of a business model and also not as emergency backup.
Building codes that demand insulation would reduce consumption in summer (and could have helped with the cold snap).
Another reason to not be on the grid: it creates means many historically grown ties, so over time it becomes very hard for a state to leave a grid, the companies set up their business models according to the possibilities they have with the larger grid.
But that would mean IF federal regulation at any point would demand energy conversation, pollution reduction, Carbon capturing or better construction codes (reasonable policies that also create a lot of jobs) - the big donors of TX politicians are not going to like it. Energy providers, and the fossil fuel companies.
But as longtime participant of the grid the state would have to go along. It would be good for the citizens (and be important regarding climate change) - but it is not good for parts of big biz and therfore also not good for grifting politicians.
Texans pay now the price for those schemes. The 16,000 bill is not the worst outcome, it is only money, I think the man said it was a vacation home, so he is likely affluent.
He should sue them anyway, price gouging is not legal during an emergency.
1
-
If the interviewer would know about U.S. foreign policy and have a realistic assessment, he would never, ever have gotten that job. Christine Amanpour might be a better choice of interviewer. Usually the networks seek out people that bought hook, line and sinker into American exceptionalism. Sure they could hire a cynic, that plays along but is fully aware of the delusion, but it makes it easier for everybody if the government stenographers do so willingly and w/o any cognitive dissonance.
A good exampel was recently Emily Clueless the right wing part of the new staff on Rising / The Hill. she got schooled on the history of U.S. imperialism, the role of the Soivet army and who had liberated (most) of the concentration camps.
a history lesson for her - and many viewers - thanks to Ryan Grim.
That level of naive, clueless, jingoistic, "patriotic" self-congratulory proud ignorance is quite common among the citizens. And of course someone like Chris Hedges would never ever get a platform. Him interviewing Putin would be interesting.
Or the Russian specialist, Stephen F. Cohen, Despite his clout (he was THE expert on Russia in the U.S.), when his qualified opinion did not meet the zeitgeist (likely Ukraine and later the "Russia stole our election" narrative) he did not get any appearances on mainstream media anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
the politicians and providers did not prepare. When the cold front hit them (punctually after 10 years) the providers failed miserably. Again ! This time it was worse than in 2011. At the height of the crisis they lost 40 % of electricity production AND have also failed to winterize the natural gas pipelines. They are not in the frost free zone (cutting corners for construction costs, once in 30 or more years lifetime) so instruments, controls fail, water condensates IN the gas and causes problems.
They do not have enough natural gas storage anyway for emergencies even IF the technology would be cold proof. Storage / reserves costs money.
NO gas for heating, so even MORE demand for electricity.
When the providers returned to the grid, to do their job, they asked for extortion prices. In this closed off market (not on the larger grid to evade reasonble federal regulation) they have auctions for electricity and in that situation prices shot up. And they could not import a lot.
They (politicians likely on behalf of their big donors) arranged for Texas to be a closed market - I think 20 years ago or even longer
In order to be on the large national grid they would need to accept federal regulations that would mandate to prepare for extreme events (cold, heat, hurricanes) and likely to have some reserves. Maybe also some consumer protection.
A Tx governor not so long ago sued the EPA to avoid having to winterize. (the very thing that could have avoided the worst now).
Refusing to abide by common sense regulation meant also no access to the large grid - so no backup form the other Southwestern states and Canada.
In their Stand Alone Grid they do not routinely export and import a lot of electricity - so they do not have the infrastructure to import a lot in an emergency.
Since electricity had become a scarce resource in that small "market" hit by a cold snap they neglected to prepare for - the providers demand extortion prices if and when they can do their job (again).
Why ? Because they can- and way beyond costs of production.
So they missed out on revenue for a few days, but they can make up for that. And they never had to invest the money to avoid most of the problems in the first place.
They pushed for flexible tariffs. And allowed for contracts w/o caps. such contracts seem to be reasonable. If Texans reduce A/C use when demand is high they can save costs. Of course they can also save costs if the kwH is slightly more expensive (costs of peparedness added) and that motivates them to consume less electricity. Not only to delay use, but to cut it out.
On the other hand much more could be saved if the state would mandate other building codes (they should have 30 years ago, would save a lot of energy for A/C in summer, and would have helped now).
But the providers and politicians do not want that:
Texas can only run the Stand Alone Grid * at low prices because it has so much energy, but it also needs a lot of consumption (squandering). The providers cannot export (not part of the larger grid) - so they want to sell a lot in Texas. They cannot grow into another region if Texans would become more energy efficient.
The less energy you need to function the more resilient the system is. so that whole racket gives incentives in the wrong direction.
* New Zealand or Iceland or the islands of Hawaii also have a Stand Alone Grid, they can't help it as islands. But they would connect to a grid if they could.
No nation or region cuts itself off from a larger grid. Only Texas - not sure about North Korea, but if the Chinese will have them they will gladly join up !
and likely it costs the islands more because they have to provide the emergency reserves all by themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At the height of the crisis they lost 40 % of electricity production AND have also failed to winterize the pipelines. They are not in the frost free zone (cutting corners for construction costs, once in 30 or more years lifetime) so instruments, controls fail, water condensates IN the gas and causes problems.
NO gas for heating, so even MORE demand for electricity.
When they came back to the grid they ask for extortion prices (if customers had a plan that tied their rate to wholesale auction prices. In a CLOSED OFF market in a preventable emergency / scarcitiy situation.
They (politicians likely on behalf of their big donors) arranged for Texas to be a closed market. They wanted to attract energy intense industries, and those do not want to pay the slighly higher costs for preparedness, they could - but they do not want to.
so Texan politicians offered that for companies (more donors, also jobs skimmed off from other states, that makes them look good) - and that business model needed a market w/o federal regulation and thus they they were not equipped to cope with the cold and had also deprived themselves from the potential backup of a larger grid. The only thing that could have saved them from the worst fallout.
In order to be on the large national grid they would need to accept federal regulations that would mandate to prepare for extreme events (cold, heat, hurricanes) and likely to have some reserves. Maybe also some consumer protection.
Refusing to abide by common sense regulation meant also no access to the large grid - so no backup form the other Southwestern states and Canada.
In their Stand Alone Grid they do not routinely export and import a lot of electricity - so they do not have the infrastructure to import a lot in an emergency.
Texan providers missed out on revenue for a few days, but they can make up for that with extortion prices in a closed market later. And they never had to invest the money - to avoid most of the problems and the scarcity in the first place.
A lot of energy could be saved if the state would mandate other building codes (they should have 30 years ago, would save a lot of energy for A/C in summer, and would have helped now. If it helps against the heat it also helps against the cold).
But the providers and politicians do not want that:
Texas can only run the Stand Alone Grid * at normally low prices because it has so much energy, but it also needs a lot of consumption (squandering). The providers cannot export - so they want to sell a lot in Texas. They cannot grow into another market, if Texans would become more energy efficient.
The less energy you need to function the more resilient the system is.
* New Zealand or Iceland or the islands of Hawaii, .... also have a Stand Alone Grid, they can't help it as islands. But they would connect to a larger grid if they could. and likely it costs them because they have to provide the reserves all by themselves.
1
-
1
-
1