The video has gotten enough attention to get this push-back at HuffPo: "No, ‘60 Minutes’ Didn’t Purposely Make Steve Bannon Look Like A ‘Bleary-Eyed Drunk’/News experts rejected the color-coordinated conspiracy theory."
The video lays out the evidence very persuasively, I think. So what's the refutation at HuffPo?
1. A “60 Minutes” spokesman says: “It’s nonsense.”
2. A journalism professor says: “The tendency [of heightened color saturation] is to make people look better... When I saw the interview, I actually thought he looked better. They smoothed over his skin.”
And that's it!* I think HuffPo is conceding that the color was heightened, and the "No" in the headline relates only to the inference about why it was heightened. What do you think? The video makes it clear that the color saturation on Bannon was much higher than on the interviewer (Charlie Rose). If it's just to make people look better, why isn't it the same for both men? And how could you possibly think the dark red lines on Bannon's eyelids look good?
___________________
* There is a third thing that I could put on that list. HuffPo tells us that Peter Duke's online portfolio of photographs includes some pro-Trump material. Should that count? I wonder what are the politics of the “60 Minutes” spokesman and the journalism professor. We're not told.
___________________
ADDED: Clicking around in Duke's online portfolio, I see that he's amused by abusive email he's received as a result of a NYT article about him: "The Annie Leibovitz of the Alt-Right." Excerpt:
“I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but a lot of people don’t read,” [Duke] told me over beers and pasta. “They look at the pictures.” He’s somewhat mystical on the topic of images; he believes that his photographs operate on a hypnotic level, an idea he picked up from Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert,” who predicted that Trump would win the election over a year in advance and has been cashing in on his bet ever since...
Duke believes in the primacy of visual culture, and most right-wing figures, he says, don’t take enough care to make themselves look good. Newt Gingrich, he tells me, is “disheveled”; Steve Bannon is a “schlub”; Trump’s hair is “problematic.” At the same time, he thinks left-leaning media outlets — which is to say, just about anything other than Breitbart News and The Drudge Report — go out of their way to present the right in a negative way. Recently, he drew my attention to New York magazine’s March cover story on Kellyanne Conway. Though he hadn’t read the article, Duke was bothered by Martin Schoeller’s clinically lit portrait, “the equivalent of being rendered by a fax machine,” he griped in an email....
Posts
109 comments:
He's a journalist. Of course he's a bleary-eyed drunk. It's one of the job requirements.
I really, really hate headlines that start with "No, X is wrong". That beginning "No," seems so condescending.
Media manipulation of reality to appeal to emotions, to affect how we think about a person or issue -- this is the wheelhouse of Althouse.
And origins of words. "Wheelhouses are the small enclosed parts of a bridge which historically held the ship's steering wheel." So "in someone's wheelhouse" refers to something being within one's areas of competency, like command of a ship is within a ship captain's abilities.
You know, stuff like this wouldn't even come up (or the at least the people who advance such theories would be ignored) if it wasn't for the fact that it actually happens all the time. It's not some crackpot theory. It's accepted practice.
The cameras they use today smooth everybody's skin. That's one of the reasons why so many aging TV newspeople are still on the air. As for the lighting, only fools are prepared to believe that they would not make Bannon look worse if they could. And they can.
The Left loves creating rightwing mastermind villains. During the Bush years, the biggest Darth Vader boogieman for the Left was Dick Cheney. In the Trump years I guess Bannon fits the role.
Steve Bannon is a bleary-eyed drunk. And for its next scoop, 60 Minutes can now confirm that water is wet.
He's a journalist. Of course he's a bleary-eyed drunk. It's one of the job requirements.
Good one, Cookie.
That said, yes, they did at least enhance his bleary-eyedness and introduce evil tints to make him appear diabolical. And to flatter the truly bleary-eyed, dissolute Charley Rose.
Charlie Rose.
I think that there is not much you can do to make a hard core alcoholic look better. They didn't have much to work with.
"During the Bush years, the biggest Darth Vader boogieman for the Left was Dick Cheney."
But it quickly changed to McCain in 2004. Atlantic, Time, Esquire, New Yorker. All had versions of evil McCain who would lead us to war.
Obama was the happy Lightbringer, halo preferred.
They also brought in a mortician to do Bannon's make up.
The media was and still is notorious for changing the color saturation on Trump in an attempt to make him look orange. If you look at the backgrounds in the situations and look at the people in the backgrounds who are not ALL normally orange either, it is obvious that they are manipulating the lighting.
This is why Trump and other look remarkably better when seen in other photos, other media presentations, in candid shots by amateurs and especially when not on liberal leaning television shows.
They think we are stupid and unable to recognize this blatant tomfoolery.
60 Minutes has accomplished its goal. It is reinforcing the prejudices and stereotypes that the leftist crowd wants to believe. It makes these types feel superior even while they know the bleary-eyed drunk helped kick everyone's ass, including theirs and the establishment R's when all the smart and good people knew it was all a joke and wasn't possible anyway when Hillary should have been ahead by 50 points.
One of the most insidious things about our news media that many do not recognize is the people behind the scenes.
Example, on Fox News, many of the front men and women are, if not Republican, at least not biased toward the Democrats. Yet still those behind the scenes are about 80% Democrat.
If it's that bad on Fox News, imagine how bad it is on other networks.
Bannon maybe a drunk. For all I know he could have been wasted while doing the interview. All the same he is far more sober in his thinking than the interviewer or anyone else in the MSM and the Democrat Party combined. Speaking of drunks in denial....anyone see Hillary's reasoning on why she lost? And that of her supporters?
"'During the Bush years, the biggest Darth Vader boogieman for the Left was Dick Cheney.'
"But it quickly changed to McCain in 2004."
Nah. McCain is just a pompous clown. (Not that clowns, pompous or otherwise, can't do great damage if given the power.) Cheney really is evil.
I've never watched 60 Minutes, or Charlie Rose, so the thing of interest to me about that interview (of which I saw only a clip) was what a slithering slimey tool Charlie Rose is. Truly repulsive.
So I guess I was too fascinated by Rose's reptilian foulness to notice that the human on the set was sporting a bleary-eyed drunk look.
"Freder Frederson said...
I think that there is not much you can do to make a hard core alcoholic look better. They didn't have much to work with."
Take Hillary for instance.
A journalism professor says: “The tendency [of heightened color saturation] is to make people look better... When I saw the interview, I actually thought he looked better. They smoothed over his skin.”
The first actual nonsense connected with this story.
60 Minutes has been notorious for editing interviews since they went on the air. So now they are editing people's faces. Why are we surprised?
"Obama was the happy Lightbringer, halo preferred."
Obama was really evil, too, especially as he didn't appear to be, yet he continued and expanded the wars of his predecessor, and he exercised great enthusiasm in cracking down on whistle-blowers, using the WWI-era Espionage Act more than all other presidents combined to do so. Cheney was a sneering, contemptuous wolf in wolf's clothing, Obama a smiling, contemptuous wolf in Nobel Peace Laureate's clothing.
60 minutes has been biased since forever. Remember Westmoreland? That was a 100 years ago, and they haven't changed.
I haven't watched in years. Is Charlie Rose their fresh young face?
Of Bannon doesn't do himself any favors. He always looks like he just woke up from a hangover and needs a bath and shave.
The cameras they use today smooth everybody's skin.
It's done in post using an NLE software package such as Final Cut X
"The cameras they use today smooth everybody's skin.
It's done in post using an NLE software package such as Final Cut X."
My understanding is that there is also a live camera that has a softening and smoothing effect.
History shows that a) any "mistake" or "coincidence" that makes a Republican/conservative look bad was intentional and b) any "mistake" or "coincidence" that makes a Democrat/liberal look good was intentional.
Funny how "mistakes" always break that way...
They used so much vaseline to soft-focus Hillary during the first debate the petro spot market took a 20 point uptick.
Where is the evidence that Bannon is alcoholic?
My understanding is that there is also a live camera that has a softening and smoothing effect.
That's true, but directors usually want that control for themselves, consequently, the videographer usually sets his white balance and color using an industry standard calibration card (Datacolor is popular) under the lighting being used at the time. Furthermore, there are practical reasons to do such corrections in post. As good as the in-camera software is, the NLE is better. And the monitors used on location are inferior to those used back at the office. What looks good on the live monitor may not be as good as it can be, so the best policy is to go by the calibration card and leave the corrections to the editor.
As a person of Irish descent, Bannon probably suffers from Rosacea which can often make a person look like a heavy drinker....or....maybe he does drink on occasion. Who am I to judge :-D He seems to have a lot of notable lifetime achievements for someone who people claim is an alcoholic.
However, he does look like he was "rode hard and put away wet" as they say in flyover redneck deplorable land. Perhaps he has just run out of his lifetime allotment of Give a F*cks and doesn't care how he looks. I can relate to that some days too.
Charlie Rose is the best preserved spokescorpse on TV.
Anyway, partisans ALWAYS present their opposition in the worst light, figuratively and literally. Every pic of Hillary in the conservative sphere emphasizes her fat and wrinkles, and catches her in an awkward pose or expression (not a difficult task). Cartoonists depicted W as a chimp, something they were too partisan and/or too cowardly to do to Obama. Obama always looked very youthful to me, at least until his hair grayed and his mouth creases deepened, but conservative websites show him shadowed and haggard, whether through lighting, photo selection, or photoshop I don't know.
Bannon clearly is a victim of left-wing video technology and drinking.
They think we are stupid and unable to recognize this blatant tomfoolery.
Well, depending who you mean by "we", they might be right. It's not hard to find leftists who describe Trump as "orange cheeto" or "the orangutan in chief".
Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
Bannon clearly is a victim of left-wing video technology and you are drinking too much before you post these comments..
"“I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but a lot of people don’t read,” [Duke] told me over beers and pasta. “They look at the pictures.” He’s somewhat mystical on the topic of images; he believes that his photographs operate on a hypnotic level..."
I agree with him. Over a decade ago when I was training someone to replace me at work, I put great emphasis on how product photos should look. We sold products usually used in construction.
"When you take a picture of a box of wire, don't pull just any box out of the warehouse and don't let anyone pull it for you. Go out and find one that is perfectly clean with perfectly straight sides. Put it on a table with the end sticking out and take a picture looking up at it. The box shouldn't look like a box on the ground, it should look like a hero standing tall. Not so tall as to be cartoon-ish, but just the right amount of tall. You want a picture that creates ideas of precision, integrity, and quality around that product. The customer's mind will create all sorts of associations with products as he browses their pictures. You want all of those associations to be good. It's not just a box. It's identity. You want the customer to feel like he wants to be associated with it."
Republicans and conservatives should always bring their own cameras to an MSM interview.
I'm a video editor. My job is usually to make sure that all cameras used in an interview match up precisely, not to have one angle look markedly different from the other. Moreover, the 2 main cameras used for this shoot were undoubtedly very high-end cameras and were precisely white-balanced before the shoot, meaning they would have matched up almost perfectly already. Therefore, the editor/colorist did, in my view, purposely alter the color of the footage in a "non-standard" way-- and must have had something in mind--but certainly he/she was NOT trying to make Bannon look "better" by increasing saturation. That would emphasize any blotchiness/redness and clearly Bannon is a person who has blotchy skin already. Any editor would see that. I always try to make everyone look as good as I can just because HD is so unforgiving; I can't imagine emphasizing a person's blemishes, etc.
I wouldn't say this is clear evidence of a bad intent by the editor. A producer might have been incompetently (or nefariously) micromanaging the color-correcting process behind the scenes (we editors hate when they do that). It's also possible that the editor did a standard correction on all of the footage, but then somebody whined about how Charlie Rose needed some fixing-up so they did some additional work on Charlie's shot while leaving Bannon's shot alone... this seems to me to be at least as likely a scenario as any other. That kind of "diva card" gets played all the time.
By the way, there are "skin-smoothing" filters and tricks we use but you can't go very far with them in HD before it becomes obvious you've used them. And you'd get called out for doing that FOR SURE in this kind of situation. Some cameras also have skin-smoothing capabilities but pro shooters don't use those; they prefer to get the footage as sharp as possible and do any adjustments in post-production, as was mentioned above.
Here's the case--decide for yourself.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/09/watch-photographer-explains-cbs-used-color-adjustments-make-steve-bannon-look-bad-60-minutes/
"I think that there is not much you can do to make a hard core alcoholic look better. They didn't have much to work with."
There have been plenty of hard core alcoholics in Hollywood made to look extraordinarily attractive over the years.
Time was caught distorting Ann Coulter's cover picture, some years back. Lefty cocksuckers can never be trusted.
But I wanted to go back to one point about the photo. I mean, this is — for 20 years, we kept hearing, "Oh, no, the media isn't liberal. They're not liberal. They're just trying to sell newspapers, just trying to sell newspapers."
Well, you know, a hundred years of Madison Avenue advertising suggests that it's not a good idea to put an elongated funhouse photo of a girl next to — if you're trying to sell a car or toothpaste. Just a month ago, Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair said no more men on the covers. We're going to put attractive photos of females.
So apparently, Time magazine is willing to sell fewer magazines in order to run an unflattering photo of a conservative.
So much for, "they're just trying to sell newspapers.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/04/20/exclusive-ann-coulter-on-her-time-cover.html
"I think that there is not much you can do to make a hard core alcoholic look better. They didn't have much to work with"
Winston Churchill was a hard-core alcoholic.
But there wasn't really television in his day, and nearly all photography was black&white.
The goal with every picture of a box of wire was to make it feel like an idealized firefighter, policeman, or Marine. Obviously no picture is of a box of wire is going to convey those exact things, but that's what you aim for, and you get something great.
@Char Char: "Anyway, partisans ALWAYS present their opposition in the worst light, figuratively and literally. Every pic of Hillary in the conservative sphere emphasizes her fat and wrinkles ..."
True. But CBS pretends to be objective. All we on the Right want is to unmask these partisan bastards ... and this does just that.
"Republicans and conservatives should always bring their own cameras to an MSM interview."
A friend of mine, who was involved in a controversial divorce case, was interviewed by "60 Minutes." He arranged to have his own video copy of the interview, After that I think they stopped allowing it.
This was that case.
Freeman Hunt, I suspect Mitch & Murray would let you drink the coffee.
Republicans and conservatives should always bring their own cameras to an MSM interview.
I see this advice on a regular basis, but the handful of times people with their own footage tried to make the case the press outfit was biased, it didn't really matter. They have such a bigger megaphone than you do - their piece comes out, people form opinions, your response comes out, and only people who are familiar with the situation go to your website or youtube channel to see it.
The one exception was the anti-gun piece Katie Couric did where she cut in dead space to make the subjects look befuddled, and even then I don't think anyone would have known if they hadn't sued.
Seems rather obvious. The fact that they would deny it speaks to their lack of ethics.
Photographer reveals..
I worked recently with a staffer from Charlie's show who told me "You know..he's a drunk!"
Shocking.
Maybe the two did shots before the show and Bannon couldn't manage them as well.
but the handful of times people with their own footage tried to make the case the press outfit was biased, it didn't really matter.
But if a lot more did, especially the top of the heap, it might discourage them.
NYT proclaims judgment and attaches labels to their competitors.
The Sixty Minutes piece provided something for everyone. If you're conservative, they demonstrated how biased the media is. If you're liberal, they revealed how besotted and evil Bannon looks in a close up.......They didn't do any favors for Charlie Rose either. Is he really that ugly in real life?
Bannon looked that way because 60 Minutes staff broke into his house, beat him up, tied him up, threw him in the trunk of a car and drove him to the studio where they propped him up to the table, painted his skin, injected a truth serum, drove bamboo shoots into his fingernails, and then forced him to do this interview.
As long as I can remember, 60 minutes has played with people's images to make them look worse. For example, and you can see it here, they will do an extreme close-up of people to make them look bad -- like obscenely, uncomfortably close, where their face takes up the entire screen.
If you look at the Orange curtains the color changed depending if Rose or Bannon are in the shot I have read.
For the case Michael mentioned Ca created a new law that preempted the case, saying the spouse could be reimbursed for 50% of the education cost.
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-01/news/mn-10207_1_orange-county
Advice from instapundit is always record any interviews with the media.
I am surprised that Bannon came out of the interview so positive, since 60 minutes would be happy to take him down.
Mooch is using his influence to get him a guest spot on Colbert's show.
They didn't do any favors for Charlie Rose either. Is he really that ugly in real life?
Meh. I think he looks pretty good for a man of 75.
Rick Lockridge wrote: I'm a video editor...
I'd be interested to read your opinions about NLEs, which you prefer, which you find wanting, etc.
When I ran my hardware under Windows 7 I used and generally enjoyed Sony Vegas. But when Windows 8 came out in pre-release I was so disgusted I switched to OS X. Sony never ported Vagas to the Mac platform so I had to switch. Final Cut was a big jump in terms of workflow, but I've come to appreciate its strengths.
Where is the evidence that Bannon is alcoholic?
You mean where is his Alcoholics Anonymous card? He says he lost it last night along with his wallet and car. Why do you ask?
We've all seen pictures of Steve Bannon looking as purple as a Paisley church on Sunday. Why do grown men and women here play dumb?
Of course they doctored the coloring to make him look bad. The democrat party media are in constant propaganda mode.
This is why they are fake news. If not camera tricks it's, voice inflection, gotcha questions, selective editing, telling half the story, out of context, out right lies and veiled hatred.
Earnest Prole wrote: We've all seen pictures of Steve Bannon looking as purple as a Paisley church on Sunday. Why do grown men and women here play dumb?
If you had written "I know Steve Bannon, and he's as purple as a Paisley church on Sunday" you might earn some respect as one who knows something worth knowing. And why did you capitalize paisley? Are you implying something ecclesiastical about Paisley or the complexion of the good people of Renfrewshire?
An interview with 2 very unattractive things.
Nothing would help either of them in the looks department.
Sad, really.
But I am sure they both get hot pussy and for Bannon some hog-I could definitely see him being a gay, not the good kind, though, if you know what I mean. He would have to shell out for sex.
tits.
What else are we pissed about today?
"What else are we pissed about today?"
Obama.
They ran him through a deFABrillator, Titus...decreasing the global Fab quotient.
That doesn't seem like something you'd want to get behind...
What else are we pissed about today?
Your avatar picture. We know your preening fancy about what you call "the rare Clumber". Clumber spaniels... hmph, the Steve Bannon of the canine world — chunky, short-legged and drools a lot. It hard enough to shoot a flattering photo of such an ungainly breed, yet you've managed to make that Clumber look worse than he really is with that ridiculous biscuit in his jaws. Or did you just acquire that picture some other way than through your own device? In either case, you should be ashamed. You've done a 60-Minutes on your pet.
I am an awful picture taker Quaestor, and what you wrote was quite funny.
My grindr tricks are always bitching about the focus in my pics. And everyone else on grindr are like expert picture takers.
Clumber spaniels are actually very beautiful. They are the "old man's hunting dog" because they are slow.
Peter Duke is also involved in a Free Speech Alternative to Kickstarter / Patreon.
FreeStartr
Small world. I just came across him, when I was wondering who was behind the site. And thought of the Althouse Post.
Hey Titus, why don't you post your picture.
10-1 Bannon looks better then you.
Freeman, that was great. I want to see one of those pictures now.
CSPAN interviewd a younger Bannon in 1995 when he was acting CEO of Biosphere 2,here and the scandal.
I am an awful picture taker Quaestor, and what you wrote was quite funny.
As it was intended. I too am a lousy photographer of my own dog. I had only to point a lens at him to get him come running to lick the glass, and when a deerhound comes running at you...
Mixed lighting is a bitch since the reds overpower blues. This is a basic post production problem of correcting the temperature, generally lowering the values to a level that offsets the red tones.
Post production, in such professional venues, is governed by editors and their values. It's reportage and reflects such. Back in the dark ages, circa 2006, it was called faux-tography. Not really a high tech thing; more amateurish than anything else.
It's been around as long as photographers dragged bodies about to capture the aftermath of Gettysburg. What is refreshing is that there are enough independent professionals filmmakers, video heads, and photographers about to catch the legacy media in their circle jerk.
"I think that there is not much you can do to make a hard core alcoholic look better."
Glamour shots and magazine covers of Hillary Clinton notwithstanding, of course.
"Make him look like he's bleeding from wherever."
Wait a minute.
Are people suggesting 60 Minutes isn't completely honest in their reportage?
Where in the hell would we get such an idea?
To see how extensive the CBS liberal camera has become type in Bannon Images and look at all the puffy red faced photos of the man, will the liberal press have no shame? Clearly all these photos need to be graded closer to the Alt-righ expectations.
Birches, I have a box somewhere full of old work stuff. If I find it, I'll try to figure out a way to post one of the pictures.
What's interesting about what happened, is I knew about Photoshop and how most images are adjusted, I did not realize this was done in video as a way to make somebody look good or bad. I knew about the technology, but I guess I did not connect it.
For Photoshop, the gif of Demi Moore where it shows the difference was amazing. Can't find it now, but here are the two images and clued me in on how often this happens.
Demi Moore Missing Hip
This one shows Lena Durnham before and after a Vogue Photoshoot:
Lena Durnham Vogue Before and After
http://nypost.com/2008/09/14/mac-hater-has-a-lousy-image/
Jill Greenberg bragging about sandbagging McCain for an article in The Atlantic:
“I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she boasted.
Greenberg also crowed that she had tricked McCain into standing over a strobe light placed on the floor – turning the septuagenarian’s face into a horror show of shadows.
Asking McCain to “please come over here” for a final shot, Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.
The resulting photos depict McCain as devilish, with bulging brows and washed-out skin.
“He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either. “I guess they’re not very sophisticated,” she said.
...Her Web site now features a series of Photoshopped pics of McCain in some highly unflattering poses – including one that has a monkey squirting dung onto the Republican candidate’s head.
Another one reads “I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer,” with McCain retouched to have needle-sharp shark teeth and a vicious grin, while licking blood-smeared lips.
Greenberg was unapologetic about the assignment.
This post is trolling for persecution complex
Greenberg was unapologetic about the assignment.
The funny thing is these people don't understand why they're hated outside of the large coastal cities.
Not that I'm a fan of McCain. He might have made and even worse president than Obama, which is a pretty high bar.
" saying the spouse could be reimbursed for 50% of the education cost."
Thanks, Ray. I didn't follow the whole thing to the bitter end.
I knew both parties and the deal was that she wanted half his lifetime earnings.
I remember it came up at the time in the CMA convention and some female delegates wanted CMA to support the wife.
I asked them in the debate if it occurred to any of them that an ex-husband could do the same to them. That ended that argument.
One of my medical students married her high school boyfriend who was an auto mechanic.
The color manipulation, exploitation, really, is part of the left's diversity activism.
Your welcome!
>Thanks, Ray. I didn't follow the whole thing to the bitter end.
60 Minutes? So news for old people who won't vote next time because they'll be dead? That contingency of the electorate?
The more likely answer is they didn't care to make him look good and half assed it.
It's kind of strange that you didn't decide to post about the interview itself, rather than on some kooky (but typical) conspiracy theory related to visuals. I thought it was the most fascinating interview I've heard in years.
Assuming he was telling the truth, I agreed with at least about 85% of what he said. Easily.
I have underestimated Bannon. Sure, a number of his prescribed solutions are comical and he exaggerates stuff here and there. But on the basics and diagnosing the problems, at least insofar as they describe the political situation, he and I are basically on the same page.
>Assuming he was telling the truth, I agreed with at least about 85% of what he said.
>Easily.
Which explains why Bannon has been demononized so much. Called Racist, White Supremacist, etc. He is too dangerous to the Elite that populates so much of the top 1% in the US (elected officials, business executives, wall street types, lawyers, media, Hollywood, etc. - which all come from the top universities) . He is an economic nationalist, that wants to put the US first, as every other nation puts themselves first. And that includes helping everyone, not just the top 1%. And his viewpoint is skin color and sexual orientation blind.
If Bannon is successful, it may lead to a political realignment in the US. The current party system is disfunctional, and the increasing registration of independent is a sign of this.
An AA post that goes through the interview would be great!
I don't think McCain cared. He wasn't trying to win in 2008.
Which explains why Bannon has been demononized so much. Called Racist, White Supremacist, etc. He is too dangerous to the Elite that populates so much of the top 1% in the US (elected officials, business executives, wall street types, lawyers, media, Hollywood, etc. - which all come from the top universities)
He is not dangerous to anyone. He is his own worst enemy. He might not be a hater, but his right-wing populism is just too easily baited by folks hating on anything not seeming as 100% naturally Amurkan-like as they need it to. Right-wing populism is a contradiction in terms and devolves into either the same fascism that spawned it or the proper left-wing populist approach. America will not ever get rid of "elected officials, business executives, wall street types, lawyers, media, Hollywood, etc." Hate to break the news to you on that one. But as with during the 1930s - 1960s they will know their proper place again and that is in not buying out the politicians. Unfortunately though the right cannot do this because the right wing requires social hierarchies in how it conceives of society and in America the metric for ordering it is through wealth. So the right worships wealth too much to make the change and distance itself from the power that America judges itself by.
It will have to go back to the left. Trump and his "right-wing populists" can make noises about all those same people you hate, but at the end of the day they are just noises. Not policy. Only the left will make policy that can defenestrate the wealth they use to warp the system. The right will simply never be up to that task.
He is not dangerous to anyone.
Hillary Clinton was unavailable for comment.
Only the left will make policy that can defenestrate the wealth they use to warp the system.
Again, while I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and why I understand that you object to the seeming unfairness of the fact that it's better to be rich than to be poor, you have to remember the very long track record of good evidence that leftist economics equals Venezuela.
But if you feel that you shouldn't be tarred with that particular brush, you need, I think, to denote very carefully how your notion of leftist economics differs from every failed experiment of the last hundred years.
I suspect "a Paisley church on Sunday" refers to a church in Paisley, Scotland, and is therefore properly capitalized. Not quite sure why it's purple, though. Unless it's Advent.
The two US parties are not strictly left or right.
I would argue the Democratic Party is more hierarchical, since they are the party of most of the output of higher education and Wall Street / the Super Rich.
Will the Republican Party run against Wall Street and Corporate America? My gut feeling is Bannon wants them too... and it would be very popular.
A revised tax system could have a huge impact on restoring the middle class. And deregulation may address the huge shortfall in people starting their own business. Not to mention if anything positive happens to reduce health care costs - another reason not to start your own business. The current system is corporate welfare in may ways.
We will see on this...
>Only the left will make policy that can defenestrate the wealth they use to warp the system.
Again, while I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and why I understand that you object to the seeming unfairness of the fact that it's better to be rich than to be poor, you have to remember the very long track record of good evidence that leftist economics equals Venezuela.
Wealth is ONLY relative. Its only purpose is to motivate the rat race of "who's better" than whom. This is good for capitalism, wealth creation and development, but it is absolutely toxic to keeping a country stable once it HAS developed. Eventually the right-wing here will have no choice but to accept Western Europe's lessons post-WWII - that the ONLY way to prevent fascism is to make sure that wealth/inequality extremes don't become too pronounced to prevent economic mobility, which has stagnated in America. The alternative is a society that is inherently unstable and prone to the same fascism that brought Europe into the chaos and devastation of WWII. Right-wingers agitate for more of precisely this instability every time they fail to distinguish between the democratic and liberal, developed countries that predominate all over Europe and parts of Asia and instead obsess on individual cases like the USSR, Venezuela, etc. as if left-wing politics is relegated to those basketcases and is somehow unsuccessful in all the many more successful countries that happily avoided both that as well as their alternative, "right-wing" populism.
Not quite sure why it's purple, though.
It's purple because he's drunker than a skunk.
Ritmo, quick one before I jump in the shower, so you mean to say that you would rather have $8 and the other guy have $5, then you have $10 and he have $10? Is that what you mean when you say wealth is relative? But as I say this is in haste so if I missed your point please clarify thank you. Because you're hung up on this whole status and hierarchy thing. I just want to be able to buy the most stuff. Or some very sophisticated.
That last sentence should read, Of course I'm not very sophisticated.
Earnest, you seem to have a lot to say about this drinking and alcohol and alcoholism thing. Personal interest?
And when I say I want to buy the most stuff, I mean I want to buy the most stuff I can, we're all the stuff I want, rather than, I want to buy more stuff than my neighbor.
There's a difference between envy and jealousy. And there are different ways to get rich.
Earnest, you seem to have a lot to say about this drinking and alcohol and alcoholism thing. Personal interest?
I'm not the one botching my lines.
I'm not the one botching my lines.
Note that this does not actually constitute a denial. As for the typo, blame Android voice to text. I always do.
Ritmo, quick one before I jump in the shower, so you mean to say that you would rather have $8 and the other guy have $5, then you have $10 and he have $10? Is that what you mean when you say wealth is relative? But as I say this is in haste so if I missed your point please clarify thank you. Because you're hung up on this whole status and hierarchy thing. I just want to be able to buy the most stuff. Or some very sophisticated.
"Most stuff" is inherently status oriented - as you are saying you want "more stuff than anyone else." Me, I just want interesting stuff.
Your numeric example is not a relevant example. We are not talking about 8 competing against 5 or 10 against 10. We are talking about an average CEO to worker ratio of about 400 to 1. You are also missing the point about want. It's not like that 400-times-greater pay is open to anyone who works hard enough for it. Moving up the income ladder is something that has gone away. Income mobility is a thing of the past.
If you are ok with that then I guess you should probably keep voting Republican. This is not how it is in other countries and it's not how it was before the Reagan "revolution." We officially have less economic opportunity here than other industrialized democracies. If you're born poor you stay poor and vice versa if you're born rich. That's not the land of the free, it's the land of the gentry and those who support them.
Ritmo, you wrote that before reading my correction. No I don't want more money or stuff than someone else. If my merits are greater, I might wonder why my rewards are lesser, but no, you go ahead and have six houses, I'm fine with one, maybe two so I can snowbird. If I had reason to own Sox, I wouldn't care if you had seven. I'd just want my own wants/needs met.
Did you ever read Desiderata?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderata
Avoid loud and aggresive persons, for they are vexatious to the spirit. [ahem ;)] Never compare yourself with others. You may become vain or bitter, for there will be always greater and lesser persons than yourself.
By "most" I meant the most stuff I can, the best outcome for me; if I can have a b or c dollars I will pick the a b or c that is largest, whether or not you would make .5a, 2b or 10c dollars.
Also in a more recent Fred I posted about Jerry pournelle and there is a page that would interest you. He talks about something called distributism, and more to your point, about how compensation for executives is misaligned.
After making adjustments, he says 'and voila, the bloodshot eyes are gone.' He does not know what bloodshot eyes are, I guess. What he also misses is that Bannon's nose isn't red in that shot.
Post a Comment