This video is good. It will take about 30 minutes of your time. It's better to watch it, but go ahead and listen to it while you are doing other mindless tasks you can do without thinking. Kneading bread, putting away dishes, working out, or if that's not your thing, baking a cake.
I'm not even asking you to listen to the whole thing, because I think once you start it you'll watch the rest.
He takes fairly complex stuff and makes it pretty simple. BUT, since we all have been so programmed, you do have to think a little bit to understand the programming - Who Pays? - and how the question is only asked for social welfare issues and not for military spending or tax cuts, particularly tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy.
Some key themes that come up:
Long term programing through repetition of "Who pays?" and "What about the debt?"
How this programming evolved - from trying to convince average folks (didn't work) to convincing news media and members of Congress (works).
How media then use the fake think tank 'experts' as 'experts' on news programs.
How news media are either unable to counter these ideas or bought and paid for so the won't. Even PBS and NPR get caught up in this.
All done with humor. Ideally, when you watch or read news, you'll think about this video and not be taken in so easily. He's talking about the relentless attacks of "Who Pays For It?" for social programs but not other government expenditures. But you should be thinking about framing on all the other issues as well.
One thing that emerges in the video is how little viewers actually know about the background of the guests on most media news programs - don't know their past or even current involvement with organizations that have a vested interest in the topic. So here's Maza's Wikipedia page to start your awareness of who he is.
OK, Carlos Maza is no Hasan Minaj*, but probably if he had Minaj's budget, staff, and researchers, he might get there. If you don't know who Minaj is, you can watch his Patriot Act series on Netflix which picks a national issue and gets rid of the smoke and mirrors so you can see the wizards behind each scam he covers. More recently he did The King's Jester on Netflix - also fantastic. Maza covers some similar ground, but technically at a much more basic level. No Netflix? Here's a bit of The King's Jester on Youtube. Well, I just watched it so I wouldn't be steering you wrong. This appears to be a show where he worked with some of the material for King's Jester, but didn't really pull it all together into the show that talks about the importance of standing up to powerful people. And the personal risks. The King's Jester is terrific. This Youtube piece is, well, okay.
*I realize there is some talk online about Minaj not treating some staff well. But the reports are really vague. I'm not saying there is nothing there, but given the kinds of people Minaj takes on, one can also see them doing campaigns like this to cut off his message. Patriot Act was not renewed by Netflix.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $410 million in the 2020 election cycle, which was more than the Democratic National Committee spent. In 2020, the group received mystery donations as large as $50 million and disseminated grants to more than 200 groups.[1] The group's expenditures focused on helping Democrats defeat President Donald Trump and winning back control of the United States Senate. The group financed attack ads against Trump and vulnerable Republican senators and funded various issue advocacy campaigns. Funding went to groups opposing Trump's Supreme Court nominees, supporting liberal ballot measures and policy proposals at the state level, and opposing Republican tax and health care policies. The Sixteen Thirty Fund raised $390 million in 2020, with half of that amount coming from just four donors.[2]
The Sixteen Thirty Fund gave $7 million to a North Carolina group called Piedmont Rising, which ran advertisements attacking Republican U.S. Senator Thom Tillis. According to The New York Times, "Some of the group's ads were designed to look like local news reports from an outlet calling itself the 'North Carolina Examiner.'"[1]
The Atlantic called the Sixteen Thirty Fund "the indisputable heavyweight of Democratic dark money," noting that it was the second-largest super-PAC donor in 2020, donating $61 million of "effectively untraceable money to progressive causes."[8]
Anon Nov 17 - I think you meant this comment as a response to the previous post on the money spent on the Constitutional Convention vote. I agree that there should be strict limits on campaign contributions and that contributors shouldn't be able to hide their identity. But this problem was brought on by conservatives, when conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in the Citizens United case. Democrats opposed that, but until they can change it have decided that if Republicans were going to spend unlimited money, then they had to as well. They Court ruled, among other things that it was a violation of corporations' first amendment rights. This despite the fact that Scalia and his friends argue for 'originalism', their theory that the Constitution should be read literally. The irony is that the word 'corporation' doesn't even appear in the Constitution, let alone are corporations give the status of persons due the rights created for persons. Yet they argued that abortion wasn't in the Constitution when they overturned Roe. So Originalism is just something they made up, but not something they follow when it doesn't support their goals.
But thanks for the background info on the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
And, as I noted in that previous post, that money was probably wasted because every time we've had to vote on whether to have a constitutional convention in Alaska (every ten years since 1972) it has always been voted down with a 62-72% no vote. And I'd point out that Karen Bass just became Los Angeles' new mayor even though her opponent spent $100 million! So money isn't everything.
Left-leaning Politico has called the Sixteen Thirty Fund a “massive ‘dark money’ network” responsible for “boost[ing] Democrats” in the 2018 midterm elections, a “liberal dark-money behemoth,” a “secretly funded nonprofit,” and “one of the Left’s financial hubs” responsible for “attacking Republican senators” in 2019. [8] [9] [10]
In November 2019, Politico criticized the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the 501(c)(4) advocacy wing of Arabella’s nonprofit network, as a “little-known,” “massive ‘dark money’ group [that] boosted Democrats” in the 2018 midterm elections with $140 million.
You know, I've spoken with Steve about this on a number of occasions: If you must use 'anonymous' then don't voice your opinions in an open room. I know. I know. You work for the government, the Mormon Church, in opposition to your company's diversity policy, whatever.
I am tired of it. I know more & more young people of the LEFT, no less, who are clamouring for restrictions in what can be said in classrooms, in newspapers, in bars & churches -- all because they inhabit a world where people are disconnected from their identity.
ANONYMOUS needs to be relegated to the past. Come out in the light, will you? Show yourself with a real name. Then, write what you will stand up to in public.
Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.
Well done!
ReplyDeleteThe Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $410 million in the 2020 election cycle, which was more than the Democratic National Committee spent. In 2020, the group received mystery donations as large as $50 million and disseminated grants to more than 200 groups.[1] The group's expenditures focused on helping Democrats defeat President Donald Trump and winning back control of the United States Senate. The group financed attack ads against Trump and vulnerable Republican senators and funded various issue advocacy campaigns. Funding went to groups opposing Trump's Supreme Court nominees, supporting liberal ballot measures and policy proposals at the state level, and opposing Republican tax and health care policies. The Sixteen Thirty Fund raised $390 million in 2020, with half of that amount coming from just four donors.[2]
ReplyDeleteThe Sixteen Thirty Fund gave $7 million to a North Carolina group called Piedmont Rising, which ran advertisements attacking Republican U.S. Senator Thom Tillis. According to The New York Times, "Some of the group's ads were designed to look like local news reports from an outlet calling itself the 'North Carolina Examiner.'"[1]
The Atlantic called the Sixteen Thirty Fund "the indisputable heavyweight of Democratic dark money," noting that it was the second-largest super-PAC donor in 2020, donating $61 million of "effectively untraceable money to progressive causes."[8]
Chump change compared to Koch Industries dark money funds supporting right wing Republican candidates and causes.
DeleteAnon Nov 17 - I think you meant this comment as a response to the previous post on the money spent on the Constitutional Convention vote. I agree that there should be strict limits on campaign contributions and that contributors shouldn't be able to hide their identity.
DeleteBut this problem was brought on by conservatives, when conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in the Citizens United case. Democrats opposed that, but until they can change it have decided that if Republicans were going to spend unlimited money, then they had to as well.
They Court ruled, among other things that it was a violation of corporations' first amendment rights. This despite the fact that Scalia and his friends argue for 'originalism', their theory that the Constitution should be read literally. The irony is that the word 'corporation' doesn't even appear in the Constitution, let alone are corporations give the status of persons due the rights created for persons. Yet they argued that abortion wasn't in the Constitution when they overturned Roe. So Originalism is just something they made up, but not something they follow when it doesn't support their goals.
But thanks for the background info on the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
And, as I noted in that previous post, that money was probably wasted because every time we've had to vote on whether to have a constitutional convention in Alaska (every ten years since 1972) it has always been voted down with a 62-72% no vote. And I'd point out that Karen Bass just became Los Angeles' new mayor even though her opponent spent $100 million! So money isn't everything.
Left-leaning Politico has called the Sixteen Thirty Fund a “massive ‘dark money’ network” responsible for “boost[ing] Democrats” in the 2018 midterm elections, a “liberal dark-money behemoth,” a “secretly funded nonprofit,” and “one of the Left’s financial hubs” responsible for “attacking Republican senators” in 2019. [8] [9] [10]
ReplyDeleteIn November 2019, Politico criticized the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the 501(c)(4) advocacy wing of Arabella’s nonprofit network, as a “little-known,” “massive ‘dark money’ group [that] boosted Democrats” in the 2018 midterm elections with $140 million.
This has nothing to do with Steve’s video post.
DeleteYou know, I've spoken with Steve about this on a number of occasions: If you must use 'anonymous' then don't voice your opinions in an open room. I know. I know. You work for the government, the Mormon Church, in opposition to your company's diversity policy, whatever.
ReplyDeleteI am tired of it. I know more & more young people of the LEFT, no less, who are clamouring for restrictions in what can be said in classrooms, in newspapers, in bars & churches -- all because they inhabit a world where people are disconnected from their identity.
ANONYMOUS needs to be relegated to the past. Come out in the light, will you? Show yourself with a real name. Then, write what you will stand up to in public.