LaxPower Back-Up Stick

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:25 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:13 pm
The msm reports I've seen cast doubt on Hersh & the story.

Every. Single. MSM. Outlet. did the same for the Steele Dossier. NO ONE reported it as true and verified. And the WaPo and others MOCKED the dossier.

I just gave you the proof! The real time reaction from the WaPo to the Buzzfeed leak. What do you need to see before you get that they did their jobs, no bias?

If you prefer, just stick to the WaPo to keep the conversation simple. They handled Steele PERFECTLY. Hit it out of the park. They MADE FUN of what was in the dossier. What else do you want them to do?

As for the Hersh Story, it's everywhere today, as Russia is not claiming the US did it. Reuters, WaPo, Politico, etc.

As I said, we need to refute the Hersh story with credible evidence, before it spins out of control, because it's plausible & because of Nuland's & Biden's previous bellicose threats.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:34 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:25 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:13 pm
The msm reports I've seen cast doubt on Hersh & the story.

Every. Single. MSM. Outlet. did the same for the Steele Dossier. NO ONE reported it as true and verified. And the WaPo and others MOCKED the dossier.

I just gave you the proof! The real time reaction from the WaPo to the Buzzfeed leak. What do you need to see before you get that they did their jobs, no bias?

If you prefer, just stick to the WaPo to keep the conversation simple. They handled Steele PERFECTLY. Hit it out of the park. They MADE FUN of what was in the dossier. What else do you want them to do?

As for the Hersh Story, it's everywhere today, as Russia is not claiming the US did it. Reuters, WaPo, Politico, etc.

As I said, we need to refute the Hersh story with credible evidence, before it spins out of control, because it's plausible & because of Nuland's & Biden's previous bellicose threats.

You skipped over the WaPo part. They went above and beyond what you're asking when it came to Steele. Can you not just say "yeah, they did", so we can move on?

And they also went above and beyond for the copy of Hunter's laptop. They actually took the time to verify it, which ain't free to do. Which takes time. But you're still griping.


Tell you what, though. I'll put you on the same clock you put the WaPo....to verify the laptop within two weeks (pay no mind that that the WaPo didn't actually have access to the Hunter's goods at the same the NYPost ran the story).

You now have two weeks to prove that the US didn't blow up that pipeline. Heck, I'll be a sport and give you three weeks. And if can't do it? I have no choice but to conclude that you're part of a cover up for the Nordstream explosion. How's that sound?

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:56 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:34 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:25 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:13 pm
The msm reports I've seen cast doubt on Hersh & the story.

Every. Single. MSM. Outlet. did the same for the Steele Dossier. NO ONE reported it as true and verified. And the WaPo and others MOCKED the dossier.

I just gave you the proof! The real time reaction from the WaPo to the Buzzfeed leak. What do you need to see before you get that they did their jobs, no bias?

If you prefer, just stick to the WaPo to keep the conversation simple. They handled Steele PERFECTLY. Hit it out of the park. They MADE FUN of what was in the dossier. What else do you want them to do?

As for the Hersh Story, it's everywhere today, as Russia is not claiming the US did it. Reuters, WaPo, Politico, etc.

As I said, we need to refute the Hersh story with credible evidence, before it spins out of control, because it's plausible & because of Nuland's & Biden's previous bellicose threats.

You skipped over the WaPo part. They went above and beyond what you're asking when it came to Steele. Can you not just say "yeah, they did", so we can move on?

And they also went above and beyond for the copy of Hunter's laptop. They actually took the time to verify it, which ain't free to do. Which takes time. But you're still griping.


Tell you what, though. I'll put you on the same clock you put the WaPo....to verify the laptop within two weeks (pay no mind that that the WaPo didn't actually have access to the Hunter's goods at the same the NYPost ran the story).

You now have two weeks to prove that the US didn't blow up that pipeline. Heck, I'll be a sport and give you three weeks. And if can't do it? I have no choice but to conclude that you're part of a cover up for the Nordstream explosion. How's that sound?

You cite 1 WP article. I have no interest in reviewing everything the WP published from the time Fusion & friends started feeding their msm buddies to see how much of it leached into their reporting & opinion columns.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:00 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:56 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:34 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:25 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:13 pm
The msm reports I've seen cast doubt on Hersh & the story.

Every. Single. MSM. Outlet. did the same for the Steele Dossier. NO ONE reported it as true and verified. And the WaPo and others MOCKED the dossier.

I just gave you the proof! The real time reaction from the WaPo to the Buzzfeed leak. What do you need to see before you get that they did their jobs, no bias?

If you prefer, just stick to the WaPo to keep the conversation simple. They handled Steele PERFECTLY. Hit it out of the park. They MADE FUN of what was in the dossier. What else do you want them to do?

As for the Hersh Story, it's everywhere today, as Russia is not claiming the US did it. Reuters, WaPo, Politico, etc.

As I said, we need to refute the Hersh story with credible evidence, before it spins out of control, because it's plausible & because of Nuland's & Biden's previous bellicose threats.

You skipped over the WaPo part. They went above and beyond what you're asking when it came to Steele. Can you not just say "yeah, they did", so we can move on?

And they also went above and beyond for the copy of Hunter's laptop. They actually took the time to verify it, which ain't free to do. Which takes time. But you're still griping.


Tell you what, though. I'll put you on the same clock you put the WaPo....to verify the laptop within two weeks (pay no mind that that the WaPo didn't actually have access to the Hunter's goods at the same the NYPost ran the story).

You now have two weeks to prove that the US didn't blow up that pipeline. Heck, I'll be a sport and give you three weeks. And if can't do it? I have no choice but to conclude that you're part of a cover up for the Nordstream explosion. How's that sound?

You cite 1 WP article. I have no interest in reviewing everything the WP published from the time Fusion & friends started feeding their msm buddies to see how much of it leached into their reporting & opinion columns.

Do you not consider MSNBC (NBC), CNN & the NYT to be msm ?

Here's how the WP's Erik Wimple went after them, ...2-3 years after the 2016 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... e-dossier/

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:00 pm You cite 1 WP article. I have no interest in reviewing everything the WP published from the time Fusion & friends started feeding their msm buddies to see how much of it leached into their reporting & opinion columns.

Translation: no amount of evidence will change my mind. No matter what, the MSM is covering up for Hunter MSM (minus the WaPo now) is "in on it".

What's the point in discussing things when facts don't work with you? And FFS, you STILL can't tell me is on that laptop that's worth "covering up". There's nothing there.



We're done. Happy to move on.

Be prepared for snark when you turn the tables, and demand evidence for things like Trump colluding with Russia. I give you facts, and they don't count.

The only thing that makes this palatable, is that if you're not totally gone, you're aware that you're playing these silly games now. And if you're really are this far gone?

Who cares?

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:19 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:00 pm You cite 1 WP article. I have no interest in reviewing everything the WP published from the time Fusion & friends started feeding their msm buddies to see how much of it leached into their reporting & opinion columns.

Translation: no amount of evidence will change my mind. No matter what, the MSM is covering up for Hunter MSM (minus the WaPo now) is "in on it".

What's the point in discussing things when facts don't work with you? And FFS, you STILL can't tell me is on that laptop that's worth "covering up". There's nothing there.

We're done. Happy to move on.

Be prepared for snark when you turn the tables, and demand evidence for things like Trump colluding with Russia. I give you facts, and they don't count.

The only thing that makes this palatable, is that if you're not totally gone, you're aware that you're playing these silly games now. And if you're really are this far gone?

Who cares?

You continue to mix the Steele dossier with the Hunter laptop story.

The msm did not only ignore or try to discredit the Hunter laptop story when it was an Oct surprise for the 2020 election,
they buried or tried to discredit it for the next 2 years until after the 2022 election.

Now that Hunter & his high profile lawyer are tactically choosing to fight it publicly, the msm are finally reluctantly covering it, in that context.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:38 pm The msm did not only ignore or try to discredit the Hunter laptop story when it was an Oct surprise for the 2020 election,
they buried or tried to discredit it for the next 2 years until after the 2020 election.

So how did EVERYONE know about it before the election? Magic beans?

The freaking New York times reported on it on Sep 23, 2000. Detailed claims that involved Joe. Detailed that NYPost writer refused to put his name on it(true). Detailed that the FBI got the laptop in late 2019.

BEFORE the election. And the NYTImes didn't even have access to the copies of the laptop when this ran, and had to take the NYPost's word for it.

Still ran it. Now what?

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:38 pm The msm did not only ignore or try to discredit the Hunter laptop story when it was an Oct surprise for the 2020 election,
they buried or tried to discredit it for the next 2 years until after the 2020 election.

So how did EVERYONE know about it before the election? Magic beans?

The freaking New York times reported on it on Sep 23, 2000. Detailed claims that involved Joe. Detailed that NYPost writer refused to put his name on it(true). Detailed that the FBI got the laptop in late 2019.

BEFORE the election. And the NYTImes didn't even have access to the copies of the laptop when this ran, and had to take the NYPost's word for it.

Still ran it. Now what?

They knew about it as Russian Disinformation, & dismissed it, thanks to the 51 IC old pros & their msm megaphones.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:53 pm They knew about it as Russian Disinformation, & dismissed it, thanks to the 51 IC old pros & their msm megaphones.

If you don't want it treated with skepticism?

Next time? Don't give it to a political opponent. Let the FBI do their job.

Next time? Don't have Giuliani sit on it. And even then, have Giuliani ONLY give it to the NYPost, making it IMPOSSIBLE to vet. And then, have the NYPosts own freaking writers refuse to put their name on it, because the whole thing smells funny.

But you're telling me that no one should have been skeptical. Even though these same exact outlets printed----in writing---the same exact skepticism when they were handed the Steel Dossier.

Until they got their hands on the copy of the laptop, and had to time vet THOUSANDS of files. Just like you have asked. They did what you asked, OS. I don't understand how given your own words, you're still claiming that they did it wrong.

Going for that Bruno Sammartini record here!

https://wrestling-jat.fandom.com/wiki/L ... WE_history

Not sure where to put this but thought it was worth sharing. Buddy sent tonight (last night, went to bed at 10 and of course awake hy 3:30…)

Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class—A Status Update

On luxury beliefs

Rob HendersonJan 29

Share

Give a gift subscription

I was bewildered when I encountered a new social class at Yale four years ago: the luxury belief class. My confusion wasn’t surprising given my unusual background. When I was three years old, my mother was addicted to drugs and my father abandoned us. I grew up in multiple foster homes, was then adopted into a series of broken homes, and then experienced a series of family tragedies. Later, after a few years in the military, I went to Yale on the GI Bill. On campus, I realized that luxury beliefs have become fashionable status symbols. Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.

In the past, people displayed their membership in the upper class with their material accoutrements. But today, luxury goods are more affordable than before. And people are less likely to receive validation for the material items they display. This is a problem for the affluent, who still want to broadcast their high social position. But they have come up with a clever solution. The affluent have decoupled social status from goods, and re-attached it to beliefs.

Human beings become more preoccupied with social status once our physical needs are met. In fact, research indicates that sociometric status (respect and admiration from peers) is more important for well-being than socioeconomic status. Furthermore, studies have shown that negative social judgment is associated with a spike in cortisol (hormone linked to stress) that is three times higher than non-social stressful situations. We feel pressure to build and maintain social status, and fear losing it.

It seems reasonable to think that the downtrodden might be most interested in obtaining status and money. But this is not the case. Inhabitants of prestigious institutions are even more interested than others in prestige and wealth. For many of them, that drive is how they reached their lofty positions in the first place. Fueling this interest, they’re surrounded by people just like them— their peers and competitors are also intelligent status-seekers. They persistently look for new ways to move upward and avoid moving downward. The French sociologist Émile Durkheim understood this when he wrote, “The more one has, the more one wants, since satisfactions received only stimulate instead of filling needs.” And indeed, recent research supports this. It is the upper class who are the most preoccupied with gaining wealth and status. In their paper, the researchers conclude, "relative to lower-class individuals, upper-class individuals have a greater desire for wealth and status...it is those who have more to start with (i.e., upper-class individuals) who also strive to acquire more wealth and status.” Plainly, high-status people desire status more than anyone else.

Furthermore, other research has found that absolute income does not have much of an effect on general life satisfaction. Relative income, on the other hand, has a positive effect. Put differently, making more money isn’t important. What’s important is making more than others. As the researchers put it:

“Increasing an individual’s income will increase his or her utility only if ranked position also increases and will necessarily reduce the utility of others who will lose rank…[which] may explain why increasing the incomes of all may not raise the happiness of all, even though wealth and happiness are correlated within a society at a given point in time.”

However, this preoccupation with relative income appears to be confined among relatively affluent Americans. A 2021 survey found that college graduates say "closing the gap between the rich and poor" is a more important goal than "ensuring Americans don't live in poverty." In contrast, individuals with only a high school diploma say "ensuring Americans don't live in poverty" is a more important goal than "closing the gap between rich and poor.”

The majority of U.S. adults are not college graduates. Thus, while most people care more about ensuring people don’t live in poverty, the most educated members of society care more about “inequality.”

Baby Millionaires

You might think that rich students at elite universities would be happy because they are in the top 1% of income earners. But remember, they’re surrounded by other members of the 1%. Their social circle, their Dunbar number, consists of 150 baby millionaires. Jordan Peterson has discussed this phenomenon. Citing figures from his experience teaching at Harvard in the 1990s, Peterson noted that a substantial proportion of Ivy League graduates go on to obtain a net worth of a million dollars or more by age 40. And yet this isn’t enough for them. Not only do top university graduates want to be millionaires-in-the-making, they also want the image of moral righteousness. Elite graduates desire high status not only financially, but morally as well.

For our affluent social strivers, luxury beliefs offer them a new way to gain status.

Thorstein Veblen's famous "leisure class" has evolved into the "luxury belief class." Veblen, an economist and sociologist, made his observations about social class in the late nineteenth century. He compiled his observations in his classic work, The Theory of the Leisure Class. A key idea is that because we can’t be certain of the financial standing of other people, a good way to size up their means is to see whether they can afford to waste money on goods and leisure. This explains why status symbols are so often difficult to obtain and costly to purchase. These include goods such as delicate and restrictive clothing, like tuxedos and evening gowns, or expensive and time-consuming hobbies like golf or beagling. Such goods and leisurely activities could only be purchased or performed by those who did not live the life of a manual laborer and could spend time learning something with no practical utility. Veblen even goes so far as to say, “The chief use of servants is the evidence they afford of the master's ability to pay.” For Veblen, butlers are status symbols, too.

Converging on these sociological observations, the biologist Amotz Zahavi proposed that animals evolve certain displays because they are so costly. The most famous example is the peacock’s tail. Only a healthy bird is capable of growing such plumage while managing to evade predators. This idea might extend to humans, too. More recently, the anthropologist and historian Jared Diamond has suggested that one reason why humans engage in displays such as drinking, smoking, drug use, and other physically costly behaviors, is because they serve as fitness indicators. The message is “I’m so healthy that I can afford to poison my body and continue to function.” Get hammered while playing a round of golf with your butler, and you will be the highest status person around.

Conspicuous Convictions

Veblen proposed that the wealthy flaunt status symbols not because they are useful, but because they are so pricey or wasteful that only the wealthy can afford them. A couple of winters ago it was common to see students at Yale and Harvard wearing Canada Goose jackets. Is it necessary to spend $900 to stay warm in New England? No. But kids weren’t spending their parents’ money just for the warmth. They were spending the equivalent of the typical American’s weekly income ($865) for the logo. Likewise, are students spending $250,000 at prestigious universities for the education? Maybe. But they are also spending it for the logo.

This is not to say that elite colleges don’t educate their students, or that Canada Goose jackets don’t keep their wearers warm. But top universities are also crucial for inculcation into the luxury belief class. Take vocabulary. Your typical working-class American could not tell you what “heteronormative” or “cisgender” means. But if you visit Harvard, you’ll find plenty of rich 19-year-olds who will eagerly explain them to you. When someone uses the phrase “cultural appropriation,” what they are really saying is “I was educated at a top college.” Consider the Veblen quote, “Refined tastes, manners, habits of life are a useful evidence of gentility, because good breeding requires time, application and expense, and can therefore not be compassed by those whose time and energy are taken up with work.” Only the affluent can afford to learn strange vocabulary because ordinary people have real problems to worry about.

The chief purpose of luxury beliefs is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education. Only academics educated at elite institutions could have conjured up a coherent and reasonable-sounding argument for why parents should not be allowed to raise their kids, and that we should hold baby lotteries instead. Then there are, of course, certain beliefs. When an affluent person advocates for drug legalization, or defunding the police, or open borders, or loose sexual norms, or white privilege, they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, “I am a member of the upper class.”

Affluent people promote open borders or the decriminalization of drugs because it advances their social standing, and because they know that the adoption of those policies will cost them less than others. The logic is akin to conspicuous consumption. If you have $50 and I have $5, you can burn $10 and I can’t. In this example, you, as a member of the upper class, have wealth, social connections, and other advantageous attributes, and I don’t. So you are in a better position to afford open borders or drug experimentation than me.

Or take polyamory. I recently had a revealing conversation with a student at an elite university. He said that when he sets his Tinder radius to 5 miles, about half of the women, mostly other students, said they were “polyamorous” in their bios. Then, when he extended the radius to 15 miles to include the rest of the city and its outskirts, about half of the women were single mothers. The costs created by the luxury beliefs of the former are bore by the latter. Polyamory is the latest expression of sexual freedom championed by the affluent. They are in a better position to manage the complications of novel relationship arrangements. And even if it fails, they have more financial capability, social capital, and time to recover if they fail. The less fortunate suffer the damage of the beliefs of the upper class.

Then there’s the finding that in 1960 the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families—95%. By 2005, 85% of affluent families were still intact. For working-class families, the figure plummeted to 30%.

The Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam at a Senate hearing said, “Rich kids and poor kids now grow up in separate Americas...Growing up with 2 parents is now unusual in the working class, while 2-parent families are normal and becoming more common among the upper middle class.” Upper-class people, particularly in the 1960s, championed sexual freedom. Loose sexual norms spread throughout the rest of society. The upper class, though, still have intact families. They experiment in college and then settle down later. The families of the lower class fell apart. Today, the affluent are among the most likely to display the luxury belief that sexual freedom is great, though they are the most likely to get married and least likely to get divorced.

The Rabble and the Rich

This aspect of luxury beliefs is worrisome. As I noted in my original luxury beliefs essay, material goods have become more affordable and, thus, less reliable indicators of social class. Status has shifted to the beliefs we express. And beliefs are even less expensive than goods because anyone can adopt them. They are not financially costly. And according to Veblen, along with other social observers like Paul Fussell, people try to emulate the upper classes. The elite want to differentiate themselves from the rabble with their visible badges of luxury. But then then the class below tries to emulate the elite, and the stratum below that as well, until the style has trickled down to the rest of society. But the upper class does not just stand by while the lower classes adopt their beliefs. They want to distinguish themselves, and move on to a new luxury belief.

And over time, these beliefs are embraced down the social ladder. This is easy to see with fashion. The author Quentin Bell, in On Human Finery, wrote “Try to look like the people above you; if you’re at the top, try to look different from the people below you.” The elite’s conspicuous display of their luxury beliefs falls into this pattern. Their beliefs are emulated by others, sending the elite off in search of new beliefs to adorn. The affluent can’t risk looking like the hoi polloi, after all.

Or consider an analogy from art. The psychologist Steven Pinker in How the Mind Works writes, “In an age when any Joe can buy CDs, paintings, and novels, artists make their careers by finding ways to avoid the hackneyed, to challenge jaded tastes, to differentiate the cognoscenti from the dilettantes.” Artists want to differentiate themselves from what’s been done before and what others are currently doing. And so do the affluent. Moral fashions change over time for the same reason clothing and art change over time. Moral fashions can quickly spiral as more and more members of the chattering classes adopt a certain view. Once the view becomes passé, the upper class, aiming to separate themselves, then update their moral inventories. Veblen still reigns supreme, but in a different way.

As Pinker puts it, “What is common is within the (pecuniary) reach of many people…Hence the consumption, or even the sight of such goods, is inseparable from an odious suggestion of the lower levels of human life.” The affluent do not want to be seen with “common” goods. They view them as distasteful. Today, it’s not just common goods they view as distasteful—it’s beliefs too. The affluent, dreading an “odious” designation, resist displaying commonplace beliefs. Those beliefs are for the little people. Instead, the upper class want to be seen displaying luxury beliefs.

Modern neuroscience did not exist in the nineteenth century. But Veblen might have been amused to learn that the same regions of the brain involved in rewards such as eating chocolate or winning money also activate when we receive compliments from strangers or learn that people we will never meet find us attractive. Veblen wrote, “Immaterial evidences of past leisure are quasi-scholarly or quasi-artistic accomplishments and a knowledge of processes and incidents which do not conduce directly to the furtherance of human life.” In his day, the leisure class spent a lot of time accruing useless knowledge and partaking in activities that have the appearance of intellect and artistry, but had no functional utility. These activities didn’t help anyone, but they did make their enthusiasts look good. What might Veblen have made of Twitter, given these observations?

Status Spirals

The economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell once said that activism is “a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” The same could be said for luxury beliefs. They enable the believer to display their status. Luxury beliefs are similar to luxury goods, but present new problems. Attaching status to luxury goods or financial standing meant there were limits to how much one could display. For example, fashion is constrained by the speed with which people could adopt a new look. But with beliefs, this status cycle accelerates. A rich person flaunts her new belief. It then becomes fashionable among her peers. This can take place within a week. Then a new stylish belief arises, while the old luxury belief trickles down the social hierarchy and wreaks havoc.

1
This is an updated version of an essay that was originally published in Quillette in 2019.

2
In the Quillette piece back in 2019, I wrote that I was two years old when I entered the foster system. Since then, I reviewed documents from the social worker responsible for my case from when I was a foster kid. Turns out I entered the system when I was three, not two

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Furthermore, other research has found that absolute income does not have much of an effect on general life satisfaction. Relative income, on the other hand, has a positive effect. Put differently, making more money isn’t important. What’s important is making more than others. As the researchers put it:

“Increasing an individual’s income will increase his or her utility only if ranked position also increases and will necessarily reduce the utility of others who will lose rank…[which] may explain why increasing the incomes of all may not raise the happiness of all, even though wealth and happiness are correlated within a society at a given point in time.”

Thanks for sharing. What is your take on the article? To me, I think the cite above is understated. I believe the mind wants what it can not have, and then when it is obtained, realizes the novelty of it all wears off rather quickly, in perpetuity through life; that is, until you realize what truly matters. Too often, that realization happens far too late and the damage is already done...absent during child raising all to chase a dollar and make a name for yourself in a career that would forget about you in a NY minute if you vanished.

Which I believe is what he is drawing attention too here. There is vacuum created in our early 20's to mid 30's, that causes separation between husbands and wives. While the two are navigating their foundation building of the family, that vacuum gets filled with other people, a career, hobbies, etc....and far too often void of authentic intimacy (in-to-me-you-see), which is a scary place. Separation occurs, and the cycle begins again....only this time they never truly healed or gained wisdom through the process, rinse -repeat.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Then there’s the finding that in 1960 the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families—95%. By 2005, 85% of affluent families were still intact. For working-class families, the figure plummeted to 30%.

For some reason, many, not all, rationalize that status, money, and things, provide meaning to ones life, when we know to our core it means damned near nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

While typing this, the movie Trading Places came to mind as I was trying to say...if only the wealthy and high status people could share with authenticity to those not having this position, that there is so very little separating the two of them.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Furthermore, other research has found that absolute income does not have much of an effect on general life satisfaction. Relative income, on the other hand, has a positive effect. Put differently, making more money isn’t important. What’s important is making more than others. As the researchers put it:

“Increasing an individual’s income will increase his or her utility only if ranked position also increases and will necessarily reduce the utility of others who will lose rank…[which] may explain why increasing the incomes of all may not raise the happiness of all, even though wealth and happiness are correlated within a society at a given point in time.”

Thanks for sharing. What is your take on the article? To me, I think the cite above is understated. I believe the mind wants what it can not have, and then when it is obtained, realizes the novelty of it all wears off rather quickly, in perpetuity through life; that is, until you realize what truly matters. Too often, that realization happens far too late and the damage is already done...absent during child raising all to chase a dollar and make a name for yourself in a career that would forget about you in a NY minute if you vanished.

Which I believe is what he is drawing attention too here. There is vacuum created in our early 20's to mid 30's, that causes separation between husbands and wives. While the two are navigating their foundation building of the family, that vacuum gets filled with other people, a career, hobbies, etc....and far too often void of authentic intimacy (in-to-me-you-see), which is a scary place. Separation occurs, and the cycle begins again....only this time they never truly healed or gained wisdom through the process, rinse -repeat.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Then there’s the finding that in 1960 the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families—95%. By 2005, 85% of affluent families were still intact. For working-class families, the figure plummeted to 30%.

For some reason, many, not all, rationalize that status, money, and things, provide meaning to ones life, when we know to our core it means damned near nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

While typing this, the movie Trading Places came to mind as I was trying to say...if only the wealthy and high status people could share with authenticity to those not having this position, that there is so very little separating the two of them.

I think it’s flawed in a few ways but it’s overriding point about risk transference and who bears the costs and benefits is a good one.

Had a visceral reaction to quoting Jordan Peterson initially because he’s a ba artist with a little domain knowledge.

Think the guys biases are clear which is fine since it’s fairly overt. While elite is an ok description, to use it so repeatedly seems like a heuristic for example .

Don’t think you throw out a good idea or concept because of its source. We need to treat people better.

Think it overemphasizes the individual in the context of we all need to live in a society that requires some give up.

I’m wonder if this explains the Rebekah Mercers and Ken Griffins pushing harder right, they would’ve been liberals 20yrs ago-seems to indict the thinking of the left but my view is this shifted to the far right these days which probably isn’t this guys conclusion.

But worth reading glad my buddy sent. Dude is a W&L grad who helps me in business but a bit of a Chief before being an Indian who reads a lot of materials, subscribes to a bunch of these things. Good consumer of thought and information but in his early 30s who was an abused junior IBanker at some middle market shops who needs a little more actual experience vs pitch book/model he’ll which I’m trying to give him but I’ll ultimately overcompensate him for his actual help in some of my deals in the pipeline. He puts up with me. If the background on who sent it to me matters.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Furthermore, other research has found that absolute income does not have much of an effect on general life satisfaction. Relative income, on the other hand, has a positive effect. Put differently, making more money isn’t important. What’s important is making more than others. As the researchers put it:

“Increasing an individual’s income will increase his or her utility only if ranked position also increases and will necessarily reduce the utility of others who will lose rank…[which] may explain why increasing the incomes of all may not raise the happiness of all, even though wealth and happiness are correlated within a society at a given point in time.”

Thanks for sharing. What is your take on the article? To me, I think the cite above is understated. I believe the mind wants what it can not have, and then when it is obtained, realizes the novelty of it all wears off rather quickly, in perpetuity through life; that is, until you realize what truly matters. Too often, that realization happens far too late and the damage is already done...absent during child raising all to chase a dollar and make a name for yourself in a career that would forget about you in a NY minute if you vanished.

Which I believe is what he is drawing attention too here. There is vacuum created in our early 20's to mid 30's, that causes separation between husbands and wives. While the two are navigating their foundation building of the family, that vacuum gets filled with other people, a career, hobbies, etc....and far too often void of authentic intimacy (in-to-me-you-see), which is a scary place. Separation occurs, and the cycle begins again....only this time they never truly healed or gained wisdom through the process, rinse -repeat.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Then there’s the finding that in 1960 the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families—95%. By 2005, 85% of affluent families were still intact. For working-class families, the figure plummeted to 30%.

For some reason, many, not all, rationalize that status, money, and things, provide meaning to ones life, when we know to our core it means damned near nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

While typing this, the movie Trading Places came to mind as I was trying to say...if only the wealthy and high status people could share with authenticity to those not having this position, that there is so very little separating the two of them.

I learned about this only recently (in rehab - cradle can tell you how I’m a perpetual dishonest liar and horrible parent now) but if you aren’t familiar Id put the piece in the context of this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow' ... y_of_needs

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:21 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Furthermore, other research has found that absolute income does not have much of an effect on general life satisfaction. Relative income, on the other hand, has a positive effect. Put differently, making more money isn’t important. What’s important is making more than others. As the researchers put it:

“Increasing an individual’s income will increase his or her utility only if ranked position also increases and will necessarily reduce the utility of others who will lose rank…[which] may explain why increasing the incomes of all may not raise the happiness of all, even though wealth and happiness are correlated within a society at a given point in time.”

Thanks for sharing. What is your take on the article? To me, I think the cite above is understated. I believe the mind wants what it can not have, and then when it is obtained, realizes the novelty of it all wears off rather quickly, in perpetuity through life; that is, until you realize what truly matters. Too often, that realization happens far too late and the damage is already done...absent during child raising all to chase a dollar and make a name for yourself in a career that would forget about you in a NY minute if you vanished.

Which I believe is what he is drawing attention too here. There is vacuum created in our early 20's to mid 30's, that causes separation between husbands and wives. While the two are navigating their foundation building of the family, that vacuum gets filled with other people, a career, hobbies, etc....and far too often void of authentic intimacy (in-to-me-you-see), which is a scary place. Separation occurs, and the cycle begins again....only this time they never truly healed or gained wisdom through the process, rinse -repeat.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Then there’s the finding that in 1960 the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families—95%. By 2005, 85% of affluent families were still intact. For working-class families, the figure plummeted to 30%.

For some reason, many, not all, rationalize that status, money, and things, provide meaning to ones life, when we know to our core it means damned near nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

While typing this, the movie Trading Places came to mind as I was trying to say...if only the wealthy and high status people could share with authenticity to those not having this position, that there is so very little separating the two of them.

I learned about this only recently (in rehab - cradle can tell you how I’m a perpetual dishonest liar and horrible parent now) but if you aren’t familiar Id put the piece in the context of this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow' ... y_of_needs

crazy story. This guy appears to have it all and takes his life. Makes one wonder what was going on to do this.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/billionai ... e-sources/

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 5:24 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:21 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Furthermore, other research has found that absolute income does not have much of an effect on general life satisfaction. Relative income, on the other hand, has a positive effect. Put differently, making more money isn’t important. What’s important is making more than others. As the researchers put it:

“Increasing an individual’s income will increase his or her utility only if ranked position also increases and will necessarily reduce the utility of others who will lose rank…[which] may explain why increasing the incomes of all may not raise the happiness of all, even though wealth and happiness are correlated within a society at a given point in time.”

Thanks for sharing. What is your take on the article? To me, I think the cite above is understated. I believe the mind wants what it can not have, and then when it is obtained, realizes the novelty of it all wears off rather quickly, in perpetuity through life; that is, until you realize what truly matters. Too often, that realization happens far too late and the damage is already done...absent during child raising all to chase a dollar and make a name for yourself in a career that would forget about you in a NY minute if you vanished.

Which I believe is what he is drawing attention too here. There is vacuum created in our early 20's to mid 30's, that causes separation between husbands and wives. While the two are navigating their foundation building of the family, that vacuum gets filled with other people, a career, hobbies, etc....and far too often void of authentic intimacy (in-to-me-you-see), which is a scary place. Separation occurs, and the cycle begins again....only this time they never truly healed or gained wisdom through the process, rinse -repeat.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Then there’s the finding that in 1960 the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families—95%. By 2005, 85% of affluent families were still intact. For working-class families, the figure plummeted to 30%.

For some reason, many, not all, rationalize that status, money, and things, provide meaning to ones life, when we know to our core it means damned near nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

While typing this, the movie Trading Places came to mind as I was trying to say...if only the wealthy and high status people could share with authenticity to those not having this position, that there is so very little separating the two of them.

I learned about this only recently (in rehab - cradle can tell you how I’m a perpetual dishonest liar and horrible parent now) but if you aren’t familiar Id put the piece in the context of this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow' ... y_of_needs

crazy story. This guy appears to have it all and takes his life. Makes one wonder what was going on to do this.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/billionai ... e-sources/

Beautiful office overlooking Central Park….a lot of Titans of Finance caught up with Epstein…. It crossed my mind but I have no basis for it.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 5:24 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:21 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Furthermore, other research has found that absolute income does not have much of an effect on general life satisfaction. Relative income, on the other hand, has a positive effect. Put differently, making more money isn’t important. What’s important is making more than others. As the researchers put it:

“Increasing an individual’s income will increase his or her utility only if ranked position also increases and will necessarily reduce the utility of others who will lose rank…[which] may explain why increasing the incomes of all may not raise the happiness of all, even though wealth and happiness are correlated within a society at a given point in time.”

Thanks for sharing. What is your take on the article? To me, I think the cite above is understated. I believe the mind wants what it can not have, and then when it is obtained, realizes the novelty of it all wears off rather quickly, in perpetuity through life; that is, until you realize what truly matters. Too often, that realization happens far too late and the damage is already done...absent during child raising all to chase a dollar and make a name for yourself in a career that would forget about you in a NY minute if you vanished.

Which I believe is what he is drawing attention too here. There is vacuum created in our early 20's to mid 30's, that causes separation between husbands and wives. While the two are navigating their foundation building of the family, that vacuum gets filled with other people, a career, hobbies, etc....and far too often void of authentic intimacy (in-to-me-you-see), which is a scary place. Separation occurs, and the cycle begins again....only this time they never truly healed or gained wisdom through the process, rinse -repeat.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:50 am Then there’s the finding that in 1960 the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families—95%. By 2005, 85% of affluent families were still intact. For working-class families, the figure plummeted to 30%.

For some reason, many, not all, rationalize that status, money, and things, provide meaning to ones life, when we know to our core it means damned near nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

While typing this, the movie Trading Places came to mind as I was trying to say...if only the wealthy and high status people could share with authenticity to those not having this position, that there is so very little separating the two of them.

I learned about this only recently (in rehab - cradle can tell you how I’m a perpetual dishonest liar and horrible parent now) but if you aren’t familiar Id put the piece in the context of this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow' ... y_of_needs

crazy story. This guy appears to have it all and takes his life. Makes one wonder what was going on to do this.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/billionai ... e-sources/

Yeah I was trading notes w someone about TH Lee last night before it was clear it was suicide. Just self inflicted gunshot death.

He had been thrown out of his company really whatever it is reported as. His newer vehicle Lee Partners sponsors this specialty insurer in Atlanta called McLarens where the CFO is a buddy. I reached out hut haven’t heard back from the guy yet but while he dealt with the firm as sponsor I don’t think he has much of any interaction w Lee himself.

This is the "network" to which Speaker McCarthy has entrusted with 41,000 hours of video of January 6:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... rlson.html

"Two days after the 2020 election, Tucker Carlson was furious.

Fox News viewers were abandoning the network for Newsmax and One America News, two conservative rivals, after Fox declared that Joseph R. Biden Jr. won Arizona, a crucial swing state.

In a text message with his producer, Alex Pfeiffer, Mr. Carlson appeared livid that viewers were turning against the network. The message was among those released last week as part of a lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. Dominion, an elections technology company, has sued Fox News for defamation.

A graphic shows a text exchange from Carlson to Pfeiffer.

Carlson to Pfeiffer

We worked really hard to build what we have … It enrages me.

At the same time, Mr. Carlson and his broadcasting colleagues expressed grave doubts about an unfounded narrative rapidly gaining momentum among their core audience: that the 2020 presidential election was stolen by Democrats through widespread voter fraud. The belief was promoted by then-President Trump and a coalition of lawyers, lawmakers and influencers, though they produced no evidence to support their assertions.

Many hosts, producers and executives privately expressed skepticism about those claims, even as they gave them significant airtime, according to private messages revealed last week by Dominion. What they said in those messages often differed significantly from what Fox hosts said in public, though they weren’t always contradictory.

Two days after the election, Mr. Pfeiffer said that voices on the right were “reckless demagogues,” according to a text message. Mr. Carlson replied that his show was “not going to follow them.”

A graphic shows a text exchange between Pfeiffer and Carlson.

Said privately on Nov. 5, 2020

Pfeiffer to Carlson

It’s a hard needle to thread, but I really think many on ‘our side’ are being reckless demagogues right now.

Carlson to Pfeiffer

Of course they are. We’re not going to follow them.

But he did follow them. The same day, on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Mr. Carlson expressed some doubts about the voter fraud assertions before insisting that at least some of the claims were “credible.”

Said publicly on Nov. 5, 2020

Carlson: “Not all the claims are credible — some are. … Serious questions about the legitimacy of ballots remained unanswered.”

In the days and weeks that followed, Mr. Carlson was one of several Fox News hosts who repeatedly took a different tone when speaking to viewers on air than when they were talking privately.

The private conversations pose a serious legal threat to the nation’s most-watched cable news network. Dominion has obtained thousands of emails and text messages from Fox employees as part of its $1.6 billion suit. The messages, taken as a whole, are at the core of Dominion’s case.

Fox News has argued in court that the First Amendment protects its right to broadcast false claims if they are inherently newsworthy — and in this case that there was nothing more newsworthy at the time than a sitting president’s allegations of widespread voter fraud.

In a statement, the company said that “the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution” and protected by legal precedent. It added, “Dominion has mischaracterized the record, cherry-picked quotes stripped of key context, and spilled considerable ink on facts that are irrelevant under black-letter principles of defamation law.”

But if a jury looks at the messages from Fox hosts, guests and executives and concludes that people inside the network knew what they were putting on the air was false, it could find Fox liable and reward Dominion with substantial financial damages.

On Nov. 7, 2020, Mr. Carlson told Mr. Pfeiffer that claims about manipulated software were “absurd.” Mr. Pfeiffer replied later that there was not enough evidence of fraud to swing the election.

A graphic of a text exchange between Pfeiffer and Carlson.

Said privately on Nov. 7, 2020

Carlson to Pfeiffer
The software turd is absurd.

Nov. 8, 2020

Pfeiffer to Carlson

I dont think there is evidence of voter fraud that swung the election.

But during his broadcast on Nov. 9, Mr. Carlson devoted time to various theories, suggesting there could be merit to claims about software manipulation. “We don’t know, we have to find out,” he said.

A video clip of Carlson on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 9, 2020

Carlson: “We don’t know anything about the software that many say was rigged. … And you are not crazy for knowing it. You are right.”

Mr. Carlson also privately criticized Sidney Powell, a lawyer and conspiracy theorist who was gaining traction among the far right for her involvement in several lawsuits aimed at challenging the election results, the court filings show. Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo, two hosts on Fox Business, a sister channel to Fox News that is also part of Dominion’s lawsuit, repeatedly invited Ms. Powell onto their shows as an expert on voter fraud claims.

A graphic of a text message from Carlson.

Said privately on Nov. 16, 2020

Carlson to Pfeiffer

Sidney Powell is lying

Mr. Pfeiffer told Mr. Carlson over text message that election fraud claims, like those being made by Ms. Powell, “need to be backed up.” He warned that President Biden faced being undermined if he was eventually inaugurated.

Mr. Carlson agreed, the filings show.

A graphic of a text message from Carlson.

Said privately on Nov. 18, 2020

Carlson to Pfeiffer

Yep. It’s bad.

The next day, Mr. Carlson eviscerated Ms. Powell in a brutal 10-minute monologue, dissecting her claims as unreliable and unproven. He said the show had repeatedly asked her for evidence and, “when we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

A video of Carlson from “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 19, 2020

Carlson: “She never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.”
In the same monologue, however, Mr. Carlson also gave some credence to Ms. Powell’s claims, saying that “we don’t dismiss anything anymore” and that he is “hopeful” she will come forward with evidence.

A video of Carlson from “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 19, 2020

Carlson: “We did not dismiss any of it. We don’t dismiss anything anymore.”

Viewers expressed outrage at Mr. Carlson for challenging a prominent Trump ally. And Mr. Trump’s associates quickly jumped to her defense.

Privately, Mr. Carlson continued to criticize Ms. Powell, calling her claims “shockingly reckless.” Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Carlson both privately called her a “nut.” Laura Ingraham, who is the host of a 10 p.m. show, and Raj Shah, a senior vice president at the Fox Corporation, the network’s corporate parent, were equally incredulous.

A graphic of several text messages from Raj Shah, Pfeiffer, Carlson and Ingraham.

Said privately on Nov. 22, 2020

Shah to Pfeiffer

so many people openly denying the obvious that Powell is clearly full of it.

Pfeiffer to Shah

She is a [expletive] nutcase.

Carlson to Ingraham

[Powell is] a nut, as you said at the outset. It totally wrecked my weekend. Wow... I had to try to make the WH disavow her, which they obviously should have done long before

Ingraham to Carlson

No serious lawyer could believe what they were saying.

Carlson to Ingraham

But they said nothing in public. Pretty disgusting.

The next day, Mr. Carlson appeared to soften his public stance, suggesting that some of the criticisms about voting machines had merit and concluding, “This is a real issue no matter who raises it.”

A video from “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 23, 2020

Carlson: “This is a real issue no matter who raises it or who tries to dismiss it out of hand as a conspiracy theory.”

Mr. Carlson was far from alone in speaking about Ms. Powell in a different way in private than on the air.

Internally, anchors like Bret Baier appeared surprised to find Ms. Powell getting significant airtime on shows by Ms. Bartiromo and Mr. Dobbs, the court filings show. On Nov. 6, 2020, after someone forwarded Mr. Dobbs’s interview with Ms. Powell, Mr. Baier replied:

A graphic of a text message from Baier.

Baier

“What is this? Oh man.”

The private messages also showed that Ms. Powell was in direct communication with Ms. Bartiromo and Mr. Dobbs, and that she revealed one of the sources for her outrageous claims. The court filings showed that Ms. Powell forwarded an email about voter fraud to Ms. Bartiromo from the source, a woman who claimed, among other things, that “the Wind tells me I’m a ghost.”

If Ms. Bartiromo was deterred by the unusual email, it was not evident to Fox News viewers. Ms. Powell was interviewed on the show the next day.

A video from “Mornings with Maria Bartiromo.”

Said publicly on Nov. 8, 2020

Bartiromo: “We talked about the Dominion software. I know that there were voting irregularities. Tell me about that.”

Consternation over Ms. Powell grew behind the scenes at Fox News as her lawsuits were repeatedly dismissed by courts and her promises to produce concrete evidence of widespread voter fraud never materialized. Yet she was still getting airtime, and senior executives at the network appeared concerned.

Gary Schreier, a senior vice president of programming at Fox Business, said in a private message to Lauren Petterson, the president of Fox Business, that Ms. Bartiromo “has GOP conspiracy theorists in her ear and they use her for their message sometimes.”

Days later, Mr. Schreier received an email from Dominion Voting Systems containing links that refuted Ms. Powell’s voter fraud claims.

That night, Mr. Dobbs interviewed Ms. Powell about Dominion’s comments. But he also used the interview to reinforce her claims of fraud. Mr. Dobbs concluded that “this looks like the effort to carry out an endgame” against Mr. Trump. Ms. Bartiromo interviewed Ms. Powell again two days later.

A video from “Lou Dobbs Tonight” and “Mornings with Maria Bartiromo.”

Said publicly on Nov. 13, 2020

Dobbs: “This is the culmination of what has been over a four-year effort to overthrow this president.”

Said publicly on Nov. 15, 2020

Bartiromo: “Attorney Sidney Powell is leading the charge against Dominion and she says she has enough evidence of fraud to launch a massive criminal investigation.”

Several Fox News hosts and producers were criticizing Ms. Powell, including John Fawcett, a producer on Mr. Dobbs’s show, who said he believed Ms. Powell was “doing LSD and cocaine and heroin and shrooms.”

A text message from Ingraham.

Said privately on Nov. 15, 2020

Ingraham to Hannity and Carlson

Sidney Powell is a bit nuts. Sorry but she is.

But those criticisms never made it to air. Instead, when Ms. Powell appeared again on Mr. Dobbs’s show days later, she was hailed as a “great American” and “one of the country’s leading appellate attorneys.”

A video from “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 19, 2020

Dobbs: “Our election is run by companies, the ownership of which we don’t know. Sidney Powell is among those trying to change all that.”

By late November, Mr. Fawcett became increasingly critical of Ms. Powell, according to the court filings. He concluded that she was not verifying her claims. On Nov. 27, 2020, he wrote that her lawsuits were “complete bs.”

Mr. Fawcett also told Mr. Dobbs that Mr. Trump’s legal team had disavowed her. Mr. Dobbs replied that he didn’t know what Ms. Powell was “thinking or doing, Or why!”

A graphic of text messages between Fawcett and Dobbs.

Said privately on Nov. 22, 2020

Fawcett to Dobbs

Could be losing her mind

Fawcett to Dobbs

I just don’t think she is verifying anything she is saying.

But over the next several days, Ms. Powell was invited back by Mr. Dobbs, who echoed her claims that “electoral fraud” was perpetrated by electronic voting machines, “prominently Dominion.”

Two videos from “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 24, 2020

Dobbs: “I think many Americans have given no thought to electoral fraud that would be perpetrated through electronic voting, that is these machines … prominently Dominion, at least in the suspicions of a lot of Americans.”

Said publicly on Nov. 30, 2020

Dobbs: “We have, across almost every state, whether it’s Dominion … whatever the voting machine company is — no one knows their ownership, has no idea what’s going on in those servers.”

The next month, after Smartmatic, a competitor of Dominion Voting Systems, sent a letter to Fox News signaling that litigation was imminent, the network put together a video package of an election expert debunking the conspiracy theories that suggested the company’s technology allowed the presidential vote to be rigged. It aired on the programs hosted by Mr. Dobbs, Ms. Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro.

On Feb. 5, 2021, one day after Smartmatic filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox, Fox Business canceled “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” At the time, Fox said it regularly reviewed its lineup. “Plans have been in place to launch new formats as appropriate postelection, including on Fox Business,” the network said."

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 8:07 am This is the "network" to which Speaker McCarthy has entrusted with 41,000 hours of video of January 6:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... rlson.html

"Two days after the 2020 election, Tucker Carlson was furious.

Fox News viewers were abandoning the network for Newsmax and One America News, two conservative rivals, after Fox declared that Joseph R. Biden Jr. won Arizona, a crucial swing state.

In a text message with his producer, Alex Pfeiffer, Mr. Carlson appeared livid that viewers were turning against the network. The message was among those released last week as part of a lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. Dominion, an elections technology company, has sued Fox News for defamation.

A graphic shows a text exchange from Carlson to Pfeiffer.

Carlson to Pfeiffer

We worked really hard to build what we have … It enrages me.

At the same time, Mr. Carlson and his broadcasting colleagues expressed grave doubts about an unfounded narrative rapidly gaining momentum among their core audience: that the 2020 presidential election was stolen by Democrats through widespread voter fraud. The belief was promoted by then-President Trump and a coalition of lawyers, lawmakers and influencers, though they produced no evidence to support their assertions.

Many hosts, producers and executives privately expressed skepticism about those claims, even as they gave them significant airtime, according to private messages revealed last week by Dominion. What they said in those messages often differed significantly from what Fox hosts said in public, though they weren’t always contradictory.

Two days after the election, Mr. Pfeiffer said that voices on the right were “reckless demagogues,” according to a text message. Mr. Carlson replied that his show was “not going to follow them.”

A graphic shows a text exchange between Pfeiffer and Carlson.

Said privately on Nov. 5, 2020

Pfeiffer to Carlson

It’s a hard needle to thread, but I really think many on ‘our side’ are being reckless demagogues right now.

Carlson to Pfeiffer

Of course they are. We’re not going to follow them.

But he did follow them. The same day, on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Mr. Carlson expressed some doubts about the voter fraud assertions before insisting that at least some of the claims were “credible.”

Said publicly on Nov. 5, 2020

Carlson: “Not all the claims are credible — some are. … Serious questions about the legitimacy of ballots remained unanswered.”

In the days and weeks that followed, Mr. Carlson was one of several Fox News hosts who repeatedly took a different tone when speaking to viewers on air than when they were talking privately.

The private conversations pose a serious legal threat to the nation’s most-watched cable news network. Dominion has obtained thousands of emails and text messages from Fox employees as part of its $1.6 billion suit. The messages, taken as a whole, are at the core of Dominion’s case.

Fox News has argued in court that the First Amendment protects its right to broadcast false claims if they are inherently newsworthy — and in this case that there was nothing more newsworthy at the time than a sitting president’s allegations of widespread voter fraud.

In a statement, the company said that “the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution” and protected by legal precedent. It added, “Dominion has mischaracterized the record, cherry-picked quotes stripped of key context, and spilled considerable ink on facts that are irrelevant under black-letter principles of defamation law.”

But if a jury looks at the messages from Fox hosts, guests and executives and concludes that people inside the network knew what they were putting on the air was false, it could find Fox liable and reward Dominion with substantial financial damages.

On Nov. 7, 2020, Mr. Carlson told Mr. Pfeiffer that claims about manipulated software were “absurd.” Mr. Pfeiffer replied later that there was not enough evidence of fraud to swing the election.

A graphic of a text exchange between Pfeiffer and Carlson.

Said privately on Nov. 7, 2020

Carlson to Pfeiffer
The software turd is absurd.

Nov. 8, 2020

Pfeiffer to Carlson

I dont think there is evidence of voter fraud that swung the election.

But during his broadcast on Nov. 9, Mr. Carlson devoted time to various theories, suggesting there could be merit to claims about software manipulation. “We don’t know, we have to find out,” he said.

A video clip of Carlson on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 9, 2020

Carlson: “We don’t know anything about the software that many say was rigged. … And you are not crazy for knowing it. You are right.”

Mr. Carlson also privately criticized Sidney Powell, a lawyer and conspiracy theorist who was gaining traction among the far right for her involvement in several lawsuits aimed at challenging the election results, the court filings show. Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo, two hosts on Fox Business, a sister channel to Fox News that is also part of Dominion’s lawsuit, repeatedly invited Ms. Powell onto their shows as an expert on voter fraud claims.

A graphic of a text message from Carlson.

Said privately on Nov. 16, 2020

Carlson to Pfeiffer

Sidney Powell is lying

Mr. Pfeiffer told Mr. Carlson over text message that election fraud claims, like those being made by Ms. Powell, “need to be backed up.” He warned that President Biden faced being undermined if he was eventually inaugurated.

Mr. Carlson agreed, the filings show.

A graphic of a text message from Carlson.

Said privately on Nov. 18, 2020

Carlson to Pfeiffer

Yep. It’s bad.

The next day, Mr. Carlson eviscerated Ms. Powell in a brutal 10-minute monologue, dissecting her claims as unreliable and unproven. He said the show had repeatedly asked her for evidence and, “when we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

A video of Carlson from “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 19, 2020

Carlson: “She never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.”
In the same monologue, however, Mr. Carlson also gave some credence to Ms. Powell’s claims, saying that “we don’t dismiss anything anymore” and that he is “hopeful” she will come forward with evidence.

A video of Carlson from “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 19, 2020

Carlson: “We did not dismiss any of it. We don’t dismiss anything anymore.”

Viewers expressed outrage at Mr. Carlson for challenging a prominent Trump ally. And Mr. Trump’s associates quickly jumped to her defense.

Privately, Mr. Carlson continued to criticize Ms. Powell, calling her claims “shockingly reckless.” Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Carlson both privately called her a “nut.” Laura Ingraham, who is the host of a 10 p.m. show, and Raj Shah, a senior vice president at the Fox Corporation, the network’s corporate parent, were equally incredulous.

A graphic of several text messages from Raj Shah, Pfeiffer, Carlson and Ingraham.

Said privately on Nov. 22, 2020

Shah to Pfeiffer

so many people openly denying the obvious that Powell is clearly full of it.

Pfeiffer to Shah

She is a [expletive] nutcase.

Carlson to Ingraham

[Powell is] a nut, as you said at the outset. It totally wrecked my weekend. Wow... I had to try to make the WH disavow her, which they obviously should have done long before

Ingraham to Carlson

No serious lawyer could believe what they were saying.

Carlson to Ingraham

But they said nothing in public. Pretty disgusting.

The next day, Mr. Carlson appeared to soften his public stance, suggesting that some of the criticisms about voting machines had merit and concluding, “This is a real issue no matter who raises it.”

A video from “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 23, 2020

Carlson: “This is a real issue no matter who raises it or who tries to dismiss it out of hand as a conspiracy theory.”

Mr. Carlson was far from alone in speaking about Ms. Powell in a different way in private than on the air.

Internally, anchors like Bret Baier appeared surprised to find Ms. Powell getting significant airtime on shows by Ms. Bartiromo and Mr. Dobbs, the court filings show. On Nov. 6, 2020, after someone forwarded Mr. Dobbs’s interview with Ms. Powell, Mr. Baier replied:

A graphic of a text message from Baier.

Baier

“What is this? Oh man.”

The private messages also showed that Ms. Powell was in direct communication with Ms. Bartiromo and Mr. Dobbs, and that she revealed one of the sources for her outrageous claims. The court filings showed that Ms. Powell forwarded an email about voter fraud to Ms. Bartiromo from the source, a woman who claimed, among other things, that “the Wind tells me I’m a ghost.”

If Ms. Bartiromo was deterred by the unusual email, it was not evident to Fox News viewers. Ms. Powell was interviewed on the show the next day.

A video from “Mornings with Maria Bartiromo.”

Said publicly on Nov. 8, 2020

Bartiromo: “We talked about the Dominion software. I know that there were voting irregularities. Tell me about that.”

Consternation over Ms. Powell grew behind the scenes at Fox News as her lawsuits were repeatedly dismissed by courts and her promises to produce concrete evidence of widespread voter fraud never materialized. Yet she was still getting airtime, and senior executives at the network appeared concerned.

Gary Schreier, a senior vice president of programming at Fox Business, said in a private message to Lauren Petterson, the president of Fox Business, that Ms. Bartiromo “has GOP conspiracy theorists in her ear and they use her for their message sometimes.”

Days later, Mr. Schreier received an email from Dominion Voting Systems containing links that refuted Ms. Powell’s voter fraud claims.

That night, Mr. Dobbs interviewed Ms. Powell about Dominion’s comments. But he also used the interview to reinforce her claims of fraud. Mr. Dobbs concluded that “this looks like the effort to carry out an endgame” against Mr. Trump. Ms. Bartiromo interviewed Ms. Powell again two days later.

A video from “Lou Dobbs Tonight” and “Mornings with Maria Bartiromo.”

Said publicly on Nov. 13, 2020

Dobbs: “This is the culmination of what has been over a four-year effort to overthrow this president.”

Said publicly on Nov. 15, 2020

Bartiromo: “Attorney Sidney Powell is leading the charge against Dominion and she says she has enough evidence of fraud to launch a massive criminal investigation.”

Several Fox News hosts and producers were criticizing Ms. Powell, including John Fawcett, a producer on Mr. Dobbs’s show, who said he believed Ms. Powell was “doing LSD and cocaine and heroin and shrooms.”

A text message from Ingraham.

Said privately on Nov. 15, 2020

Ingraham to Hannity and Carlson

Sidney Powell is a bit nuts. Sorry but she is.

But those criticisms never made it to air. Instead, when Ms. Powell appeared again on Mr. Dobbs’s show days later, she was hailed as a “great American” and “one of the country’s leading appellate attorneys.”

A video from “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 19, 2020

Dobbs: “Our election is run by companies, the ownership of which we don’t know. Sidney Powell is among those trying to change all that.”

By late November, Mr. Fawcett became increasingly critical of Ms. Powell, according to the court filings. He concluded that she was not verifying her claims. On Nov. 27, 2020, he wrote that her lawsuits were “complete bs.”

Mr. Fawcett also told Mr. Dobbs that Mr. Trump’s legal team had disavowed her. Mr. Dobbs replied that he didn’t know what Ms. Powell was “thinking or doing, Or why!”

A graphic of text messages between Fawcett and Dobbs.

Said privately on Nov. 22, 2020

Fawcett to Dobbs

Could be losing her mind

Fawcett to Dobbs

I just don’t think she is verifying anything she is saying.

But over the next several days, Ms. Powell was invited back by Mr. Dobbs, who echoed her claims that “electoral fraud” was perpetrated by electronic voting machines, “prominently Dominion.”

Two videos from “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Said publicly on Nov. 24, 2020

Dobbs: “I think many Americans have given no thought to electoral fraud that would be perpetrated through electronic voting, that is these machines … prominently Dominion, at least in the suspicions of a lot of Americans.”

Said publicly on Nov. 30, 2020

Dobbs: “We have, across almost every state, whether it’s Dominion … whatever the voting machine company is — no one knows their ownership, has no idea what’s going on in those servers.”

The next month, after Smartmatic, a competitor of Dominion Voting Systems, sent a letter to Fox News signaling that litigation was imminent, the network put together a video package of an election expert debunking the conspiracy theories that suggested the company’s technology allowed the presidential vote to be rigged. It aired on the programs hosted by Mr. Dobbs, Ms. Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro.

On Feb. 5, 2021, one day after Smartmatic filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox, Fox Business canceled “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” At the time, Fox said it regularly reviewed its lineup. “Plans have been in place to launch new formats as appropriate postelection, including on Fox Business,” the network said."

Yep…. They all do it!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/27/busi ... rdoch.html

"Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the conservative media empire that owns Fox News, acknowledged in a deposition that several hosts for his networks promoted the false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald J. Trump, and that he could have stopped them but didn’t, court documents released on Monday showed.

“They endorsed,” Mr. Murdoch said under oath in response to direct questions about the Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo, according to a legal filing by Dominion Voting Systems. “I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight,” he added, while also disclosing that he was dubious of Mr. Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud from the beginning.

Asked whether he doubted Mr. Trump, Mr. Murdoch responded: “Yes. I mean, we thought everything was on the up-and-up.” At the same time, he rejected the accusation that Fox News as a whole had endorsed the stolen election narrative. “Not Fox,” he said. “No. Not Fox.”

Mr. Murdoch’s remarks, which he made last month as part of Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox, added to the evidence that Dominion has accumulated as it tries to prove its central allegation: The people running the country’s most popular news network knew Mr. Trump’s claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election were false but broadcast them anyway in a reckless pursuit of ratings and profit.

Proof to that effect would help Dominion clear the high legal bar set by the Supreme Court for defamation cases. To prevail, Dominion must show not only that Fox broadcast false information, but that it did so knowingly. A judge in Delaware state court has scheduled a monthlong trial beginning in April.

The new documents and a similar batch released this month provide a dramatic account from inside the network, depicting a frantic scramble as Fox tried to woo back its large conservative audience after ratings collapsed in the wake of Mr. Trump’s loss. Fox had been the first network to call Arizona for Joseph R. Biden on election night — essentially declaring him the next president. When Mr. Trump refused to concede and started attacking Fox as disloyal and dishonest, viewers began to change the channel.

The filings also revealed that top executives and on-air hosts had reacted with incredulity bordering on contempt to various fictitious allegations about Dominion. These included unsubstantiated rumors — repeatedly uttered by guests and hosts of Fox programs — that its voting machines could run a secret algorithm that switched votes from one candidate to another, and that the company was founded in Venezuela to help that country’s longtime leader, Hugo Chávez, fix elections.

Despite those misgivings, little changed about the content on shows like Mr. Dobbs’s and Ms. Bartiromo’s. For weeks after the election, viewers of Fox News and Fox Business heard a far different story from the one that Fox executives privately conceded was the real one.

Lawyers for Fox News, which filed a response to Dominion in court on Monday, argued that its commentary and reporting after the election did not amount to defamation because its hosts had not endorsed the falsehoods about Dominion, even if Mr. Murdoch stated otherwise in his deposition. As such, the network’s lawyers argued, Fox’s coverage was protected under the First Amendment.

“Far from reporting the allegations as true, hosts informed their audiences at every turn that the allegations were just allegations that would need to be proven in court in short order if they were going to impact the outcome of the election,” Fox lawyers said in their filing. “And to the extent some hosts commented on the allegations, that commentary is independently protected opinion.”

A Fox News spokeswoman said on Monday in response to the filing that Dominion took “an extreme, unsupported view of defamation law that would prevent journalists from basic reporting.”

In certain instances, Fox hosts did present the allegations as unproven and offered their opinions. And Fox lawyers have pointed to exchanges on the air when hosts challenged these claims and pressed Mr. Trump’s lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani to present evidence that never materialized.

But the case is also likely to revolve around questions about what people with the power to shape Fox’s on-air content knew about the validity of the fraud allegations as they gave pro-Trump election deniers a platform — often in front of hosts who mustered no pushback.

“Dominion can make a strong argument based on evidence that they have uncovered that Fox employees acted with actual malice,” said Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond.

The document casts Mr. Murdoch as a chairman who was both deeply engaged with his senior leadership about coverage of the election and operating at somewhat of a remove, unwilling to interfere. Asked by Dominion’s lawyer, Justin Nelson, whether he could have ordered Fox News to keep Trump lawyers like Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani off the air, Mr. Murdoch responded: “I could have. But I didn’t.”

Dominion’s latest filing described how Paul D. Ryan, a former Republican speaker of the House and current member of the Fox Corporation board of directors, said in his deposition that he had implored Mr. Murdoch and his son Lachlan, the chief executive officer, “that Fox News should not be spreading conspiracy theories.” Mr. Ryan suggested instead that the network pivot and “move on from Donald Trump and stop spouting election lies.”

There was some discussion at the highest levels of the company about how to make that pivot, Dominion said.

On Jan. 5, 2021, the day before the attack at the Capitol, Mr. Murdoch and Suzanne Scott, the chief executive of Fox News Media, talked about whether Mr. Hannity and his fellow prime-time hosts, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, should make it clear to viewers that Mr. Biden had won the election. Mr. Murdoch said in his deposition that he had hoped such a statement “would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election was stolen.”

According to the filing, Ms. Scott said of the hosts, “Privately they are all there,” but “we need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers.” No statement of that kind was made on the air.

The Dominion filing details the close relationship that Fox hosts and executives enjoyed with senior Republican Party officials and members of the Trump inner circle, revealing how at times Fox was shaping the very story it was covering. It describes how Mr. Murdoch placed a call to the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, immediately after the election. In his deposition, Mr. Murdoch testified that during that call it was likely that he urged Mr. McConnell to “ask other senior Republicans to refuse to endorse Mr. Trump’s conspiracy theories and baseless claims of fraud.”

At one point, Dominion’s lawyers accuse Ms. Pirro, who hosted a Saturday evening talk show, of “laundering her own conspiracy theories through Powell.” The filing goes on to say Ms. Pirro bragged to her friends “that she was the source for Powell’s claims.” Dominion notes that this was “something she never shared with her audience.”

The filing on Monday also included a deposition by Viet Dinh, Fox Corporation’s chief legal officer. After Mr. Hannity told his audience on Nov. 5, 2020, that it would be “impossible to ever know the true, fair, accurate election results,” Mr. Dinh warned, he said, a group of senior executives who included Lachlan Murdoch and Ms. Scott: “Hannity is getting awfully close to the line with his commentary and guests tonight.”

When asked in his deposition if Fox executives had an obligation to stop hosts of shows from broadcasting lies, Mr. Dinh said: “Yes, to prevent and correct known falsehoods.”

In their filing on Monday, Fox’s lawyers accused Dominion of cherry-picking evidence that some at Fox News knew the allegations against Dominion were not true and, therefore, acted out of actual malice, the legal standard required to prove defamation.

“The vast majority of Dominion’s evidence comes from individuals who had zero responsibility for the statements Dominion challenges,” the lawyers said."

See: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... b/full.pdf