It seems a major factor in the fact-checkers decision to capitulate to the pressure and hold their fire against the lies is their concern about the legal cost to them for doing there jobs.
What is needed at this time is for the legal profession to come forward, with the willingness to provide representation to the fact-checkers pro-bono. …
It seems a major factor in the fact-checkers decision to capitulate to the pressure and hold their fire against the lies is their concern about the legal cost to them for doing there jobs.
What is needed at this time is for the legal profession to come forward, with the willingness to provide representation to the fact-checkers pro-bono. If they only see this as an opportunity for enrichment, rather than as a threat to their own ability to function within an authoritarian state, then as they are being marched off to the Gulags, they will be the last to utter "where is anyone to defend me!"
You do realize don't you. That legal profession is by nature and constitutionally conservative. You would be hard pressed to find a true liberal like Chutkan.
Yes, I realize that probably the vast majority of those who are materially well off have greater reason to be conservative than liberal. But, is fostering minority rule, with its history of oppression and exploitation, really squashing human potential or fostering its expansion? Conservatives like to applaud what passes for America's greatness, but seem to be unable to comprehend the concept that perhaps we would be a much greater nation today if blacks were not first enslaved, then Jim Crowed; if women were enfranchised and educated to the degree of their male counterparts; if gays were not socially closeted but allowed to flourish in whatever area of their choice--considering their success in the areas were they have flourished, one can only imagine.
The good news is that it seems to be an integral feature of human nature to resist these oppressions and demand that their humanity be recognized and respected. If "two roads diverged in a yellow wood" and humanistic democracy is "the road less traveled by" those who choose that path have and will make "all the difference".
I gave your reply, Michael an upvote. I so much agree with what you said, but the optimism of humans, well that is another story, in that regard history is not on your side, we are where we at (good and bad) because of human nature.For instance the truth is that we have lots of fresh fruits and meats, not to mention packaged goods, because men seeking to feed their families, survive and flourish were industrious innovators who took a chance (or failed and starve).
The negative side of that, is that in order to survive they needed money to expand, and would borrow only as a last resort, mostly they sold stock in their company, and eventually the a stock holder, usually another company, bought them out, and they became a monopoly (such was how JD Rockefeller became a robber baron, same with Carnegie and the RR and industrial barons, what we call oligarchs today.
Result is that corporations became an organism, with one motive as do all organisms to survive and flourish, to protect themselves by eliminating the competition and feeding on the prey (consumers and workers). They became a collective overseen by a board of directors who were themselves, CEO's or members of other board of directors. I imagine that most are members of an exclusive club, and are handsomely rewarded for serving on many BoD's
Germany for one, IIRC, and Denmark and Norway. require labor to be represented on BoD;s,but in the US labor is the drones of the anthive.like that asshole of a cop in Seatle said (also the VP of the cop union), Write her family a $11,000 check (another cop had run over and killed her) because she was only 26 and of no value (followed by raucous laughter) The MFer, like all of his ilk doesn't see the irony, because cops are at the lowest rung of the social ladder, and don't get paid that much either.
It seems a major factor in the fact-checkers decision to capitulate to the pressure and hold their fire against the lies is their concern about the legal cost to them for doing there jobs.
What is needed at this time is for the legal profession to come forward, with the willingness to provide representation to the fact-checkers pro-bono. If they only see this as an opportunity for enrichment, rather than as a threat to their own ability to function within an authoritarian state, then as they are being marched off to the Gulags, they will be the last to utter "where is anyone to defend me!"
You do realize don't you. That legal profession is by nature and constitutionally conservative. You would be hard pressed to find a true liberal like Chutkan.
Yes, I realize that probably the vast majority of those who are materially well off have greater reason to be conservative than liberal. But, is fostering minority rule, with its history of oppression and exploitation, really squashing human potential or fostering its expansion? Conservatives like to applaud what passes for America's greatness, but seem to be unable to comprehend the concept that perhaps we would be a much greater nation today if blacks were not first enslaved, then Jim Crowed; if women were enfranchised and educated to the degree of their male counterparts; if gays were not socially closeted but allowed to flourish in whatever area of their choice--considering their success in the areas were they have flourished, one can only imagine.
The good news is that it seems to be an integral feature of human nature to resist these oppressions and demand that their humanity be recognized and respected. If "two roads diverged in a yellow wood" and humanistic democracy is "the road less traveled by" those who choose that path have and will make "all the difference".
I gave your reply, Michael an upvote. I so much agree with what you said, but the optimism of humans, well that is another story, in that regard history is not on your side, we are where we at (good and bad) because of human nature.For instance the truth is that we have lots of fresh fruits and meats, not to mention packaged goods, because men seeking to feed their families, survive and flourish were industrious innovators who took a chance (or failed and starve).
The negative side of that, is that in order to survive they needed money to expand, and would borrow only as a last resort, mostly they sold stock in their company, and eventually the a stock holder, usually another company, bought them out, and they became a monopoly (such was how JD Rockefeller became a robber baron, same with Carnegie and the RR and industrial barons, what we call oligarchs today.
Result is that corporations became an organism, with one motive as do all organisms to survive and flourish, to protect themselves by eliminating the competition and feeding on the prey (consumers and workers). They became a collective overseen by a board of directors who were themselves, CEO's or members of other board of directors. I imagine that most are members of an exclusive club, and are handsomely rewarded for serving on many BoD's
Germany for one, IIRC, and Denmark and Norway. require labor to be represented on BoD;s,but in the US labor is the drones of the anthive.like that asshole of a cop in Seatle said (also the VP of the cop union), Write her family a $11,000 check (another cop had run over and killed her) because she was only 26 and of no value (followed by raucous laughter) The MFer, like all of his ilk doesn't see the irony, because cops are at the lowest rung of the social ladder, and don't get paid that much either.
... jfk's poet laureate ...good choice
Yes I can agree with this BUT why do people become Lawyers? I think it is mostly because of money?
I would love to see some lawyers doing "pro bono" on fact checking but this is NOT why they came into Law. I wish this could happen.
...good idea
where do we start?