I am just wondering about the name. It is named after the notorious 1941 law that got the USA into WWII.
Some books say that USA entered the war with the Dec. 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor attack. Actually we entered the war in March 1941 when we started supplying warships and warplanes to the war.
This new law was named as an overt reference to taking sides in a new world war. And every Democrat and most Republicans voted in favor of it.
I hope there is a truce, and no world war. The law has "democracy" in the title, but it does not have anything to do with democracy. It is just an effort to start a world war.
One of the few voices against World War III is Fox News Tucker Carlson, so the NY Times has just published a series of four long stories saying that he is a racist! The main points are:
Carlson has the most successful news show on cable tv.The stories are obviously intended as a smear piece, but I think that they will help his ratings. He has the most interesting program on cable news.
He does hot issues that others are afraid to touch.
He studies the ratings to make sure that he is addressing viewer interests.
He does Trumpism without Trump.
He responds to critics.
The most racist thing he does is to report immigration stories.
The NY Times does not accuse Carlson of antisemitism, but a columnist argues that antisemitism serves as a useful index of the health of society. The paper spent 4 years complaining about antisemitism during the Trump administration, but now it says that antisemitism has gotten worse, and most of it is coming from the Left. Right-wingers are mostly pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, and even pro-WWIII. We are paying Ukraine to fight a proxy war for NATO expansion.
Update: The NY Times stories online often have links to cited articles and sites, but the Carlson story has an exception. It cites the Daily Stormer while refusing to put in a link. Here here is the link to the Daily Stormer discussing the matter. The site has been banned by Google and others, and now relies on China for DNS.
This is almost like a parody of an anti-Semitic parody of a Jewish hate piece. It’s always so grimy, almost pornographic, the way they attempt to frame all forms of disagreement with Jews as some kind of psychological disease rooted in childhood.Yes, that's right. The NY Times has no rebuttal. It is just announcing that Carlson should be hated.
They’ve done this to me too. I have no problem admitting the fact that coming from a broken family is a key driver for other people not to ever have to go through that, which is an underlying reason why I ended up drawn to the right-wing in the first place. But this is completely irrelevant to any argument or idea. Adults do not have a political debate by trying to psychoanalyze their opponent’s childhood. To any normal person, this seems completely unhinged and insane, so it pretty much has to be buried in a six-million-word piece that winds and confuses you. You can walk away from something of this length saying “what was the point of the arguments?” and not really remember but assume there must have been some point buried in there somewhere.
But there is no point. There is no rebuttal to any of the “racist” claims Tucker Carlson has made. There is no explanation of why mass immigration is good for America, why every child should be turned into a homosexual, or why we should fight a war with Russia. You can’t give counterarguments, so at first you point and gawk and say “bad person,” then you start trying to deconstruct someone’s personal psychology.
The Times hate piece cuts off abruptly.
The Daily Stormer has a lot of worthwhile articles. The next one is: Noam Chomsky Says Donald Trump is the Only Political Figure Pushing for a Peaceful Solution in The Ukraine.