My friend Jim (not his real name) regularly says he's a conservative but he doesn't support Trump, by which, I think, he means he doesn't want to be identified as a MAGA. He's too cool to be that. Too suave. (He says this all the time, particularly when he feels the need to correct something I've said on FB. We go way back, and he has been, in the past, very kind to me. But I'm tired of his public "corrections" of things I say in my own social media. I do think about stuff before I comment publicly, you know.)
If I'm in error, by all means, let me know! I'm a facts gal. But this guy … good grief. Just last month I had a longtime friend, Christy, send me a text:
Jamie! I'm so glad you let Jim have it today. He's so condescending. I thought he was a dumb shithead when I worked with him, and I think he's a dumb shithead now. You know, you wouldn't see Trump's actions as racist if you would just look at it through a racist lens! Ugh, that guy.
To be sure, I didn't "let him have it" the way you're probably thinking. I'm polite. I just specifically refute his fake facts, without emotion. It started getting bad last fall (maybe because Trump started getting stupider than normal?) when I posted an interesting story I'd seen on Twitter from a highly respected journalist, Ben Collins. I'd read around, double-checked what he was saying, and, again, merely said it was interesting, and thus I thought my friends might like to read it. Jim's comment was:
Oh come on now. 🙄 if they know who they are and are credible journalists, would they make a broad brush appeal on X? No, they'd be doing their homework and contact them directly. This is a conspiracy theory/fishing expedition.
I gave him links to the other stories I'd looked up, and told him, "I do see a lot of journalists put in their Twitter bios to contact them with tips, so I don't think that's so unusual. A lot of big stories have come out through informants both public and private—say Watergate's Deep Throat."
This was a short one—only twelve comments. Jim must have been busy that day.
The next one came at the end of December, when I posted a transcript of a Twitter commenter, Michael Harriot, about clips or transcripts of Nikki Haley's refusal to say that slavery had anything to do with the American Civil War. And Jim wanted to fight me over that. I'd answer and say things like "Yes, I knew that, and Harriott (an award-winning journalist) also tells us the same thing in his Twitter thread I copied/pasted above." Why do I add reminders? Because most of the time I don't think Jim's reading the material, he's just spouting the bullshit trying to wear me down. But, dammit, I just wish he'd read before he reacts.
In January I posted a Washington Post article titled "Russia projects confidence as it pursues alliances to undermine the West." I quoted a piece of it, that's all. Jim's immediate comment? "Biden is so weak, he empowers our enemies." Here's how I answered him:
I don't actually find him weak at all. Biden's done a lot for the country, particularly considering the dog's bowl of trouble he was handed by the previous administration and the constant obstruction from the hard-right (Boebert, MTG, Gaetz, et al), which is ongoing, and the general Trump-yesmen the GOP has become. In spite of that, the US has had the best economic recovery from the pandemic in the world. But domestic policy (think Inflation Reduction Act—which includes investment in clean energy that is dramatically cutting greenhouse gases) is different from foreign policy, I do understand, which I think you may be referring to. I can't really address specifics without specifics from you. Certainly there's been plenty of high-stress, unexpected goings on (Ukraine, Hamas) that his predecessor didn't have to deal with (thank GOD). FP magazine says "In only his first two years in office, U.S. President Joe Biden has presided over the most transformative phase in U.S. foreign policy in decades. His administration has led a massive effort to push back against Russia after it unleashed the most horrific war of aggression in Europe since 1945, built and expanded new alliances to contain China in the Indo-Pacific, and rejoined global efforts on climate policy and other issues. Biden and his team have brought a renewed seriousness to U.S. foreign-policy making that stands in sharp contrast with the chaos of the Trump era." (Link below; there are criticisms too.) WaPo reminds us that Biden spent more than 30 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has doubtless provided some wisdom. The Brookings Institute covers some "mistakes" and goes on to say, "Biden's national security track record is better than widely perceived. … the country is still reasonably safe. That is the key metric by which to judge any grand strategy, and any president's performance. Biden inherited a turbulent world in 2021; avoiding large-scale conflict in that world should count as a major accomplishment." I couldn't agree more. There's a LOT going on and yes, both Trump and Putin have ongoing schemes. And yes, Biden's 81. This does not bother me either. Does he bobble words sometimes? Yes, he's a "recovering" stutterer and every day is a busy, pressure-filled day for him. (I bobble words all the time and I'm only 70.) I admire him for not falling over dead from the pressure, and will vote for him again this fall. Would a younger candidate be nice? Sure. And we'll have one of those eventually. Right now I think his "I've seen it all" type of experience is helpful.
I posted links to those articles. I feel like I was very fair. And guess what—Jim shut up.
Again, Jim often tries to brush off his comments by saying he's not a Trump supporter, and he seems to think that makes it OK for him to give me shit because I despise Trump. What I don't like is his taking it off-topic, as he did next. This next bit was the one that my friend Christy was referring to. Thirty freaking comments.
• • •
Yes, thirty comments when I posted, simply, "Tax on shipping? Fuel delivery surcharge? What?"
Jim: "Biden's America"
Me: This sort of thing was going on long LONG before Biden, and I can prove it with records from a company I have been buying from monthly for almost 2 decades. The particular order I'm complaining about here is something I starting buying (vet prescription) during the Trump administration. My understanding is that Biden is planning to ELIMINATE so-called junk fees across many industries.
Another Friend: Such a simple but silly response to such an incredibly vast problem that surpasses political parties. Your response would have people believing that you're a #PartyBeforeCountry kind of guy🤦♀️
Many of my friends jumped in to this thirty-comment thread, but I add this friend's comment because she, also, immediately recognized that Jim is just a bullshitter, just a pot-stirrer, trying to get folks worked up.
Jim: Feel free to browse my feed. I am not a Trump guy either. But I can safely say that our economy is much worse now, and that the cost of living is considerably worse now than it was before Biden took over. There may have been hidden fees before but they're exacerbated by the rising cost of everything. So, yes, this is the state of Biden's America. So in this case, if you defend Biden, it is you putting party before country.
Me: (thinking riiiiiiight about "there may have been hidden fees before but—) Jim, I think your notion that the cost of living is "considerably" worse is due to opportunistic price-gouging by large corporations (which is beginning to be called out), and the craziness that is Middle Tennessee, where prices of some things have gone through the roof due to the massive influx of humanity. [Middle Tennessee was designated the fastest-growing region in the US three years ago.] But unemployment hasn't been this low for this long in 50 years, wages are climbing, the stock market is going gangbusters, and inflation has fallen two-thirds from its peak. Trump spent 4 years trying to kill all the good, literally, and Biden spent his first years doing damage control. There are no simple answers to this but I'm confident that over time it will become apparent who's helping, who's hurting. (Example: Elise Stefanik last week taking credit for federal $$—1.8 million—from the Inflation Reduction Act, which she had voted against. She's not the only one, just the most recent.)
There were a couple of comments from others slinging Trump's name around, then …
Me: No one here supports Trump. I just think credit is due when it's due. There are articles all over the web about the fact that Americans, in general, are dissatisfied with the economy, but most of their (Americans') reasoning is just … vague dissatisfaction. Those of us who are (ahem) OLD, we have lived long enough to see that it takes time to clear up a mess. I can see progress. But it's just that I can remember a time when one didn't pay taxes and fees on shipping charges.
Jim: If you think it's just corporate greed now, you're sadly mistaken. Corporations have been taking their cut for over a century. The truth is, Biden's policies have hurt you and me and cost us money. His foreign policy has been disastrous. Even among the democrats, his ratings are lower than Carter's were in 1980. Don't blame corporations. As a former president once said, "the buck stops here."
Jim adds a meme: "November 2020 mortgage rates were 2.75% and gas was $1.80."
Me: In spite of all the problems brought on by the pandemic, the many people unemployed, and so on, corporations continued to make record profits. I don't have time for an extensive research project at moment (although it's been all over Twitter and in my retweets), but even as the pandemic—which seemed to have caused prices to rise—subsided, prices continued to rise. (Gas prices dropped during pandemic, due to low demand.) I did check gas prices in November 2020: gas averaged $2.12 nationwide, diesel averaged $2.42. But the corporate greed thing … it's a thing, and it causes inflation. Here's a quote from a current article titled, "Prices have gone up since the pandemic began. Is that 'inflation' really corporate greed?" linked here.
Many factors—a tight labor market, supply chain challenges, wars on the other side of the planet—contribute to inflation. That can make the amount that corporate greed contributes to the problem a little fuzzy and difficult to parse.
So, what facts can we examine to determine what role soaring corporate profits play in high inflation?
There have been a number of reports on the phenomenon since prices started creeping up. One widely covered report released in January by progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative came to a stunning conclusion:
"From April to September 2023, corporate profits drove 53% of inflation," the group said on the webpage for the report. "Comparatively, over the 40 years prior to the pandemic, profits drove just 11% of price growth."
The report argues that corporate profits have stayed high even as input costs (the expense of providing a good or service) have gone back to pre-pandemic levels. Furthermore, it says, corporate profits now make up a greater proportion of the U.S.'s national income, while the share of corporate income that workers see has continued to go down.
This was from NBC; I provided the link. (Not that I believe for one minute that he read it.)
Jim: If you think Biden is doing a good job and that we're better because of him, you are in the small minority (including in his own party). (And today's average price for a gallon of gas is $3.97).
The thing is, he's just throwing things out there without providing the source. I don't know where he's getting his "facts" but it doesn't jive with anything I know. But let's go on.
Me: Your quote on mortgage rates is also a bit off and nonspecific, as the gas was. In November 2020, a 30-yr fixed was 3.20%; 15-yr fixed 2.42%; 30-yr FHA 3.14%; 30-yr VA 3.24%; 30-yr Jumbo was 3.62%, although I don't know what Jumbo loans are. But right now the Fed is holding them steady to reduce inflation! Here's an article from a day ago. It's from ABC. I've posted the link, but the title says it all: "Fed holds interest rates steady, postponing rate cuts amid stubborn inflation."
Me: I addressed your comment about "dissatisfaction" above, saying, "There are articles all over the web about the fact that Americans, in general, are dissatisfied with the economy, but most of their (Americans') reasoning is just … vague dissatisfaction." But I'm not one of them. Regarding the rest, I guess it depends on what poll you are reading at any given time, but come this fall, I'll vote for sanity versus insanity, and Biden will be my choice. I don't disagree that these are troubled times, but I believe the current troubled times are caused by Mike Johnson, Trump, MAGAs, Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, and so on. Troubled times for sure.
Me: Oh, average 30yr fixed-rate mortgage rate is currently 6.78%. As someone who has financed more than one house at double digits (again, I've been around for a while, and bought my first house at age 21), I'm not going to clutch any pearls yet. That's down from 7.44% last November. It takes time to clean up a mess, a mess that Trump created by poor handling of pretty much everything, and a mess that continues due to the lies that he and the right-wing press continue to peddle, astonishingly. Sad to see this!
Then a couple friends of mine bring up Reagan and his stupid supply-side economics., and Jim ridicules them for "blaming Reagan, who's been dead for 20 years." Again, I don't approve of going onto someone else's Facebook and arguing/ridiculing that person's friends. It's not polite. But here we are.
Me: Well, you know, this is history, and it's how things get going. Reagan championed supply-side economics (trickle-down economics in the vernacular), which has now really been proven not to work. All it did was concentrate dollars in the hands of the wealthy. (Or as Business Insider says: "The bottom half of American families hold just 2% of the country's wealth—while the top 1% of families have a third.") So we have a situation where someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos is paying close to nothing in income tax and ordinary folk like you and your wife, like me and my husband, are paying our fair share). And I don't mind it, not at all. But supply-side doesn't work.
And I provide more links. The definition of "supply-side economics" from Investopedia. And adding: "More facts and numbers on supply-side."
Me: And those double-digit mortgage rates I paid? That was during the Reagan administration.
Me: "We've seen those consequences play out over multiple administrations. President Ronald Reagan accepted the Laffer Curve hook, line, and sinker. He convinced Congress to enact deep tax cuts in 1981, and tax revenue plummeted. Despite the recovery following the recession of 1981–82, tax revenue didn't recover and, as a result, Congress enacted deep, painful spending cuts, affecting people across the country. In order to avoid even deeper cuts to programs such as supplemental nutrition assistance and Medicaid, Congress (eventually) forced President Reagan to accept tax increases. The Reagan tax cuts did not pay for themselves. [Emphasis mine.] Moreover, they ushered in a period of broad economic inequality that continues to this day." Here's the link.
I spent a lot of time pulling links that were from decent sources and posting them. Of course he didn't read them. Because, you know, he's smarter than everyone he knows. He thinks.
Jim: Right, Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and turned it around.
Me: And had 2 terms to do it.
Jim: Walmart is closing 23 stores in 8 states (all blue).
Target is closing 9 stores in 4 states (all blue).
Walgreens is closing 900 stores (mostly blue).
Bed bath and beyond is closing its remaining 360 stores.
Lowes has closed 50 stores.
Macy's is closing 150 stores (mainly blue).
Starbucks has closed 61 stores (mainly blue).
Home Depot is closing 15 stores.
Dollar Tree is closing 1,000 stores.
Foot Locker is closing 400 stores.
Gap is closing 350 stores.
Party City is closing 24 stores (mainly blue).
Big Lots is closing stores in Cali and Colorado.
Burger King is closing 400 stores.
Best Buy is closing 20 stores.
Boston Market is closing 27 stores.
Kmart only has 2 stores left.
Sears closed all but 22 stores.
Regal Cinemas has closed 429 movie theaters.
Kroger grocery chain has closed 413 stores.
US Bank is closing 23 branches.
Wells Fargo is closing over 60 branches.
Capital One is closing 50 branches.
Bank of America is closing 20 branches.
All because the economy is so wonderful.
I keep shutting him down, so he keeps trying to come up with something to stump me. This list is a meme, it was seen all over social media, it wasn't information he gathered himself.
Me: Well, I haven't shopped at Walmart in 20 years (for many reasons, but that they pay their staff so little was a big reason; I lived in Northwest Arkansas—Walton Country—back in the day and have nothing nice to say about Walmart and will leave it at that). Sears and Kmart have been practically nonexistent for 20 years, even in red states. Similarly, drug stores like Walgreens have been shutting locations all over this red state for 10 or 15 years now. A large corporation closing 15 or even a couple dozen locations isn't necessarily a sign of a bad economy; it's just good business, paying attention to where people are shopping, which communities are dying or growing, and so on. Bed Bath & Beyond has been struggling for years too—NOT just since Biden became president. Amazon and its vast array of offerings has undoubtedly played a role in American shopping habits. I am just speaking from what I have read about and have observed, and don't have time to research every item here, but I think closing stores is only half the story, and none of this makes me believe our economy is failing, as I've already said. And certainly "we were better off 4 years ago"—which one can see all over social media—is laughable.
And then he did not respond. Why? Because he kept getting nowhere. And he does this repeatedly.
• • •
I started this article, though, because here Jim is, haunting my feed, announcing he's above the fray but just wants me to defend my opinion … and yet when he makes/posts right-wing comments in his social media or in his comments there, his MAGA friends jump right in with their yeah-yeah-yeahs. I say nothing, of course, because, well, life's too short to do that sort of thing.
And so, a few days ago Jim posted a link to an article by Uri Berliner, titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust." In this particular case—a story from The Free Press, a right-wing source, about NPR—a lot of the comments at Jim's place were viciously anti-NPR. (I read them all. Some of these people were really nuts—like their guy Trump—posting comments as facts that are clearly refutable.)
Before I go further, I'll say I am an NPR fan. When I commuted out of town to work from 1991 to 2004, that's what I listened to. I don't listen to it currently because I'm not driving around that much. (I need quiet—not talk, not music—at home when I'm editing or otherwise using my brain.)
So I read the article Jim's posted. I'm not competent to comment on the thrust of the article, particularly, because, yes, I'm an old lefty. But there were things I noticed that made me think … Um, really?
Like "they didn't find Russian interference in the Mueller report." Because to my mind it was all over the place (see Seth Abramson's book Proof of Collusion) in the report but they were just "unable to establish" proof. Why? A lot of people failed to cooperate with the investigation (on purpose), there was lots of invoking of the Fifth Amendment, and several people affiliated with the Trump campaign (Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort) lied or provided incomplete information to the special counsel about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals. Wikipedia sums up,
Investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined. However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred 'in sweeping and systematic fashion' but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies myriad links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations. Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference 'deserves the attention of every American.'
That's not exactly "no evidence."
Berliner also criticized NPR's lack of coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story, in which, Wikipedia tells us, "David Folkenflik of NPR observed that the New York Post story asserted as facts things it presumed to be true." So they didn't put too much effort into a story from such a trashy source as the Post. But as time when on, we learned (again from Wikipedia),
The hard drive data had been shared with the FBI and Republican operatives such as Trump advisor Steve Bannon before it became publicly known. … Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a Republican House Oversight committee investigation in April 2024 also found no wrongdoing. … The analysis found that people other than Hunter Biden had created six new folders on the drive over a week after the original report by the New York Post and months after the laptop had been taken into FBI custody. It also found that data had been accessed and copied off the drive by people other than Hunter Biden over the course of nearly three years. (Emphasis mine.)
So, hmmmm, right?
He goes on to criticize coverage of the origination of COVID-19: "Over the course of the pandemic, a number of investigative journalists made compelling, if not conclusive, cases for the lab leak. But at NPR, we weren't about to swivel or even tiptoe away from the insistence with which we backed the natural origin story." Again, I go to Wikipedia due to their strong insistence on using original sources (which they provide and you can read), and this is what they say:
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been efforts by scientists, governments, and others to determine the origin of the SARS-CoV-2virus. Similar to other outbreaks, the virus was derived from a bat-borne virus and most likely was transmitted to humans via another animal in nature, or during wildlife trade such as that in food markets. While other explanations, such as speculations that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory have been proposed, such explanations are not supported by evidence. [Emphasis mine.] Conspiracy theories about the virus's origin have also proliferated.
Since I'd followed all three of these stories in the moment, Berliner's accusations caught my attention, and they seemed, as I've noted, "off." And the source of the Berliner story—Bari Weiss's The Free Press. Ugh. Look her up. Trouble seems to follow her. Or she makes trouble. But she and The Free Press are not and will never be on my list of trusted sources. Just looking at the "front page" of TFP gives me the willies.
You see, I don't trust sources by my politics. I trust by following, reading, and assessing (forming an opinion of trust or not) over a period of time that involves years. Folks like Tom Nichols and David French, both avowed conservatives. So I don't even have to agree with you to trust you as a source. I trust Wikipedia—because they have footnotes and I can go to the original source. And I trust this guy, Jim Wright.
I don't trust my friend Jim. It's probably time to block him from my feed, because, really, I don't need his petty shit. Or, as I told Christy:
I just try to remain calm (not easy, since I'm sitting up here pissed off 95% of the time), and we are generally cordial. Right now I have made notes on the NPR brouhaha. (Do you know about that? I was ahead of the game because Jim posted the article the guy wrote the minute it came out.) I read it, was a little sad but there were also things the guy said—like the Mueller report did not find evidence of Russian interference—which didn't sound right to me, but I really didn't have time to get all bogged down in it at that moment. I did look into where the article came from and who controlled it.
And I sent her the NPR article.
She responded.
What pisses me off about Jim is you counter his Fox News talking points with substantive, sourced arguments and he comes back at you with, like, a meme. And dumb memes. Like that "stores closing" meme. My aunt in rural Arkansas posted that and I googled the first four or five and they all have more nuance than "economy is bad" and surely Jim knows that, he's not a total dummy, but he definitely acts like that on your threads. I think he's just got bubble brain, he's not used to having to defend his positions because all he gets is reinforcement of his world view among his group.
That NPR article just sounds like someone who felt like a liberal all their life but they have calcified opinions and now they're feeling bitter about being left behind and are having a knee-jerk "maybe liberals are the villains!" reaction (see also JK Rowling). All that diversity ranting at the end, ugh, so tired of that.
But he does have a point about the lab-leak stuff, I've thought the same myself. It seemed like "lab leak" became associated with trumpy conspiracy-mongering and left-leaning journalists would argue against it so hard, but I thought it made sense to at least consider that—there was a lab in Wuhan specifically doing gain-of-function research and yet a natural origin virus was sparked there? That seems like a huge coincidence. Like, I know we don't want something like that to lead to anti-China or anti-science sentiment, but it did seem to me like there was a bit of reactionary resistance to that theory.
I followed up with her, reminding her that Jim isn't used to being talked back to by someone who was, when we worked together, his inferior in rank. (Because in a Christian publishing environment, women are always inferior—a topic I really shouldn't get started on.) Bottom line, I just want to document the fact that I'm tired of him.
No comments:
Post a Comment