Live data from Hacker News

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

cpb.org

401–410 of 596 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US is so weird right now. The weirdness started in 90s. First it was cultural (TV in 90s, Jerry Springer et al). Then it was electoral (hanging Chads anyone?). Then it was constitutional (Patriot Act). Then it was psychological (all those spooks running various "alt" Q etc.). And now it is lobotomy time. Took almost 3 decades but here we are.

> The weirdness started in 90s. I think this is mostly just an artifact of when you starting paying attention in your life, discounting what happened before, you are likely around 50 years old. Remember there was the Vietnam war casus belli that was faked, the student protests and shootings, and Nixon spying on his opponents and before that there was the red scare, the Hollywood black list and segregation in the Sout…

Certainly true. Plus, I 'arrived' in America in '79 at a tender age when everyone wore k-mart suits (in two colors: egg shell, and powder blue /g).

> Remember there was the Vietnam war casus belli that was faked

That's not weirdness. We did that back in the day in Cuba and the Spanish-American war. Weirdness in this context is a nation changing its character, in a "weird" way.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts have so far been exceptionally weak. Hey, you're not allowed to send those people on the plane! The plane already left even though I told you not to send it? Well, you gotta get them back! You're not sending them back? I'll just keep telling you that you have to do it, that'll really show you! Oh, pretty please, would you return that man you illegally sent to that torture prison? No? Oh, ok, well would you…

What the fuck are they supposed to do? They don't have their own independent military and police force. Constitutions, laws, democracies are a fragile illusion that disappear the second enough people stop believing that they're real.

That’s the point they are making.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh...it is so much worse than that. Trump has no idea what he is doing, it has been very clear in interviews. In the first admin, it was the adults in the room, the thing is, it's not yes men this time...it's the villians in the room. Trump is being handed EOs that he doesn't have a clue about. For all the talk about P2025 and denial of any relation to it, they have done roughly 50% of the actions in the project alr…

> Trump is being handed EOs that he doesn't have a clue about. Probably like every president before him. No president like CEOs can know everything about the organization they head. They are mostly the face and mouthpiece, and depend on chiefs and VPs to tell them what needs to be done according to the agenda that CEO or president has put forth.

Definitely, Biden certainly as well. I would argue that this is mostly a modern thing. EOs were far less common in the past and I would argue that far younger presidents often were far more in control of their admin. At the very least, they understood the paper they were signing.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#405
post #50
post #3

The US is so weird right now. You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes. Also arresting and trying to deport people for things that are not clearly crimes (newspaper op-eds, etc) and without due process. Very strange times. Right now I have some faith the…

Weird is not the term for it. I'd say suspension of due process is terrifying .

It's happened before, both recently (since 2001), but Executive Order 9066 happened over 80 years ago, in the 19th century the US literally passed a Habeas Corpus Suspension Act.

America puts too much faith in its courts and constitution.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#406
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this as a firm conservative. The courts have so far been outstanding, despite all the inappropriate pressure. I have no doubt they will continue to be. I'm also quite impressed with conservative voters who are speaking out to their conservative representatives. Ultimately though, despite many many calls not to do so, Congress has goven the executive branch unheard of powers. Executive power needs to be reigned…

The funny thing is, that the GOP is not "conservative," in any way, whatsoever. They are extreme. The definition of "conservative" means "not-extreme." It is not just "not-liberal." It means being thoughtful, cautious, sticking with the mainstream, learning from the past, not discarding learned wisdom, etc. Things like anti-abortion, hate-brown-people, put-women-back-in-the-kitchen-or-the-bedroom etc. stuff is often…

> The definition of "conservative" means "not-extreme."

No, it really doesn't. I mean, yes, that's a definition of "conservative" in common language, but it has never been the definition of "conservative" as a label of political ideology; like many words, "conservative" means different things in different contexts.

Saying, in a discussion of political ideologies, that "conservative" means "not extreme" is like saying in a discussion of programming paradigms that "functional" means "designed to be practical and useful, rather than attractive". That is absolutely a definition of the word, but not the one relevant to the context at hand.

As a political ideology label, "conservative" was defined in reaction and opposition to liberalism and the outward distribution of power away from traditional institutional, hereditary, economic, and religious elites that it represented, and refers to the defense of the privilege and power of such elites and the traditions that sustain and emanate from them within the politico-economic system.

Now, over time since then, as there has been more progress made by liberal and other newer forces against the elites of the time that distinction arose, and even sometimes against the newer elites that arose because of early liberal successes like the bourgeoisie who displaced the feudal aristocracy as the ruling class in the capitalist world, to see their own power somewhat eroded in the transition to mixed economies, there has come to be a distinction sometimes made between plain "conservative" being the a sort of mostly-status-quo-ist defense of current elites that mostly opposes weakening their power and favors very modest steps to shore it up, versus reactionaries that favor more extreme action either to deeply retrench the power of status quo elites or to actually wind back power to past-but-currently-displaced elites -- but even in that terminology reactionaries do not stand in opposition to conservatism but simply stand further out in the same direction. There is a good argumen that the GOP was transitioned over time from plain conservative to outright reactionary, but that's not a change in direction.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#407

[flagged]

Convincing yourself that Trump is just dumb is a big part of why we're in this mess. Trump knows very well how to achieve his goals. The problem with Trump is his lack of any discernible ethics, morality, or compassion. Not his lack of ability to gain power and accomplish his goals.

If you listen to him speak, he is not a smart person. What baffles me is how and why you'd think he was anything but an idiot.

Everything about him and his actions and words reek of stupidity. He does not hold any understanding of the complexities of anything. He does not write. When he does, he misspells and uses incorrect grammar. He does not read. He has rudimentary understanding of basics. Etc.

So why is it that you find him to be intelligent? What exactly does he say or write that would lead you to this conclusion?

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that article wasn't an interview with an author who wrote a book that took that stance? Having a conversation with someone who has arguably extremist views is very different from holding that extremist view.

Is it? Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist. Someone else in this thread posted a diffed view of the interview demonstrating how NPR reshaped the article a week after publication. Very, very instructive.

> Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist.

Steve Inskeep did 30 minutes with Steve Bannon this week. They did a piece with Chris Rufo yesterday (he's the guy that got right wing media to start freaking out about CRT, and then DEI). But please, do go on clutching your pearls about the WORST POSSIBLE THING EVER: PROPERTY DAMAGE!! Nope, not civil rights violations or gleefully platforming some of the most objectively harmful viewpoints on modern politics, nope, it's PROPERTY DAMAGE that is absolutely the most important possible thing to get upset about.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#409

The idea that Congress can set up agencies that are outside the control of the Executive needs to be revisited. It leads to rogue, unaccountable bureaucracy.

They are, at minimum, accountable to congress, therefore that is a lie.

There is a reason the US has three branches of government instead of one despite misguided individuals that believe otherwise.

Whether they are “co-equal” depends on who you ask but it is a lie to claim they are not accountable when their accountability is to congress directly via funding.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#410
From my understanding other presidents, on both sides, have pushed the boundaries/limits of executive orders but, as far as I understand it, his use is unprecedented. I had to read the wiki on them, but it's not supposed to be used outside of the executive branch unless supported by law or the constitution. I guess the grey area is "implied" in the below portion from Wikipedia.

"The delegation of discretionary power to make such orders is required to be supported by either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself"

If something were to be de-funded, it should be done by the congress as that's where it was initially funded right?

It seems to me the our checks and balances are failing. The judicial branch, at least at the highest level, seems to be mostly supporting him, even when they don't have much or any constitutional ground to do so.

Post reply on HN