Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts

Saturday, November 19, 2016

#RIPUSA NYTimes David Brooks: ""Trump Needs To Decide If He Prefers To Resign, Be Impeached Or Get Assassinated"" #AmericaHangsItsHeadInShame, #KeepTrumpInCheck,#ImpeachHimNow

David Brooks: Trump Needs To Decide If He Prefers To Resign, Be Impeached Or Get Assassinated..... not really but that is how the fake alt right "a thousand and one" bloggers all plagiarizing from one another have reported David Brooks co-opt in the NY Times of November 2016.Brook's co-opt is published here with his permission and  the NY Times.

The View From Trump Tower by David Brooks , NY Times 11 November 2016 ( unedited)


Protesters marching to Trump Tower in Manhattan the night after the election.CreditYana Paskova for The New York Times

If your social circles are like mine, you spent Tuesday night swapping miserable texts. Not all, but many of my friends and family members were outraged, stunned, disgusted and devastated. This is victory for white supremacy, people wrote, for misogyny, nativism and authoritarianism. Fascism is descending.

I was on PBS trying to make sense of what was happening while trying to text various people off the ledge. At one point I was opining about the results while a disbelieving text flashed across my phone: “Change It! Change It! CHAAAANGE IT!”

Those emotional reactions were a fitting first-night response to the greatest political shock of our lifetimes. Still, this is probably not the best mentality for the coming era.

In the first place, emotions like disgust don’t do justice to the complexity of Donald Trump’s supporters. The disgusted posture risks turning politics into a Manichaean civil war between the alleged children of light and the alleged children of darkness — between us enlightened, college-educated tolerant people and the supposed primitive horde driven by dark fears and prejudices. That crude and ignorant condescension is what feeds the Trump phenomenon in the first place.

Second, we simply don’t yet know how much racism or misogyny motivated Trump voters. It is true that those voters are willing to tolerate a lot more bigotry in their candidate than I’d be willing to tolerate. But if you were stuck in a jobless town, watching your friends OD on opiates, scrambling every month to pay the electric bill, and then along came a guy who seemed able to fix your problems and hear your voice, maybe you would stomach some ugliness, too.

Third, outrage and disgust impede learning. This century is still being formed and none of us understand it yet. The century really began on 9/11, and so far it has been marked by strong reactions against globalism and cosmopolitanism — by terrorism, tribalism and authoritarianism.

Populism of the Trump/Le Pen/Brexit variety has always been a warning sign, a warning sign that there is some deeper dysfunction in our economic, social and cultural systems. If you want to take that warning sign and dismiss it as simple bigotry, you’re never going to pause to understand what’s going on and you will never know how to constructively respond.

Finally, it seems important to be humbled and taught by this horrific election result. Trump’s main problem in governing is not going to be some fascistic ideology; his main problem is going to be his own attention span, ignorance and incompetence. If he’s left to bloviate while others are left to run the country and push through infrastructure plans, maybe things won’t be disastrous.

The job for the rest of us is to rebind the fabric of society, community by community, and to construct a political movement for the post-Trump era. I suspect the coming political movements will be identified on two axes: open and closed and individual and social.

Those who believe in open trade, relatively open immigration, an active foreign policy and racial integration. Those who believe in closed believe in protective trade, closed borders, a withdrawn foreign policy and ethnic separatism.

Those who favor individual believe in individual initiative, designing programs to incentivize enterprise and removing regulatory barriers. Those who believe in social believe that social mobility happens within rich communities — that people can undertake daring adventures when they have a secure social and emotional base.

Donald Trump is probably going to make the G.O.P. the party of individual/closed. He’s going to start with the traditional Republican agenda of getting government out of the way, and he’s going to add walls, protectionism and xenophobia. That will leave people isolated in the face of the challenges of the information age economy, and it will close off the dynamism and diversity that always marked this crossroads of the nation.

The Democrats are probably going to be the party of social/closed. The coming Sanders-Warren party will advocate proposals that help communities with early education programs and the like, but that party will close off trade, withdraw from the world, close off integration with hyper-race-conscious categories and close off debate with political correctness.

Which is why I’ve been thinking we need a third party that is social/open. This compassionate globalist party would support the free trade and skilled immigration that fuel growth. But it would also flood the zone for those challenged in the high-skill global economy — offering programs to rebuild community, foster economic security and boost mobility. It would integrate the white working class and minority groups by emphasizing that we are all part of a single American idea.

Trump’s bigotry, dishonesty and promise-breaking will have to be denounced. We can’t go morally numb. But he needs to be replaced with a program that addresses the problems that fueled his ascent.

After all, the guy will probably resign or be impeached within a year. The future is closer than you think.

and below is how David Brooks co-opt was reported  by the "alt right  news reporters and bloggers " .... Hillary Clinton lost the election because of FBI Director Comey interference in the electoral process but equally Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook  generosity in permitting the posting of fake news reports of alt right bloggers and websites  .87.8% of those who voted in the last election used Facebook as their primary source of information.  

And the question needs to be asked again and again why Facebook sledge hammers fake accounts but not fake news reports .Google once or twice gave inadvertently prominence to fake news reports wen that news report got on top of the google ranking system.Like reporting that Donald Trump also got a majority of votes nationally. 
 wrongtotal

Republished from Spinzon Conservative News ( lead article)without permission of course. The views expressed in the article printed in red are definitely and absolutely not my own or even close .

NYT David Brooks: “Trump Needs To Decide If He Prefers To Resign, Be Impeached Or Get Assassinated”
(of course he did not say that in his article)

In his Friday column, New York Times columnist David Brooks speculates about a new political dichotomy and writes that President-elect Donald Trump will “resign or be impeached within a year.” From Brooks’ column: “Finally, it seems important to be humbled and taught by this horrific election result…Trump’s bigotry, dishonesty and promise-breaking will have to be denounced. We can’t go morally numb. But he needs to be replaced with a program that addresses the problems that fueled his assent. After all, the guy will probably resign or be impeached within a year.”

However, while commenting on his column in a subsequent interview with KYRQ Radio in New York City, Brooks said, “Oh, and by the way – I forgot to mention ‘assassinated.’” The columnist then went on to say that “the whole ‘pen is mightier than the sword’ philosophy might have worked if we were talking about Hillary Clinton, but when it comes to Donald Trump, you don’t really need a pen, because he’ll bury himself soon enough.” “At the rate he’s going, I’m starting to wonder if he’ll make it through the first six months, let alone an entire year,” Brooks said.

He continued, “Here’s the thing about people like Donald Trump: they’re used to being able to use their money and their power to cover up things that they don’t like or that could damage whatever objective they’re trying to realize. Now, that works just fine when you’re a real estate billionaire who has a couple hundred eyes watching his every move; you can hide whatever you want from a crowd that tiny. However, the President of the United States not only has to answer and be scrutinized by 300 million Americans, but will likely be under the magnifying glass of all 7 billion people on the planet. Good luck trying to hide from that.”

“At some point very soon, he’s going to mess something up big time,” Brooks argued. “And when he does, he’s going to have to choose his next step carefully. It’s either going to be resigning, impeachment, or what I forgot to put in my column earlier this morning – assassination. And I don’t mean like, someone’s going to go after him with a sniper rifle or car bomb or something – I mean, he’s going to have the option of hiring someone to take him out. After all, he’s a businessman and it’s a character trait of most businessmen to spot opportunity where others see nothing. The man was always strived for martyrdom, and this is the perfect opportunity to get it. Heck, that’s the way I’d choose to go,” he said.

“And even if I’m wrong and there is someone out there getting ready to take him out, all I can say is – please dude, hurry up. This country can’t afford to wait and have laws brought forth that are going to make women throughout the country wear tight skirts and thongs as mandatory wardrobe just so us men could enjoy the view, or some other sexist, pointless piece of legislation. Please, deliver this country from the hands of an idiot with Labrador hair who thinks he’s God’s gift to mankind, and do it quick before any more damage is done,” Brooks concluded his message to potential Donald Trump assassinators.


Thursday, September 29, 2016

Holt, Google Who and What Next...God...... Donald Trump attacks 'biased' Lester Holt and accuses Google of conspiracy The Republican nominee lashes out in the wake of his poor debate showing and hints at more attacks on the Clintons’ marriage


Image result for Donald Trump attacks 'biased' Lester Holt and accuses Google of conspiracy
Donald Trump attacks 'biased' Lester Holt and accuses Google of conspiracy
The Republican nominee lashes out in the wake of his poor debate showing and hints at more attacks on the Clintons’ marriage

Republished unedited from The Guardian (UK)  ( with permission) 

Donald Trump has gone on the offensive after his underwhelming debate performance by criticizing debate moderator Lester Holt as biased and accusing Google of a conspiracy to rig search results in favor of Hillary Clinton.

He also had surrogates attack his Democrat rival for her husband’s infidelities while suggesting she wants to “strip [the United States] of its status as a sovereign nation”.

The Republican nominee launched the latest salvo of attacks in an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly where he claimed Holt “was much, much tougher on me than he was on Hillary”. Trump said that while initially “I said good things right after the show” he had changed his mind about Holt’s performance “after seeing the way he badgered and even the questions I got”.


In particular, Trump expressed his discontent over the fact that Holt asked him “the birther question” in Monday’s debate. Trump had long falsely claimed that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, an accusation widely considered to be a racist dogwhistle. Although Trump only recently acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States in an event at a Washington hotel, he falsely blamed Hillary Clinton for the conspiracy theory’s origin. He since said that he only acknowledged Obama’s actual birthplace in order to “get on with the campaign”.

Trump also introduced a new conspiracy theory the campaign on Wednesday night when he accused Google of somehow colluding with Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “Google search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton,” the Republican told a cheering crowd of supporters in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Neither Google nor the Trump campaign responded to requests for comment on this accusation. The reference to Google did not appear to be ad libbed as it was in Trump’s prepared remarks.

Also, at the rally, Trump unveiled a new accusation towards Clinton, whom he has repeatedly attacked as “a globalist”, by saying she was a “vessel for special interests ... who want to strip [the United States] of its status as a sovereign nation”. Although the former secretary of state has long favored immigration reform as well as number of free trade agreements, there is no evidence that she has ever supported stripping the United States of its sovereignty.

However, Clinton is facing scrutiny over her complicated marital history. After Trump publicly congratulated himself for not bringing up former president Bill Clinton’s past infidelities in Monday’s debate, his campaign has cited them in talking points in an attempt to rebut past crude statements about a beauty queen.
Image result for alicia machado

The statements about former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, which included calling her “Miss Piggy” for her weight and “Miss Housekeeping” in reference to her Hispanic heritage, were brought up by Hillary Clinton in Monday’s debate. Trump owned part of the Miss Universe pageant at the time.

In talking points distributed to Trump surrogates on the topic, they were told to change the topic to Monica Lewinsky and included the line “Mr Trump has never treated women the way Hillary Clinton and her husband did when they actively worked to destroy Bill Clinton’s accusers.” In interviews on Wednesday, Trump surrogates repeatedly brought the subject up. Trump himself tried to cast himself as an ally of Machado in an interview with O’Reilly. He repeatedly said “I saved her job” and added in seeming regret: “I helped somebody and this is what you get for helping somebody.”

Clinton spent the day campaigning with former rival Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire. The two tried to appeal to millennial voters by repeatedly touting Clinton’s proposal to reduce the cost of college tuition. Clinton is facing declining enthusiasm among millennial voters who were one of the key groups in the winning coalition forged by Obama in his election victories. According to a recent poll conducted by ABC/Washington Post only 49% of voters under the age of 40 said they were likely to vote in November. A similar poll in 2012 put that number at 71%. The Democratic nominee also held two fundraisers on Wednesday, one of which featured an appearance from Massachusetts senator and progressive Elizabeth Warren.


The leading third party alternative to Clinton and Trump suffered his own embarrassment on Wednesday. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for the White House, was unable to name a single foreign leader he admired in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. He referred to his inability to come up with a single name as “another Aleppo moment”. This was a reference to a televised interview several weeks ago when the former two-term governor of New Mexico, having been asked “What would you do if you were elected, about Aleppo?” on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, responded with the question “What is Aleppo?”. Johnson seemed unaware of the Syrian city which has been long under siege in the midst of that country’s civil war and the site of numerous atrocities by the Assad regime and its allies.

The candidates will return to the campaign trail on Thursday by meeting voters in states that they are long familiar with from the primaries. Clinton is holding an event in Iowa while Trump returns to the trail in New Hampshire.

Holt, Google Who and What Next...God...... Donald Trump attacks 'biased' Lester Holt and accuses Google of conspiracy The Republican nominee lashes out in the wake of his poor debate showing and hints at more attacks on the Clintons’ marriage


Image result for Donald Trump attacks 'biased' Lester Holt and accuses Google of conspiracy
Donald Trump attacks 'biased' Lester Holt and accuses Google of conspiracy
The Republican nominee lashes out in the wake of his poor debate showing and hints at more attacks on the Clintons’ marriage

Republished unedited from The Guardian (UK)  ( with permission) 

Donald Trump has gone on the offensive after his underwhelming debate performance by criticizing debate moderator Lester Holt as biased and accusing Google of a conspiracy to rig search results in favor of Hillary Clinton.

He also had surrogates attack his Democrat rival for her husband’s infidelities while suggesting she wants to “strip [the United States] of its status as a sovereign nation”.

The Republican nominee launched the latest salvo of attacks in an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly where he claimed Holt “was much, much tougher on me than he was on Hillary”. Trump said that while initially “I said good things right after the show” he had changed his mind about Holt’s performance “after seeing the way he badgered and even the questions I got”.


In particular, Trump expressed his discontent over the fact that Holt asked him “the birther question” in Monday’s debate. Trump had long falsely claimed that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, an accusation widely considered to be a racist dogwhistle. Although Trump only recently acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States in an event at a Washington hotel, he falsely blamed Hillary Clinton for the conspiracy theory’s origin. He since said that he only acknowledged Obama’s actual birthplace in order to “get on with the campaign”.

Trump also introduced a new conspiracy theory the campaign on Wednesday night when he accused Google of somehow colluding with Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “Google search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton,” the Republican told a cheering crowd of supporters in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Neither Google nor the Trump campaign responded to requests for comment on this accusation. The reference to Google did not appear to be ad libbed as it was in Trump’s prepared remarks.

Also, at the rally, Trump unveiled a new accusation towards Clinton, whom he has repeatedly attacked as “a globalist”, by saying she was a “vessel for special interests ... who want to strip [the United States] of its status as a sovereign nation”. Although the former secretary of state has long favored immigration reform as well as number of free trade agreements, there is no evidence that she has ever supported stripping the United States of its sovereignty.

However, Clinton is facing scrutiny over her complicated marital history. After Trump publicly congratulated himself for not bringing up former president Bill Clinton’s past infidelities in Monday’s debate, his campaign has cited them in talking points in an attempt to rebut past crude statements about a beauty queen.
Image result for alicia machado

The statements about former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, which included calling her “Miss Piggy” for her weight and “Miss Housekeeping” in reference to her Hispanic heritage, were brought up by Hillary Clinton in Monday’s debate. Trump owned part of the Miss Universe pageant at the time.

In talking points distributed to Trump surrogates on the topic, they were told to change the topic to Monica Lewinsky and included the line “Mr Trump has never treated women the way Hillary Clinton and her husband did when they actively worked to destroy Bill Clinton’s accusers.” In interviews on Wednesday, Trump surrogates repeatedly brought the subject up. Trump himself tried to cast himself as an ally of Machado in an interview with O’Reilly. He repeatedly said “I saved her job” and added in seeming regret: “I helped somebody and this is what you get for helping somebody.”

Clinton spent the day campaigning with former rival Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire. The two tried to appeal to millennial voters by repeatedly touting Clinton’s proposal to reduce the cost of college tuition. Clinton is facing declining enthusiasm among millennial voters who were one of the key groups in the winning coalition forged by Obama in his election victories. According to a recent poll conducted by ABC/Washington Post only 49% of voters under the age of 40 said they were likely to vote in November. A similar poll in 2012 put that number at 71%. The Democratic nominee also held two fundraisers on Wednesday, one of which featured an appearance from Massachusetts senator and progressive Elizabeth Warren.


The leading third party alternative to Clinton and Trump suffered his own embarrassment on Wednesday. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for the White House, was unable to name a single foreign leader he admired in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. He referred to his inability to come up with a single name as “another Aleppo moment”. This was a reference to a televised interview several weeks ago when the former two-term governor of New Mexico, having been asked “What would you do if you were elected, about Aleppo?” on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, responded with the question “What is Aleppo?”. Johnson seemed unaware of the Syrian city which has been long under siege in the midst of that country’s civil war and the site of numerous atrocities by the Assad regime and its allies.

The candidates will return to the campaign trail on Thursday by meeting voters in states that they are long familiar with from the primaries. Clinton is holding an event in Iowa while Trump returns to the trail in New Hampshire.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Google excluding Palestine to please customers by Richard Millett


 Google excluding Palestine to please customers by Richard Millett ( Guest)



maps
The Guardian’s weapon of choice on Monday against the Jewish state was maps with Petter Hellström, a PhD candidate at the Department of History of Science and Ideas, Uppsala University, claiming, in the Science section, that Google “chose not to mark Palestine on their maps…to stay impartial in the eyes of customers and the surrounding society…their fellow westerners.”
Once again this article would have been more at home in the opinion section.
Hellström complains that Google’s Map of Israel shows Israeli population centre Ma’ale Adumin on the West Bank but “not even major (Palestinian) ones like Gaza City, Khan Yunis or Nablus”.
He then reproduces two maps of North America from 1614 and 1729 which he claims “made the colonists visible at the expense of the indigenous population” and which he calls “instruments of colonial legitimisation”, the obvious inference being that Google is doing the same to the Palestinians.
He also reproduces an Israeli government map which doesn’t delineate the West Bank and Gaza as separate from Israel while accepting that the Palestinians do the same with their maps but giving the Palestinian action a more innocent gloss:
“Palestinian maps often label the whole country as Palestine – effectively a refusal to acknowledge the development since 1948.”
Hellström then invokes anti-Zionist Israeli historian Meron Benvenisti who “described the process with which the Israeli state Hebraized the place-names of the country they had conquered”.
Hellström quotes Benvenisti:
“The Hebrew map of Israel constitutes one stratum in my consciousness, underlaid by the stratum of the previous Arab map.”
Hellström also invokes that ambiguous 173 year old phrase originated by Christian evangelicals “a land without a people for a people without a land” but which Hellström attributes more directly to “the architects of Israel.” The phrase is now commonly employed as an epithet against Israel’s supporters.
Hellström took his cue from the Forum of Palestinian Journalists when they “accused Google of removing Palestine from their maps.”
His main concern is “whether Palestine and its people exist at all” and is under the impression that there was once a country called Palestine because “It is there on old paper maps, of the Holy Land, of the Roman and Ottoman empires, of the British mandate.”
But it was the “British Mandate for Palestine”, merely an administrative name. And on Ottoman maps Palestine was subsumed as a part of southern Syria.
Meanwhile, Palestine’s current status is as a UN non-member observer state having failed to join the international body as a full member state.
Irrespective of all the above I was bemused anyway because when you play around with Google maps of Israel and Palestine and zoom in closer than Palestinian population centres do appear.
Furthermore, Google’s map for Palestine has a sidebar showing Wikipedia’s definition of Palestine’s current UN status. Google, itself, even puts Palestine’s capital at “East Jerusalem” instead of the, arguably, more accurate Ramallah.
Here’s the link to Google’s map of Palestine:
I wrote to Hellström for clarification of his criticism. His response (which I publish in full below at his request if I was going to quote from it) was that Israeli population centres are disproportionately represented, that the Google sidebar is, depending on your device and settings, not necessarily always available, and that the content of Wikipedia is not stable.
He has a point to the extent that Google’s map of Palestine isn’t labelled. There is an argument that it could be labelled “Palestinian territories” or, “administered Palestinian territories” with delineated Areas A, B and C or, even, “non-member observer state”. Some might prefer “Judea and Samaria”.
It would just be inaccurate to refer to it as Palestine.
Hellström’s article could, quite validly, have gone down this road of discussion, but by directly implicating Israel and its creation in all this and suggesting that Google might have some financial agenda is to go down a far more sinister route. 
Petter Hellström’s response to my email (23rd August 2016):
Dear Richard,
Many thanks for your e-mail. I am only happy to clarify what I wanted to say in the article; the short online format is not always helpful to give full disclosure of an argument.
First, it is not my main contention that the name of Palestine is absent from Google Maps. My argument is rather that this absence – like the relative absence of Palestinian place names – is significant, that it can tell us something, and that it matters.
If you search for Israel on Google Maps, the map centres on the State of Israel. It displays Israeli place-names, both in Israel proper and on the West Bank (Ma’ale Adumin), but no Palestinian place names, even as several Palestinian urban centres are significantly larger than the Israeli urban centres labelled (most striking is the labelling of Yotvata, pop. 700,while Gaza City, pop. 515,556, is not labelled; but even on the Palestinian territories there is a preference for Israeli urban centres, since only Ma’ale Adumin is labelled on the West Bank, although significantly smaller than several of the adjacent Palestinian urban centres). Since 19 August, in response to criticism, Google Maps also labels the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (even as it is not clear what status they enjoy). As you zoom in on the region, Palestinian place names start to appear along more Israeli place names. However, their respective representation is still disproportionate (Israeli urban centres show up at a much lower resolution than Palestinian urban centres of comparable size).
Now, if you search for Palestine on Google Maps, as you did, the map centres instead on the West Bank (you are in fact shown the same map image as if you searched for the West Bank). This map image is consequently of higher resolution, and thus more place names are shown, both in Israel and on the Palestinian territories. Their disproportionate representation is still apparent (the map image is, in fact, the same as the one you get if you first search for Israel, zoom in, and move the centre from Israel proper to the West Bank).
The Google Maps interface sometimes shows – depending on your settings and your device – a sidebar with a link to Wikipedia. It is Wikipedia, not Google Maps, that describes Palestine as ”a de jure sovereign state in the Middle East that is recognized by 136 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member observer state” and which states East Jerusalem as its capital. The content of Wikipedia is not stable but changing depending on contributors. As far as I know, Google exerts no power over it, they merely provide the link. If you search for Jerusalem on Google Maps, it is clearly stated as located in Israel, not as in Israel and in Palestine.
In conclusion, Google Maps shows Israel but not Palestine, although both are states recognised by the UN as well as by most of the world’s independent states (Palestine is presently recognised by 136 and Israel by 161 UN member states). Moreover, and importantly, Google Maps shows Israeli presence in Israel and the Palestinian territories disproportionately more than it represents Palestinian presence.
Having said all this, it was not the purpose of my article to pass judgment on Google or to suggest how they should produce their maps in the future. Others are more willing to do this. My objective was rather to say that Palestine’s absence on Google Maps, like the relative absence of Palestinians, has precedents in the history of cartography; my example was New England, both because I thought it would speak to an Anglophone and predominantly British and American audience, but also because Harley made his argument about New England in reference to Israeli policies). My objective was also to say that history shows us that cartographic omission matters, especially when a state or country is in military occupation of another people, whose lands it is confiscating.
I hope this clarifies my argument. Again I thank you for your polite e-mail.
If you publish my reply on your blog or in any other forum, I would appreciate that you publish it in its entirety, rather than using only parts of it.
Best regards,
Petter Hellström