MAGA Media Stars are Funded by Russia & Goldman Sachs Says Economy would be Worse Under Trump
Just wanted to let everybody know, I am adding a new feature to my Substack starting today, that I hope you will try out and give me your feedback in the comments. With the help of AI-assisted audio, you can now hear me read my entire Substack newsletter by pressing the audio button below. This first audio will be available to everyone, including unpaid subscribers.
What I’m Discussing Today:
Kareem’s Daily Quote: Einstein reminds us what we should strive to become.
DOJ Bombshell Alleges MAGA Media Group Is Backed by Russian Money: Russia supports Trump, just as they did before. Why?
Trump Proposes Ban on Criticizing Pro-Trump Judges: You read right. Free speech is only for Trump supporters.
Goldman Sachs report: Harris would likely boost the economy while Trump would stifle growth: The myth that Republicans are better for the economy has been burst.
Kareem’s Video Break: Sometimes you just can’t help expressing your joy.
Do you need religion to be a moral person?: Religion can be an invaluable support system for people trying to do the right thing. But it’s important we do the right thing for the right reasons.
No Comment Needed: Wanna see something both gross and fascinating?
Kareem’s Kvetching Korner: One of my favorite news sources goes wrong on this story.
Lenny Welch Sings “Since I Fell for You”: His voice is like a clear, cool Colorado stream.
Kareem’s Daily Quote
Try not to become a man of success. Rather become a man of value.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
I hate to edit Einstein, but right away I’m going to replace “man” with “person,” which he would probably have done himself if he were alive today: Try not to become a person of success. Rather become a person of value.
Again, this seems simple enough when first reading it. But you know me by now and nothing is as simple as it seems. The surface meaning is obvious: Chasing the glories of success is often a hollow and disappointing journey of selfishness. It’s better to focus on the qualities that make one valuable to others, which in the end is much more rewarding.
Sure, but those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. A person can pursue success—as a doctor, a scientist, a teacher, an artist—without giving up their humanity. The quote implies that success is too often defined by money. By how big your super yacht is. By how many homes or cars you own.
The quote starts with “Try not to become…,” implying that it’s not success that diminishes a person, it’s trying to become a success. It suggests that the pursuit of success can consume us so that we forego the pursuit of being a better person. The mistake is easy to make because when you are successful, you have people flocking around making you feel like you are valuable to them. In reality, you are often nothing more than a tool in their pursuit of success. Whereas a person of value strives to positively affect others’ lives, often without them even knowing.
2024 Election Bites
DOJ Bombshell Alleges MAGA Media Group Is Backed by Russian Money (The Daily Beast)
SUMMARY: A Tennessee-based media company with prominent MAGA personalities on its roster has been accused of receiving millions of dollars from two employees of Russian state-backed media company Russia Today (RT) in order to influence American viewers.
According to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, the Russian employees created a $10 million scheme “to create and distribute content to U.S. audiences with hidden Russian government messaging.”
While described as “U.S. Company 1” in an unsealed indictment Wednesday, clues suggest that it is Tenet Media, which has been named in various reports as the firm in question.
The indictment describes how Company-1’s website describes itself as a “network of heterodox commentators that focus on Western political and cultural issues.” It employs six commentators as its “talent.”
The far-right YouTube commentators on Tenet Media’s roster include Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, Taylor Hansen, Lauren Southern, and Matt Christiansen. The indictment does not name names, but identifies the internet personalities simply as “Commentator-1” and “Commentator-2”.
The Daily Beast reached out to Pool, Rubin, and Tenet for comment but did not receive an immediate reply. Johnson, however, said in a statement on X: “We are disturbed by the allegations in today’s indictment, which make clear that myself and other influencers were victims in this alleged scheme.”
MY TAKE: If these accusations are true, Russia paid $10 million to promote pro-Trump messaging. This would make conservative commentator Tim Pool et al unwitting propaganda tools of Russia. If Trump was such a tough negotiator with Russia, they wouldn’t be working so hard to get him elected.
Heather Cox Richardson describes the goals of this propaganda ploy:
In August 2023 [Russia] launched the “Good Old USA Project” to target swing-state residents, online gamers, American Jews, and “US citizens of Hispanic descent” to reelect Donald Trump. "They are afraid of losing the American way of life and the ‘American dream,’” one of the propagandists wrote. “It is these sentiments that should be exploited in the course of an information campaign in/for the United States.” Using targeted ads on Facebook, they could see how their material was landing and use bots and trolls to push their narrative in comment sections.
Trump’s campaign has followed this same Russian script by warning of increased crime (FBI statistics say crime is way down) and the collapse of the American Dream, which only he can save (though he did nothing to “save” it while he was president).
Trump has publicly confessed that the best way to attack opponents in America is to call them communists, Marxists, and socialists because his base doesn’t really know what those terms mean or how they are different. They’ve been raised to believe that these are terms associated with anti-democratic dictators. Americans associate these terms with Russia, China, North Korea, and Hungary (among other countries), even though the political reality is more complex. Trump’s supporters fail to grasp the irony of being encouraged to hate communism, Marxism, and socialism while voting for the politician openly embraced by the leaders of these countries. As Marvin Gaye said, “Make me want to holler.”
FYI: How exactly does some media help promote Trump’s messaging? Let’s look at a recent White House press meeting in which a Fox reporter asked an inane question: “Since when does the vice president have what sounds like a Southern accent?” (“WH Press Sec Shuts Down Fox Reporter’s ‘Insane’ Kamala Harris Question”). The question was above to two different speeches, one in Detroit and one in Pittsburgh, in which Kamala Harris repeated the same line but in one she’s more animated (which right-wingers have interpreted as a “Southern accent.”) Why ask this question at all? If they are implying she changes her accent to appeal more to certain audiences that makes no sense in this context. The real reason is more sinister: “Southern accent” is racist code for Black accent, which is racist code for uneducated and lazy. Fox wanted to remind their base of the 200-year-old stereotype they hold so dear.
Trump Proposes Ban on Criticizing Pro-Trump Judges (New York)
SUMMARY: Over the weekend, Donald Trump expressed in a speech his belief that public criticism of judges and Supreme Court justices who rule in Trump’s favor should be illegal.
Trump took this position expressly, twice, in his speech, albeit in a stream-of-consciousness riff. His basic point was that public critics of Trump-appointed judges who make rulings Trump approves of are “working the refs.”
Trump first claimed this is illegal. (“I really think it’s illegal what they do, with judges and justices. They’re playing the ref.”) Later in the speech, he said it ought to be illegal. (“Remember the term. Playing the ref with our judges and justices should be punishable by very serious fines and beyond that.”)
In the middle of these two statements, he managed, in typical Trumpian fashion, to strip away any pretense of intellectual consistency by (1) saying that “working the refs” is wonderful and brilliant, because it was done by his friend, Bobby Knight, the former Indiana basketball coach who endorsed him, leading to Trump winning Indiana by a landslide, and (2) immediately making his own criticism of judges who rule against him. “The New York court system is totally corrupt,” Trump said.
A law against criticizing judges would be highly problematic, of course, but that is obviously not what Trump wants, since he sandwiched his calls for such a law around criticism of judges who ruled against him. Trump wants to ban criticizing judges who rule the way Trump wants them to rule.
MY TAKE: A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with most experts that passing any laws that punish judges for not ruling Trump’s way was illegal, unconstitutional, and had no chance of happening. But the current U.S. Supreme Court has shaken my faith in the protections of the U.S. Constitution.
It’s less important that such laws are currently unconstitutional than that (1) Trump doesn’t know that and (2) doesn’t care that this would be censorship and interfering with the judicial system. Worse, his followers don’t care about his ignorance or his hostility toward the U.S. Constitution.
That fits in with general ignorance about the U.S. Constitution as this chart shows. A poll asked people what rights were guaranteed by the First Amendment: 48% correctly identified free speech (which Trump wants to eliminate) as one of the rights. But the next highest group was Can’t name any/I don’t know. Patriots or posers?
Goldman Sachs report: Harris would likely boost the economy while Trump would stifle growth (SALON)
SUMMARY: Former President Donald Trump has been describing President Joe Biden's administration as a disaster for the economy while presenting himself as the man who will correct course. But analysts from Goldman Sachs warn that it's Trump who would jeopardize an economic recovery with wrongheaded ideas on trade, immigration and other issues.
According to a report released by the investment bank on Tuesday and shared with several news outlets, Trump's policies, if implemented, could cut into the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as half a percentage point in 2025 before it rebounds. Even a small decrease in GDP or just slow growth could lead to widespread unemployment, pay cuts and struggling businesses.
“We estimate that if Trump wins in a sweep or with divided government, the hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive fiscal impulse,” the report said, echoing previous warnings by economists who say that Trump's proposals to raise tariffs and cut taxes will also increase the deficit and inflation rate, not lower them as he has promised.
MY TAKE: I’m not an economist so a lot of the figures bandied about mean very little to me anymore than a surgeon throwing Latin terms at me. So, I have to read what the majority of experts say, try to understand their reasoning, and then decide. Back in June, I commented on an article from Reuters: “16 Nobel Prize-winning economists say Trump policies will fuel inflation.” Seemed pretty damning. Now, we have Goldman Sachs, a conservative financial institution, warning us against Trump’s economic policies.
One Trump defender argued that the Consumer Confidence Index and the Small Business Confidence Index were a few points higher under Trump than under Biden. But that measures confidence, not actual economic growth. Part of American political mythology is that Republicans are stronger on economic issues, which explains their perception of confidence. However, when it comes to actual experts—16 Nobel Prize-winning economists! and Goldman Sachs—confidence is very low. When your appendix bursts, who ya gonna call? The neighbor who’s confident he can operate because he’s watched all 20 seasons of Grey’s Anatomy—or the emergency room doctor?
Kareem’s Video Break
I’ve decided this is how I’m going to celebrate each day. But in my mind.
Do you need religion to be a moral person? (Big Think)
SUMMARY: (Excerpted from Inheritance: The Evolutionary Origins of the Modern World by Harvey Whitehouse, published by The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.)
If asked what the most important social consequences of religion are, many people would say it is that religious beliefs make us act more morally. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2007 showed that in answer to the question ‘Do you need to believe in God to be moral?’, the overwhelming majority of people in countries outside Europe said yes.
But surprisingly, perhaps, scientists remain divided on the question. Part of the reason for this is that there are many gods and many moral systems, and it isn’t always clear what we mean when we refer to either religion or morality. Nevertheless, one might still ask whether morality is in some way integral to religiosity bias. Do our intuitive ideas about the afterlife, contagion, or intelligent design fundamentally alter our moral behavior? Socrates posed a similar question when he asked whether goodness is loved by the gods because it is good or whether goodness is good because it is loved by the gods.
The science of morality
Today, some of the best answers to this question come not from Greek philosophy but from scientific research. Studies led by my colleague Oliver Scott Curry have shown that much of human morality is rooted in a single preoccupation: cooperation. More specifically, seven principles of cooperation are judged to be morally good everywhere and form the bedrock of a universal moral compass. Those seven principles are: help your kin, be loyal to your group, reciprocate favors, be courageous, defer to superiors, share things fairly, and respect other people’s property.
This new idea was quite a big deal because up until then it seemed quite reasonable to assert – as cultural relativists have always done – that there are no moral universals, and each society has therefore had to come up with its own unique moral compass. As I will explain, this is not the case. Moreover, the same seven principles of cooperation on which these moral ideas are based are found in a wide range of social species and are not unique to human beings. These moral intuitions evolved because of their benefits for survival and reproduction. Genetic mutations favoring cooperative behaviors in the ancestors of social species, such as humans, conferred a reproductive advantage on the organisms adopting them, with the result that more copies of those genes survived and spread in ensuing generations. Take the principle that we should care for (and avoid harm to) members of our family. This moral imperative likely evolved via the mechanism of ‘kin selection’, which ensures that we behave in ways that increase the chances of our genes being passed on by endeavoring to help our close genetic relatives to stay alive and produce offspring. Loyalty to group, on the other hand, evolves in social species that do better when acting in a coordinated way rather than independently. Reciprocity (the idea that I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine) leads to benefits that selfish action alone cannot accomplish. And deference to superiors is another way of staying alive, in this case by allocating positions of dominance or submission in a coordinated fashion rather than both parties fighting to the death.
MY TAKE: The belief that we need a god to act morally is one of the most insulting things you can say about humanity. It means that we are incapable of devising a set of moral standards that benefits society most and that we lack the strength to live up to those standards without fear of a supernatural being punishing us.
Theoretically, democracies like the U.S., England, France, and others are proof that societies can cherish and preserve diverse religious beliefs without the need to infuse them into the government. Only those who believe the worst about human beings—and themselves—are eager to have their religion take over a non-denominational government.
Some religions are like pyramid schemes, teaching their followers to “multiply” as well as sending missionaries to overwhelm other religions with numbers, which translates into money and power.
The main reason society exists is to create a safe place to raise our children to continue the species. Politics involves differing opinions about the best way to make it safe. Some think it’s only safe if everyone believes in exactly what they do. Others find it safer when there are a variety of beliefs and behaviors as long as they stay within certain principles.
Sure, no one can live up to a religion’s or society’s moral standards all of the time. Sometimes we’re emotional and irrational and self-indulgent and petty and—well, the list goes on. We can worship with those like-minded individuals or we can choose not to. But always striving to do the right thing—and not making lame excuses and justifications when we don’t—is what makes us more human.
Religion can be an invaluable support system for people trying to do the right thing. Many religions’ teachings make sense as moral guidelines even if you remove gods from the equation. Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, be charitable, etc. But it’s important we do the right thing for the right reasons: To choose through our own rational thinking what we believe is right, not because we’re afraid of punishment if we don’t.
For some, God doesn’t punish but offers love, and that makes them feel good about themselves and their place in what otherwise is an indifferent universe. That’s great. But the question here is whether or not we need a god to act morally and there are too many who insist that not only isn’t it possible, but that anyone who doesn’t adhere to their religion and embrace their god is automatically immoral. And that kind of narcissistic thinking is, well, immoral. Treating others the way you want to be treated still makes a lot of sense—and requires no religion or fear of god’s wrath.
No Comment Needed
I was reading an article in Smithsonian Magazine (“These Stunning Portraits of Insects Reveal the Intricacies of an Amazing World”) praising German photographer Thorben Danke’s revealing shots of insects, when I came across this photo of a caterpillar that looks like a yellow dachshund. I was at once thrilled, disgusted, fascinated, and creeped out. I can’t take my eyes off it. I’m still processing my jumbled reactions. What about you?
Kareem’s Kvetching Korner
This is where I can indulge my pettiness about minor things that bug me but aren’t worth getting outraged about.
On September 3, The Daily Beast ran this story: “MAGA North Carolina Guv Candidate Was Regular at Porn Shop: Employee.” Their claim: “Republican North Carolina gubernatorial candidate and current Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson bought ‘hundreds’ of bootleg porn videos and went to a porn shop nearly every day of the week in the ’90s and early 2000s, according to a new report.”
To be clear, Mark Robinson is a horrible politician who is bad for North Carolina, bad for the U.S., bad for women, bad for Christians, and bad for Black people. That fact that someone so toxic and uninformed was ever elected is a stain on North Carolina voters. But whether or not he bought a bunch of porn 20 or so years ago is irrelevant. If the attempt was to prove he’s hypocritical because he’s an evangelical Christian, it doesn’t fly. Buying porn two decades ago—or even last week—doesn’t make him less devout. If he murdered someone or defrauded someone or punched someone, then I’d say that’s relevant news. He called the Holocaust “hogwash,” called Muslims “invaders,” insulted feminists, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., called abortion “murder” (yet doesn’t consider himself a murderer for the abortion he and his wife experienced 30 years ago). All of that makes him a bad representative. Buying porn may be icky for some, but doesn’t relate to his fitness to be elected.
I don’t want him anywhere in politics ever. But I also don’t want responsible journalists (The Daily Beast is one of my favorite news sources) to promote giddy stories that are more salacious than informative.
Kareem’s Jukebox Playlist
Lenny Welch: “Since I Fell for You” (1963)
The blues ballad and jazz standard “Since I Fell for You” was written almost 20 years before Lenny Welch’s popular 1963 recording. Welch had sung the song often with his high school doo-wop group. Everyone knew the song from The Harptones’ 1954 version. Previous recordings had omitted the “When you just give love” intro. It eventually made it to number 4 on Billboard’s Hot 100.
This is one of those soulful songs of lost love that immediately puts you in a relaxed mood. It shouldn’t. After all, this is a song about deep sadness: “I get the blues most every night.” Maybe it’s the sense of shared misery that is so calming. Or maybe it’s Lenny Welch’s dulcet tone of universal longing. I don’t know. I just know that it never fails to wrap me up in a cozy blanket and hand me a hot chocolate.
“Here’s hoping a cozy a cozy blanket and a hot chocolate will see me through”.
Here’s hoping we see some poetry from you to see us through!
Lenny Welch singing that song always puts me in a melancholy world.
Hoping for a landslide in November. So tired of trump.
Love trumps hate.
Kareem I love your Substack and am grateful for all you do. And, as the proud mom of an entomologist (bug scientist), who loves bugs so much that they changed their name from Emma to Bug, I'm grateful you shared the bug photography story. Insects are so vital to our world and saving them keeps us alive as well. Another really cute bug if you've not seen them, is the rubber ducky isopod. If you do a google search for that term you can see them and they are wonderful.
Also, as a former interfaith hospice chaplain who served patients of all faiths, no faiths, and spiritual but not religious identified, your piece on religion and morals in this issue really spoke to me. And if truth be told, I never had one patient feel it was important to tell me what political party they were part of. Rather, they were in their human-ness and were more worried about if they would be remembered, if they could reconcile with a family member, if they had enough strength to go outside and feel the sun shine on their face just one more time. If religion is helpful to people, that is wonderful, but if it being helpful to someone, harms others in the process, that is terrible. Treating people as you would want to be treated is a superb way to live. One thing I've always found fascinating is how The Beatitudes taught by Jesus and the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha are equivalent in number, form, and content. Thank you for all you do to make the world a better place.