Many US Army Corps of Engineers projects are environmental disasters by design irrespective of politics. That it has become a political staking goat by Republicans to take pride in intentionally doing unnecessary environmental damage or deny essentially unequivocal science showing harms is further evidence of how perverse the “partisan divide” has become and that there are not two equally balanced positions on those issues.
To be clear, there has long been an issue with racism in the military, and a contingent of white supremacy. But for the most part overt racism was limited to a minority contingent of enlisted personnel and junior officers in the post-integration era; senior officers and especially those aspiring to flag rank, either moderated their views or kept silent out of institutional conformance, and also because the modern armed services would be severely understaffed if not for recruiting and promoting minorities. But Michael Flynn certainly demonstrates that there is some contingent of bigotry in the higher ranks.
Quite aside from that, however, is that while military officers are drilled on their responsibility to “preserve and defend the Constitution” as their highest duty, you can certainly find officers who do otherwise in furtherance of promotion by currying favor with a leader, and the President as Commander-In-Chief can reassign or dismiss officers at his or her discretion until the find those who will obey illegal orders. I doubt a hypothetical President Trump could find enough sycophants to replace the entire senior command structure but even a few are enough to create churn at the leadership level and kick off an attempt at ‘rounding up’ immigrants, and absent of contrary legal guidance most junior officers are not going to go against orders from on high. We invaded Iraq in 2003 under pretenses most people suspected were false, and virtually no one in the military leadership or Congress (except for Representative Barbara Lee balked at starting an illegal war.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the notion that the editorial board of the Washington Post endorsing Kamala Harris is creating the perception of ‘liberal bias’ in their hard news reporting that is pushing away conservative news consumers is so obtuse it is hard to begin describing how wrong that is. Setting aside the fact that the Washington Post gives editorial column inches to not only conservative (if anti-Trump) commentator George Will but also to Trump flag bearers Marc A. Thiessen and Hugh Hewitt would seem to obviate the basis of that claim. The reality is that most conservatives (and all Trump advocates) aren’t seeking non-biased news sources; instead, they are embracing those with very evident biases in the direction that supports their views like Fox News, OANN, Newsmax, et cetera, which are perfectly happy to not only endorse Trump but spread obvious propaganda and easily fact-checked lies for him at every opportunity.
Even if the Washington Post hadn’t established the precedent of regularly endorsed a candidate for the presidency for the last four decades one can argue that they should do so now because while you might argue that they shouldn’t have a bias for a particular political viewpoint, they should have a bias for fact and integrity (as well as, I would argue, for maintaining and strengthening democratic institutions which includes a free press performing investigative journalism and publishing editorial criticism), and in this case there is a clear distinction in this regard between one candidate who is essentially honest and has a long history in service of democratic institutions, and the other who not only lies so reflexively that he can’t even keep them straight or coherent and has a long record of corruption but actively incited insurrection and tried to interfere with fair election processes, and who by he way has expressed naked ambition to be a dictator. For the publisher and owner of the Washington Post to ignore the paper’s editorial board intent to endorse Harris is not only an unconscionable and unethical act but it is also an abrogation of the one principle that a newspaper or medial outlet should fundamentally stand for; informing the public about an imminent danger to civil society and democratic freedom.
It’s fucking cowardly for someone with the profile and influence of multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos to not stand up and back the Washington Post editorial board in making an endorsement for Harris regardless of what it costs him, and even (or perhaps especially) if it makes no practical difference in the election, because fighting for freedom is fundamentally about what you stand for regardless of the consequences. Apparently Jeff Bezos stands for protecting his profit margins and preemtively showing deferences to an avowed demagogue. Fuck…that…guy.
Stranger