Matt Taibbi’s Patience with MSNBC Runs Out

Excerpt from Matt Taibbi's latest article, "Eat Me, MSNBC: Reviewing the last six years at the network that claims now to be concerned with integrity and accuracy":

[Corporate news outlets] could either keep doing what reporters had done since the beginning of time, confining themselves to saying things they could prove. Or, they could adopt a new approach, in which you can say anything is true or confirmed, so long as a politician or intelligence official told you it was.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi’s Patience with MSNBC Runs Out

Clowns to the Left of Me, Joker’s to the Right . . .

Greg Lukianoff of FIRE Tweets:

Here's more about the non-partisan mission of FIRE.

FIRE’s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

Think about signing up to receive FIRE's Newsletters.

Continue ReadingClowns to the Left of Me, Joker’s to the Right . . .

A Sensible Question about the Language Gender Ideologists Insist that Everyone Use

Wilfred Reilly asks:

Even if you're pro-gender ideology, why not just say "woman" and "trans woman?" Why would an additional modifier ("cis," etc) for 99.5% of the population ever be necessary? We don't use the label "hearing man" every time we describe someone who is not deaf.

Other contributors to this thread wrote:

Thank you for pointing this out I will now be referring to every person who is not disabled as able-bodied man or able-bodied woman. Brilliant.

Because it's a signaler that when you use it, it signals that you have accepted the gender cult's dogma.

because, no matter how hard they try to convince themselves and everyone else, they know it’s not the same!

That's power. Make 99.5% do the extra work. —woman —cis woman simple 😐

Norm Macdonald once said cisgender was "a way of marginalizing a normal person."

Because no men are a subset of women. There are women and men. That’s it. Some men LARP as a 1950s version of women but that doesn’t make them women

Continue ReadingA Sensible Question about the Language Gender Ideologists Insist that Everyone Use

The Little Sailboat that Destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline

1. Joe Biden promises he will make Nord Stream pipeline inoperable. Someone then destroys the pipeline. Biden then denies that he had anything to do with this act of war. 2. Next, Seymour Hersh publishes detailed investigative article showing how the U.S. destroyed the pipeline. 3. Germany, co-owner of the pipeline, displays what has got to be the most vivid case of Stockholm Syndrome in human history. 4. U.S. news media ignores the Hersh story. 5. The CIA cooks up an absurd alternative story that not-Joe-Biden destroyed the pipeline. The pipeline was destroyed using "Pro-Ukrainian" group that uses a 49 foot sailboat. 6. The NYT, which has now begrudgingly acknowledged Hersh's blockbuster story, laps up the CIA story. 7. Seymour Hersh destroys the NYT-CIA story with a handful of simple questions.

Excerpt from Hersh's newest story, "THE NORD STREAM GHOST SHIP: The false details in the CIA's cover story":

My initial report received coverage around the world but was ignored by the major newspapers and television networks in the United States. As the story gained traction in Europe and elsewhere abroad, the New York Times on March 7 published a report quoting US officials asserting that American intelligence had accumulated information suggesting that a pro-Ukrainian group sabotaged the pipelines. The story said officials who had “reviewed” the new intelligence depicted it to be “a step toward determining responsibility” for the pipeline sabotage. The Times story got worldwide attention, but nothing more has been heard since from the newspaper about who did what. In an interview for a Times podcast, one of the three authors of the article inadvertently explained why the story was dead on arrival. The writer was asked about the involvement of the alleged pro-Ukrainian group: “What makes you think that’s what happened?” He answered: “I should be very clear that we know really very little. Right?”

Continue ReadingThe Little Sailboat that Destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline