Archive for 2019

THIS IS INTERESTING: ANONYMOUS SENDS A MESSAGE TO GRETA THUNBERG.

Greetings. This is a message to Greta Thunberg, from Anonymous.

We understand and sympathize with your concerns about the environment, and agree that the blame lies with many of the world’s most powerful corporations. However, you may want to be careful that you are not led astray by people who are a part of the problem, and it appears that this may be happening. Many of the powerful politicians that you met with and took photographs with, are deeply involved with many of the industries you speak out against.

Many of the policies that you are advocating for are also misguided, despite their seemingly good intentions. For example, heavy carbon taxes will not have much of an effect on the fossil fuel industry, aside from making their cost of doing business a little bit higher. The large corporations that are destroying the planet have teams of lawyers on standby for any accusations that are brought against them, and they have money budgeted specifically for dealing with all of the fines that they intend to violate.

Fines, taxes, and regulations rarely actually cause corporations to do business any differently, but these policies usually do end up hurting average individuals who were never even the intended targets of the policies to begin with. This is because the average person does not have teams of lawyers or money ready for fines.

In the case of carbon taxes, the average person driving their car will be the person who ends up paying the real cost, and it is highly possible that the corporations could make even more money under a model like this. It is also important to consider that just throwing money at a problem is not a feasible solution, especially for something like this. If billions of dollars are funneled into government coffers as the result of some type of “Green New Deal,” what happens next? There doesn’t seem to be any plan for what actually happens to the money, and when plans are actually offered, they typically fall short.

Oh, there are plans for what happens to the money all right . . . .

SULTAN KNISH: They say that Disneyland is the happiest place on earth, but Hillaryland must be the saddest.

What is Hillaryland? It’s a social network “aiming to connect all the people who’ve worked for Hillary Rodham Clinton during her more than 40 years of public service.” It’s run by “volunteers” and offers a plain white $15 Hillaryland tote bag which it claims that it’s selling “at cost” and “not for profit”.

How the mighty have fallen.

Once upon a time, Hillary and her people gaslit the country on the big issues. Now they’ve gone from Benghazi to trying to convince a declining handful of suckers that $15 is the cost price for a tote bag.

Hillaryland is the sad successor to Clintonworld networks like the Clinton Foundation which connected world leaders, foreign criminals and a prospective president. The alumni network is now a joke. The Clintons will never hold public office again. Hillaryland isn’t an alumni network, it’s a political leper colony run by “volunteers” too dumb to realize that the S.S. Slick Willy will never rise again.

Hillaryland promotes such promising ventures as Nasty Women Serve which holds an annual Hillary Rodham Clinton Day of Service. The highest level of service in Hillaryland is hosting a “house party” on November 8, which is National Hillary Day, also known as the day of Hillary’s downfall and defeat. The party will have, “in the true spirit of HRC — some Chardonnay” and will go on “until the wine runs out”.

Only Nazi war criminals in Argentina have sadder and more pathetic reunions than Hillary minions.

Nazis and potheads have 4/20 to get high. Hillary fans have 11/8 to get drunk on white wine. And both of them even blame the Russians for the defeat of their miserably corrupt murderous regimes.

Heh. Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

FRIDAY NIGHT NEWS DUMP: Bloomberg Law Owes Readers an Explanation of Its Attempt to Smear Leif Olson.

I can’t help thinking this isn’t quite the happy ending it appears to be, though. Even amid the outcry and Olson’s reinstatement, Bloomberg Law chose to stand behind Penn’s “reporting” until it retracted the story on Friday, more than month after it was published. Internal emails showed that the outlet tried to stop employees from commenting on the story. Penn publicly defended his actions by claiming that all he did was present the Department of Labor with a screenshot of the post and ask for comment, but an email recently obtained through a FOIA request by Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Ted Frank shows that claim was also false. In asking the Labor Department for comment, Penn actually framed Olson’s post as “disparaging to Jews” and questioned whether Olson was “fit for government service.” Yet, Bloomberg Law refused to acknowledge that Penn or its editorial staff had done anything wrong for more than a month.

In an ideal world, major news organizations wouldn’t hire reporters who abuse their platforms to try to punish political opponents, and would have protections in place to ensure that type of abuse wasn’t possible. In this case, Bloomberg Law failed on both counts. It owes its readers and the public an explanation of why, and of how it plans to ensure that such mistakes aren’t made in the future. If it hopes to be treated as a credible outlet moving forward, it must do better.

Narrator’s voice: as with the Des Moines Register, it won’t.

BERNIE SANDERS, 78, HAD HEART ATTACK, HIS DOCTORS SAY AMID RELEASE FROM HOSPITAL.

As Jim Geraghty noted on Wednesday, “Sanders is a pretty vigorous guy for his age, but the presidency takes its physical and mental toll on every occupant. If any Sanders supporter was looking for an excuse to get off the bandwagon, maybe this latest health scare stirs them to jump to Elizabeth Warren or another candidate. The announced postponement of Sanders ad purchases will, fairly or not, be interpreted as a sign that whatever Sanders is dealing with, he may not be up and back to campaigning in a short time. Whatever happens next, it’s likely to be consequential. This health issue will either be the galvanizing moment for his supporters or a key signal that it just wasn’t meant to be.”

GRAY LADY DOWN: “Free Speech Is Killing Us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?”, asks Andrew Marantz, a New Yorker staff writer in the pages of the New York Times. Among his proposals:

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act — the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.

I thought nationalizing and socializing media was strictly a Salon idea — wait until he discovers that Congress already created “a robust public media in the mold of the BBC” in 1967.  But give this man credit for being the equivalent of George Orwell enlisting to fight in the Spanish Civil War:

Having spent the past few years embedding as a reporter with the trolls and bigots and propagandists who are experts at converting fanatical memes into national policy, I no longer have any doubt that the brutality that germinates on the internet can leap into the world of flesh and blood.

He’s embedded with Internet trolls! I’m so old, I can remember when the left roundly mocked the idea of being a keyboard warrior.

Exit quote: “It never ceases to amaze me how a seemingly intelligent person can talk about the dangers of an authoritarian administration in one breath and advocate for expanded powers in the next, without a thought of how it could backfire.”

As long as the sex is great, the Gray Lady is always up for more and more totalitarianism.

21st CENTURY LITIGATION: He thought his sperm donation would be for only 5 kids. He fathered at least 17, suit says. “He says he was told his sperm would be used to conceive only five children out of state. But after discovering he is now father to at least 17 children, some of whom live in Oregon, the doctor is suing for more than $5 million. Dr. Bryce Cleary and his attorneys filed the suit Wednesday against Oregon Health & Science University after they say the clinic violated their agreement, caused him and his family emotional distress and might have used his sperm to father even more children than already known.”

So that sounds like a breach of contract, but what are the damages? Well: “Cleary, who had three children and an adopted daughter with his wife, said he made the stipulations when he donated his sperm to prevent his custodial children from engaging with the children born out of his donation. He said without the promises, he would not have donated his sperm. However, at least two of the children born from his donation attended the same school as the children he raised, the lawsuit says. And given that the hospital required mothers who received their donation to self report their pregnancies and births, Cleary says he has no clue the full extent of the offspring from his donation.”