I love how Graham Platner is described in this opinion piece about how it's necessary (and okay) for Democrats to be fake if that's what it takes to get elected. "The vogue for white masculinity is apparent in the enthusiasm for Graham Platner, a hard-bitten oysterman and war vet who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine."
Of course, Graham is actually something quite different: a hard core socialist, Antifa member, antisemite, and Nazi tattoo aficionado (at minimum).
Men have been abandoning the Democratic party and that's a problem that needs to be addressed and Democrats have just the solution, let's just lie.
This opinion piece captures the utter dishonesty of today's Democratic party with this statement about Gavin Newsom's social media strategy: "His attempts to address the problem, though often misguided, nonetheless point his party in the direction it must travel to beat back the right."
It's perfectly okay if Gavin Newsom's social media strategy exudes fake toxic masculinity if it helps him get elected. Anything that helps him disguise the fact that he's an incompetent, shape-shifting grifter is good.
Pete Buttigieg on the other hand needs to up his game. His inauthenticity is limited to his appearance. He "has acquired a beard, a splitting maul and a taste for flannel shirts."
Then there's James Talarico, who is described as "the Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas who looks like a member of the Moral Majority." He sounds like a member of the Moral Majority as well by the way, but he's spouting religious fictions that he thinks will appeal to less informed swing voters. He's the beta Beto.
These lefty politicians advocate for policies that don't improve the lives of ordinary people. They can't run on accomplishments so they have to run on fictions about themselves and the world around us. That's why it's okay for them to be such complete phonies during campaign season. They'll show their radical left stripes once elected. You won't find criticism of anything they say or do as untrue or unworthy in this NYT opinion piece because it's okay to lie if it helps the left return to power.
Me, I prefer my lefties to be authentic. Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Rashida Tlaib. They don't hide their ignorance about economics when they rage against billionaires. Rashida hates Israel and Jewish people and she's proud of it. They represent truth in advertising.
Let's focus on the issues and have an honest debate. I think the American people would appreciate that.
This is really pulling the mask off. The previous narrative was "late ballots always lean toward Democrats, it's just demographics"
But now we are seeing that late ballots always lean toward the specific Democrat who needs more ballots.
That is not possible.
While I’m no fan of socialism or arbitrary confiscations of wealth, I can see why Bernie Sanders’ proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates, including with many on the right.
The CEOs of the leading AI labs have told us repeatedly that they will cause massive job loss. This is not a story that I believe, nor does the data bear it out, but this is what they have told us. Similarly, they have hyped the risks of AI without putting an equal or greater emphasis on the benefits or readily available mitigations.
Conservatives have another fear. The employees of the leading labs claim to be philanthropic, but what we’ve seen is massive enrichment of NGOs advancing an agenda at odds with traditional values, fueling a revolution against our cities and communities. Soros-maxxing is not charity in our book.
Anthropic and OpenAI have established themselves as Public Benefit Corporations. What could be more in the public benefit than using half the wealth generated by these companies (which trained for free on the collective knowledge of humanity) to pay down the national debt? There is no ideological bias in that philanthropy.
Dario and Sam have begun to walk back their claims of massive job loss, but the damage to public trust is done, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I could almost support the Sanders proposal as a stupidity tax.
There’s just one problem. Nationalization of AI will accelerate the corporate-government fusion we’re already sliding toward. Conservatives rightly fear a Central Bank Digital Currency. They ought to be even more concerned about Central Government AI — a system with even more totalistic power over information, decision-making, and human behavior.
We saw how social media was weaponized to censor conservatives (including President Trump) in the last Democrat administration. The definition of “trust & safety” expanded to mean protecting the public from supposed psychological harms, micro-aggressions, and disinformation (you know, like hearing conservative ideas or true facts about Covid).
That “safety” agenda as applied to AI will be vastly more powerful and Orwellian. AI won’t just moderate posts; it will curate reality — with the ability to rewrite history, enforce ideological conformity, influence policy at scale, mass surveil Americans, and condition the benefits of the many systems it controls on approved behavior.
America won’t win the AI race if we beat China but end up with a CCP-style social credit system in the U.S. — and that is the danger as the government becomes more deeply involved in AI development and assumes direct ownership and control.
Conservatives are right to fear where this is all headed but ought to think more carefully about how regulations they are flirting with now (that are widely celebrated among those with a long history of lust for Big Government) will be used against them the next time a Democrat administration is in power.
BREAKING: The US economy adds 172,000 jobs in May, crushing expectations of 85,000.
The unemployment rate was 4.3%, in-line with expectations of 4.3%.
April's jobs number was also revised UP by +64,000 jobs.
This marks the second strongest US jobs report in 13 months.
People need to understand that the NYT isn't an objective news organization pursuing the facts wherever they may lead.
It's a political player with an agenda. It's an activist organization that spreads narratives that favor its political and cultural objectives regardless of the truth.
I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.
As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.
But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.
After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?
Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?
Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).
Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?
The editors said it was too much, they explained.
The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.
It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.
And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.
Still fawning after all these years.
In the West we now rely on the science of biology to inform our understanding of gender rather than obscure third world indigenous celebrations based on ancestral beliefs.
Scott Pelley now joins the ranks of the forgotten middling propagandists doing the podcasting circuit from home.
Yep, journalism is healing and democracy is stronger for it.
"Vincent Munster and Claude Kwe, both researchers with the NIH at the Rocky Mountain Laboratory were charged today in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to smuggle monkeypox into the US and giving false statements to federal law enforcement"
https://t.co/worDVOm2AF
These are pampered children who have been shielded from reality by their parents who gave them everything.
They don't understand real evil because they've never been confronted by actual physical violence.
They don't understand the precarious nature of financial security because they've never had to struggle to put food on the table.
They don't understand what it takes to create or build something because everything has been handed to them.
They don't understand capitalism because they've only held government, academic, NGO or media jobs where they get paid to criticize the work of others.
In 1696, the British government decided to tax sunlight. Under the Window Tax, households were charged according to the number of windows in their homes. To avoid paying, many people simply bricked up or boarded over their windows, choosing to live in darkness rather than hand money to the state for daylight.
The tax was presented as a fair way of taxing wealth, since larger houses tended to have more windows. In practice, it proved crude and damaging. Tax inspectors were given the power to enter homes and count the windows, which was widely resented as an invasion of privacy.
The consequences were severe. Poorer families, in particular, bricked up windows to reduce their liability, leaving homes darker, damper and poorly ventilated. This contributed to higher rates of disease, including tuberculosis and rickets. Architects began designing houses with fewer windows to minimise the tax, resulting in buildings that were less healthy and less pleasant to live in.
Far from being an efficient revenue raiser, the Window Tax distorted behaviour, harmed public health and became increasingly unpopular over time. Yet it remained in place for 155 years until it was finally abolished in 1851. The Window Tax required invasive enforcement and created more resentment, hardship and economic distortion than revenue. It is a classic example of the unintended consequences of taxation.
1/ Secretary Hegseth just delivered a seminal articulation of America’s strategy in the Pacific at the Shangri-La Dialogue – a “return to realism for the most consequential region in the world: the Pacific.” 1/
.@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."
Byron Allen's Comics Unleashed is taking over Stephen Colbert's time slot at CBS .
This interview with him is amazing. Byron is brilliant and charming.