Category: Bullshit explained

Alex Acosta takes ‘poor judgement’ victory lap over handling of Epstein prosecution

Former Labor Secretary and Florida federal prosecutor, Alex Acosta, released a statement today celebrating a Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility report detailing his ‘poor judgement’ in the handling of the investigation into child sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.

In the statement, Acosta claimed vindication by the report’s findings because it failed to conclude that he committed professional misconduct. 

“‘Poor judgement.’  Are there two sweeter sounding words in the English language?” Acosta crowed.  “I welcome their application to me on my handling of this case.  This is a victory for all prosecutors who have ever intervened on behalf of a wealthy and influential perpetrator and secured for them the deal of a lifetime.  From this day forward, let ‘poor judgement’ guide our efforts as we seek to subvert justice on behalf of the rich and powerful.” 

Acosta delivered a scathing rebuke of fellow prosecutors who tried to broaden the investigation and root out additional criminality. 

“‘Willful blindness’ can also be a very effective tool when piecing together a ‘poor judgement’ prosecution.  Ignore the advice of subordinates (I’m looking at you Villafana) who might try to improve your understanding and thereby influence your judgement in a positive way.”

Facing a mountain of criticism from defense attorneys, journalists and the public, Acosta attempted, once and for all, to put the conspiracy speculation to rest.

“To all the critics and conspiracy theorists out there, let’s get one thing straight.  History is replete with men who are called upon to deliver head-scratching incompetence at just the right moment to ensure that other powerful men avoid justice.  That doesn’t mean that a bunch of lawyers conspired to cut a rich guy a sweetheart deal.  It just means that the job required a special kind of pathetic ignoramus with impeccable timing to exercise ‘poor judgement’ in service of supremely important and well-connected individuals.  And if you happen to advance your career and wind up with a coveted presidential cabinet position in spite of your irresponsible stupidity, well that just means somebody saw something special in you.” 

A modest non-endorsement

In an election where there can’t be two losers, once again as in 2016, Americans are faced with the difficult decision of choosing the least objectionable candidate.  This is a decision most voters do not take lightly.  Picking the candidate who will do the least amount of damage to American democracy and our standing in the world could have ramifications for decades to come.  Future generations will look back and with the benefit of hindsight judge our effort to cast aside the least deserving of two exceedingly unworthy candidates.  We cannot let them down.  We cannot let America down.  We must correctly identify the biggest loser and then vote for the other guy.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden possess qualities that in any other time and place would probably prevent them from getting anywhere close to the presidency.  Indeed, both have unsuccessfully sought the job many times.  True, Obama won twice with Biden on the ticket, but Biden’s own efforts to seek the presidency, until recently, have not fared well.  And, yes, after multiple tries, Trump shocked the world and himself in 2016 with his improbable win just days after the Cubs won the World Series for the first time in over a hundred years.  The universe still hasn’t stopped laughing.    

Both Trump and Biden are shit-talking bullshitters of the highest order.  Visitors to Bullshit Mountain may have seen their likenesses carved into its face.  Granted, the excrement doesn’t flow as freely and voluminously out of the mouth of Biden as it once did, but he still has his moments.  Check out his story of being arrested on the streets of Soweto trying to visit an imprisoned Nelson Mandela.  Trump’s shit-talking powers seem to only sharpen with age, as evidenced by the last four years.  On his current trajectory, it’s only a matter of time before he’ll refuse to condemn Satan because the devil has only ever said nice things about him. 

Probably the most remarkable quality about both of these guys is their capacity for colossal self-delusion.  And while it would be extremely satisfying to send both of them packing, one of them is likely going to get the job of running the country for the next four years.  Therefore, we ought to reject the guy who is wholly incapable of putting the interests of the country ahead of his own, and pick the guy who may occasionally think of someone other than himself.  On that count, the choice is clear, Trump needs to go, and the other guy needs to become the next President of the United States of America. 

Old Reporter’s Almanac calling for an autumn of doom

Across the media landscape, reporters everywhere are checking moon phases, consulting star charts, and surveying their teams of expert psychics and prognosticators.  All of their feedback  seems to point to one inevitable conclusion: Americans need to brace for a perfect shitstorm of doom to arrive this autumn and possibly rage through a long dark winter of terror.

How do they know this?  Well the signs are pretty clear to all who are willing to see. The Russians are clearly trying to steal the election again, aided by Donald Trump’s private army of postal service goons.  No matter the outcome of the election, the results will be illegitimate.  And the current pandemic is about to combine forces with our old foe, seasonal influenza, to deliver a one-two knock-out punch to the people of the United States.  

As Tom McCarthy wrote for The Guardian back in July, “Now, four months into the pandemic, with test results delayed, contact tracing scarce, protective equipment dwindling and emergency rooms once again filling, the United States finds itself in a fight for its life…. With flu season on the horizon and Donald Trump demanding that millions of students return to school in the fall – not to mention a presidential election quickly approaching – the country appears at risk of being torn apart.”     

If only McCarthy had known that Trump was about to unleash the full fury of the USPS on American democracy, he might not have been so cautious in his assessment of America’s future.   

As we hurl headlong into the autumn of doom, politicians, the media, and election experts have given just about everyone who needs one a reason to doubt the outcome of the November election.  As Edward-Isaac Dovere of The Atlantic wrote in May, “Nearly three in five Americans don’t have confidence in the honesty of our elections, a February Gallup poll found. Republicans, Democrats, state officials, grandmothers, first-time voters, the politically engaged, the anti-institutionalists—pretty much the only thing they could agree on was their doubts about the integrity of our democracy.”

Wonder where they would’ve gotten that idea?  Didn’t conservative media and Trump’s faithful stooge, Kris Kobach, uncover millions of fraudulent Clinton votes from 2016?  Didn’t the mainstream media and the Mueller investigation find evidence of vote tampering on the part of the Kremlin?  They didn’t?  After politicians and the media get done assaulting the American people with disinformation and conspiracy theories, it’s amazing two in five Americans still have trust in the electoral process.  Better step up your game, media, and come up with more better conspiracies.  Besides, anyone who is not afraid of the truth knows that alien grays inhabiting secret underground military bases deep inside the earth determine the outcome of our elections.

The autumn of doom is nearly upon us and the only thing we have to fear is fear and a tsunami of illness, a fraudulent election, societal unrest, and a tyrant who refuses to relinquish power.  All we need now is for The Old Farmer’s Almanac to predict a devastating hurricane season and an unrelenting polar vortex.

With departure of Bari Weiss and James Bennet, New York Times reaches 84% purity

The product the New York Times is pushing just got a lot more potent.  Long plagued by writers and editors who diluted the Grey Lady’s package with their heterodox perspectives and values of free speech and open debate, the new product boasts, “Now featuring 40% more woke orthodoxy!” 

News that unscrupulous dealers like James Bennet and Bari Weiss were stepping on the NYT’s righteous product caused other newsroom soldiers to demand the pair get got.  Their departure clears the way for greater dopamine inducing stories.  If The Times is only doing 4000 op-eds arguing that Donald Trump is a unique existential threat to the country and the world, now’s the opportunity to push an additional 1000.  

Only this week, the Grey Lady pushed its Covid coverage to new levels of mendacity and deception.  The Times has always taken a particular glee in reporting on Covid deniers who eventually contract the disease and then express regret for their previous position as they lay sick in the hospital.  Recently, they ran the story, Texas Hospital Says Man, 30, Died After Attending a ‘Covid Party.’  According to the article, the man always thought the virus was a hoax, but admitted, “I think I made a mistake,” just before dying.  However, by the fifth paragraph, the reporter, Brian Pietsch, reveals none of the details of the account could be verified. 

So, who cares if the stories are true, if it feels right and fits the predetermined narrative, then it’s fit to print.  Waves of smug satisfaction washing over Times readers, as their ideological notions are affirmed by the paper of record, is the only truth that matters anymore.         

Already reports are emerging of readers collapsing in the streets, New York Times still wedged under their arm, eyes rolled back in ecstasy.  Emergency rooms are seeing an uptick as well.  Not all readers are prepared for this level of purity.  However, most want more.  “Give us the good ones, Grey Lady,” they say.

After exhaustive investigation, media concludes Americans often set off fireworks around July 4th

The results are finally in regarding all those firecrackers you’ve heard popping at night and the colored lights you’ve seen bursting in the evening sky.  A two-week intensive investigation conducted by a number of media outlets has concluded that Americans enjoy setting off fireworks on and around the Independence Day holiday. 

While your average American probably thought some nefarious government plot was afoot, the New York Times and Slate, among others, went digging into this pyrotechnic phenomenon to dispel any conspiracy theories that these news organizations and their Pulitzer Prize winning staff members may have promoted.

To be clear, this is not a government psy-op.  Illegal fireworks traffickers are not trying to destroy communities by flooding the streets with their sparklers, fountains, and smoke bombs.  When dusk settles across America during the days leading up to July 4th, excited children and their slightly inebriated fathers routinely break open the Red, White and Boom box and let the explosive fun begin.

But congratulations to the New York Times for committing the time and resources to discovering how typical Americans celebrate around the holidays.  And a heads up to Slate, those ghosts and goblins scurrying around residential neighborhoods in late October and those giant furry bunny rabbits handing out chocolate eggs in the spring, it’s all on the up and up.

Human resources department institutes epic ass-covering measures in response to pandemic

Essential worker Ben was slightly taken aback one morning when he attempted to log on to his work computer and was greeted with a series of statements with which he had to agree before completing log in.

“It said things like, ‘I’ve not had a fever in the last 72 hours, I haven’t had any of the following symptoms, or been around anyone who has tested positive.’  I further had to agree that I only cough into my sleeve, and that I use a hand sanitizer with a minimum alcohol content of 60%,” reported Ben.  “Of course, I couldn’t complete log in if I didn’t agree, and failure to adhere to the requirements meant potential disciplinary action.”  

Such is the state of employer/employee relations in these challenging times.  Human resources departments across the country are dealing with potential liability brought on by sick employees.

“Now, more than ever, covering the old rump is the name of the game,” said one personnel manager who wished to remain anonymous.  “This is coming straight from the top.  Deflecting all responsibility onto the employee for what happens in our workplace is the only thing that stands between corporate and an epidemic of lawsuits.”  

Essential Ben agrees that it seems like management’s approach to the pandemic is to blame employees.  “I gotta sign a release to use the restroom, promising to limit the length of time I spend relieving myself, and to wash my hands only with an approved anti-bacterial foaming soap in a prescribed manner for a set duration of time.  Of course, failure to comply could result in disciplinary action.”

“Yeah, I came up with that one,” said the personnel manager, chuckling to himself.  “Look, in these uncertain times, you’ve got to be creative.”

Has management ever considered taking temperatures, testing employees, or providing personal protective equipment like masks?

“Fuck no,” says management.  “If you can’t print it out and make them sign it, then it’s too expensive.  Besides, that would be like admitting we have some responsibility or obligation to our employees.  Additionally, it only makes sense that we put the onus on the employee as management are all working remotely from home and can’t be on site to supervise.” 

New details emerge regarding the late twenty-something “Stolen Kids of Sarah Lawrence”

Additional disturbing allegations have emerged regarding accused cult leader Lawrence Ray.  A New York Magazine piece entitled “What Happened to the Stolen Kids of Sarah Lawrence?” details years of forced manual labor imposed on the group of late twenty-something “kids” by their diabolical crew leader Ray.

The shocking piece describes a pattern of shoddy yard work and unfinished landscaping stretching from New Jersey to North Carolina.  “At first, Ray planted some trees and flowers. But it wasn’t long before he began making larger alterations,” said one victim. These larger alterations included a partially dug hole for a pool that “never materialized,” another hole with a boat in it, and unplanted trees.

The cult’s activities take on an even more horrifying aspect when it’s discovered that Ray used the “kids” he “stole” from Sarah Lawrence College to perform the half-assed yard work.  Then he attempted to bilk them out of thousands of dollars through legally binding emails and hand-written contracts that read “Prices of your Things I Damaged” and “This is an agreement… to settle reparations.”  It’s doubtful any lawyer in the land would want to go near any of those disputes.

“Ray’s home renovations and landscaping were key to his manipulation,” the article states.  Lawrence Ray wouldn’t be the first cult leader to control the mind’s of his followers through ceaseless toil and manual labor.  Jim Jones forced his followers to farm the land. Charles Manson’s crew worked as ranch hands. Most likely, Jeff Bezos employs an elaborate system of AI powered mind control to manipulate his followers into working in his distribution centers.  

At least this fiend, Lawrence Ray, is now off the streets, in federal custody, and nowhere near the flower beds and shrubbery of the unsuspecting public.  Most disturbing, though, is the question of how an ex-con managed to manipulate the minds of some of the brightest, most coddled and privileged, young people at one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning into following him?  Perhaps we’ll never know.

Media to the American public: If anyone’s going to deceive you, it’s going to be us

Following the release of a video by the Bloomberg campaign showing a 20 second awkward silence after Bloomberg asks his Democratic debate opponents if they’d ever started a business, many media outlets are reaffirming their position that they alone reserve the right to produce deceptive and misleading media content.

Washington Post Fact-Checker Glenn Kessler assigned four Pinocchios to the Bloomberg video stating, “Anyone who had not seen the debate could have been easily misled into thinking the other candidates stood there in stunned silence for nearly half a minute.”

Setting aside the near cosmic certainty that a stage full of political candidates could never remain silent for twenty seconds during a debate in progress, debate moderators and MSNBC producers would likewise never allow that much dead air to eat up the broadcast.  Wouldn’t someone in the control room shout through a moderator’s earpiece, “Ask a fucking question!” or wouldn’t they just cut to a commercial?     

But, alas, I’m just one of the naive, propaganda consuming public who doesn’t realize when he’s being misled and misinformed by sophisticated disinfo agents.  For that take, Vox interviewed Cindy Otis, a former CIA analyst and disinformation expert who has authored a helpful guide for identifying disinformation called, True Or False: A CIA Analyst’s Guide to Spotting Fake News.  Otis tells Vox, “Not being up front about an edited video or other changed content runs a big risk since people spread things quickly without verification.”

How thoughtful of this former employee of the CIA to use her experience and expertise to help Americans bypass the lies and deception and get straight to the facts.  After all, it’s been the CIA’s mission for years to get the truth out to the American public, even if they have to secretly collude with news organizations to do it. The CIA has always been very “up front” about their propaganda and media manipulation.

In addition to illustrating the ways by which Bloomberg’s video deceives the public, HuffPost is super excited about Twitter’s plan to label tweets containing “manipulated media,” or remove tweets if they “are likely to cause harm.”  It seems there were a number of Twitter users who were concerned the debate stage had been overrun by crickets after viewing the Bloomberg video. HuffPost is committed to making sure the American public gets only an objective rendering of the facts, which is why Jesselyn Cook concludes her piece by informing readers, “Bloomberg’s performance in the debate in Las Vegas – his debut at the forums – was widely panned, as he struggled to respond effectively to harsh criticisms of his record on race relations, sexual harassment complaints, economic inequality and other issues.”

Got that?  If you watched the Bloomberg campaign video, you might think that he dunked hard on the rest of the field, but thankfully, HuffPost is concerned enough to let you know what really happened.

If it weren’t for much of the mainstream media portraying Bloomberg as a shrewd media manipulator, much of the American public might just take him for a tool.  His campaign videos and social media are often an embarrassing attempt to seem edgy or hip. He would probably be better off just giving money directly to voters for their support instead of trying to persuade them with media ads.

Following similar media uproar over the Speaker Pelosi speech shredding video, it seems pretty clear that the only deceptive parties in both cases are the mainstream media outlets that have worked overtime to mislead the American public into believing they’re being assaulted with deceptive videos.  In the dozens of pieces that have been written on these videos, none have produced any evidence that large swaths of the public are being misled. In fact, most of the public comments and tweets on these stories seem to dispute the media’s contention. Attempting to give weight to their narrative, the MSM rollout experts instead of relying on evidence.  But you don’t have to be an expert or former CIA to know these videos aren’t intended to be interpreted literally, and you don’t have to be an expert to know that these journalists are handing you a con job. 

Media ‘woke bots’ weigh in on Meghan Daum’s The Problem With Everything

The reaction to Meghan Daum’s new book The Problem With Everything has been entirely predictable.  So predictable, in fact, that most of the takes seem to have required no human effort, and could just as easily have been written by a media ‘woke bot’.  I’m not entirely sure that much of what passes for print journalism today isn’t written by some form of AI. Any one of Daum’s critics, exercising even the slightest bit of judgement or self-reflection, could have recognized that their reviews, far from dismissing Daum’s conclusions, actually come off in service of making her point. 

The ‘snark bot’ take appears under the byline Scott Indrisek writing for The Observer.  This guy has a serious obsession with Bret Easton Ellis and can’t string together a couple of sentences without bringing him into the conversation.  Anyway, amidst Indrisek’s many criticisms of The Problem With Everything, he does concede, “There should be room for uncomfortable conversations about whether the #MeToo movement has overstepped itself, or whether we need to tap the brakes on certain aspects of woke culture.”  This is not an uncommon sentiment among journalists and cultural critics. The problem arises when an individual or group decides to engage in these uncomfortable conversations in books, podcasts, or public discussions broadcast on YouTube.  People like Indrisek attack these writers and thinkers with charges of being racists and phobes. The ‘woke bots’ always talk about the need for uncomfortable conversations, but rarely care to engage in or with them.

On the “personal is political” front, Indrisek reacts to Daum’s admission that, “there’s no one I’d rather blame for my misfortunes than myself,” by snarking down with an asshole comment that Daum is “stumping for a keynote gig with Turning Point USA.”  How far out in the wilderness of leftist political ideology do you have to be to think that a concept like “personal responsibility” is the sole purview of right-wing political conventions? I hope the next time Scott Indrisek tries to hold anyone in his life personally accountable for anything, they tell him, “Get thee to a CPAC convention!”     

Another gem comes from Elisabeth Donnelly writing for Buzzfeed.  This writer is a long-time fan of Daum, but has found her recent flirtations with nuanced ideas and criticism of left-wing extremism troubling.  Of the “Free Speech YouTube” crowd, Donnelly says their “values of ‘reason’ …can easily be interpreted as hate speech….” To view Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, or Sam Harris as promoters of hate speech requires a monumental act of willful self-delusion so great that one would have to sequester oneself in an impenetrable fortress of political correctness, effectively shutting out 90% of the country’s ideas and opinions.  Of course, is there any doubt that the Buzzfeed newsroom leases space in such a fortress of wokeness?       

Getting to the heart of her problem with The Problem With Everything, Donnelly writes, “instead of documenting her life experiences, something at which she excels, Daum spends far more time arguing over simplified conservative and liberal talking points.”  But hold on a second, baby snark bot Scott Indrisek says, “The Problem With Everything is at its weakest when it gets personal….” Jesus, both Indrisek and Donnelly write so forcefully, with such conviction, and such an air of authority that I couldn’t help but think that they’re professional critics and probably know what they’re talking about.  Could it be that one or both are wrong? Not being able to agree on the problem with The Problem With Everything reminds me of religious leaders who can’t agree on the most fundamental tenets of their faith, but nonetheless exhibit not a shred of doubt and are one hundred percent convinced they are correct. 

The New Yorker’s Emily Witt weighs in to provide a confused and exasperating slice of context.  Self-identifying as a Gen Xer because Witt’s only eleven years younger than Daum (okay?), Witt sets about writing a parallel take to The Problem With Everything where the nineties weren’t all that less politically correct than today, and the nihilism of the 2000’s necessitated the woke course correction we’re currently experiencing.  “It was people unburdened by Daum’s ideas about “nuance” who took to the streets after police shootings, and named the men responsible for serial sexual assault and harrassment….It is telling that Daum ignores the positive benefits of these movements, or the real risks to safety and reputation taken by the people who initiated them….Didion and Daum may have preferred the status quo of their respective eras, but those who were inclined toward change were always going to be accused of overreach, of making a big deal out of nothing, of refusing to take responsibility for their own problems.”  What is telling are statements like this that make you wonder if the reviewer even bothered to read the book. How could a writer for The New Yorker so completely fail to grasp the explicit message contained in the book she’s reviewing? Daum is fully supportive of outing the worst offenders of #MeToo and bringing them to justice. At no time does she ignore the positive benefits of the movement. To make this claim is to willfully mischaracterize Daum’s writing. And by the way, accusations of overreach are not just being leveled by a bunch of defenders of the status quo, they’re being leveled by female Harvard Law professors and increasing numbers of supporters of #MeToo.

The problem with asking complicated questions or presenting nuanced ideas or opinions is that they inevitably get smacked down with snark, willfully misinterpreted and misrepresented, and unfairly taken apart.  The title of Emily Witt’s New Yorker piece is “Meghan Daum to Millennials: Get Off My Lawn.” Whether Witt came up with that title or not, it’s clearly how she and the rest of the wokescenti care to engage with Daum’s work.  To them, Daum’s just an old, cranky, out of touch Gen Xer who doesn’t recognize the egalitarian utopian dream as it shapes itself right before her eyes.

Can you blame the media woke bots for missing the point?  After all, what is an intelligence rooted in identity politics to think of this passage from Daum’s book.  “Labels tamp down contradictions. They leave no room for cognitive dissonance. They deny us our basic human right to be conflicted …If you’re not conflicted, you’re either lying or not very smart.”  No doubt, the previously mentioned, unconflicted authors view this statement as a personal attack on them. They are sooo not conflicted. In these times of moral certainty, they’ve never felt more sure about anything than their woke programming that allows them to group ideas and arguments into distinct binaries: those that reinforce their faith and those that fall outside its boundaries.

Nuance, doubt and uncertainty are qualities not easily attained by a media ‘woke bot.’  They are mostly incompatible with politically correct ideology. Scott Indrisek writes that in The Problem With Everything Meghan Daum is “exposing her blind spots to the current issues that color our experience: race, gender, capitalism, the internet, and power.”  Because these are the issues that preoccupy most Americans, right? Perhaps these issues color the experience of media ‘woke bots’ and their devoted followers, but most Americans could give a shit about the left’s obsession with playing intersectional gymnastics.  Polling shows that nearly 80% of Americans, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity or race, think that political correctness goes too far. Is it any wonder that public confidence in the media is waning, and woke media outlets are struggling?             

Daum writes, “I’m convinced the culture is effectively being held hostage by its own hyperbole.  So enthralled with our outrage at the extremes, we’ve forgotten that most of the world exists in the mostly unobjectionable middle.  So seduced by the half-truths propagated by our own side, we have no interest in the half-truths roaming in distant pastures. So weary from trying to manage cognitive dissonance kicked up by our own gospel, we forgot to have empathy for the confusion of those grappling with their own doctrines.  We forget that in the end to be human is to be confused.” A statement like this could potentially get Daum in trouble on Twitter – a place where no one at either extreme is ever wrong about anything, and in the rare instance someone is shown to be incorrect, the offender simply deletes their Tweet, thus maintaining a spotless record of habitual truthfulness. 

“In the ensuing year, the feeling of irrelevance became a near constant companion.  It clouded my vision like the membrane on the eye of a lizard, shielding me from what I couldn’t comprehend, sparing me the mortification of my own cluelessness.  It had me both staring at myself in mirrors and avoiding mirrors. It had me lying awake at night contemplating the end of the world, or maybe just the end of my world.”  Throughout the book, Daum is her own harshest critic. She anticipates the criticism each line, each thought could potentially receive, which is why nothing the previously mentioned critics have written comes off as at all original.  The ‘woke bot’ algorithm is easily adopted by Daum, rendering their predictable responses a part of the larger point of The Problem With Everything.                     

Having put forth that nuanced thought is a debilitating burden that tethers one to the status quo, that reasoned argument is often just a euphemism for hate speech, and that personal responsibility is a value reserved for right-wingers, it isn’t hard to see why these critics completely miss the point of this work.  Incapable of any sort of self-reflection, for them the problem with everything is entirely focused outward on the nonbelievers, the unwoke. How dare someone lay the problem with anything at their feet.  

“Oh the irrelevance, the obsolescence, the creak of aging out before you even get old.”  There is a lot of great writing in this book, and a lot of thoughtful and illuminating introspection that all of us who are a part of the problem with everything should take a moment to consider.  Being a couple years older than Daum, I can appreciate the sentiment of aging out before you get old. However, I intend to fully embrace my obsolescence. I can think of nothing more liberating than being completely irrelevant, brimming with contradictions, conflicted and unsure.  Gen X lived mostly in the shadow of the Baby Boomers, perhaps enjoying a brief bit of relevance in the nineties and 2000s. Now the Millenials, a generation as formidable and narcissistic as their Boomer parents, have taken the reigns with a clear plan for establishing peace and equality, prosperity and sustainability for all on earth.  Not unlike the utopian dreams that drove their parent’s generation back to the earth and into communal living, this generation will probably save the world with political activism and tech. Maybe I’ll live long enough to enjoy it.

Free speech is killing the New York Times. Gray Lady can’t stop publishing bullshit.

The New York Times is doing some heavy duty soul searching these days as the 168 year old daily newspaper wrestles with the reality that everytime pen is put to paper, a key is stroked on a keyboard, or ink is printed on the page, untruths and fabrications seem to pour out of the Gray Lady like a devious meth addict spinning a yarn for their probation officer. 

Reports out of the newsroom suggest editors are considering changing the newspaper’s motto from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “It’s not a lie if you believe it,” borrowing the advice George Costanza gave to his friend Jerry on the nineties television comedy Seinfeld.  “All we’re trying to do is come up with the best possible lie,” is another Georgeism kicked around many a NYT editorial staff meeting. 

In what appears to be a cry for help, the Times recently published a piece entitled “Free Speech Is Killing Us,” in which the author, Andrew Marantz, seems to admit what many have been thinking for awhile – someone needs to step in and restrain the Times before it does more damage to itself.  If ever a daily newspaper was in need of an intervention, the Times surely qualifies.

Hardly a week goes by in which the Times doesn’t print something to embarrass itself and erode its credibility.  Just in recent weeks, the Times got called out by most print publications for its misleading Kavanaugh reporting, Brett Stephens appeared to have an angel dust fueled bed bug freakout, and David Brooks is writing opinions based on imaginary conversations and he’s not even trying to pass them off as real.  In the old days, a Times writer would at least try to create cover for their imaginary sources. Now, I guess they’re just putting their rich fantasy lives on full display. Following the Times is like watching a celebrity self-destruct in public. The Gray Lady is about one or two bullshit stories away from stripping off her clothes and wandering naked up and down Eighth Avenue.

Now the NYT wants the government and big tech to step in and put the brakes on free speech, arguing that dozens of lives would be saved by preventing young men from being radicalized in seedy online message groups.  The Times does have some experience in this area having exposed YouTube’s diabolical algorithm and its sinister scheme to radicalize young men into the right wing. The Gray Lady’s efforts to suppress speech bore fruit as YouTube, and some social media sites, either deplatformed or severely restricted the content of a number of creators.         

The Times is right.  Free speech is killing the New York Times.  Despite continuing to do valuable reporting, the Times can’t stop itself from undermining its credibility by foisting a lot of bullshit on the public.  Emboldened by recent successes restricting the speech of others, the Times now presses forward with an even more ambitious agenda to sell out the First Amendment and censor detractors and competitors.  I guess this is how the NYT plans to become ‘the paper of record’ again.