is here
Saturday, March 23, 2024
How stupid are things?
This stupid.
And this.
And you could keep listing idiocies. For instance, Occasional-Cortex insisting "RICO is not a crime, so you have nothing on Biden!"(although there you really don't know if she believes that or is parroting her notes, but it's still stupid)
We may be screwed.
And this.
And you could keep listing idiocies. For instance, Occasional-Cortex insisting "RICO is not a crime, so you have nothing on Biden!"(although there you really don't know if she believes that or is parroting her notes, but it's still stupid)
We may be screwed.
Friday, March 22, 2024
One more piece of "They lied to us,
apparently not giving a damn who or who many it would hurt."
On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.
“FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.
The plaintiffs have recently received the signed court order and are preparing to issue a press release about it later today.
After the damage was done. Not only to the people who might've been saved a lot of difficulty, maybe their lives, if the FDA hadn't decided to control this.
Further damage: their credibility is shot.
On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.
“FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.
The plaintiffs have recently received the signed court order and are preparing to issue a press release about it later today.
After the damage was done. Not only to the people who might've been saved a lot of difficulty, maybe their lives, if the FDA hadn't decided to control this.
Further damage: their credibility is shot.
Just the kind of behavior we've come to expect from this agency,
and the nervousness mentioned might explain why a lot of paperwork that's taken months to years has suddenly been going through in weeks.
Recently I've heard of people filing for a suppressor tax stamp getting it back in two-five weeks, with a few people getting them back in a few days. Speculation was they were trying to clean up their act with the political winds blowing as they are; this reinforces the idea.
Recently I've heard of people filing for a suppressor tax stamp getting it back in two-five weeks, with a few people getting them back in a few days. Speculation was they were trying to clean up their act with the political winds blowing as they are; this reinforces the idea.
We'll see.
Thursday, March 21, 2024
"I'm not supposed to know all this, I'm a diversity appointment!"
“So you submitted a brief, an appellate brief, you signed it, and you don’t know and… you said abolish 'assault weapons,' and you don’t know what you wanted them to abolish?”
Of course not, it's just the buzz phrase she's been taught to parrot.
Of course not, it's just the buzz phrase she's been taught to parrot.
A collection of news stuff
First, the former PM of Ireland, who took woke to a new level for there and finally got told to eff off.
Playing "He identifies as a woman so we'll transfer 'her' to a female prison" just doesn't work.
At least if you give a damn about the women.
That sounds like the EffingBI seeing data deleted so nobody could file a Freedom of Information Act action and see it. Which sounds a bit illegal, doesn't it?
Why yes, it does seem like a college pushing racist training would violate someone's rights.
Well, this doesn't surprise me at all about Fecesbook and (We Are Evil)Google.
Playing "He identifies as a woman so we'll transfer 'her' to a female prison" just doesn't work.
At least if you give a damn about the women.
That sounds like the EffingBI seeing data deleted so nobody could file a Freedom of Information Act action and see it. Which sounds a bit illegal, doesn't it?
Why yes, it does seem like a college pushing racist training would violate someone's rights.
Well, this doesn't surprise me at all about Fecesbook and (We Are Evil)Google.
Wednesday, March 20, 2024
Monday, March 18, 2024
Gun Free Zone has posted on 'one-punch kills',
here's another one for the list.
I'd guess either the man had preexisting health problems, or his head hit the pavement when he fell.
I'd guess either the man had preexisting health problems, or his head hit the pavement when he fell.
I have posted a bunch about Israel, both before and after
the attack last October. I'm aware some of you don't hold the Israelis in high regard; that's fine. As said before, I don't consider them angels without flaw, just an actual democratic government in a place where they're about the only one. And, nominally, on our side. So, an ally who definitely has its own interests* but is generally with us.
That's the basic. So when a bunch of bloody-handed murderers, rapists, and torturers attack them again, and they say "ENOUGH!" and pull out the big hammer, I sympathize with and support them. And it really pisses me off when a bunch of supposed 'liberals' and socialists(face it, there's nothing 'progressive' about them) believe every lie and support the bad guys, and our Professional Journalists seem willing to repeat every claim and flat-out lie by said bad guys, without question...
Which brings us to what I ran across at Insty this morning, from which I will quote about said 'liberals' & Co.:
So whatever one thinks of Israeli policy, or Israel's eventual response to 10/7, one would think, based on my interlocutors' position, that critics of Israeli policy would nevertheless agree on one thing: Hamas must be deposed, one way or another. There is no plausible two-state solution with Hamas in power; the harsh critics are almost all self-styled progressives, and there is nothing progressive about Hamas's policies toward freedom of religion, LGBTQ rights, women, militarism, antisemitism, and so on, nor its constant theft of humanitarian aid. Hamas's rule in Gaza is essentially every Progressive's worst nightmare.
Yet, ever since at least 10/10, when it became clear that Israel's reaction to Hamas's atrocities was not going to be to capitulate, the harsh critics have been all but unanimous in calling for Israel to essentially surrender ("immediate ceasefire") with Hamas still in power, and have almost to a person not called on Hamas to surrender and abdicate. (And self-styled human rights organizations have felt free to make up human rights law, including contradicting their own past public positions in other conflicts.)
I have to admit that I underestimated the mendacity of these people.
Lots of people have. Which is why nothing they say is trusted any more, or given benefit of doubt. On a LOT of things.
Which brings us to what I ran across at Insty this morning, from which I will quote about said 'liberals' & Co.:
So whatever one thinks of Israeli policy, or Israel's eventual response to 10/7, one would think, based on my interlocutors' position, that critics of Israeli policy would nevertheless agree on one thing: Hamas must be deposed, one way or another. There is no plausible two-state solution with Hamas in power; the harsh critics are almost all self-styled progressives, and there is nothing progressive about Hamas's policies toward freedom of religion, LGBTQ rights, women, militarism, antisemitism, and so on, nor its constant theft of humanitarian aid. Hamas's rule in Gaza is essentially every Progressive's worst nightmare.
Yet, ever since at least 10/10, when it became clear that Israel's reaction to Hamas's atrocities was not going to be to capitulate, the harsh critics have been all but unanimous in calling for Israel to essentially surrender ("immediate ceasefire") with Hamas still in power, and have almost to a person not called on Hamas to surrender and abdicate. (And self-styled human rights organizations have felt free to make up human rights law, including contradicting their own past public positions in other conflicts.)
I have to admit that I underestimated the mendacity of these people.
Lots of people have. Which is why nothing they say is trusted any more, or given benefit of doubt. On a LOT of things.
Now throw in President Gropey & Co. trying to force Israel to lose. For two reasons:
1. A bunch of muslim voters in a couple of states are threatening not to vote for Gropey because 'You're supporting Israel's genocide against Palisimians!"
2. The asshats at the State Dept., who seem to have hated Israel since the day founded, really want them to lose.**
And I'm really sick of this garbage and the people running it.
*'Nations do not have friends, they have interests' I think is the quote.
** No understanding. It's like the British diplomatic people having some romantic vision of the arabs and dislike of Jews. Why?
1. A bunch of muslim voters in a couple of states are threatening not to vote for Gropey because 'You're supporting Israel's genocide against Palisimians!"
2. The asshats at the State Dept., who seem to have hated Israel since the day founded, really want them to lose.**
And I'm really sick of this garbage and the people running it.
*'Nations do not have friends, they have interests' I think is the quote.
** No understanding. It's like the British diplomatic people having some romantic vision of the arabs and dislike of Jews. Why?
Sunday, March 17, 2024
I'm mentioning this tonight because if I don't, I'll forget to
Another installment of "If you hate our Major Media, you probably don't hate them enough."
In advance of oral arguments tomorrow in the Supreme Court for Murthy v. Missouri, formerly Missouri v. Biden, the New York Times and authors Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers wrote a craven and dishonest piece called, “How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation.”
The Times implies both the Twitter Files reports and my congressional testimony with Michael Shellenberger were strongly influenced by former Trump administration official Mike Benz, whose profile occupies much of the text. Benz is described as a purveyor of “conspiracy theories, like the one about the Pentagon’s use of Taylor Swift,” that are “talking points for many Republicans.” They quote Shellenberger as saying meeting Benz was the “Aha moment,” in our coverage, and the entire premise of the piece is that Benz and other “Trump allies” pushed Michael, me, and the rest of the Twitter Files reporters into aiding a “counteroffensive” in the war against disinformation, helping keep social media a home for “antidemocratic tactics.”
This all has a strong whiff of setup.
Oh yes, there's a lot more. Isn't it wonderful how Journalists can find a way to approve of the .gov controlling what people get to read?
In advance of oral arguments tomorrow in the Supreme Court for Murthy v. Missouri, formerly Missouri v. Biden, the New York Times and authors Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers wrote a craven and dishonest piece called, “How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation.”
The Times implies both the Twitter Files reports and my congressional testimony with Michael Shellenberger were strongly influenced by former Trump administration official Mike Benz, whose profile occupies much of the text. Benz is described as a purveyor of “conspiracy theories, like the one about the Pentagon’s use of Taylor Swift,” that are “talking points for many Republicans.” They quote Shellenberger as saying meeting Benz was the “Aha moment,” in our coverage, and the entire premise of the piece is that Benz and other “Trump allies” pushed Michael, me, and the rest of the Twitter Files reporters into aiding a “counteroffensive” in the war against disinformation, helping keep social media a home for “antidemocratic tactics.”
This all has a strong whiff of setup.
Oh yes, there's a lot more. Isn't it wonderful how Journalists can find a way to approve of the .gov controlling what people get to read?
I said it before: if I had a kid now, there phone
would work for phone calls and texts, and nothing else. This just makes me think all parents should do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)