A bit of heartening news: the NYT published an article about Berliner's suspension and the comments are overwhelmingly critical of NPR and the suspension.
I could focus on the irony of someone commenting about another news organization in the NYT that "It is no longer a news organization but rather a social justice advocacy organization that uses stories to advance policy agendas," when that's also an apt description for the NYT, but let's take the victories where we can find them. The FP hit an absolute home run with this story and deserves to take a victory lap. NPR might be beyond saving, but there's now broad public recognition of what it's become.
Uri Berliner is 67-68 years old. By reporting the truth, he took a calculated, possibly career-ending risk that his younger NPR colleagues would likely never have considered regardless of their beliefs.
By contrast, Katherine Maher, NPR's new CEO, is 40 years old, has a Bachelor's degree in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, a background/career that largely includes fund-raising roles, and was reportedly paid almost $800K (including severance pay) during her last year at Wikimedia.
Doesn't TFP have an adequate sufficiency (my sainted mother's construct) of slowly more-or-less-converting, moderate (much less actually conservative) contributors on training wheels?
There's the ones I recommend on my own 'stack (on my Home Page)....plus various big ones (you may already know)...Rufo, Crawford, NS Lyons, Euphoric, Soldo, Eugypius, Helen Dale/Lorenzo Warby. There's hundreds of course but you mostly just come across them sort of by accident. Hope that is at least of some help.
I think he most likely has changed as he’s become the object of the latest Two Minute Hate. But….at the end of the day, I doubt he’s had that big of an epiphany. I’m sure he’ll still vote democrat.
Urine Berliner and all those commie loving 'journalists should have their salary announced before they hit the air they are 2 faced bastards crying for and about the poor as they rake in obscene amounts of money
Love the idea of Mr. Berliner joining TFP. I may not agree with his supposed left leaning politics; however, he is very courageous to openly disagree with the disturbing trend he sees at his once beloved workplace. He is exactly the kind of writer TFP needs: someone willing to criticize disturbing trends in the workplace—especially places whose mission closely aligns with his beliefs. Berliner wrote that piece about NPR and went on “Honestly”
with Bari Weiss. He knew he would become a pariah at NPR. I find his actions impressive, considering he has been there for 25 years. One could easily coast along and ignore troubling signs, but he chose to be bold. Bari, Nellie: bring him home to us!!!!!
Buried deep in Katherine Maher's bio is the info that shows that she grew up in a very privileged setting. Her hometown is Wilton, CT - a tony, wealthy Fairfield County community with a median family income approaching $200K and a median home price of well over $1M. Her father was a Goldman Sachs executive. Her mother was educated at UMASS and Columbia, and is now a local politician.
Nina Jankowicz what a dipshit! Have you ever heard her speak? When she was appointed as the administrator of the Homeland Security's short live misinformation board she wrote a song about misinformation and sang it. She made a complete fool of herself.
She is a hardcore leftwing nut case. Compro would love her and want to marry her. Hell, he probably already has.
Once again, the left picks one of the best and the brightest to run their government funded Democrat propaganda agency that is designed to stifle free speech.
So so predictable, a white Western upper class lib woman majoring in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies. Just classic. Why doesn't she just go live in Iran? Or Afghanistan. Or even just Saudi Arabia where she can't drive? This woman is the definition of awful.
NPR is advocacy. Not journalism. And her job is raising money from her fellow AWFLs that control corporate gift giving. IMO, she is perfect for the job, since she is the pinnacle AWFL.
NPR and many of its local affiliates are undergoing financial stress. Corporate sponsors are moving dollars away from them to social media. Congress is unlikely to increase their funding. They need a strong fundraiser at the top of the organization. Unless they can stabilize their funding, they will continue to shrink and continue to provide news coverage that their present audience wants to hear, not what they need to hear and certainly not that which will challenge their present biases and force them to rethink their assumptions.,
Uri’s severance package will be huge, but, you know, undisclosed by agreement of the parties.
I have no idea if their suspension of him (and his resignation, which any good lawyer would call “constructive discharge”) is really actionable at law, but NPR, and more importantly their masters, do NOT want discovery and testimony. “Your Honor, plaintiff calls Adam Schiff.”
Before I quit reading The New York Times altogether, I noticed that the comments were becoming more moderate, and my comments (those that actually made it in) were gathering many more "likes" than previously. That sometimes they mysteriously were disappeared a few days or a week later by leftist staffers didn't negate the fact that hundreds of Times subscribers were getting sick of the slant and appreciated reading a bit of common sense.
Sometimes I miss the Times, but all it takes is a glance at anti-Israel and pro-social justice headlines to remind me why I stopped reading it.
So we mustn't despair. NPR and its affiliates WNYC and Gothamist have long been worse than The New York Times, New Yorkers at least are sick of both criminals and illegal aliens crowding us out, and outlets that persist in Democratic-socialist mythology will find themselves abandoned.
I quit the NYT after they banned me from commenting. I suggested DiBlasio had a double standard, and may be an anti-Semite when he sent the NYPD to shut down the public funeral of a Brooklyn rabbi but he permitted the Floyd protests to go on without limit.
That double standard on public meetings led to one of the best jokes of 2020. Q: Why is a glass broken at a Jewish wedding? So Mayor DiBlasio will think it is a riot and not a religious ceremony.
It might be that I am a lot older than you. The New York Times used to have fine investigative reporting. I began to get very cranky with it a dozen years ago but held on. And it might be that you are in any event more conservative on some things than I am.
Doubtful. I was 10 in 1959. My teachers demanded I cite to the Times. I refused and argued that the Herald Tribune was far superior and reliable. Even then. Remember that Duranty was in the 1930s. And Jayson Blair got away with fantasy in the late 1990s and early 2000.
The thing about the Times that always made be laugh derisively was the juxtaposition of some tear jerking article about the plight of some social victim with an advertisement of a $5000 gown or necklace at Bergdorf or Bonwit. The term "limousine liberal" must have been coined for them.
This is a response from the WSJ moderation team when I questioned why a comment was removed.
Thank your for your email. We do not allow comments that focus on WSJ moderation policy. We have found that a majority of our readers do not like to read these types of comments.
I think more readers like to read those comments. It’s the moms that don’t.
I enjoyed the NYT for a long time despite it's "slant" but they finally lost me for good over the articles glorifying all things "trans" with NO reporting on Dr. Lisa Littman and Abigail Shier. Instead, they have this guy named "Jennifer" Boylan - English professor at Barnard - who writes about what a beautiful thing it is how both he and one of his sons "transitioned" to become their true woman. There would be no articles suggesting AGP. What about publishing an article from each position? Littman would publish studies but you would never know it. Now we have a major medical scandal regarding children but most people in the US have no idea about it, "Admiral" Levine is still in office, and Title IX destroys sports for girls (see the bit about West Virgina).
I noticed the same thing. I let my subscription lapse recently but still occasionally look at articles, and the comments are a lot more balanced than many people probably think. Dare I say it, a lot more balanced than those dominating TFP. Then again, they are also a lot more heavily moderated.
Is TFP moderated? I don't think so. My comments appear almost instantaneously. In some moderated boards it can take almost a day before a comment appears.
I believe TFP is truly a free speech forum.
I have yet to see a post that goes off the rails and is totally disgusting. Even left and right wingnut posts are semi-civil, a little harsh but nothing horrible.
The participants on this BBS are often the moderators. None of us are particularly shy about expressing our opinions about a poster who insults another poster.
I haven't seen a comment or a poster removed by TFP staff for a very long time, since before the name change. Even Compost has managed, in his second iteration, to avoid being booted.
The participants have always been a sort of moderating force here. Outrageous comments are either challenged or simply allowed to drift quietly to the mucky bottom. Most of us have developed the habit of meeting trolls with the stony silence they deserve.
Even though Substack has no downvote option, the lack of upvotes on comments sends its own message.
To my delight, I get more likes than compro when I post 666 and the Jimmy Buffet song. It must be a blow to his ego to post here and get no likes and very few responses.
I was referencing the NYT with the remark about moderation. I agree there doesn't seem to be any moderation of TFP comments, which I think is a plus.
Most of the comments here are semi civil I agree with that. I have seen one or two that were what I'd categorize as pretty disgusting, but I don't think heavy moderation is the answer to that.
Curious....are the comments moderate or do they balance out to end up moderate? To me there is a difference. If you are blocking any opinions except for moderate, you are still censoring.
Also, moderate is relative. What you find moderate may be left or right to someone else.
At The New York Times, most of the comments were progressive, way left of center. I never saw what I'd consider a conservative comment although some of mine might have been considered so.
But I did see more and more comments like mine cropping up. Perhaps the moderators hadn't gotten wise to them yet.
I quit NYT after Trump was elected in late 2016. They totally lost their shit. It was bad enough that they could not write an article on any topic without working in climate change or systematic racism in the first paragraph, but at least that was sort of funny as much as annoying.
But, for shits and grins, I read one of their articles (probably linked by Nellie) towards the waning end of masks in spring 2022. Wow. What a moral panic of the AWFLs. Their 5 year old grandkids were at risk of sudden death if other kindergartners weren't required to be double masked or vaccinated, or both.
NYT comments are heavily moderated so I think it's hard to know whether more people are actually making what i'd call "moderate" comments lately, or the moderators are just letting more things fly.
I prefer my lame attempt at humor to good grammar. Especially when it comes to the self proclaimed paper of record. If I offend let me apologize by quoting Steve Martin: Well excuuuuse me!
Read Michael Lind’s article today in Tablet - it looks like we doomed as conservatives, we destined to have these dipshit Democrats for the next 7 decades if I read it correctly.
It's worth remembering that NPR quit Twitter (now X) back when Musk labeled them "state-affiliated media." It amazes me that NPR just doesn't get it. How smart can they actually be?
"This much is certain: stupidity is, in essence, not an intellectual defect, but a moral one. There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually, but stupid. And others, who are intellectually dull, but anything but stupid."
Bonhoeffer was a giant. I read his book on the Psalms a couple months ago and benefited greatly from it.
A federal judge says no males in female sports violates Title IX…I can’t say I’m shocked. The most educated people have consistently shown themselves to be the biggest morons in the country over the last several years.
If Serena Williams had to play against males, she would have worked just as hard, been just as amazing, and would have been completely unknown, because no one knows who the 300th ranked tennis player in the world is.
If Florence Griffith Joyner had to run against males, she would have worked just as hard, been just as amazing, and no one would know her because she would have finished last in every race she ran after her 14th birthday.
Like that. I think it's simple enough that even a judge can understand it.
I worked a track meet over the weekend and a 14 year old boy ran a 100 meter at a time that was less than half a second slower than the women’s world record. He’s going to easily surpass that by the time he graduates. But men are women and what not.
All these people who have made a joke of Title IX and don’t know what a woman is will be shocked when men who are decent athletes in high school but not national or world class begin to dominate every sport where women can
make a decent living. I coached and officiated track teams at many levels when Title IX was introduced. The excitement of the women who could the compete against other women for scholarships and glory and even money was overwhelming. I’m watching that be lost because of fools who think that the trend was temporary and limited. That’s not how the progressive movement or the Democrats works. We are viewing the nose of the camel, the rest of the beast is preparing to destroy women’s sports.
Prof, don’t go there: he is absolutely right. It’s not about the numbers, it’s about the signal this sends. Look at the photos of the second and third-place girls who competed against Thomas (standing there in all his smugness, a full head taller) and you can see they are dying inside, told by their parents that they can’t call this out for the risk of being labelled transphobes. It is sick!
All I can hope is that this too will pass, but it is damaging dreams and lives before it does.
I believe Williams said herself that she did not want to play against males because they would crush her. There is nothing serious to debate here. There is a reason we separate men and women's sports, and it isn't just because of the words used to describe the players or even what bits they have. Men are the bodies we throw at bad stuff to protect women and children. And they have evolved to be better at it, which happens to also help them throw sports balls better.
I think a big part of this issue is that for years the Girl Boss movement has been trying to convince the world that woman are as good or better than men at everything. So they can't actively admit that in some cases, men are better. Period.
The irony is if there were no trans activists this trans person would have played with the females and there would not have been a lawsuit. The trans activist movement devoted to an anti science anti truth ideology needs to recruit kids into their cult, has hurt the very tiny cohort of the long acknowledged young males with GD. It should never have been politicized . These boys were treated in private with the drs, and parents, mostly out of the public eye. No parties or celebrations thrown. These fringe well financed cultists picked a fight with the rest of the world. It’s a battle the sane must win.
Agreed. The people who just want to transition are not the ones shouting. Those people just want to be left alone. Its the people that are doing this for attention or access to female spaces that are making a fuss (and for some reason, the left have decided to lift up).
I still find it odd that no one mentions that there are no Trans men clamoring to be on men's teams.
The notion that having GD is cause for a celebration is lunacy by itself. Which sane parent would wish that on a child? These activists are dangerous to the very fabric of society.
Trans is what you said - a cult. Just a group of people that want attention and soon we hope they all drink the kool-aid and disappear......Why couldn't we just keep LGB...totally ok....the rest is garbage political games.....
I do mention the fact that there are no M to F trans ppl clamoring to compete with the males. And that there are more and more reports of these self declared “ females” who often haven’t even transitioned showing up to compete with females. It’s rather obvious that this movement is anti female and anti gay
The Williams sisters once claimed they could beat any man ranked worse than 200. #203 Karsten Braasch took them up on it and beat each of them handily back to back (after playing a round of golf and having a couple of beers earlier in the day).
Sorry, I think it is you who don't understand, so let me spell it our for you: They understand. They understand perfectly. They just don't care. They really really do not give a shit.
Some years back John MacEnro was asked about Serena and he stated she was an amazing athlete but if she played on the men's tour she would be ranked 700th, because there are 700 allowed.
She would only be able to return a serve by luck in most cases.
She would slaughter me on the court, but that is not the question.
Hate to be boring but: No one sufficiently credentialed will grasp the concept. Other than to grant clemency to the perp (Assuming that the matter even gets to "court" -- that will require an attorney with the balls to bring the case.)
I have always told people, some of the most ignorant (meaning they refuse to see / learn the issues) have a Dr. or PhD. behind their names. These are people who assume the mantel of superior knowledge based on the completing of school courses. No real life knowledge, just what some person wrote in a book. The most clueless people I ever met were Professors who were teaching and actually were very far from reality. In the meantime, people who had their own businesses, auto, air condition, and others were the most tuned in. Or as the old saying, what do you call a lawyer with a 2.2 GPA? Your Honor!
Actually you call that lawyer a damn good junk yard dog... A lawyer is the gunfighter ..since their client is toooo scared to pick up the gun. ....so who do you want to be represented by .....a junk yard dog . .or a Harvard or Berkeley graduate which only knows how to ????? Ah fucj it ....be a pussy
Sadly like the train crossing is never forced to have signal lights until the school bus gets hit, this will continue until some poor woman is so badly injured she dies. Even then, it may take multiple deaths. The insanity pushing this entire agenda, and the inability to speak against it without threat of losing your job, is too strong right now.
It will simply take courage. If every team that doesn't have Trans players takes a stand and forfeits and trans game, it would have a huge impact. But it is hard to stand out and they will face all kinds of backlash. Luckily more and more women are doing it. So i have hope.
I don't think a death will matter. The media has gotten very good at downplaying anything that shows how their ideals are failing.
That won't happen because there really are many useful idiots--girls, their parents, and women--who would willingly take their own demise to cheer on the boys and men out to destroy them. They'll get a rush telling those who object that they have no problem competing with a male calling himself she. They trade in walking away with a trophy for walking away feeling superior and holier than thou for being Good People(TM).
Judges have shown themselves to be corrupt. Just witnessing the types of judges the senate has approved for Biden shoudl keep you up an night with concern. I wonder what they are teaching in law school about the constitution and criminal justice. Did they replace constitutional law classes with critical race theory and DEI?
In many ways, the idiocy of our federal bench is exceeded only by its cowardice. They were installed to enforce the laws and protect our liberties. Not to be shills and rubber stamps for the government over which they are supposed to watch.
The more I watch this and agree with everyone here saying how stupid and obviously moronic this is, I mean think about it. A Supreme Court Judge will eventually rule on a Title IX case, but she (do I use her correct pronoun?) cannot even define a woman!!
I am becoming increasingly convinced that this is not a question of intelligence, but moral and spiritual warfare. Not flesh and blood as Paul reminded us.
Did anyone commenting here bother to actually read the linked article? This isn’t what the judge ruled. Indeed this was a very narrow ruling related only to this particular student who had been early and fully transitioned to female. Indeed she had been issued a new birth certificate. Perhaps you’ll all think that’s absurd and decide to chew in that bone, but regarding this ruling the judge made it very clear that title IX did not strike down the state ban on transgender participation in sports, only this instance.
Well, you must know best…but maybe consider that your limited knowledge of the human genome and how it expresses itself in any one individual may not be adequate to make such judgments. Consider one of the most common “abnormalities” wherein someone presenting as a male is born with an extra two or even more X chromosomes.
Those abnormalities are very rare, and irrelevant for the sake of this discussion. Even one of the most common, 47,XXY (Klinefelter's Syndrome) only occurs in 0.1-0.2% of live births. Many KS sufferers are infertile, an indication of just how abnormal the condition really is. Genetically, KS folks are male due to the presence of a Y chromosome, they do not just "present as male". The presence of the Y chromosome biologically defines "male" for humans and most other mammals.
Stan is exactly right. The number of X chromosomes doesn't matter for sex determination. If you have at least one Y you are a male; if you do not you are a female. It really is binary.
And the females who have a Y chromosome? But beyond all of the chromosomal variations, if somehow we decide that genetic make up determines which sport team you play on or bathroom you use, how would this be determined? Will we have to carry around. QR code with our 23 and me results that can be used as verification? My point in all of this is that we have to learn to live with this and the ambiguity that often comes with it.
There are no females with a Y chromosome, though there are males who wish to be treated as females. Society can choose to treat such males as females to the extent it wishes, but it cannot alter their actual sex.
What’s the precedent? That someone who has a revised birth certificate is allowed to participate in girl’s sports? As the article pointed out, there is only one person in the state that this applies to. And everyone here wants to get all hot and bothered about it. Why? Maybe reserve your ire for a true transgression. I for one am happy to see that judges can make rational choices based on the specific facts of a case.
Hum biology. As I pointed out in a response to another commenter, biology isn’t always as simple as boy/girl. Perhaps you are an expert on genetics and all of the variations that can occur and so feel confident that your “take” on biology is the last word here. You can choose to be curious and open minded about what you don’t know. Or just assume that your limited knowledge is all that’s required to make a judgment.
So if I’m understanding your comment here, because I challenged your knowledge of biology, which is clearly limited, you are telling me to I’m not welcome here. Interesting. You had a choice to inform yourself further or maybe seriously confront
me about the facts and my thinking, but chose instead to “banish” me. Is this what free speech is all about?
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll go slowly for you.
One does not need 5 seconds of biology to know males & females differ. A 4 year old knows. You should know.
Like some on this site you to want to argue needlessly. You're free to carry on your tiresome crusade, and I have no power to silence you.....duh.
I don't need to be an astronomer to know where the sunrises, sets, or shines......and I'll politely refrain from suggesting where you should stick this 'biology theory' of yours.
You may be happier on another site with your own tribe.
I am objecting to Title IX being used in this way. There is no way this was the intent of Title IX. It is not the language of Title IX. I understand what you are saying. This ban seems particularly harsh applied against a boy who decided he was a girl in third grade and has identified as a girl for a long time, got a new birth certificate, played on girls sports teams. So you are celebrating the judges looking at the facts and narrowly applying Title IX to not allow the ban in this particular case. But, in fairness, that isn't their job. That's the legislature's job. Now the schools will not know exactly where the line is, right? What if the boy decided he was a girl in 5th grade? What if it was 9th grade? What if he used a girls name but didn't get his birth certificate changed? I mean, either Title IX prohibits a ban or it doesn't it. It certainly doesn't take all these facts into account. You applaud the outcome - and are free to do so. But that doesn't mean the case was decided correctly. Title IX was passed to prohibit discrimination against women in sports. Not to ensure transgender women get to compete against women. It's really that simple.
You make a very strong case here, especially as it concerns how schools are to decide in the future. I could only say that this is typically what happens when laws are tested by individual cases. As for Title IX, it was correctly invoked here as it prohibits sex-based based discrimination, not simply discrimination against girls/females. Of course, when gender is “unstable” as in this and other cases, what criteria should be used? In some sports or in some age groups it may not matter but in most it does. There’s an appeal to absolutist solutions—they sound so neat and tidy and sensible. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s possible here.
They aren't doing this out of stupidity. They know exactly what they are doing and it is all meant to tear down our institutions. It is all intentional.
Actually, the court only said the law discriminates against this one trans student. The ban survives. It will take legal action for each student who believes "she" is being discriminated to sue. So, this case is limited to its facts (boy identifies as girl in 3rd grade). It will not mean that school will have to allow a boy who decides at age 15 that he can compete more easily as a girl at age 15 to do so. Thankfully.
I want a trans activist to explain why we even have gender segregated sports. The most obvious rationale of the biological differences would need to be discarded and you are left with no real reason. Let's just have "sports." It would crush women, but maybe that would lead to a rejection of the foolishness we see at present.
I'm pro-liberal democracy/democratic republic, pro- electoral college, pro- liberal education, pro-free speech, pro-responsible capitalism, pro- merit, pro -blind justice, pro- private property, pro-animals and the environment, pro- men and pro-women, pro- Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western societies. If you're a man who wants to be a woman that's fine, but do not step on my rights by mandating what I can think or say; that I call any individual "they" or be punished for the thought crime of not regarding you as an actual woman. I'm anti-DEI, anti-censorship, anti-real racism, against any race; anti- tribalism, anti- groupthink, anti-"disinformation" cons, anti-politicization of law enforcement at every level. I have a particular aversion to indoctrination. I believe in an additive, not zero-sum approach. Don't tear down, often literally, white founders -- of the country or Harvard -- add to them. Don't destroy or bowdlerize the Western Canon -- add to it. Most of these things are dead center. The left and the New York Times keep moving the goal post on labels. Anything that is not "progressive," which has become a euphemism for a pastiche of anti- Western, anti- American, anti- white, anti- semitic Marxism, is somehow on the "right." AOC is never described as a Marxist. Most people are not are all Column A or all Column B. Most are in the center -a little to left of center, a little to the right. We should use "center" more often if for no other reason than it must hold.
The issue I think is that, outside of forums like this one, those of us who find ourselves firmly in the center pool on most issues have no place to organize and tell the two extremes to take a time-out. We are out organized, out screamed, and out funded by those who make a living off of Big Grievance and Big Government (both the left and the right wing flavors). It can feel very lonely to stand in the middle until you get here and realize, as you nod along with most of the comments, that we are here and we are many.
It seems that with teaching kids all the new rules in a DEI run world they don't have time to teach them that the stated goal of all of it is the destruction of western civilization, to be replaced by an honest to God Orwellian society.
Animal rights? Doubtful. Mainstream, yes. I voted for neither Biden nor Trump in the last election. I cannot abide Republican politicians' contempt for the environment and for animals on so many issues. I'm an independent. Sorry.
You clearly haven’t looked at Republican rural policy about animals for example.
I doubt you can find republican policies which are more harmful to the environment than the stupendous strip mining for lithium which democrats love for their “green” boondoggles.
I'm a republican and rescued a blind American Bully, buy cage-free eggs, buy free-range beef and believe how we treat other living creatures is a reflection of our own morality. Also, as a civil engineer, believe we all want clean air and water but the government has shown it's incompetence in mandating how we get there (not to mention that comparatively, the money the US spends addressing the last 10% of our pollution pales to the damage being done by China and India).
The best book written about animal welfare is "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy", by Matthew Scully, a conservative Republican. Highly recommend it, though parts are hard to read.
Not sure about "animals".... factory farms are evil, but it's not like Democrats are doing anything about them. You'd need to be pretty indoctrinated by MSM to imagine Republicans have anything to do with animal cruelty.
For "the environment" as a concept, there is the matzo ball of global warming which Republicans do refuse to consider, while Democrats will make out to be far bigger than it is. I don't know the reality of it all, but Republicans/conservatives should care a little bit more about that. Meanwhile, Democrats should stop pretending that every single hurricane is caused by climate change.
I think in general, republicans are analytical whereas democrats are emotional. If you analyze the impact policies promoted by the "global warming" cult do/will have on every day people struggling to make ends meet, the only conclusion you can come to is that they want people to die. Unfortunately, the true believers have the attention span of a gnat and refuse to listen.
Some of the more extreme globalists of course want people to die. My impression of *Democrats* is their general policy position on addressing climate change is actually about wealth redistribution, kickbacks to donors, propping up the "green" industry. For example, forcing X% all cars to be electric will have almost no impact on cities while very negatively impacting rural areas. And EV companies make money. Similarly, forcing gas stoves to be electric will have a minimal impact on wealthy people who can afford those changes, and zero impact on extremely poor people who do not own houses, but a great impact on middle and working class homeowners.
She mentioned animal rights, not animal cruelty. There is broad consensus against the latter, certainly including Republicans. The former not so much, and for good reason.
Animal rights is an interesting question. For example, should animals have the right to a fair trial? On 1474, in Basel, Switzerland, a rooster laid an egg. As we all know, an egg laid by a rooster will produce a basilisk or a cockatrice - which we definitely don't want. There were official legal proceedings, after which the offending rooster was sentenced to be burned alive. As was a poor cat named Tom, accused of witchcraft in 1598 in France -- although Tom had a legal defense team who presumably said he did not engage in any sort of witchcraft.
Some folks have a real need to put people in partisan boxes. I recently commented on some TFP article that I don't align with either the repub or dem party and got a lecture from someone on how I'm actually just a moderate democrat. Ok then, thank you for letting me know!
Gollum, there's no winning. To some, you're a Democrat and to others, a RINO. This is how both the far left and far right get to destroy America and remake it in their image. The question is, Who will prevail?
There are moderate Democrats, that's what's maddening. They vote Democrat for abortion or habit or single issue. I know plenty who can't stand wokeness and they're still going to vote Democrat. We need candidates who can reach the big group in the middle and we need them fast.
Incredible. For some, diversion from the party line one iota is apparently a declaration of war, allowing rudeness, and ad hominem attacks. Calling another commenter "it"? Good grief.
The comment section here is dominated by a few very vocal right wingers who seem to wake up at the crack of dawn, skim the morning article for any reference or even hint of a reference to Trump, Biden, or Tucker Carlson, and then rage in the comments if said person wasn't treated with the appropriate level of adulation or scorn.
Yet...they continue to monetarily support a place that refuses to adhere strictly to any one party line. So maybe there is hope.
What specific advantage is it to deliberately import wolves into ranch and farmland, where they immediately learn that their best food source is beef and poultry?
I suggest you Google Republican voting records and endangered species, farm animals, and alliance with Trophy hunting, trapping, logging, and other groups.
Unfortunately, voting for third or fourth party means your voice is missing. Disregard personality. What candidate will protect your rights? And that includes your rights to your property which includes more than your home.
Really? They seem more like the views that would have been shared by about 90% of Americans - Democrat or Republican - circa 1990 (except perhaps the bit about "Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western societies" which is a bit more old-fashioned than that). The fact most of these things have become partisan is a sad commentary on the state of the world.
Indeed. It isn’t the Right which has abandoned the culture and politics of America. It is the Left and although it started in the 1950s not the 1990s, it certainly accelerated at that time.
All true, I agree. But as I’m sure you would agree, with the way our two party system is structured, with the closed primaries, that politicians must (even though they don’t believe in it) play to the extreme voters to gain financial support and win primaries. Politicians who run a campaign of compromise and moderation have zero chance of winning a primary. Political competition by its very nature forces opponents to take extreme positions.
I read the USC Muslim's social media posts. They were about the lack of human rights, women's rights, gay rights, Christian rights, Jewish rights, minority rights and journalist free speech rights in the 2 billion, 41 Islamic Apartheid nation world...just kidding.
Glad that terrorist-sympathizer’s speech was cancelled, although unsurprisingly, the university screwed it up by citing “security concerns” as the reason. It should have been that the thousands and students and their families who worked hard and paid for their educations did not deserve to have their graduation ceremonies ruined by the “valedictorian” praising Hamas and the Palestinians’ October 7 pogrom in her speech, which she/her/it undoubtedly would have.
Honestly, I'm not. I'm glad TFP called this out here. That idiot sounds absolutely despicable and brainwashed. But not letting her speak only justifies her more. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Her speech could've been taped and gone viral for all to see how vile she is, including her potential future employers.
Those are good points and I agree, actually. It’s good to know who these Islamists and their enablers really are. I have a hard time, however, with a college graduation being poisoned by a propagandist for terrorism. After four years and a substantial financial investment, the real students and their families deserve much better.
Technically, if the valedictorian is a pedophile and wants to give a speech promoting pedophilia, that person should have the same right to speak as any other valedictorian. No, I wouldn't "want" it. but I would support the same principle applying to everyone on the issue of speech barring the actual narrowly defined legal hate speech, which no one who cries "hate speech" nowadays seem to know or understand.
But pedophiles won't give a speech like that because of social shame. The vile anti-semite would because right now, a segment of our society is oddly antisemitic (and many other things.)
A graduation ceremony is a mandatory school event with a captive audience. It is not a public forum. People have a free speech right to pray but not at a podium where students are forced to listen and assent.
There is no issue of Free Speech with this graduation. It is an issue about cancel culture. It seems unfair for the cancel culture supporters to object when it happens to them .
They fight dirty and hatefully. The other side does not. So far they’ve been winning with these tactics. Maybe it’s time to fight back. There was no hate or name calling or death threats ( things they do all the time). It seems the school realized their error at awarding her and opted for a pleasant day for the entire student body. This hate is destructive not constructive in any way.
That is a good point. The crybully mob this DEI “valedictorian” consorts with have been shouting and shutting down and forcing the cancellation of speakers with whom they disagree, for years. Predictably, they shriek like banshees when the exact same thing happens to them.
There are a few comments on that article in a separate posting of the same article. It seems The Free Press is changing how these comments and posts are delivered in the morning. It makes it cumbersome to know where is the proper place to . Post!
I wasn't aware until yesterday that you have to apply to be named a valedictorian, and that about 100 graduates did so. I was under the naive impression that the process was like that followed in high school.
Right, when it was done on merit. I wasn’t aware of that either. Apparently at USC, whoever uses the made-up phrase “settler-colonialist” and refers to “oppressed peoples of the Global South” the most times in their application gets the “honor.”
The two events USC graduation ) and the Brussels conservative conference, not only have nothing to do with “ freedom of speech , but they have nothing in common with one another
Graduation is a day for all graduates to celebrate with their families.This Muslim woman is free to opine all over social media and at every pro Hamas pro IRGC hate rally. A private school has no obligation to allow her to poison the day for others with her hate and vitriol. The mistake the school made was awarding her the valedictory position in the first place
The Brussels event was a group of adults who rented a facility to hold their convention, to hear one another speak. The opposition political party in power sent armed police( many of them) to prevent the meeting from taking place. That is tyranny.
And it is abt time that a University took an unpopular position and not give in to the woke students. The only problem here is How did the committee who chose her Not check her social media profiles first? Nowadays everyone gets vetted via Google, Instagram or FB.
That's not really true though. Graduation ceremony at universities do have a lot to do with who is picked to speak. God, I miss the days when at my graduation every other actually important person were speaking elsewhere already and our inept committee in charge ended up inviting Barbara Bush as the keynote speaker. And the controversy wasn't so much political (slightly but not much) than "Why are we having someone who did nothing notable on her own except marrying someone who's a president???"
Gosh it occurs to me that most people don't know that the boys at Charlottesville were both provoked and attacked first by leftist radicals.
When leftists shut down right-wing events, the "safety" part is in reference to their foot soldiers starting violence to chase away the conservatives. Then the violent radicals get a big pat on the back from their professor, a free A in the politics class, and the Uni has an excuse next time to say the conservative events are just too dangerous to allow!
Be that as it may, and I would defend to death the right of those boys to say whatever they want to say. But one can hardly feel sympathetic with what they were saying.
My understanding was that they didn't want a statue of Robert E Lee to removed and melted, because that's cultural warfare and it's how leftist socialists destroy the identity of their enemies.
Btw, the historic statue has since been destroyed.
Come on, you know it wasn't just about the statue being removed. For whatever it's worth, I'm not from the South and I'm not white, and I think all the statues removing of Confederate leaders is dumb and ridiculous. There is historic value. At the least, they should be kept at museums somewhere for historical preservation if removed. But it's not really about that for either side.
But to answer your question, some of the protestors who were interviewed were quoted saying things that were outright, white separatist if you want to be generous, or white supremacists if not. I'm sorry I'm unable to cite sources as it was a long time ago and I'm just a normie and I don't keep record of everything I read.
Kudos to Oliver on today's column. More journalism and less opinion. Regarding censorship ( and its sister conformity of thought), this is the issue that launched Common Sense and it is only getting worse. Make no mistake this is predominantly from the left ( USC is not MAGA country although do be careful if you venture out to a subway store at 2 am). I was would have let the Val give her hate filled speech so all can see what the young lady stands for and how deep her disgust is for western civilization and America. I am ifcthe view that she was canceled to prevent the USC rot from being exposed. The only thing that would not have been safe had she done so would have been the jobs of senior administrators at the University of Spoiled Children and decreases in alumni donations. As for Europe, the Enlightenment is now a footnote to history and the clock is tik toking before the continent and great Britain will pay the price for their decision to open their borders and abandon their heritage and history. C'EST LA VIE.
I think you're right about USC's reasons for stopping her from speaking. USC had to be well aware that she was very likely to spill her hatred at the podium. The resulting firestorm would probably be expensive (large donors withdrawing their support from the university).
But the thing to keep in mind here is that they did not remove her as valedictorian. That means that the university supports her views. (Which is not exactly news, given that her views are, in fact, taught by tenured professors in USC classrooms.) In a sane world, a student with such views would have been eliminated from valedictorian consideration in the first round.
Was she really? Do we actually KNOW what she would say? Or was this all anticipatory simply because she is Muslim and had announced pro-Palestinian views?
Fascinating. None of those things listed are germane to the discussion, although they were clearly met. The only one in question would be #5 and that is interpretive/subjective.
She was awarded the accolade...now it has been rescinded. You're all about "merit," right? Highest SAT/GPA should get admittance to universities, right?
Really interesting how this "cancel culture" stuff works, isn't it? I think I speak for all of us here when I say this is truly outrageous.
I wonder if they would have done the same to a rabid Kahanists/Zionists valedictorian? I think we both know the answer to that :)
I didn't suggest that she shouldn't be able to give her speech. She was selected as valedictorian. I have no objection to her giving her speech. I actually think it would have been a good thing. Though probably for different reason than you.
But you suggested it was JUST highest numbers win. When, in reality, there is a fair amount of subjectivity in who is selected.
Valedictorians should be (and often are) selected on the basis of the entire persona, with good grades as only one factor in the equation. Just because you have good grades doesn't mean that you have a wise, balanced, honest perspective, and shouldn't allow you to foist your hateful prejudices on your fellow graduates.
Yours is outdated information. Most institutions no longer use GPA as the sole factor. Other factors are leadership, community service (including acts of heroism), unusual talents (in writing, art, music etc.) There's nothing woke about these traits. If you group Zionist with Kahanists, you obviously also don't understand what it means to be a Zionist. I don't presume to predict your answers, and I consider it silly of you to pretend to predict mine.
No. "Most institutions" do NOT award valedictorian status based on "art projects" or "community service" or being able to play an instrument really well. That is a lie.
"Zionism": an ethno-religious supremacists ideology.
She was awarded - by the university's current standards in 2024 - So, it's not "outdated," at all is it? :) Hmmm.....sounds like you want the school to change their standards to meet YOUR parameters, now that a valedictorian you don't like achieved the merit-based standards.
You would have ZERO problem if a rabid Kahanists/Zionists were valedictorian - and you wouldn't be saying shit about how they need to have "community service" or "art projects" then.
So, your quibble over terminology is irrelevant. You would have supported Kahane (past) or Ben-Guivir (present) being commencement speaker.
Now, you want people to be picked on the basis of things other than merit? What about all the DEIs who are stealing all admission seats from the whites and Asians?
Now you want to ensure a "welcoming and inclusive environment," etc. - as long as they're Jewish? You were against that when it came to other ethnic/religious groups. Now, you're suddenly "woke."
You are a hypocrite. Just like 99% of this discussion board.
Anthony, how did you know the stories were removed? I myself was banned from Robert Hubbell’s sub-stack (for “100 years”!) for respectfully questioning the wisdom of giving the Republicans a cudgel to
beat them with over student loan forgiveness. The Libs have very thin skins. I always thought Bari allowed everything in the Comments section. Not so?
Interesting point that letting the Muslim speak might have exposed her hateful views, assuming she voiced her true feelings and not the taqquiya more likely in her speech. The fact she made Valedictorian (I wonder what her major was: Islamic Studies like the new NPR chief Woke Barbie?) could be an indictment of USC’s PC programming or an indication it honors merit whatever the students’ beliefs. As a USC alumni myself (JD 1992), I do have to clap back on the Spoiled Children archetype - sure there were plenty, but also scholarship kids like me and many minorities (I witnessed how the 92 rioters left USC unscathed out of respect for all it’s done for Civil Rights).
I understand the concern about cancel culture, something the left authoritarians( WOKE) started and support. They should therefore understand when it happens to them. No one has threatened her in any way . Or called for her death or rape as the pro Hamas ppl she supports do all the time to Jews and Israelis.
Once the school awarded her the valedictory position( a mistake) they found themselves in a bind. I would have liked to hear the behind closed door discussions that went into the decision.
The way I see it, not hiring a raging political loon is not cancel culture. If I were the employer, even aside from her views, the fact that she's a clear sign of a trouble-maker and instigator is enough for me to not hire her. I pay people to work, not to protest at the workplace for things outside of my company or org's purpose.
In America you're free to be a sex pervert, an anti-semite, and a racist....as long as you don't break the law. You're just not free to spew this filth at a graduation ceremony, or you place your school at great risk.
You want to attend, fine. Don't subject the masses to this deranged sickness.
Oh absolutely. I would be all-in for graduating students to walk out by the masses. Hell, I'd be among them if I were in the graduating class. I'll even bring posters to denounce her.
Sadly, today, I don't think the students will walk out. They might applaud.
Am Appalled by FISA (702) and the expanded powers of surveillance. Also appalled that congressional members have a certain exemption from this.
BUT why this framing ‘targeting everyone from BLM protesters to January 6 rioters. ”
I would be more accepting if you called them both protestors or both rioters vs the subtle(not so subtle)insinuation that one was acceptable and the other not.
Bruce, it would be interesting to hear your views on what happened in January 6th? 1st Amendment rights, or attempted insurrection? Trump a mere by-stander or the instigator? I guess we’ll find out if Clarence Thomas and his mates don’t sink it first.
Very good point. BLM rioters outnumbered Jan 6 rioters....and by some huge magnitude. An exampe of just how much anti-woke journalism falls inadvertently into using the wokerati's verbal framing.
Also thought to have caused a big spike/surge in black-on-black murder and rape. So much for black lives 'mattering'. But the grim irony of this will be entirely lost on the virtue-signalling wokerati.
Yes there was definitely a surge in murders, but it was definitely not because of BLM or lockdowns. It happened, but not because of anything Democrats did, no sir, it will forever be a mystery what cause that huge spike in black murder numbers.
Also, anybody who talks about black crime is a racist. Including me, but I read DiAngelo so I'm happy to boast of my racism.
FISA for Congress? Can not put gold bars under their pillows or take funds for the deep thoughtful speeches, or visits to foreign leaders who, ops, dropped that 50K bundle in your suitcase if you have surveillance and monitoring.
The FISA thing should really terrify us all. I can't believe I have to scroll this far down to see the first mention in comment. This IMO should be the top comment.This is where, once we get away from culture war issues, Dems and Republicans are still the same freakin party. Why even bother ousting Kevin McCarthy? Why not just get Nancy Pelosi back at this point? How on earth did we get to Mike Johnson and Nancy Pelosi being interchangeable?
Prior to the launch of FISA in 1978 there was no judicial or legislative oversight or review of national security surveillance conducted by the executive branch. The FBI conducted wiretaps and covert searches with Attorney General approval. Eliminate FISA, you end the review that has existed for the past 46 years.
Nice try. But "judicial oversight" is meaningless if our FISC judges permit the FBI to lie with impunity. Maybe the answer is to have Congress exercise real oversight over these rogue agencies. Or are they all afraid like Chuckie Schemer who famously said they have six ways from Sunday to get back at elected officials who dare challenge them? And if so, maybe we need both new judges and legislators. Or at least those clean enough not to be blackmailed by these creeps.
We’re talking about a kind of resurgent Maoism. You cannot have escaped hearing about chattering class agonising on how we citizens need legislation to protect us from a supposed epidemic of "misinformation". I on the other hand, can think of nothing more chillingly Orwellian than the concept of a misinformation expert. Any sane politician could not entertain such a notion without choking on their hubris sandwich. ....."
re: FISA, et al: I remember so very well when the Towers went down. My fiancée and I were talking on the telephone and watching it all unfold on TV.
She said, "My God, the damage this will do to the country."
My response? "No, that's not where the damage will come from. Yes, this is horrific, but compared to the size of the US economy, it is trivial. The real damage will come from the government's overreaction." How prescient those words have turned out to be. The natural order of things is for governments to seek more and more power - and to use every crisis as the opportunity to press that shiny jackboot deeper into the public neck.
If there were ever an election that mattered, it's the one coming up in November. Will Americans move to take back some of their Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms from the public enemies who get their mail in Washington? They got a tiny start in November of 2016. We know the Left can't win unless they cheat, and we know they are going to cheat.
Will it be enough? Maybe. I'm not hopeful.
re: 4B. They left out the most important "B." And that one is why the Passport Bros are going overseas to look for love. You can't enforce a monopoly when your customer has options. We'll breed you hog-ringed, blue-haired beauties out of existence in a generation. Enjoy your cats, Girls.
I thought that NPR would be chastened enough to wait a couple weeks before dealing with Uri. But left wing viciousness will not tolerate that. If he did not know it would end badly for him he thoroughly miscomprehends how nasty and intolerant leftists are. His having lived there for so long and thinking otherwise is telling. He said he saw hope in the form of the new CEO. Ha.
Your comment made me laugh (in a good way). I suspect I'm just reading really bland articles where bias is harder to insert. But... I was reading a page the other day called History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, and it seemed very remarkably "just the facts" with no pro-Palestinian stuff at all. I sent it to a left wing friend who was in denial of this history. (Naturally he didn't respond.)
This is part 1 of a 20÷ hour podcast on history of Palestine and Jews and Israel. I knew quite a bit, but this gives provides a lot of history. He does a good job, worth the time.
They love thinking they are "on the right side of history". They love filling that constant, nagging sense of meaningless in their lives by blindly joining the latest social justice craze. They love the smell of their own farts and looking down on anyone who doesn't think and act exactly as they do.
The Url Berliner story offers some interesting ironies. For example, his offense did not include revealing any proprietary secrets, or really any secrets at all . He simply explained and added context to what was already obvious to NPR listeners like me. In the Before Time, we called this journalism.
Also, the ostensible reason for his suspension is that there is apparently some rule at NPR prohibiting its staff from speaking through other media without NPR's prior consent. Do other media organizations have similar gag rules? Have any other NPR staff been disciplined for speaking - for example - through X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and other media? If not, does this imply that NPR approved their comments?
He didn’t vet his piece with his commissars. If he didn’t get paid by TheFP, doesn’t his essay become private expression, or do the tentacles NPR’s noncompete wend into every aspect of an employee’s life? If he wasn’t paid for the piece, perhaps Bari can compensate him with a job, since “clear out your desk, Uri” seems the logical next step.
The last thing we loyal subscribers need is another leftwing liberal writing and moderating for the FP. It’s already a challenge to get through the daily onslaught of left oriented and left supporting articles and stay engaged. But then there are the comments.
The great Matt Taibbi also has a hilarious piece on Maher's tweets (she's obsessed with Thanksgiving). She was also once recognized by the WEF as a young global leader--that pretty much tells you all you need to know.
Whenever I see what the WEF and other globalist capitalist organizations are doing by platforming these communists, I always think that they're working really hard to pull the ladder up behind them. Their future "global leaders" are all people who would look at an up-and-coming, entrepreneurial, hard-working young person with extreme disdain (especially if that person happened to be white, male, and straight).
I remember NPR's farcical bias "investigation" led by Ira Glass, where NPR - not a third party - determined that they were unbiased. It was such an absurd conclusion, like catching someone in the act and they're still denying it.
I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up, because accusations of bias at NPR are not new at all. They must be defunded. They claim tax dollars are a drop in the bucket, but even a 5% revenue hit could end an organization.
NPR gets very little in government funding, but that's misleading. The local stations get funding from the government, and they use most of it to buy programming from NPR. So indirect government funding is most of their income.
Well! This ends it - my tote bag goes to the back of the downstairs coat closet and my coffee mug does NOT get washed in the dishwasher anymore! Hmph!
Yeah - those listener fundraisers (okay, I admit it - I do listen to some of the NPR programming, still - but I do count to 30 in my head and see how many times the words “trans rights”, “gay”,or “abortion rights” are mentioned) ALWAYS talk about how little government funding they get, without mentioning little details like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding.
Look - PBS, NPR - we all are trained to think of the MacNeill/Lehrer Report, Masterpiece Theatre, even Sesame Street when we think of public broadcasting. Now we know, with all that’s come out about this Maher twat, that the mask has been ripped of for ALL to see what propaganda ministry the whole clusterf@#k public broadcasting actually is and that OUR tax dollars are funding this Radio Free Beltway charade.
We might have our quibbles with some of the content or commentary, here, but god bless Substack, and TFP!
William Deresiewicz does an excellent job of describing the decline in quality of NPR’s journalism from a listener’s perspective in “Escaping American tribalism Only personal bravery can end polarisation,” published by UnHerd. Here’s an excerpt:
“The stories [of NPR] were no longer reports but morality plays, with predictable bad guys and good guys. Scepticism was banished. Divergent opinions were banished. The pronouncements of activists, the arguments of ideologically motivated academics, were accepted without question. The tone became smug, certain, self-righteous. To turn on the network was to be subjected to a program of ideological force-feeding.”
A bit of heartening news: the NYT published an article about Berliner's suspension and the comments are overwhelmingly critical of NPR and the suspension.
I could focus on the irony of someone commenting about another news organization in the NYT that "It is no longer a news organization but rather a social justice advocacy organization that uses stories to advance policy agendas," when that's also an apt description for the NYT, but let's take the victories where we can find them. The FP hit an absolute home run with this story and deserves to take a victory lap. NPR might be beyond saving, but there's now broad public recognition of what it's become.
Uri Berliner is 67-68 years old. By reporting the truth, he took a calculated, possibly career-ending risk that his younger NPR colleagues would likely never have considered regardless of their beliefs.
By contrast, Katherine Maher, NPR's new CEO, is 40 years old, has a Bachelor's degree in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, a background/career that largely includes fund-raising roles, and was reportedly paid almost $800K (including severance pay) during her last year at Wikimedia.
Kat is on a hot tin roof. She objected to Rufo disclosing her own words. She is the new poster girl for AWFUL.
Of course she specializes in fund-raising. Those tote bags don't move themselves.
Maybe TFP could pick him up.
Doesn't TFP have an adequate sufficiency (my sainted mother's construct) of slowly more-or-less-converting, moderate (much less actually conservative) contributors on training wheels?
Ha, hmmm
Yes I would say so (as my old Mum would say) But there are plenty of other places to go on Substack for some conservative sanity.
Give me a few. I just was informed that Tucker is a now considered a wack job.
There's the ones I recommend on my own 'stack (on my Home Page)....plus various big ones (you may already know)...Rufo, Crawford, NS Lyons, Euphoric, Soldo, Eugypius, Helen Dale/Lorenzo Warby. There's hundreds of course but you mostly just come across them sort of by accident. Hope that is at least of some help.
He’s really a leftist you know. Maybe not a commie journalist, but he’s not middle of the road reporter
Our friends at the FP lean a bit left, too, ne-c'est pas?
Oui
Wheeeeee!
où est la bibliothèque?
Bet he’s changed.
I think he most likely has changed as he’s become the object of the latest Two Minute Hate. But….at the end of the day, I doubt he’s had that big of an epiphany. I’m sure he’ll still vote democrat.
Once again I ask, how can a Jew vote for the antisemite, anti-Israel party?
Urine Berliner and all those commie loving 'journalists should have their salary announced before they hit the air they are 2 faced bastards crying for and about the poor as they rake in obscene amounts of money
Love the idea of Mr. Berliner joining TFP. I may not agree with his supposed left leaning politics; however, he is very courageous to openly disagree with the disturbing trend he sees at his once beloved workplace. He is exactly the kind of writer TFP needs: someone willing to criticize disturbing trends in the workplace—especially places whose mission closely aligns with his beliefs. Berliner wrote that piece about NPR and went on “Honestly”
with Bari Weiss. He knew he would become a pariah at NPR. I find his actions impressive, considering he has been there for 25 years. One could easily coast along and ignore troubling signs, but he chose to be bold. Bari, Nellie: bring him home to us!!!!!
TFP is the new collection point for the Left’s broken toys.
Bingo, pay the man.
I know, right? Cause the Right is like totally on-point, coherent and non broken at all.
The old pedophile must be in hog heaven. Sroll down this article and see what i mean:
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-scranton-pennsylvania-election-taxes-6b3de3a4807cbccdb5732442071f4f6e
Joe Biden is a pedophile?
666
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sybrZXnWx60
Poor Uri is being subjected to a struggle session. Tomorrow I will make the NPR version of this parody video: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/struggle-session-parody-3bodyproblem-harvard
If you thought NPR CEO Katherine Maher's Tweets were bad, wait til you see her cringe LinkedIn flexing and NYT Wedding Announcement: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/commissar-npr-ceo-katherine-maher-she-her
Buried deep in Katherine Maher's bio is the info that shows that she grew up in a very privileged setting. Her hometown is Wilton, CT - a tony, wealthy Fairfield County community with a median family income approaching $200K and a median home price of well over $1M. Her father was a Goldman Sachs executive. Her mother was educated at UMASS and Columbia, and is now a local politician.
When you look at her background, it's obvious that she is a deep state propaganda plant. They don't even try to hide it anymore.
Sounds like the perfect champagne socialist to me.
That was a good one Yuri.
Maher is cut from the same cloth as the warbling dis-info commisarina - Nina Jankowicz
Nina Jankowicz what a dipshit! Have you ever heard her speak? When she was appointed as the administrator of the Homeland Security's short live misinformation board she wrote a song about misinformation and sang it. She made a complete fool of herself.
She is a hardcore leftwing nut case. Compro would love her and want to marry her. Hell, he probably already has.
Here is her singing. You tell me if she is or isn't a leftwing nutcase. dipshit.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=nina+jankowicz+singing&mid=BA8512E3EE60B3CADEC8BA8512E3EE60B3CADEC8&FORM=VIRE
Once again, the left picks one of the best and the brightest to run their government funded Democrat propaganda agency that is designed to stifle free speech.
why do they all have crazy eyes ? is it a sign of the grain dead or brain washed ?
Great parody Yuri. Thanks.
She's "practically perfect in every way!" Ecch.
She’s also not married, never been married, has no kids and lives with her cat in a yurt 🛖 constructed of recycled NPR totes 🤣🤣🤣
So so predictable, a white Western upper class lib woman majoring in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies. Just classic. Why doesn't she just go live in Iran? Or Afghanistan. Or even just Saudi Arabia where she can't drive? This woman is the definition of awful.
Have a look at the NYT article on her courtship and marriage.
My understanding is that she has no journalism experience at all.
NPR is advocacy. Not journalism. And her job is raising money from her fellow AWFLs that control corporate gift giving. IMO, she is perfect for the job, since she is the pinnacle AWFL.
NPR and many of its local affiliates are undergoing financial stress. Corporate sponsors are moving dollars away from them to social media. Congress is unlikely to increase their funding. They need a strong fundraiser at the top of the organization. Unless they can stabilize their funding, they will continue to shrink and continue to provide news coverage that their present audience wants to hear, not what they need to hear and certainly not that which will challenge their present biases and force them to rethink their assumptions.,
Uri’s severance package will be huge, but, you know, undisclosed by agreement of the parties.
I have no idea if their suspension of him (and his resignation, which any good lawyer would call “constructive discharge”) is really actionable at law, but NPR, and more importantly their masters, do NOT want discovery and testimony. “Your Honor, plaintiff calls Adam Schiff.”
Several people have pointed out that her resume suggests a CIA or an NSA plant.
If she is not an AI bot (which her tweets indicate), she has a severe case of Cluster Bs, which of course commonly afflict individuals in her circles.
Before I quit reading The New York Times altogether, I noticed that the comments were becoming more moderate, and my comments (those that actually made it in) were gathering many more "likes" than previously. That sometimes they mysteriously were disappeared a few days or a week later by leftist staffers didn't negate the fact that hundreds of Times subscribers were getting sick of the slant and appreciated reading a bit of common sense.
Sometimes I miss the Times, but all it takes is a glance at anti-Israel and pro-social justice headlines to remind me why I stopped reading it.
So we mustn't despair. NPR and its affiliates WNYC and Gothamist have long been worse than The New York Times, New Yorkers at least are sick of both criminals and illegal aliens crowding us out, and outlets that persist in Democratic-socialist mythology will find themselves abandoned.
I quit the NYT after they banned me from commenting. I suggested DiBlasio had a double standard, and may be an anti-Semite when he sent the NYPD to shut down the public funeral of a Brooklyn rabbi but he permitted the Floyd protests to go on without limit.
Yes, there were many comments of mine that never made it in, particularly about transgender mania. That was the last straw for me.
The propagandists at the NYT, they call themselves journalists, are in a circular firing squad.
That double standard on public meetings led to one of the best jokes of 2020. Q: Why is a glass broken at a Jewish wedding? So Mayor DiBlasio will think it is a riot and not a religious ceremony.
Sorry guys but I knew as a 10 year old that the Times was garbage journalism. What took you so long?
It might be that I am a lot older than you. The New York Times used to have fine investigative reporting. I began to get very cranky with it a dozen years ago but held on. And it might be that you are in any event more conservative on some things than I am.
Doubtful. I was 10 in 1959. My teachers demanded I cite to the Times. I refused and argued that the Herald Tribune was far superior and reliable. Even then. Remember that Duranty was in the 1930s. And Jayson Blair got away with fantasy in the late 1990s and early 2000.
LOL bruce! My dear old dad always called it "that red rag", even though he subscribed and read it- if not daily, almost, and always on Sunday!
The thing about the Times that always made be laugh derisively was the juxtaposition of some tear jerking article about the plight of some social victim with an advertisement of a $5000 gown or necklace at Bergdorf or Bonwit. The term "limousine liberal" must have been coined for them.
To woke Bruce - wokeness had to smack some people in the face before the “woke up”
I think those moderators hired on at the WSJ
Absolutely, Unwoke.
I discontinued my subscription after the moderators removed seven of my comments criticizing their biased Gaza coverage.
The censor-bot at the WSJ is very thin-skinned. In fact, it will censor your coment if you just say "censor bot".
This is a response from the WSJ moderation team when I questioned why a comment was removed.
Thank your for your email. We do not allow comments that focus on WSJ moderation policy. We have found that a majority of our readers do not like to read these types of comments.
I think more readers like to read those comments. It’s the moms that don’t.
BS. This is just that the censor doesn't like being constantly acknowledged. Purely thin skin. Just like the NPR Karen.
I enjoyed the NYT for a long time despite it's "slant" but they finally lost me for good over the articles glorifying all things "trans" with NO reporting on Dr. Lisa Littman and Abigail Shier. Instead, they have this guy named "Jennifer" Boylan - English professor at Barnard - who writes about what a beautiful thing it is how both he and one of his sons "transitioned" to become their true woman. There would be no articles suggesting AGP. What about publishing an article from each position? Littman would publish studies but you would never know it. Now we have a major medical scandal regarding children but most people in the US have no idea about it, "Admiral" Levine is still in office, and Title IX destroys sports for girls (see the bit about West Virgina).
I bet this is a bigger story than we know: "New York Times Bosses Seek to Quash Rebellion in the Newsroom" https://www.wsj.com/business/media/new-york-times-reporters-rebellion-a6951d91?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1
Of course, the news side of the WSJ is just like the NYT and the comments are policed for non-Woke opinions as well.
I noticed the same thing. I let my subscription lapse recently but still occasionally look at articles, and the comments are a lot more balanced than many people probably think. Dare I say it, a lot more balanced than those dominating TFP. Then again, they are also a lot more heavily moderated.
Is TFP moderated? I don't think so. My comments appear almost instantaneously. In some moderated boards it can take almost a day before a comment appears.
I believe TFP is truly a free speech forum.
I have yet to see a post that goes off the rails and is totally disgusting. Even left and right wingnut posts are semi-civil, a little harsh but nothing horrible.
The participants on this BBS are often the moderators. None of us are particularly shy about expressing our opinions about a poster who insults another poster.
I haven't seen a comment or a poster removed by TFP staff for a very long time, since before the name change. Even Compost has managed, in his second iteration, to avoid being booted.
The participants have always been a sort of moderating force here. Outrageous comments are either challenged or simply allowed to drift quietly to the mucky bottom. Most of us have developed the habit of meeting trolls with the stony silence they deserve.
Even though Substack has no downvote option, the lack of upvotes on comments sends its own message.
To my delight, I get more likes than compro when I post 666 and the Jimmy Buffet song. It must be a blow to his ego to post here and get no likes and very few responses.
I was referencing the NYT with the remark about moderation. I agree there doesn't seem to be any moderation of TFP comments, which I think is a plus.
Most of the comments here are semi civil I agree with that. I have seen one or two that were what I'd categorize as pretty disgusting, but I don't think heavy moderation is the answer to that.
True
How ironic.
Curious....are the comments moderate or do they balance out to end up moderate? To me there is a difference. If you are blocking any opinions except for moderate, you are still censoring.
Also, moderate is relative. What you find moderate may be left or right to someone else.
At The New York Times, most of the comments were progressive, way left of center. I never saw what I'd consider a conservative comment although some of mine might have been considered so.
But I did see more and more comments like mine cropping up. Perhaps the moderators hadn't gotten wise to them yet.
I quit NYT after Trump was elected in late 2016. They totally lost their shit. It was bad enough that they could not write an article on any topic without working in climate change or systematic racism in the first paragraph, but at least that was sort of funny as much as annoying.
But, for shits and grins, I read one of their articles (probably linked by Nellie) towards the waning end of masks in spring 2022. Wow. What a moral panic of the AWFLs. Their 5 year old grandkids were at risk of sudden death if other kindergartners weren't required to be double masked or vaccinated, or both.
NYT comments are heavily moderated so I think it's hard to know whether more people are actually making what i'd call "moderate" comments lately, or the moderators are just letting more things fly.
Please do not capitalize the times
Sorry, it's a proper noun. You might not like it, but there we are.
I prefer my lame attempt at humor to good grammar. Especially when it comes to the self proclaimed paper of record. If I offend let me apologize by quoting Steve Martin: Well excuuuuse me!
😂😂No offense taken Clarity.
Read Michael Lind’s article today in Tablet - it looks like we doomed as conservatives, we destined to have these dipshit Democrats for the next 7 decades if I read it correctly.
Agreed. That was the most depressing thing I've read in a long time.
Wishful thinking, but I’m in the same boat with you.
It's worth remembering that NPR quit Twitter (now X) back when Musk labeled them "state-affiliated media." It amazes me that NPR just doesn't get it. How smart can they actually be?
NRP are schmucks.
My husband found this video about the dangers of "smart" stupidity today: https://youtu.be/ww47bR86wSc?si=lxZFNixp0oJzrugP
"This much is certain: stupidity is, in essence, not an intellectual defect, but a moral one. There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually, but stupid. And others, who are intellectually dull, but anything but stupid."
Bonhoeffer was a giant. I read his book on the Psalms a couple months ago and benefited greatly from it.
Thank you both. I'd never seen Bonhoeffer's ideas in cartoon form. That was spot on.
Truly scary Celia.
Hooray For the Comment Section !! NYT & TFP's!
I could care less about the New York Times . They are the problem. In fact that is why the Free Press exists. That propaganda rag fired Bari !
Great post and on target. Well said.
First thought: well, yeah, of course he's suspended, and he'll be probably be relegated to the ad section next.
Second thought: WORTH IT. rage against the machine, baby.
Isn't that kinda Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time-ish (assuming that he actually did)?
The NYT reported the BS "Screams Without Words" story.
Did you speak out about that?
A federal judge says no males in female sports violates Title IX…I can’t say I’m shocked. The most educated people have consistently shown themselves to be the biggest morons in the country over the last several years.
I am trying out a new argument for this.
If Serena Williams had to play against males, she would have worked just as hard, been just as amazing, and would have been completely unknown, because no one knows who the 300th ranked tennis player in the world is.
If Florence Griffith Joyner had to run against males, she would have worked just as hard, been just as amazing, and no one would know her because she would have finished last in every race she ran after her 14th birthday.
Like that. I think it's simple enough that even a judge can understand it.
I worked a track meet over the weekend and a 14 year old boy ran a 100 meter at a time that was less than half a second slower than the women’s world record. He’s going to easily surpass that by the time he graduates. But men are women and what not.
All these people who have made a joke of Title IX and don’t know what a woman is will be shocked when men who are decent athletes in high school but not national or world class begin to dominate every sport where women can
make a decent living. I coached and officiated track teams at many levels when Title IX was introduced. The excitement of the women who could the compete against other women for scholarships and glory and even money was overwhelming. I’m watching that be lost because of fools who think that the trend was temporary and limited. That’s not how the progressive movement or the Democrats works. We are viewing the nose of the camel, the rest of the beast is preparing to destroy women’s sports.
And how many men have you had to deal with who are dominating women's sports?
Prof, don’t go there: he is absolutely right. It’s not about the numbers, it’s about the signal this sends. Look at the photos of the second and third-place girls who competed against Thomas (standing there in all his smugness, a full head taller) and you can see they are dying inside, told by their parents that they can’t call this out for the risk of being labelled transphobes. It is sick!
All I can hope is that this too will pass, but it is damaging dreams and lives before it does.
Nah. Think I will go there.
I need a number/s besides Lia Thomas (again! ad naseum)
What was the crowd like? Are they supporting of this ridiculousness?
I believe Williams said herself that she did not want to play against males because they would crush her. There is nothing serious to debate here. There is a reason we separate men and women's sports, and it isn't just because of the words used to describe the players or even what bits they have. Men are the bodies we throw at bad stuff to protect women and children. And they have evolved to be better at it, which happens to also help them throw sports balls better.
I think a big part of this issue is that for years the Girl Boss movement has been trying to convince the world that woman are as good or better than men at everything. So they can't actively admit that in some cases, men are better. Period.
The irony is if there were no trans activists this trans person would have played with the females and there would not have been a lawsuit. The trans activist movement devoted to an anti science anti truth ideology needs to recruit kids into their cult, has hurt the very tiny cohort of the long acknowledged young males with GD. It should never have been politicized . These boys were treated in private with the drs, and parents, mostly out of the public eye. No parties or celebrations thrown. These fringe well financed cultists picked a fight with the rest of the world. It’s a battle the sane must win.
Agreed. The people who just want to transition are not the ones shouting. Those people just want to be left alone. Its the people that are doing this for attention or access to female spaces that are making a fuss (and for some reason, the left have decided to lift up).
I still find it odd that no one mentions that there are no Trans men clamoring to be on men's teams.
The notion that having GD is cause for a celebration is lunacy by itself. Which sane parent would wish that on a child? These activists are dangerous to the very fabric of society.
Trans is what you said - a cult. Just a group of people that want attention and soon we hope they all drink the kool-aid and disappear......Why couldn't we just keep LGB...totally ok....the rest is garbage political games.....
I do mention the fact that there are no M to F trans ppl clamoring to compete with the males. And that there are more and more reports of these self declared “ females” who often haven’t even transitioned showing up to compete with females. It’s rather obvious that this movement is anti female and anti gay
The Williams sisters once claimed they could beat any man ranked worse than 200. #203 Karsten Braasch took them up on it and beat each of them handily back to back (after playing a round of golf and having a couple of beers earlier in the day).
I can't believe women are now playing the men at Wimbeldon. It's crazy!
Sorry, I think it is you who don't understand, so let me spell it our for you: They understand. They understand perfectly. They just don't care. They really really do not give a shit.
Some years back John MacEnro was asked about Serena and he stated she was an amazing athlete but if she played on the men's tour she would be ranked 700th, because there are 700 allowed.
She would only be able to return a serve by luck in most cases.
She would slaughter me on the court, but that is not the question.
Hate to be boring but: No one sufficiently credentialed will grasp the concept. Other than to grant clemency to the perp (Assuming that the matter even gets to "court" -- that will require an attorney with the balls to bring the case.)
Very well-said!
I have always told people, some of the most ignorant (meaning they refuse to see / learn the issues) have a Dr. or PhD. behind their names. These are people who assume the mantel of superior knowledge based on the completing of school courses. No real life knowledge, just what some person wrote in a book. The most clueless people I ever met were Professors who were teaching and actually were very far from reality. In the meantime, people who had their own businesses, auto, air condition, and others were the most tuned in. Or as the old saying, what do you call a lawyer with a 2.2 GPA? Your Honor!
I tend to call it book smart and life stupid
Life in the ivory tower
Actually you call that lawyer a damn good junk yard dog... A lawyer is the gunfighter ..since their client is toooo scared to pick up the gun. ....so who do you want to be represented by .....a junk yard dog . .or a Harvard or Berkeley graduate which only knows how to ????? Ah fucj it ....be a pussy
Maybe.
Funny but true!
Over-educated and under-experienced.....
Trouble is they are not morons. They just hate you and want you miserable and controlled. Be ungovernable.
Agreed. The know exactly what they are doing. This is done on purpose -- not accidental.
Sadly like the train crossing is never forced to have signal lights until the school bus gets hit, this will continue until some poor woman is so badly injured she dies. Even then, it may take multiple deaths. The insanity pushing this entire agenda, and the inability to speak against it without threat of losing your job, is too strong right now.
It will simply take courage. If every team that doesn't have Trans players takes a stand and forfeits and trans game, it would have a huge impact. But it is hard to stand out and they will face all kinds of backlash. Luckily more and more women are doing it. So i have hope.
I don't think a death will matter. The media has gotten very good at downplaying anything that shows how their ideals are failing.
That won't happen because there really are many useful idiots--girls, their parents, and women--who would willingly take their own demise to cheer on the boys and men out to destroy them. They'll get a rush telling those who object that they have no problem competing with a male calling himself she. They trade in walking away with a trophy for walking away feeling superior and holier than thou for being Good People(TM).
Strongly disagree. Women are smart, and they (and their daughters) are afraid of the shaming and cancel hatred.
Your analogy is dead wrong, but the concept is correct.
Judges have shown themselves to be corrupt. Just witnessing the types of judges the senate has approved for Biden shoudl keep you up an night with concern. I wonder what they are teaching in law school about the constitution and criminal justice. Did they replace constitutional law classes with critical race theory and DEI?
It's just another aspect of the Long March.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
In many ways, the idiocy of our federal bench is exceeded only by its cowardice. They were installed to enforce the laws and protect our liberties. Not to be shills and rubber stamps for the government over which they are supposed to watch.
This must be appealed. The judicial system in this country is failing us . It too has been captured by the WOKE mob.
The more I watch this and agree with everyone here saying how stupid and obviously moronic this is, I mean think about it. A Supreme Court Judge will eventually rule on a Title IX case, but she (do I use her correct pronoun?) cannot even define a woman!!
I am becoming increasingly convinced that this is not a question of intelligence, but moral and spiritual warfare. Not flesh and blood as Paul reminded us.
DEI = "Nigger"
Woke= "Nigger Lover."
Critical Race Theory = "Nigger History"
The power of Christ compels you. The power of Christ compels you. The power ....
Lol.
Your euphemisms don't have anyone fooled, Mike.
Did anyone commenting here bother to actually read the linked article? This isn’t what the judge ruled. Indeed this was a very narrow ruling related only to this particular student who had been early and fully transitioned to female. Indeed she had been issued a new birth certificate. Perhaps you’ll all think that’s absurd and decide to chew in that bone, but regarding this ruling the judge made it very clear that title IX did not strike down the state ban on transgender participation in sports, only this instance.
If he still had a Y-chromosome, He. Was. Not. "transitioned."
Well, you must know best…but maybe consider that your limited knowledge of the human genome and how it expresses itself in any one individual may not be adequate to make such judgments. Consider one of the most common “abnormalities” wherein someone presenting as a male is born with an extra two or even more X chromosomes.
Those abnormalities are very rare, and irrelevant for the sake of this discussion. Even one of the most common, 47,XXY (Klinefelter's Syndrome) only occurs in 0.1-0.2% of live births. Many KS sufferers are infertile, an indication of just how abnormal the condition really is. Genetically, KS folks are male due to the presence of a Y chromosome, they do not just "present as male". The presence of the Y chromosome biologically defines "male" for humans and most other mammals.
Stan is exactly right. The number of X chromosomes doesn't matter for sex determination. If you have at least one Y you are a male; if you do not you are a female. It really is binary.
And the females who have a Y chromosome? But beyond all of the chromosomal variations, if somehow we decide that genetic make up determines which sport team you play on or bathroom you use, how would this be determined? Will we have to carry around. QR code with our 23 and me results that can be used as verification? My point in all of this is that we have to learn to live with this and the ambiguity that often comes with it.
There are no females with a Y chromosome, though there are males who wish to be treated as females. Society can choose to treat such males as females to the extent it wishes, but it cannot alter their actual sex.
I don't like slippery slope arguments, but for the next instance, this is precedent and many judges will run with it.
What’s the precedent? That someone who has a revised birth certificate is allowed to participate in girl’s sports? As the article pointed out, there is only one person in the state that this applies to. And everyone here wants to get all hot and bothered about it. Why? Maybe reserve your ire for a true transgression. I for one am happy to see that judges can make rational choices based on the specific facts of a case.
You for one are swimming upstream trying to sell a bucket of BS to a herd of dead bulls.
Born a male.....forever a male. Same with females, if you can define them.
Try to find a more worthy cause for your anarchism.
Excellent post!
Well, well, he had a new birth certificate issued. I guess that resolves the pesky issue of biology.
Hum biology. As I pointed out in a response to another commenter, biology isn’t always as simple as boy/girl. Perhaps you are an expert on genetics and all of the variations that can occur and so feel confident that your “take” on biology is the last word here. You can choose to be curious and open minded about what you don’t know. Or just assume that your limited knowledge is all that’s required to make a judgment.
Hate to be the first to tell you, pumpkin, but it's not a judgement and all one needs is limited knowledge (or 7 years on earth) to see this fact.
Please excuse yourself from this site and find another to argue your ridiculous assertions. You're in way over your head here.
So if I’m understanding your comment here, because I challenged your knowledge of biology, which is clearly limited, you are telling me to I’m not welcome here. Interesting. You had a choice to inform yourself further or maybe seriously confront
me about the facts and my thinking, but chose instead to “banish” me. Is this what free speech is all about?
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll go slowly for you.
One does not need 5 seconds of biology to know males & females differ. A 4 year old knows. You should know.
Like some on this site you to want to argue needlessly. You're free to carry on your tiresome crusade, and I have no power to silence you.....duh.
I don't need to be an astronomer to know where the sunrises, sets, or shines......and I'll politely refrain from suggesting where you should stick this 'biology theory' of yours.
You may be happier on another site with your own tribe.
He/she is 234.
I did read it, and it’s still remarkably stupid.
Why? What exactly are you objecting to here?
I am objecting to Title IX being used in this way. There is no way this was the intent of Title IX. It is not the language of Title IX. I understand what you are saying. This ban seems particularly harsh applied against a boy who decided he was a girl in third grade and has identified as a girl for a long time, got a new birth certificate, played on girls sports teams. So you are celebrating the judges looking at the facts and narrowly applying Title IX to not allow the ban in this particular case. But, in fairness, that isn't their job. That's the legislature's job. Now the schools will not know exactly where the line is, right? What if the boy decided he was a girl in 5th grade? What if it was 9th grade? What if he used a girls name but didn't get his birth certificate changed? I mean, either Title IX prohibits a ban or it doesn't it. It certainly doesn't take all these facts into account. You applaud the outcome - and are free to do so. But that doesn't mean the case was decided correctly. Title IX was passed to prohibit discrimination against women in sports. Not to ensure transgender women get to compete against women. It's really that simple.
You make a very strong case here, especially as it concerns how schools are to decide in the future. I could only say that this is typically what happens when laws are tested by individual cases. As for Title IX, it was correctly invoked here as it prohibits sex-based based discrimination, not simply discrimination against girls/females. Of course, when gender is “unstable” as in this and other cases, what criteria should be used? In some sports or in some age groups it may not matter but in most it does. There’s an appeal to absolutist solutions—they sound so neat and tidy and sensible. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s possible here.
They aren't doing this out of stupidity. They know exactly what they are doing and it is all meant to tear down our institutions. It is all intentional.
Actually, the court only said the law discriminates against this one trans student. The ban survives. It will take legal action for each student who believes "she" is being discriminated to sue. So, this case is limited to its facts (boy identifies as girl in 3rd grade). It will not mean that school will have to allow a boy who decides at age 15 that he can compete more easily as a girl at age 15 to do so. Thankfully.
I want a trans activist to explain why we even have gender segregated sports. The most obvious rationale of the biological differences would need to be discarded and you are left with no real reason. Let's just have "sports." It would crush women, but maybe that would lead to a rejection of the foolishness we see at present.
I'm pro-liberal democracy/democratic republic, pro- electoral college, pro- liberal education, pro-free speech, pro-responsible capitalism, pro- merit, pro -blind justice, pro- private property, pro-animals and the environment, pro- men and pro-women, pro- Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western societies. If you're a man who wants to be a woman that's fine, but do not step on my rights by mandating what I can think or say; that I call any individual "they" or be punished for the thought crime of not regarding you as an actual woman. I'm anti-DEI, anti-censorship, anti-real racism, against any race; anti- tribalism, anti- groupthink, anti-"disinformation" cons, anti-politicization of law enforcement at every level. I have a particular aversion to indoctrination. I believe in an additive, not zero-sum approach. Don't tear down, often literally, white founders -- of the country or Harvard -- add to them. Don't destroy or bowdlerize the Western Canon -- add to it. Most of these things are dead center. The left and the New York Times keep moving the goal post on labels. Anything that is not "progressive," which has become a euphemism for a pastiche of anti- Western, anti- American, anti- white, anti- semitic Marxism, is somehow on the "right." AOC is never described as a Marxist. Most people are not are all Column A or all Column B. Most are in the center -a little to left of center, a little to the right. We should use "center" more often if for no other reason than it must hold.
The issue I think is that, outside of forums like this one, those of us who find ourselves firmly in the center pool on most issues have no place to organize and tell the two extremes to take a time-out. We are out organized, out screamed, and out funded by those who make a living off of Big Grievance and Big Government (both the left and the right wing flavors). It can feel very lonely to stand in the middle until you get here and realize, as you nod along with most of the comments, that we are here and we are many.
It seems that with teaching kids all the new rules in a DEI run world they don't have time to teach them that the stated goal of all of it is the destruction of western civilization, to be replaced by an honest to God Orwellian society.
Out funded, out organized, but let’s not get outvoted this year!
We will be outvoted unless we live in a swing state.
Yeah, that's the sad reality after decades of gerrymandering and messing with voting rules by both parties.
Exactly vote the Right man into power, I’m sure all ours, our children and grandchildren's future will look a lot brighter. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇮🇱
And if you voted for Biden, you're voting against all the things you say you're for. So not claiming you did, just sayin".....
I didn't vote for Biden.
Me neither. Some people here keeps automatically assume anyone who don't think like them are Biden voters.
Well, if you didn’t I don’t know what to say about your statement. If you voted for Trump, it’s meaningless. Did you vote for a 3P candidate?
you’re a very typical, mainstream Republican.
Animal rights? Doubtful. Mainstream, yes. I voted for neither Biden nor Trump in the last election. I cannot abide Republican politicians' contempt for the environment and for animals on so many issues. I'm an independent. Sorry.
You clearly haven’t looked at Republican rural policy about animals for example.
I doubt you can find republican policies which are more harmful to the environment than the stupendous strip mining for lithium which democrats love for their “green” boondoggles.
I'm a republican and rescued a blind American Bully, buy cage-free eggs, buy free-range beef and believe how we treat other living creatures is a reflection of our own morality. Also, as a civil engineer, believe we all want clean air and water but the government has shown it's incompetence in mandating how we get there (not to mention that comparatively, the money the US spends addressing the last 10% of our pollution pales to the damage being done by China and India).
The best book written about animal welfare is "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy", by Matthew Scully, a conservative Republican. Highly recommend it, though parts are hard to read.
Thanks!
Very true - Matthew Scully's book was beautiful. I wrote "politicians," especially some.
"I cannot abide Republican politicians' contempt for the environment and for animals on so many issues"
Can you provide examples?
It can’t
"It"?
Not sure about "animals".... factory farms are evil, but it's not like Democrats are doing anything about them. You'd need to be pretty indoctrinated by MSM to imagine Republicans have anything to do with animal cruelty.
For "the environment" as a concept, there is the matzo ball of global warming which Republicans do refuse to consider, while Democrats will make out to be far bigger than it is. I don't know the reality of it all, but Republicans/conservatives should care a little bit more about that. Meanwhile, Democrats should stop pretending that every single hurricane is caused by climate change.
I think in general, republicans are analytical whereas democrats are emotional. If you analyze the impact policies promoted by the "global warming" cult do/will have on every day people struggling to make ends meet, the only conclusion you can come to is that they want people to die. Unfortunately, the true believers have the attention span of a gnat and refuse to listen.
Some of the more extreme globalists of course want people to die. My impression of *Democrats* is their general policy position on addressing climate change is actually about wealth redistribution, kickbacks to donors, propping up the "green" industry. For example, forcing X% all cars to be electric will have almost no impact on cities while very negatively impacting rural areas. And EV companies make money. Similarly, forcing gas stoves to be electric will have a minimal impact on wealthy people who can afford those changes, and zero impact on extremely poor people who do not own houses, but a great impact on middle and working class homeowners.
She mentioned animal rights, not animal cruelty. There is broad consensus against the latter, certainly including Republicans. The former not so much, and for good reason.
Animal rights is an interesting question. For example, should animals have the right to a fair trial? On 1474, in Basel, Switzerland, a rooster laid an egg. As we all know, an egg laid by a rooster will produce a basilisk or a cockatrice - which we definitely don't want. There were official legal proceedings, after which the offending rooster was sentenced to be burned alive. As was a poor cat named Tom, accused of witchcraft in 1598 in France -- although Tom had a legal defense team who presumably said he did not engage in any sort of witchcraft.
Some folks have a real need to put people in partisan boxes. I recently commented on some TFP article that I don't align with either the repub or dem party and got a lecture from someone on how I'm actually just a moderate democrat. Ok then, thank you for letting me know!
Gollum, there's no winning. To some, you're a Democrat and to others, a RINO. This is how both the far left and far right get to destroy America and remake it in their image. The question is, Who will prevail?
It needn’t be “far” anything since it has been mainstream American political discourse for 175 years.
There are no "moderate Democrats." They all vote in lockstep with Hakeem Jeffries.
There are moderate Democrats, that's what's maddening. They vote Democrat for abortion or habit or single issue. I know plenty who can't stand wokeness and they're still going to vote Democrat. We need candidates who can reach the big group in the middle and we need them fast.
I don't know of a democrat 'who can reach the big group in the middle'. Do you?
Incredible. For some, diversion from the party line one iota is apparently a declaration of war, allowing rudeness, and ad hominem attacks. Calling another commenter "it"? Good grief.
The comment section here is dominated by a few very vocal right wingers who seem to wake up at the crack of dawn, skim the morning article for any reference or even hint of a reference to Trump, Biden, or Tucker Carlson, and then rage in the comments if said person wasn't treated with the appropriate level of adulation or scorn.
Yet...they continue to monetarily support a place that refuses to adhere strictly to any one party line. So maybe there is hope.
I don't know about "dominated," but I agree with your point.
You clearly have an extremely limited view of reality.
Since the shoe fits perfectly, do you wear it?
If you say it fits perfectly, then I guess that settles it!
True.
"Republican politicians' contempt for the environment and for animals"
How so?
Here is but one example, on endangered species. There are many, esp. animals used by industry.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/republicans-species-extinction
What specific advantage is it to deliberately import wolves into ranch and farmland, where they immediately learn that their best food source is beef and poultry?
I couldn't find anything explaining what these '27 anti-wildlife measures' entailed. Do you have specific language or something more detailed?
Really? Here's another, and that's it: https://apnews.com/article/endangered-species-eagle-wolf-biden-trump-12d1a8ef6d453ad8f6d4c2b6edb567e8
I suggest you Google Republican voting records and endangered species, farm animals, and alliance with Trophy hunting, trapping, logging, and other groups.
Unfortunately, voting for third or fourth party means your voice is missing. Disregard personality. What candidate will protect your rights? And that includes your rights to your property which includes more than your home.
Really? They seem more like the views that would have been shared by about 90% of Americans - Democrat or Republican - circa 1990 (except perhaps the bit about "Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western societies" which is a bit more old-fashioned than that). The fact most of these things have become partisan is a sad commentary on the state of the world.
Indeed. It isn’t the Right which has abandoned the culture and politics of America. It is the Left and although it started in the 1950s not the 1990s, it certainly accelerated at that time.
Animal "rights" trump everything. Got it.
Well, you all seem to have the found each other, so enjoy.
All true, I agree. But as I’m sure you would agree, with the way our two party system is structured, with the closed primaries, that politicians must (even though they don’t believe in it) play to the extreme voters to gain financial support and win primaries. Politicians who run a campaign of compromise and moderation have zero chance of winning a primary. Political competition by its very nature forces opponents to take extreme positions.
Susan, applause! You said it all.
I read the USC Muslim's social media posts. They were about the lack of human rights, women's rights, gay rights, Christian rights, Jewish rights, minority rights and journalist free speech rights in the 2 billion, 41 Islamic Apartheid nation world...just kidding.
Glad that terrorist-sympathizer’s speech was cancelled, although unsurprisingly, the university screwed it up by citing “security concerns” as the reason. It should have been that the thousands and students and their families who worked hard and paid for their educations did not deserve to have their graduation ceremonies ruined by the “valedictorian” praising Hamas and the Palestinians’ October 7 pogrom in her speech, which she/her/it undoubtedly would have.
Honestly, I'm not. I'm glad TFP called this out here. That idiot sounds absolutely despicable and brainwashed. But not letting her speak only justifies her more. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Her speech could've been taped and gone viral for all to see how vile she is, including her potential future employers.
Those are good points and I agree, actually. It’s good to know who these Islamists and their enablers really are. I have a hard time, however, with a college graduation being poisoned by a propagandist for terrorism. After four years and a substantial financial investment, the real students and their families deserve much better.
I don't agree, Q. Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are clear limits.
Would you want to give a pedophile a stage to promote pedophilia?
Technically, if the valedictorian is a pedophile and wants to give a speech promoting pedophilia, that person should have the same right to speak as any other valedictorian. No, I wouldn't "want" it. but I would support the same principle applying to everyone on the issue of speech barring the actual narrowly defined legal hate speech, which no one who cries "hate speech" nowadays seem to know or understand.
But pedophiles won't give a speech like that because of social shame. The vile anti-semite would because right now, a segment of our society is oddly antisemitic (and many other things.)
A graduation ceremony is a mandatory school event with a captive audience. It is not a public forum. People have a free speech right to pray but not at a podium where students are forced to listen and assent.
There is no issue of Free Speech with this graduation. It is an issue about cancel culture. It seems unfair for the cancel culture supporters to object when it happens to them .
They fight dirty and hatefully. The other side does not. So far they’ve been winning with these tactics. Maybe it’s time to fight back. There was no hate or name calling or death threats ( things they do all the time). It seems the school realized their error at awarding her and opted for a pleasant day for the entire student body. This hate is destructive not constructive in any way.
That is a good point. The crybully mob this DEI “valedictorian” consorts with have been shouting and shutting down and forcing the cancellation of speakers with whom they disagree, for years. Predictably, they shriek like banshees when the exact same thing happens to them.
There are a few comments on that article in a separate posting of the same article. It seems The Free Press is changing how these comments and posts are delivered in the morning. It makes it cumbersome to know where is the proper place to . Post!
I wasn't aware until yesterday that you have to apply to be named a valedictorian, and that about 100 graduates did so. I was under the naive impression that the process was like that followed in high school.
Right, when it was done on merit. I wasn’t aware of that either. Apparently at USC, whoever uses the made-up phrase “settler-colonialist” and refers to “oppressed peoples of the Global South” the most times in their application gets the “honor.”
The two events USC graduation ) and the Brussels conservative conference, not only have nothing to do with “ freedom of speech , but they have nothing in common with one another
Graduation is a day for all graduates to celebrate with their families.This Muslim woman is free to opine all over social media and at every pro Hamas pro IRGC hate rally. A private school has no obligation to allow her to poison the day for others with her hate and vitriol. The mistake the school made was awarding her the valedictory position in the first place
The Brussels event was a group of adults who rented a facility to hold their convention, to hear one another speak. The opposition political party in power sent armed police( many of them) to prevent the meeting from taking place. That is tyranny.
Well stated. These events are not comparable
And it is abt time that a University took an unpopular position and not give in to the woke students. The only problem here is How did the committee who chose her Not check her social media profiles first? Nowadays everyone gets vetted via Google, Instagram or FB.
That's not really true though. Graduation ceremony at universities do have a lot to do with who is picked to speak. God, I miss the days when at my graduation every other actually important person were speaking elsewhere already and our inept committee in charge ended up inviting Barbara Bush as the keynote speaker. And the controversy wasn't so much political (slightly but not much) than "Why are we having someone who did nothing notable on her own except marrying someone who's a president???"
Well done indeed.
😳🤣
Pardon my ignorance, has a “left wing” event ever been shut down for safety concerns?
Gosh it occurs to me that most people don't know that the boys at Charlottesville were both provoked and attacked first by leftist radicals.
When leftists shut down right-wing events, the "safety" part is in reference to their foot soldiers starting violence to chase away the conservatives. Then the violent radicals get a big pat on the back from their professor, a free A in the politics class, and the Uni has an excuse next time to say the conservative events are just too dangerous to allow!
Be that as it may, and I would defend to death the right of those boys to say whatever they want to say. But one can hardly feel sympathetic with what they were saying.
What was that exactly?
My understanding was that they didn't want a statue of Robert E Lee to removed and melted, because that's cultural warfare and it's how leftist socialists destroy the identity of their enemies.
Btw, the historic statue has since been destroyed.
Come on, you know it wasn't just about the statue being removed. For whatever it's worth, I'm not from the South and I'm not white, and I think all the statues removing of Confederate leaders is dumb and ridiculous. There is historic value. At the least, they should be kept at museums somewhere for historical preservation if removed. But it's not really about that for either side.
But to answer your question, some of the protestors who were interviewed were quoted saying things that were outright, white separatist if you want to be generous, or white supremacists if not. I'm sorry I'm unable to cite sources as it was a long time ago and I'm just a normie and I don't keep record of everything I read.
Nothing they said even remotely justifies how they were portrayed as vicious, monstrous white supremacists filled with hate and anger.
They weren't.
But they were subsequently tracked down, identified, and chased from their schools and jobs.
Meanwhile, The View says more hateful, racist, sexist, disgusting things every single day.
Please stop justifying the leftist tactic of portraying every right winger, male, and white person in the worst possible light.
Anthony, what about the car driving through? Nothing to see here? Good people on both sides?
Just this year's USC valedictorian.
Is graduation a left wing event?
Good question. It smacks of white privilege and supremacy, but if you turn it into a social justice event ... hard to tell!
True. A college valedictorian's hateful spew being conflated with a National Conservatism Conference where police show up to hamper it is ridiculous.
Yes
Short answer...No.
Probably not but the "right wind extremists" should start doing that!
Shutting down speech is a function that people in power can do. At this moment, the leftists have power at nearly every institution.
The speech at USC seems like she was a bit to the left of the Overton Window right now, being anti-Israel. So, yeah, it happens. Just far more rarely.
Kudos to Oliver on today's column. More journalism and less opinion. Regarding censorship ( and its sister conformity of thought), this is the issue that launched Common Sense and it is only getting worse. Make no mistake this is predominantly from the left ( USC is not MAGA country although do be careful if you venture out to a subway store at 2 am). I was would have let the Val give her hate filled speech so all can see what the young lady stands for and how deep her disgust is for western civilization and America. I am ifcthe view that she was canceled to prevent the USC rot from being exposed. The only thing that would not have been safe had she done so would have been the jobs of senior administrators at the University of Spoiled Children and decreases in alumni donations. As for Europe, the Enlightenment is now a footnote to history and the clock is tik toking before the continent and great Britain will pay the price for their decision to open their borders and abandon their heritage and history. C'EST LA VIE.
I think you're right about USC's reasons for stopping her from speaking. USC had to be well aware that she was very likely to spill her hatred at the podium. The resulting firestorm would probably be expensive (large donors withdrawing their support from the university).
But the thing to keep in mind here is that they did not remove her as valedictorian. That means that the university supports her views. (Which is not exactly news, given that her views are, in fact, taught by tenured professors in USC classrooms.) In a sane world, a student with such views would have been eliminated from valedictorian consideration in the first round.
Silencing her was an attempt at damage control.
Agree. They knew who they selected and support her views.
These university administrators continue to prove they're paper-pushing cowards.
I think that it's sadder that "free speech" has made no more than a cameo appearance anywhere in what is a free speech kerfuffle.
Was she really? Do we actually KNOW what she would say? Or was this all anticipatory simply because she is Muslim and had announced pro-Palestinian views?
Lol. Oh....so they should disregard her GPA/quantitative standing because of "her views"
How interesting!!
There are other qualifications for valedictorian at USC. Her views are a consideration for 5 through 7. It's not just highest GPA wins.
1. grade point average (at least a 3.980 or higher)
2. number of course units completed at USC
3. breadth of the academic program, taking into account the widely varying degree requirements of individual majors
4. challenge of the academic program considered as a whole
5. contribution to university and community life
6. quality of essay submission
7. willingness to accept the award and, in the case of the Valedictorian, ability to deliver a short high-quality commencement address
I read that there is a pool of about one hundred students who meet these criteria.
Really? Where did you read that, Disa?
Fascinating. None of those things listed are germane to the discussion, although they were clearly met. The only one in question would be #5 and that is interpretive/subjective.
She was awarded the accolade...now it has been rescinded. You're all about "merit," right? Highest SAT/GPA should get admittance to universities, right?
Really interesting how this "cancel culture" stuff works, isn't it? I think I speak for all of us here when I say this is truly outrageous.
I wonder if they would have done the same to a rabid Kahanists/Zionists valedictorian? I think we both know the answer to that :)
I didn't suggest that she shouldn't be able to give her speech. She was selected as valedictorian. I have no objection to her giving her speech. I actually think it would have been a good thing. Though probably for different reason than you.
But you suggested it was JUST highest numbers win. When, in reality, there is a fair amount of subjectivity in who is selected.
No. Highest GPA. Funny how there is suddenly "a fair amount of subjectivity" when the person is non-white :)
Valedictorians should be (and often are) selected on the basis of the entire persona, with good grades as only one factor in the equation. Just because you have good grades doesn't mean that you have a wise, balanced, honest perspective, and shouldn't allow you to foist your hateful prejudices on your fellow graduates.
No, they shouldn't be and the are not often based on that.
It based on highest GPA, program strength, etc. As it should be. It is not a personality or identity contest. You're all about "merit," right?
"Wise," "balanced," "honest perspective,"....lol those are all interepretive/subjective. You sound woke.
I wonder if you would have a problem with a rabid Kahanists/Zionists giving the valedictorian speech? I think we both know the answer to that.
Yours is outdated information. Most institutions no longer use GPA as the sole factor. Other factors are leadership, community service (including acts of heroism), unusual talents (in writing, art, music etc.) There's nothing woke about these traits. If you group Zionist with Kahanists, you obviously also don't understand what it means to be a Zionist. I don't presume to predict your answers, and I consider it silly of you to pretend to predict mine.
No. "Most institutions" do NOT award valedictorian status based on "art projects" or "community service" or being able to play an instrument really well. That is a lie.
"Zionism": an ethno-religious supremacists ideology.
She was awarded - by the university's current standards in 2024 - So, it's not "outdated," at all is it? :) Hmmm.....sounds like you want the school to change their standards to meet YOUR parameters, now that a valedictorian you don't like achieved the merit-based standards.
You would have ZERO problem if a rabid Kahanists/Zionists were valedictorian - and you wouldn't be saying shit about how they need to have "community service" or "art projects" then.
So, your quibble over terminology is irrelevant. You would have supported Kahane (past) or Ben-Guivir (present) being commencement speaker.
Now, you want people to be picked on the basis of things other than merit? What about all the DEIs who are stealing all admission seats from the whites and Asians?
Now you want to ensure a "welcoming and inclusive environment," etc. - as long as they're Jewish? You were against that when it came to other ethnic/religious groups. Now, you're suddenly "woke."
You are a hypocrite. Just like 99% of this discussion board.
Did you notice the ten stories removed almost every leftist propaganda outlet? No WaPo or Vox today.
They only left in NYT, at the very end.
Brava, gals!!
Anthony, how did you know the stories were removed? I myself was banned from Robert Hubbell’s sub-stack (for “100 years”!) for respectfully questioning the wisdom of giving the Republicans a cudgel to
beat them with over student loan forgiveness. The Libs have very thin skins. I always thought Bari allowed everything in the Comments section. Not so?
Interesting point that letting the Muslim speak might have exposed her hateful views, assuming she voiced her true feelings and not the taqquiya more likely in her speech. The fact she made Valedictorian (I wonder what her major was: Islamic Studies like the new NPR chief Woke Barbie?) could be an indictment of USC’s PC programming or an indication it honors merit whatever the students’ beliefs. As a USC alumni myself (JD 1992), I do have to clap back on the Spoiled Children archetype - sure there were plenty, but also scholarship kids like me and many minorities (I witnessed how the 92 rioters left USC unscathed out of respect for all it’s done for Civil Rights).
I missed her major but her heard minor was in something like "ending genocide" and I'm not kidding.
My thoughts exactly. They should let her speak. And employers out there could've been on high alert who not to hire.
I understand the concern about cancel culture, something the left authoritarians( WOKE) started and support. They should therefore understand when it happens to them. No one has threatened her in any way . Or called for her death or rape as the pro Hamas ppl she supports do all the time to Jews and Israelis.
Once the school awarded her the valedictory position( a mistake) they found themselves in a bind. I would have liked to hear the behind closed door discussions that went into the decision.
The way I see it, not hiring a raging political loon is not cancel culture. If I were the employer, even aside from her views, the fact that she's a clear sign of a trouble-maker and instigator is enough for me to not hire her. I pay people to work, not to protest at the workplace for things outside of my company or org's purpose.
In America you're free to be a sex pervert, an anti-semite, and a racist....as long as you don't break the law. You're just not free to spew this filth at a graduation ceremony, or you place your school at great risk.
You want to attend, fine. Don't subject the masses to this deranged sickness.
Oh absolutely. I would be all-in for graduating students to walk out by the masses. Hell, I'd be among them if I were in the graduating class. I'll even bring posters to denounce her.
Sadly, today, I don't think the students will walk out. They might applaud.
Then you're OK with a KKK racist wearing a hood carrying a noose, using the N word?
Or a white supremacist dressed as a Nazi waving a swastika, promoting the holocaust?
Or a pedophile describing in great detail the joy in having sex with children?
In other words, anything goes in the name of free speech?
Am Appalled by FISA (702) and the expanded powers of surveillance. Also appalled that congressional members have a certain exemption from this.
BUT why this framing ‘targeting everyone from BLM protesters to January 6 rioters. ”
I would be more accepting if you called them both protestors or both rioters vs the subtle(not so subtle)insinuation that one was acceptable and the other not.
The establishment Left lionized the BLM rioters. They were hardly targeted by the pathetic FBI.
Bruce, it would be interesting to hear your views on what happened in January 6th? 1st Amendment rights, or attempted insurrection? Trump a mere by-stander or the instigator? I guess we’ll find out if Clarence Thomas and his mates don’t sink it first.
Very good point. BLM rioters outnumbered Jan 6 rioters....and by some huge magnitude. An exampe of just how much anti-woke journalism falls inadvertently into using the wokerati's verbal framing.
BLM rioters caused BILLIONS in damages and got over twenty people killed. They were orders of magnitudes worse than J6 by every metric.
Also thought to have caused a big spike/surge in black-on-black murder and rape. So much for black lives 'mattering'. But the grim irony of this will be entirely lost on the virtue-signalling wokerati.
Yes there was definitely a surge in murders, but it was definitely not because of BLM or lockdowns. It happened, but not because of anything Democrats did, no sir, it will forever be a mystery what cause that huge spike in black murder numbers.
Also, anybody who talks about black crime is a racist. Including me, but I read DiAngelo so I'm happy to boast of my racism.
FISA for Congress? Can not put gold bars under their pillows or take funds for the deep thoughtful speeches, or visits to foreign leaders who, ops, dropped that 50K bundle in your suitcase if you have surveillance and monitoring.
Naw. They'll take lessons on how to get around it from the CCP and other commies. Rules for thee, not for me.
The "protestors" caused FAR, FAR, FAR more damage (not to mention several murders) than the "rioters".
Oh wow. I didn't catch that but WOW.
I suspect the government suveils everyone. All the time. And has forever. They just haven't made it public knowledge until now.
It's actually easier to surveil everyone than selected individuals. Warrants to access the data were the filter, not targeted surveillance.
The FISA thing should really terrify us all. I can't believe I have to scroll this far down to see the first mention in comment. This IMO should be the top comment.This is where, once we get away from culture war issues, Dems and Republicans are still the same freakin party. Why even bother ousting Kevin McCarthy? Why not just get Nancy Pelosi back at this point? How on earth did we get to Mike Johnson and Nancy Pelosi being interchangeable?
That particular "framing" is very poor journalistic style. It makes it easier to discount an otherwise strong argument. Do better. Please.
Prior to the launch of FISA in 1978 there was no judicial or legislative oversight or review of national security surveillance conducted by the executive branch. The FBI conducted wiretaps and covert searches with Attorney General approval. Eliminate FISA, you end the review that has existed for the past 46 years.
Nice try. But "judicial oversight" is meaningless if our FISC judges permit the FBI to lie with impunity. Maybe the answer is to have Congress exercise real oversight over these rogue agencies. Or are they all afraid like Chuckie Schemer who famously said they have six ways from Sunday to get back at elected officials who dare challenge them? And if so, maybe we need both new judges and legislators. Or at least those clean enough not to be blackmailed by these creeps.
"A growing closed-mindedness across the West".....the scariest bit for me is the rise of the "Misinformation Expert": https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
We’re talking about a kind of resurgent Maoism. You cannot have escaped hearing about chattering class agonising on how we citizens need legislation to protect us from a supposed epidemic of "misinformation". I on the other hand, can think of nothing more chillingly Orwellian than the concept of a misinformation expert. Any sane politician could not entertain such a notion without choking on their hubris sandwich. ....."
You rock. I try to go upstream on these matters; you've actually done so. Discouraging how few brownie points you collected.
Thanks....you could always hit the subscribe button?
re: FISA, et al: I remember so very well when the Towers went down. My fiancée and I were talking on the telephone and watching it all unfold on TV.
She said, "My God, the damage this will do to the country."
My response? "No, that's not where the damage will come from. Yes, this is horrific, but compared to the size of the US economy, it is trivial. The real damage will come from the government's overreaction." How prescient those words have turned out to be. The natural order of things is for governments to seek more and more power - and to use every crisis as the opportunity to press that shiny jackboot deeper into the public neck.
If there were ever an election that mattered, it's the one coming up in November. Will Americans move to take back some of their Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms from the public enemies who get their mail in Washington? They got a tiny start in November of 2016. We know the Left can't win unless they cheat, and we know they are going to cheat.
Will it be enough? Maybe. I'm not hopeful.
re: 4B. They left out the most important "B." And that one is why the Passport Bros are going overseas to look for love. You can't enforce a monopoly when your customer has options. We'll breed you hog-ringed, blue-haired beauties out of existence in a generation. Enjoy your cats, Girls.
Excuse me; could you repeat that please, The FBI wire tap didn't get all of it. Thank you, signed Merrick.
They'll Do It sooner than that, particularly if They manage to get the Imports into the voting booth.
I thought that NPR would be chastened enough to wait a couple weeks before dealing with Uri. But left wing viciousness will not tolerate that. If he did not know it would end badly for him he thoroughly miscomprehends how nasty and intolerant leftists are. His having lived there for so long and thinking otherwise is telling. He said he saw hope in the form of the new CEO. Ha.
This is the scary and profoundly saddening aspect: That They are absolutely certain that They wear the cloak of righteousness.
Watch this person speaking about truth, the CEO. So perfectly creepy.
https://x.com/wokal_distance/status/1780688661438431349?t=NSn944fuii7Ifi-cMJ1CYQ&s=09
Wikipedia not biased? Wow. That is another level of not reading the memo.
Your comment made me laugh (in a good way). I suspect I'm just reading really bland articles where bias is harder to insert. But... I was reading a page the other day called History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, and it seemed very remarkably "just the facts" with no pro-Palestinian stuff at all. I sent it to a left wing friend who was in denial of this history. (Naturally he didn't respond.)
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7khvJFpRKSOyiXgdkuizBP?si=wNFGIarqTMKfhKhLUwWLWw
This is part 1 of a 20÷ hour podcast on history of Palestine and Jews and Israel. I knew quite a bit, but this gives provides a lot of history. He does a good job, worth the time.
Wow, very cool. I listen to podcasts nightly, and looking forward to giving this one a go. Thanks!
It should be pointed out that Mr. Berliner loves NPR enough to put his career on the line for it.
I can only wonder what the management who suspended him love. And could I live up to his example?
They love thinking they are "on the right side of history". They love filling that constant, nagging sense of meaningless in their lives by blindly joining the latest social justice craze. They love the smell of their own farts and looking down on anyone who doesn't think and act exactly as they do.
NO ONE knows how he will respond until the incoming shells start landing. But pre-thinking might help. (At least I hope it does.)
The Url Berliner story offers some interesting ironies. For example, his offense did not include revealing any proprietary secrets, or really any secrets at all . He simply explained and added context to what was already obvious to NPR listeners like me. In the Before Time, we called this journalism.
Also, the ostensible reason for his suspension is that there is apparently some rule at NPR prohibiting its staff from speaking through other media without NPR's prior consent. Do other media organizations have similar gag rules? Have any other NPR staff been disciplined for speaking - for example - through X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and other media? If not, does this imply that NPR approved their comments?
"Do other media organizations have similar gag rules?"
Apparently MSNBC doesn't (see: Rona McDaniel)
He didn’t vet his piece with his commissars. If he didn’t get paid by TheFP, doesn’t his essay become private expression, or do the tentacles NPR’s noncompete wend into every aspect of an employee’s life? If he wasn’t paid for the piece, perhaps Bari can compensate him with a job, since “clear out your desk, Uri” seems the logical next step.
The last thing we loyal subscribers need is another leftwing liberal writing and moderating for the FP. It’s already a challenge to get through the daily onslaught of left oriented and left supporting articles and stay engaged. But then there are the comments.
He’d need to improve his writing skills very significantly to meet FP quality.
Bravo Uri.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” GO
The great Matt Taibbi also has a hilarious piece on Maher's tweets (she's obsessed with Thanksgiving). She was also once recognized by the WEF as a young global leader--that pretty much tells you all you need to know.
Whenever I see what the WEF and other globalist capitalist organizations are doing by platforming these communists, I always think that they're working really hard to pull the ladder up behind them. Their future "global leaders" are all people who would look at an up-and-coming, entrepreneurial, hard-working young person with extreme disdain (especially if that person happened to be white, male, and straight).
If Trump’s strategy wasn’t working why was there peace in the Middle East and elsewhere for that matter.
Don't try to confuse them with facts. Facts don't matter anymore.
Apparently trying to prevent Iran from getting nukes is extremist.
The Secretary of State blamed Trump for Iran's attack. Because he withdrew from.the Iran deal.
I remember NPR's farcical bias "investigation" led by Ira Glass, where NPR - not a third party - determined that they were unbiased. It was such an absurd conclusion, like catching someone in the act and they're still denying it.
I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up, because accusations of bias at NPR are not new at all. They must be defunded. They claim tax dollars are a drop in the bucket, but even a 5% revenue hit could end an organization.
Good riddance.
NPR gets very little in government funding, but that's misleading. The local stations get funding from the government, and they use most of it to buy programming from NPR. So indirect government funding is most of their income.
Well! This ends it - my tote bag goes to the back of the downstairs coat closet and my coffee mug does NOT get washed in the dishwasher anymore! Hmph!
Yeah - those listener fundraisers (okay, I admit it - I do listen to some of the NPR programming, still - but I do count to 30 in my head and see how many times the words “trans rights”, “gay”,or “abortion rights” are mentioned) ALWAYS talk about how little government funding they get, without mentioning little details like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding.
Look - PBS, NPR - we all are trained to think of the MacNeill/Lehrer Report, Masterpiece Theatre, even Sesame Street when we think of public broadcasting. Now we know, with all that’s come out about this Maher twat, that the mask has been ripped of for ALL to see what propaganda ministry the whole clusterf@#k public broadcasting actually is and that OUR tax dollars are funding this Radio Free Beltway charade.
We might have our quibbles with some of the content or commentary, here, but god bless Substack, and TFP!
William Deresiewicz does an excellent job of describing the decline in quality of NPR’s journalism from a listener’s perspective in “Escaping American tribalism Only personal bravery can end polarisation,” published by UnHerd. Here’s an excerpt:
“The stories [of NPR] were no longer reports but morality plays, with predictable bad guys and good guys. Scepticism was banished. Divergent opinions were banished. The pronouncements of activists, the arguments of ideologically motivated academics, were accepted without question. The tone became smug, certain, self-righteous. To turn on the network was to be subjected to a program of ideological force-feeding.”
https://unherd.com/2022/03/escaping-american-tribalism/