Fake news

By that I don't just mean what most of us have come to know--that much of what we read and hear about from the news media is inaccurate. 

I mean the news organizations themselves are fake (this is also probably obvious). They are not what they purport to be. They exert very little effort to seek out and provide real, truthful news. 

Capitalism loves destruction, and this monolithic industry is priming itself for disruption. 

And we are beginning to see that disruption in the form of Substack (disclaimer: I am hoping to move to Substack eventually, I just need time). 

I am still endeavoring to find non-partisan, credible, independent journalists who are not part of the establishment media (and are probably not grifting one side). I think Michael Tracy is one of those, at least for now.

So, to provide a data point or two in support of my obvious thesis, please read part 1 and part 2 on the NATO summit from Mr. Tracy. It's pretty sad we have a government and media perfectly fine with shit transparency about an actual and ongoing war in Europe, of which there are profound global consequences. Not to mention the lives, billions of dollars, and great risk involved for NATO members and the region. 

Speculation on Russia

I had a random thought that in hindsight, seems rather obvious and somehow lazy. But I think I'll make a note of it here in the chance there is something to it.

I think Russia (or Russian intelligence), has something very sensitive on the American ruling political class, including some significant Democrats. And quite possibly many other Western leaders. Something big, and something worth holding on to. 

That theory would explain a lot, including the sudden and alarming rise in Western jingoism propagated by our media in lockstep with our uncharacteristically united political factions.

Even if it were true, and even if the Russians cashed in such a claim, I'd imagine it would take many years, possibly decades to confirm, especially in the face of the immense and inevitable push back from pretty much every Western media outlet.

A pattern of escalation

If you've been paying attention, it's patently obvious foreign involvement in the Ukraine-Russia (Russia-Ukraine?) war is on the rise. Rhetoric, sympathy, financial and humanitarian aid is all well and laudable. But then there were the sanctions against Russia, then small arms and intelligence for Ukraine, then drones, then howitzers, then Western government boots on Ukrainian soil (for help "training" Ukrainian forces), then tanks. And as this is a war, it would be weird if there weren't other forms of aid we didn't know about. 

Maybe the West has Russia figured out. Maybe they know something Russia doesn't. But I do know this, nothing goes according to plan, especially in war; and leaders have a tendency to be dumber than they appear. The West is gambling in a dangerous game. I obviously don't have the whole picture, but there is a line and given this sustained escalation, at some point it will be crossed. 

I guess we're doing this

With the retards in charge, I don't see how it's avoidable. If Russia doesn't back down soon, doesn't kneel to the Western pressure in short order, it is going to get worse before it gets better, and better is likely a long ways off.

Russia was and is stupid for invading Ukraine. Whether or not you think it was justified, it was a costly miscalculation. That being said, there is plenty more room for stupid, and the United States fills that vacuum.

Michael Tracy has been one of the few journalistic presences offering some much needed skepticism in response to the Western/U.S./Biden admin/establishment messaging. He doesn't get it right all the time but the above tweet is a mostly accurate summary of the belligerent, faux bravado foolhardiness of our nearly octogenarian president (with increasingly credible and concerning problems).

I'll take a sexist with mean tweets any day over a halfwit loudmouth who taunts nuclear adversaries, to say nothing of the concomitant inflation, empty shelves, and an even worse outlook.

I don't know if I was being paranoid enough a while back. Fill your larders and prepare for hard times. If I'm wrong, great--just be sure to eat the food before it expires. If I'm right and the idiots do lead us into dystopia, we're screwed but at least you will be a little more ready for it.

Biological weapons or biological research?

After Wuhan, the distinction between research and weapons development, while important, is effectively moot. Operating on the (reliably & repeatedly proven) assumption that most state actors will break virtually any law/norm/good sense to further secure themselves, I am just going to assume Russia's claim the U.S. was developing biological weapons in Ukraine is basically true. 

As Politifact might say, this unproven claim is 100% false!*

*technically possible--anthrax, small pox, super death virus, and maxplaguespreader2000, etc. could theoretically be used as biological weapons in the wrong hands.

Or the "research" can be leaked from a lab by a moron or spy, all while governments point fingers, raise taxes, and invade other countries.

I believe Russia as far as I can throw it, but I wouldn't put it past our government. There is no effective difference between biological research (for very, very dangerous and communicable diseases) and biological weapons development except on paper, they know this, they rely on it, and they exploit it. How do I know? Because if I were a jealous superpower, I would do the same damn thing. It doesn't excuse it. If not Ukraine, then somewhere else, but probably too many somewhere elses including Ukraine.

I'm pessimistic any country will own up to their wrongs or take a hard turn towards benevolence any time soon.

I'm realistic that questionable, potentially dangerous, and probably dubious "research" is taking place all over the world.

But I'm optimistic we will (if slowly) change things for the better. 

[Postscript: I get that we need research on deadly viruses, if we want to have a chance to understand and protect ourselves against them. I don't think that means we need 1000s of labs across the world operating with alarmingly low levels of transparency and security.]

No adults

I don't think I will be warblogging. Part of me wants to quit my job and report, opine, and highlight various things in the world today, especially big things like Russia invading Ukraine. 

But as we've seen, there is a lot of propaganda/fake news coming out daily, specifically designed to manipulate you. That is nothing new, and perhaps one of the few good things about this is how fast and clearly the propaganda is being debunked and shown for what it is. That is new. It should really give one pause when thinking about how things are really going over there.

I am rooting for Ukraine, and all nations should have an unimpeded right of self-determination and generally not be invaded. But I also understand how Russia would be freaking out about having a potential NATO member on their doorstep. It's like the adults in the world are AWOL. Things should have never gotten this far.

But they have and way too many people think it's fine to escalate and do whatever it takes to shut down Russia. Where are the adults? Seriously, where the hell are the adults? I hope it doesn't turn into that. You don't fight an injured and nuclear-armed bear into a corner and expect it to behave.

Edited to add: I understand Russia has an aggressive and oppressive history, particularly with regard to Eastern Europe. Russia is definitely not a benevolent actor in geopolitics and deserves to be humbled. But that doesn't mean we need another world war right now.

Update: We must protect the fragile Biden admin at all costs:

Seriously -- is fact-checking dead? pic.twitter.com/l4YTf86850

— David Martosko 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (@dmartosko) March 1, 2022

Deplatforming conservatives

Among the many pernicious aspects of the social media/fake news-related hysteria since Trump started campaigning has been the one-sided censorship/deplatforming of opinions.

It seemingly is always some conservative or libertarian voice getting banned, suspended, or silenced in some way when this rarely if ever happens to a lefty with comparable levels of extremism. Sometimes they are downright mainstream and/or milquetoast comments that get right wing voices banned.

In the context of universities consistently banning conservatives from speaking, MAGA hat wearing people getting assaulted, conservative personalities getting harassed at restaurants and their homes, it's pretty easy to think this is just more of that. Leftists high on the smell of their own shit, shutting down dissent, because they're right and you're wrong.

But it's not all just that. I mean, it still might be, but there's at least a little more to it, at least sometimes.

I haven't checked the veracity of the science behind this study, but if true, there's at least a reason (and a convenient fig leaf) for the banning of far more conservatives than liberals/progressives from social media platforms.

Here it is. In it, they found political ideology was the top indicator that the platform account was a bot or a "spreader." Spreader meaning a bot or person that spreads fake news, or something a "Russian Troll" tweeted. I'm not sure what they considered fake news, but there you go. And the ideology most indicative of being a "spreader?" Conservative ideology.

We've all heard of Russian bots and their goals to sow discord in the U.S. The conventional wisdom on this is that most of those are all "conservative." I think there's a reason for that. It's far easier to outrage Natasha the feminist life-coach in Seattle than it is to stir up Bob the factory worker in Missouri. Russian trolls go for the low-hanging fruit.

If I wanted to piss a lot of people off the fastest, well, I would target the most sensitive loud-mouths I knew of. It's just easier.

So there you go. "Conservative" bots say a lot of things that eventually end up creating what is probably many social media platforms' red flag list of words and phrases. Naturally, authentic conservative guy will probably say some similar things from time to time. And so Natasha's friends complain about authentic conservative guy, combined with him being already flagged, the banhammer drops.

Sure, there are still probably instances of pure bias and poor judgment resulting in deplatforming, but this helps explain a lot of it.

Thanks to SmarterEveryDay.

Initial thoughts on Strzok hearing

It's not over yet, and I missed bits and pieces, but I've seen enough.

If one wants candid answers to important and pressing questions, a televised congressional hearing is one of the last places you'll find them.

Although part of it was quite entertaining, if regrettable, but only further contributes to the idea congress is a cesspool and their televised events little more than clown shows.

The only new thing I learned, was that Peter Strzok does not appear to be all that intelligent. That and his somewhat recently publicized texts, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the FBI, let alone the town in which all this is taking place.

In summary, when it came to the substantive issues discussed, all interrogative progress was expectedly stalled when Strzok and his fellow Democrats began arguing over the definition of bias, and concern trolling about conflating personal political views with bias.

Edited to add: I missed more than I thought. Ace has a more detailed post on the hearing.


In other news, I'm pretty sure I just heard Shep Smith say, very matter-of-factly, as if he were Walter fucking Cronkite, that Russia is in fact our enemy and they did tamper with our democracy.

They probably did tamper, but he said it as if Russians infiltrated every other polling station and falsified the outcomes, and we're on the verge of war with those dirty bastards. Where's my fainting couch? Get a grip, Shep.


via GIPHY