That the White House violently cleared Lafayette Park at Trump's behest was treated as unquestioned truth by most corporate media. Today it was revealed as a falsehood.
Whatever you may think of Trump, it is shocking how easily the corporate media along with Big Tech manipulated the outcome of the election by publishing lies about one candidate while suppressing truthful stories about the other. This should be of concern to all thinking people.
And later, when President Trump was ushered into Capitol's bunker by SS, media laughed. The violent mob forced this country's President into his bunker. That wasn't an insurrection and threat to Democracy, it was a mockable event. Utterly contemptible assholes.
So the same media that ignored the Wuhan Virology lab was dishonest about Trump? Shocked. We are all learning that we no longer have a press that serves any function beyond propaganda.
First of all, they weren't peacefully protesting. Burning a church used to be the most vile, hateful thing you could do in America until BLM and Antifa did it. This is further evidence that the MSM woke up every morning and did everything they could to spread negative hate for Trump and positive propaganda for the left. Any rational person still denying that has their head up their ass.
i'm comfortable with not trusting corporate media, but who can i trust? is it okay to trust the word of Glenn? he seems to have the utmost integrity and holds himself to high standards professionally, but i'm just a guy who used to take much of corporate media at its word. aside from reading his material(and he is just one individual in this big world), how can one seek out information that doesn't have the stain of corporate media?
i think a lot of disagreement with Glenn comes from a place of cognitive dissonance. it's hard to reckon with the reality that your reality may be ONLY that- yours. the information within these articles is comparable is wildly informative but it is only available here, so how can i evaluate what i'm being told? clearly that's necessary, this article is proof. how does Glenn collect his information? connections as a journalist, sure, but surely connections can't be the only way? how can i begin to evaluate these claims and these narratives in a similar way without having to rely on Glenn to spoon feed it to me?
I agree. People, including journalists, can earn the benefit of the doubt. But everyone should still be listened to with a critical and scrutinizing mind.
The truly concerning part is how the "media consumers" apparently lost even basic common sense or "Occam's razor" capability to judge by themselves - in this case benefit of "church photo-op" for Trump vs. handing the MSM the ready-made opportunity to endlessly vilify him. Or "Russians attacking Vermont's electrical grid", or "paying for bounties" - why on earth would they?
Although this particular Substack article that you published on June 9 isn't entirely helping the goal of truth, your general point is right. I hope you will take whatever time is needed to think about the issue, since we are basically coming from the same place.
Everyone has their biases. I generally think most things Steven Pinker has to say are sensible, but MAN, he's got a few topics where he falls prey so hard to confirmation bias and groupthink it's embarrassing.
But what do I know? I'm just another imperfect person with my own biases.
When it comes to people like Taibbi, Greenwald, etc, my motto is "trust but verify."
And if people are telling you things you want to repeat with an "I KNEW it!" tacked onto the end, look a little harder. It's helped me avoid a lot of embarrassment when a convenient "truth" turned out to be bullshit. As a men's rights activist, I've had to get in the habit of double and triple checking everything, and having receipts.
That to me sounds like Zionists. I'm Zionist-friendly without having a real horse in the race, but man it's hilarious to watch super smart people elegantly lay out the two sides of a complex American legal issue and then get asked an opinion about Israel and turn into zealots with no allowance for nuance.
Thanks for being a "men's rights activist"! I am not much of an activist myself, for anything, really, but i always thought of myself as a male "feminist," i.e. for equal rights among the sexes, and I take it that you believe in equal rights along the same lines, am I right?
It's that second part a lot of feminists (and women in general) aren't too keen on.
I remember reading an article in the Guardian, if I recall. It was titled "The Torment of Being a 50/50 Mum." These divorced mothers had to SHARE custody 50/50 with the fathers of their children! These poor mums were missing crucial moments in their children's lives. First steps, first words, first tinkle in the potty! They had to spend night after night worrying about how their little angels were doing, barely able to sleep! These poor mums are missing out on so much, HALF of the incredibly valuable parent-child time during formative stages, and we all need to feel terrible for them. How hard done by they are! Oh, what a cruel, cruel system! Listen to these testimonials from 50/50 mums and try not to cry...
And I'm sitting there thinking, "before 50/50 became a thing, this was dad's existence 26 days per month. If he was lucky. Also, aren't you feminists all about free daycare so these mums can put their kids in the care of strangers when it's convenient for them?"
So yeah. I'm about equality. I'm also about really disliking inconsistent bullshit.
I think Pinker is quite often wrong. I have personally investigated claims of his and they often are misleading or weakly supported. Others are sneakily vague.
I have not read any of his books, I am unfamiliar with his academic research and I don't even know what areas he defines as within his expertise...but I did once read an exchange he had that was both funny and filled with common sense.
Random feminist, neo-marxist: [paraphrase] rape has nothing to do with sex, it is about power and domination.
Pinker: "if I may be permitted an ad feminam suggestion, the theory that rape has nothing to do with sex may be more plausible to a gender to whom a desire for impersonal sex with an unwilling stranger is too bizarre to contemplate."
Heather MacDonald: "The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it's not reinstatement of the patriarchy."
Earnestly, it would be helpful to hear if this is in his linguistics work, in his books (and which in particular), or where else. Not to challenge you, just so I can be on guard when I engage with his stuff.
I recently read large parts of "Better Angels" and was massively unimpressed. Part of the problem, no doubt, is that he's way out of his field. But when I followed up on his claims, there were quite a few problems. It is a fascinating book with a lot of good stuff, but honestly separating the wheat from the chaff is too difficult.
I read his first popular book on linguistics with interest, but it is a very abstruse field that I cannot comment on with any depth at all. There were, however, some areas where I know something from years of teaching. When he touches upon education of children, his comments sometimes make me laugh or groan. He sometimes doesn't know what he's talking about (although I did strongly agree with his comments on "whole language" reading instruction and thought his position was entirely correct).
I don't think linguistics is a good starting point for other studies, by the way. I don't see a strong relationship between linguistics and history, politics, other sciences (if it really can be called a science), or practical matters of teaching technique. But Pinker seems willing to go out on a limb on every topic under the sun. I do think he offers a lot of leads to interesting and more reliable sources.
Taleb put up a couple of pages of Pinker where he annotates what Taleb considers his errors. You can find it on Taleb's Twitter.
Chomsky claims in this video that mortality has got worse since 1970, the "neoliberal period" as he calls it. Well, the "neoliberal period" produced massive progress in gay rights, women's rights, immigrants' rights, etc. His comment about mortality rates is just wrong. Chomsky is such a liar. He says of "the neoliberal period," "that's why you see mortality increasing in the United States." The man has no conscience at all. "From 1999 to 2019, cancer death rates went down 27%, from 200.8 to 146.2 deaths per 100,000 population." Sorry, Noam "that's the neoliberal period." What hasn't worked is Noam's preferred model, the "village democracy" of North Vietnam. https://twitter.com/kyleworton/status/1022100542837936129?lang=en
S'truth that yet individuals can be influenced (some more easily than others) in ways that erode their sensibilities, making what they present to others less trustworthy over time. Trust earned can become trust betrayed so one must stay vigilant with regard to the axiom "trust but verify" when it comes to media presentations.
What we've lost is objective presentation in the political arena. It's become a race to the bottom and by that we've lost the breadth of presentation that previously had given enough voice to real truth that one could verify what was being presented through exposure to other sources of information.
Wrong. She uses the tact of putting the US (and Israel) on the same level as Hamas and the Taliban. Not even close. It's a bizarre exercise in 'equity'. But it's classic socialist thinking: Bring everybody down to the same low level- then we are all equal. Terrorist groups are NOT the same as civilized countries defending themselves.
What a very capitalist way of thinking...Incoherent Empires good minion Read; Max Blumenthal's The Management of Savagery...Fletch Prouty's book: JFK. The CIA, Vietnam And The Plot To Assassinate John F. Kennedy..
Yes, very capitalist. The single economic system that has created more wealth and freed more people of every kind than all other economic systems combined. Don't even go down this path. You're pointing me to Max Blumenthal? Seriously- go read something of substance. Save your mind.
Very good and true, Amy. I don't disagree with what you've laid out. The US also backed and produced millions of doses of a Covid vaccine and is sending them all over the world, trying to help the world stop this 'gift' from the Chinese govt. (this after the world told the administration it could not be done in less than 3 years. In America we often do what cannot be done.) And of course, our thousands of US dead in other lands, not occupying, but freeing other peoples (the anniversary of D-Day having just passed is another example). We've blundered horribly, and typically by our government and/or military working beyond the written laws in our Constitution. And that's my point. We are based on sincere and real beliefs in individual liberty. We do a great job sometimes, and we are awful at other times- particularly when we don't hold our government to our own laws. But at our core, who we are, what we are, is about freedom for the individual to be great as they want or can be, and to help others. That is at our core. Now- ask Ilhan what's at the core of Hamas, or The Taliban. Ask her who is to be eliminated? Because that side...at their core, they want people eliminated. That's not OK with me. Finally- on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict...there is much to much to say, but using the end of the Ottoman Empire and insertion of British land maps is one place to start. Another might be a couple thousand years earlier when both were living there. Under Jerusalem they still find coinage from the Hebrews of the ancient times. They are not new in their home.
She is a politician. They cannot be trusted because for them to be truthful results in their defeat in the next election. Like a broken clock, she can occasionally get it right.
The point I was making is that I am willing to respect people for their viewpoint (even if ill-informed/wrong) if they actually stick to it when push comes to shove. AOC, Bernie etc are just putting on a performance theatre. Watch - 40 years from now, AOC will be known as the "Nancy Pelosi". They don't actually believe the shit they say - they just do it for votes. I disagree with Jimmy Dore, Glenn etc on so many things but I respect them for being consistent and not being a hypocrite.
Joseph McCarthy, Nelson Rockerfeller, George W. Bush, and John McCain were stains on the Republican party. Their counterparts in the Dems are George Wallace, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc., etc.. People distrust the uniparty for good reasons. I'd like to see Rand Paul and Tulsi run as independents. If the GOP doesn't win a resounding majority in both the House and the Senate next year, they'd have a good chance of winning. Let's just hope the USA continues to allow elections.
The thing is...I dont mind her supporting the voters she represents. If thats what they want her to do, I am ok with it. I think her voters are morons but that is a MN issue, and I am not represented by her.
Where I struggle is the exact article Glenn is posting, that these politicians are in no way consistent, and are 100% self serving in their statements and the media's response to them.
It's rough because even with the raw footage shown of the day and events this article is about, it's hard not to jump to the same conclusions as CNN et al with just the tiniest bit of framing provided. This kind of dishonest or at least lazy kind of journalism has been so prevalent with media outlets on both ends of political bias. Was there not a better way for them to get a more complete scoop at the time? By the way, I still think Trump's photo op was ridiculous. That church even wrote a letter afterward saying they were never informed he was going to do that. They were possibly more horrified than anyone.
And 1200 scientists wrote a letter saying white supremacy is the biggest threat and therefore summer protests are okay even with COVID lockdowns. And virus from the lab was a crazy conspiracy theory - that too from the "pretigious" The Lancet and Science journals. You can get anyone to write any letter with anything you want.
I am not christian but can you blame someone for showing up with a bible after rioters literally burnt the church the night before?
They could have interviewed the chief of the park police for one, and he would have given them the same information, but they conveniently didn't, as it wasn't supporting their narrative. Raw footage is Calle draw for a reason, it can be framed to fit a story, whether that story is to discover the truth or to paint a picture thats where it gets tricky and you have to trust the integrity of the storyteller - or not.
My special forces friend in Vietnam said they staged photos and videos all the time. Consequently he believes nothing in video or photographs. Consider how a good photographer always gets the photo exactly right. Perfect smile. The choice of when to push the button or cut the tape changes everything. Always consider the agenda of the source. I like Glenn because he was fairly anti-Trump. So he has no agenda but the truth running counter to what he may wish was true.
It's been going on for ages. There was a protest (same place, I think) of Obamacare by Tea Partiers. One of the protesters was open carrying. MSNBC hosts said it was creating worries about white racists who object to a black man in the White House.
They cropped the footage to remove the man's head and hands, because he was black and it didn't fit the narrative.
I was told 30 years ago to never accept incompetence as an excuse for anything in the public sphere. Sun Tzu implied this 2500 years ago, and his Greek contemporaries would have agreed.
Anyone remember the Japanese Koi incident? CNN cut the footage to try showing Trump was going to kill some sacred fish. Full footage showed the truth. As far as the photo-op, it seems silly now after all the bogus coverage. If you recall, the press had almost universally declared Trump a simpering coward, hiding from "peaceful" protesters in a bunker somewhere the day before (while frozen water bottle and rocks flew and the crowd fencing was overrun). I'm sure he was coming out to show his face and resolve. Walking across the street was a decent symbolic idea, but the slanted coverage of events surrounding it ensured it would not work out. The Church had no choice but to complain or be swept up in the anti-Trump ire of the media and risk more fires.
But it is clear that it happened because of attacks on the park workers putting up fences to protect Lafayette Park.
And that church is far left in its politics. Any normal church would have been gratified that the President came to the church to show his respect after it was damaged by the terrorists.
Cynthia, I think you may have hit it with the word lazy. I don't know about your experience, but mine in the work world showed that if it was possible to get through the workday without doing much, or exerting the least effort possible toward the job at hand, then do that. Journalism is a tough job if done right but easy to fluff by going along with "the story." It always amazed me at how easily I could be praised simply for doing what I was supposed to be doing.
Most reporters spend their time reporting on tweets and articles written by other "journalists" who got their information from Twitter and other reporters who got their....
Greenwald repeatedly mentions that The Guardian never corrected their unfounded article which claimed that Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange in Ecuador's embassy, although they should have either withdrawn the article or corrected parts of it. The standards for Greenwald himself should be the same, I think. That's often what integrity looks like.
Glenn do you think that trust could be improved if journalists would normalize burning the sources on stories like this ? My guess is that the same anonymous sources where used by most of the news outlets that reported it.
Agreed!!! So, now, please provide the facts that substantiate your self-contradicting claim that the liberal journalists have provided more disinformation than Trump and the pro-Trump journalists over the past few years even though "it's hard to count." Did you actually count them? If so, please provide the data; or, perhaps edit your claim.
The difference between Trump supporters/"not that bad" crowd and haters is that his supporters take Trump seriously but not literally whereas his haters take him literally but not seriously.
"The statements that really matter are of a general nature and can not really be fact checked, like...US universities have been widely infected/overtaken by Marxism." [internal quotes omitted]
Not that long ago, a study revealed that 18% of social science/humanities professors self identified as Marxists and 24% as "radical" or "activist." Care to guess what percentage of them identified as Republicans?
Wapo counted as a lie every reference to the border wall, cuz it was really more of a fence. Around a thousand of these "lies" last I saw the list (mid-term somewhere).
Take any one of Trump's purported lies and it pales in significance in actual effect on people's lives to the lie "I will govern from the center and seek to bring the country together". tho in his slight defense, Biden finally worked reasonable hard so for on talking to GOP when it came to the infrsatructure bill
Talk is cheap. Remember that the figurehead-president made concessions that were later dismissed by those in the White House who actually make his decisions. It will be interesting to see whether Dr. Biden or Joe Biden is the main speaker at G7.
"Talk is cheap" - part of the 2016 election story is that the people finally realized that... who cares about small lies versus the smooth guy telling you what you want to hear when it's always a lie?
i guess some of the best recipes are the simple ones.
i take a bit of issue with this, however. your level of access and professional expertise no doubt put you in a better position to get your eyes directly on the evidence, documents, and facts. i'm just a guy who has to hear about things through some sort of medium.
i've always had a bit of an inclination to question what i was being told, and my education and life experiences have only bolstered that inclination. but at a certain point, the buck stops, no? after being fed the disinformation about the specific incident in this article (an event which, as i saw it, the corporate media would have no real reason to lie about, as they already had plenty of "trump bad man" content) and now being told the opposite narrative, WHAT am i to believe?
the evidence, documents, and facts seem to support what Glenn is saying here, but is there a reason to lie? is this "corporate media bad news" just like corporate media pushed "trump bad man" narratives throughout the administration?
perhaps i'm just coming off as a contrarian. i think i have a legitimate question to ask, though. maybe i will be able to tease it out in a more articulate manner somewhere down the road.
lastly, i just wanted to fan girl a little bit. pretty cool that you engage directly with people on this platform. i know it would be easier simply not to, and i know that's a part of the appeal of subscribing, but it's still cool nonetheless. thanks for doing the work that you do. i think it has helped me to be a better citizen.
Trust is earned by actions and results. Some stories are just mistakes made in the interests of time or trusting a source with an agenda. Consistency and accuracy are good indicators that the reporter has the integrity necessary to be believed.
The laundry list of inaccurate and just pernicious falsehoods told by the corporate media during the Trump years and before could fill a book. Many of them told at the behest of the government to justify some war or another & should have been a harbinger of things to come. Media become accustomed to advancing any narrative fed to them so in the end they began to just make up stories to serve their own interests. Could have been ratings, political bias or just becoming vehicles for political operatives to utilize them as stooges. Whatever, it all resulted in a fading industry that will soon be replaced by a new paradigm that values the truth and respects its' audience and the institutions that depend upon it for information.
Like the propaganda purveyors of the recent past, like Nazi Germany, their destiny is pretty predictably. Crash and burn will be their future. Lies have their own built in DNA. In the end they self destruct and hopefully the people that tell them will "get got."
You have to create your own filter, find real journalists, trust people, analyze, criticize, and try to get closer to the truth. Corporate media is billionaires paying millionaires what to say. And if they don't say; they are replaced. A real journalist will ask the right questions and have the humility to accept getting it wrong. I'll give you a few to try out that I feel are real journalists: Krystal and Saagar, Matt Tiabi, Katie Halper, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate, and Tim Poole. If you want some genuine and maybe fun opinions, check out these guys: Kyle Kuzlynski, Razorfist, Dan Bongino, Tucker Carlson, Viva Frie, and the Quartering
I would exclude Krystal from it because she's got severe TDS. She tried to use identity politics against Candace Owens 2 years ago and got so badly crushed that she ended up taking down the video from the channel.
And you're onto my point, with the right people you can get closer to the truth. I love to listen to independent journalists and opinions that challenge a narrative. The corporate media and their propaganda should be readily challenged and laughed at. Their ideas and purpose serve corporations. Viva Frei and Barnes are freedom-biased, which makes them cool with me. More importantly in their simple explanations, they make everyone smarter about the law.
I've had enough of "genuine opinions." I like some of the folks on the list, and don't know some of the others, but it boggles my mind that Tucker Carlson would be included on a list of people to trust.
Tucker admitted on live TV that he had his opinions changed on Snowden and Assange after Jimmy Dore convinced him with proper reasoning. He even thanked Jimmy Dore for that. He also gives a platform to Glenn, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate, Tulsi Gabbard etc - people who have opposing view points.
Tucker's done several segments on Assange, lies about Syria and wars. This is a Jimmy Dore segment where he plays his interview with Tucker thanking him for changing his mind:
I think the question around Carlson is whether he is just a part of the echo chamber or if his opinion has some elements of an independent POV. In this complex world there is no one that is going to spell out the entire complex picture for you with absolute accuracy. Most of the time it is revealed over time. However when someone who says they are a journalist and then just repeats what every single other person of their ilk say, you know that what they are telling you is pretty worthless. Mr Carlson has many times come out at the front of an argument and thus there is some merit in listening to him. You may not agree with him but at least it is sharing a part of the complex picture that is America. So in that way I "trust" Mr. Carlson to give me an opinion which is not always (sometimes but not always) baked in an unending echo chamber of the right.
Carlson used to be part of the echo chamber. However, he started to become more independent and more frustrated with the Republican political establishment. Two years ago he broke ranks. I will never forget when he finally had enough. Neocons from National Review to CATO crapped their pants that someone would actually call them out on prime time TV.
He even thanked Jimmy Dore on live TV for changing his opinions on Snowden, Assange because of the strength of Jimmy's arguments. I think the Tucker is more right leaning on social issues while more left leaning on economic issues.
I honestly think Tucker Carlson is just an old fashioned classical liberal conservative while people like Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore are classical liberal liberals. They happen to be opposed to establishment neoliberals and neoconservatives, and because they also have similar beliefs in what America should represent and the values it should stand for, they find themselves getting along fairly well.
By the way, do you have a link to that segment? I would like to see it.
Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul probably played equal parts in talking Trump out of attacking Iran. Carlson gets some stuff wrong (fentanyl and Floyd, for example) but he's more right than wrong,
Tucker is genuine because everyone knows what part of the political aisle he is on. Also, corporate media is labeling him a villain. When MSM propaganda arm of the corporatocracy is so far from the truth, they've left enough of a truth lane for even Tucker to get there. Aside from his politics, he will challenge corporate narratives. I would like to see him go independent, but he would be canceled in a hot minute. Styxhexenhammer is another good one, but he layers in opinion. Tim Rogers with Nicauraga Dispatch is a genuine journalist. Go exploring and share your thoughts. It took time, patience, trial and error to find these people.
Tucker's on the verge of being cancelled off of Fox News Channel. He has the best nightly ratings (and I think one of the more centrist viewpoints on the channel), but advertisers increasingly won't touch him. He gets the views, but he makes them no money.
He's started a Fox Nation podcast called Tucker Carlson Today, I think to prep the ground if and when they cancel his nightly show on the main channel.
He can literally start his own podcast or news channel and based on how he brings on opposing political people like Jimmy Dore, Glenn, Aaron Mate, Tulsi etc, he can give them their own shows. That would easily get huge traffic.
People who use the term "Neoconservatives" or "Neocons" are often Truth-Tellers. Tucker and Laura Ingraham are the only two who used the term with regularity.
You owe it to yourself to read Tucker Carlson's book SHIP OF FOOLS. He spares no one - not even Ronald Reagan. The evidence of media corruption is everywhere. In the land of the blind, a person with a functioning third eye is a necessary guide.
I am right leaning and not a fan of Reagan (though I wasn't around then so maybe I am not educated enough). He seemed like a charismatic dude but things like the amnesty deal was a horrible idea. Some say he made bad decisions towards the end because of his obvious deteorating mental health issues.
Go to FOX news and they will inform you of information provided here, but don't go there if you want the truth about climate change, or issues that are taboo on every TV news outlet. I knew they were lying when they said Trump ordered a gas crack down on those protesters because by then I understood your better off not believing what the media has to say about Trump, and as a result are much more informed then your fellow Americans whose heads were bogged down in lies, and so muddied in media lies they barely could trust their own sense of reality. Broadcasters sometimes said Trump raved and ranted when asked a question then they would show the video clip, and there he stood, orange haired and unflappable responding quite normally to questions asked. The media already knew the American mind was gone when it came to Trump and they could do and say anything they wanted. Did you have cognitive dissonance listening to K. Harris talk about her border visit, if she went to the border, or did she say she went to Europe, although maybe she didn't. See, nothing but trouble when you take them seriously, or even listen.
My problem isn't with climate change. My problem is with "left's" hysteria and hyperbole. Just like with everything - from using minorities as pawns to gain power, to women and trans rights - they don't actually care about these people. It's all about exploitation of these people for political purposes. From "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black" to Kamala's hypocritical "Do not come" speech.
Same with climate change. If they really cared even a tiny bit about climate change, they would be marching in India, China and Pakistan and getting them to take action. Not in USA or Canada. US was the one that made the most strides in reducing carbon emissions in 2019 (before covid) while not participating in the Paris climate accords meanwhile China, India, Pakistan isn’t called out on their lack of reduction. Politicians in Canada which is carbon neutral are exploiting it the same way Democrats are in the USA. I come from one of the biggest emitters of Carbon and filthiest places. People in western countries don't understand how bad things really are in those third world countries when it comes to emissions.
We are being asked to listen to hypocrites like Bernie Sanders who flies private jets and demands king size beds and 60 degree hotel rooms, John Kerry and Biden whose son work for corrupt oil companies, Obamas and Al Gore who own multi million dollar oceanfront mansions, Hollywood celebrities who fly private jets, Arnold Schwarzenegger who ate more steak than most humans alive to reduce our carbon foot print. While I love Elon Musk, even electric cars use lithium batteries being mined by underage kids in Africa.
While nuclear is being shunned. Data which doesn't fit the narrative is being scrubbed by scientists. Mr Michael Mann (hockey stick graph) couldn't even produce his own data in lawsuits and lost it. Any dissenting opinions are being censored and shunned and research grants aren't being given to them. Just like COVID leaking from a lab being censored for 1.5 years by "scientists and experts".
It’s not about the climate and environment. It’s about power & control.
Well, I really don't disagree that democrats while they talk the talk about climate change their efforts in this regard have been minimal. I guess it's akin to Kamala Harris handling the border crisis. I never reference America as being a democracy, because it isn't, not really, two parties making the rich who finance their campaigns top priority on their political agenda, as opposed to the needs of their constituents who elected them into office. In other words we're not a democracy.The democrats have a lot of people fooled with their support of liberal issues, like BLM, woman's rights, abortion, gays, and transgender people, etc. Even people who identify as democrats believe this BS, but have had little to any sympathy for the fact that many that constituted Trump's base were poor, often uneducated, or lived marginal lives. I was at Hofstra University for something shortly after Trump's win, and dropped in on a lecture meant for students and the general community, The speaker was trying to elicit sympathy for those who voted for Trump with pictures to show the poverty that existed among many of them. In other words he was trying to make these so called liberals sensitive to the needs of the poor. Good grief. I love this quote from a cousin and her son who supported Biden, are democrats, and define themselves as liberal. "Trump's base is a cultish uneducated lot who have no sense of morals." That very nicely, and concisely defines their hypocrisy.
I like how on one hand they claim “trump’s base consists of the rich donor class” while on another they claim “trump supporters are all uneducated white hillbillies living in poverty”. So much for the “white privilege”.
Smug, condescending and patronizing is how I describe “DNC leftists”.
When they speak of his base they are referencing the American people who elected him into office, and I have repeatedly seen their contempt expressed on Facebook, and elsewhere. Hilary called them a half basket of deplorable. His donor base like the donor base of any elected official are rich. They should do away with the latter.
I agree with all of this, but think it should also be noted that ascribing emissions to a country is somewhat of a mug's game in a world of global supply chains. OECD countries have basically priced most dirty industries out of their countries and exported them to countries with lower-cost labor forces, but continue to consume those same products. The clean part of the value added chain in an iPhone comes from California, the dirty part from mines in Africa and transportation and manufacturing in Asia. Finned tube steel production in Pittsburgh and Ohio is low volume and low emissions, while cold slab in China and India is the opposite.
Fair point about global supply chains. However I don't see anyone of these "climate saviours" raise even a finger and march in China, India, Pakistan. Because we all know that if they did, then they will get "disappeared" and called "racist" etc. Right now the "climate saviours" do what's easy - criticize America, Canada and western worlds while doing nothing to solve the bigger problem.
One more thing - these politicians come up with stupid ideas like Carbon tax and other things to make it as hard as possible to manufacture within the country. So what happens in return? Companies take the business to somewhere without carbon tax and also without any environment regulations - India, China, Pakistan etc. At least in western world, we take care about filtering the emissions as much as possible. None of that exists in those countries. So now we have dirty manufacturing happening in India, very little filtering of emissions, waste being dumped in the rivers, not a carbon neutral country (like Canada because of tons of trees), and jobs also get lost. It's a complete shit show all because of virtue signalling from the climate saviours.
It's all politics bullshit. Nothing about real change or saving shit. And that's why I went from being a liberal to a black pilled liberal/conservative. Because at least most conservatives don't lie to me about some "save the planet" or "care about the minorities" etc while doing the opposite. I would rather you have wrong and bad ideas and be honest about it instead of lying to me about the ulterior motives behind the ideas. That's why I respect the hell out of Jimmy Dore, Glenn etc even though I disagree with him on tons of things. They don't lie to me about their bad ideas (imo). Kamala, Biden and rest of DNC lies about it.
Actually, Fox News provides good coverage of climate science, better than the Washington Post or CNN or … . They frequently have had real scientists like Steve Koonin, John Christy, and Judith Curry on their programs.
But they don't believe in climate change. Not a legitimate issue for them, and I've watched them make fun of the whole very idea of it. Tucker Carlson, whom I like, laughs it away. If they bring scientists on, I suppose they are there to be dismissive of the science. 97% of scientists in the field believe in it's validity based on research findings, and changes in the environment that have resulted from it.
No scientist "believes" in "climate change". Scientists don't believe in scientific information, they accept it as the best we know now, and constantly test it.
The "97% consensus" was false. If you ask is climate changing? 100% of all scientists will say yes. Climate is always changing. As best as we know, the earth was as warm ~1000 years ago as it is now, and was warmer ~2000 years ago (the Roman Warm Period).
But the paper on the 97% consensus made many errors, using papers that did not discuss climate change at all:
I never try to convince people of the reality of climate change. It's useless. Non the less it's a reality that is already creating problems on a global level. It's nothing knew and an issue discussed since the industrial revolution, since carbon dioxide a by product of industrialization prevents the escape of heat, as do other gases like methane, and it all gets backed up into our atmosphere and into our now warming oceans. It's not really something up for discussion, it's real and those that deny it will in there own way contribute to the destruction of life on this planet. Your on this site, no doubt, because you don't believe a lot of what politicians say, or how the media gets a lot of things wrong, and too often by lying, or an unwillingness to seek out the truth for themselves. Those WMD in Iraq that weren't there, but the mainstream media and politicians said they were and they pushed that lie and people were believers, and by listening and supporting those who claimed to be telling the truth, millions died, millions were displaced, millions of lives were destroyed in one way or another. I'm glad I was never part of that lie, and marched against that war, and called my representatives, etc, etc, etc. I will never be apart of the death of people or the destruction of our planet because I allowed myself to be lied to.
Thank you for your reply. I have heard ~200 science presentations by climate scientists for my work (now retired) and know a number of prominent ones. They do not claim that we know what future climate will be like. No model even just for temperature works.
They do point out that the increase in CO2 has had major benefits due to the improved growth of plants (that's why commercial greenhouses add CO2 to get a better product), and that the warmer climate is improving health of all life on earth (many studies have shown that far more people die in the winter months than in the summer months). See these papers (open access I think);
"Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient
"Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest risk attributable to temperature in Japan" https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39538 "The attributable fraction to low temperatures was 23.64% (95% eCI: 19.76–25.87), whereas that of high temperatures was 0.29% (95% eCI: 0.21–0.35)."
Physicists point out that atmospheric CO2 has already absorbed much of the radiation that it can, so more CO2 will not significantly increase temperature (think of a set of colored glass discs: one plate absorbs some of the light, but five of them on top of one another absorb all, so you don't see anything through them).
I don''t know exactly what you mean, perhaps your saying there is always a hold out who believes that whether gum has sugar or not, it's okay, or one shouldn't chew gum at all.
You weren't convinced that the media was lying after WMD. Kinda late to the game. But hey, we're on the same party boat now. I use this paradigm... Everything news-able is intentionally made political. It's all about the ratings. Many of these people are evil with an army of psychopaths. Foxnews might be a lesser degree of evil. Another paradigm to consider... news is made for smart people because the smartest dogs are the easiest to train.
I knew they were lying about WMD in Iraq and marched against that war. I listened to people, saw them speak in person, like Scott Ritter who was the inspector general in Iraq until 1998, no weapons of mass destruction, and I listened to others, and I also knew Iraq and other middle eastern countries were set up for war, and although they needed was a new pearl harbor, and they got that with 9/11. A long time ago, I gave up on the mainstream media and relied heavily on left wing sites, but during the Trump years they couldn't be trusted either, and I knew from the beginning Russia-gate was a lie. Sometimes intuitive insight accompanied by a background in politics keeps the monster at bay.
I think almost everyone here can agree that regardless of the viewpoints of Trump, the best thing to come out from his years was that many people started paying real attention to the lies of the media. They have always been this way but they really went overboard since last 5 years.
As much as I dislike Hannity, I don't mind him because he at least admits that he's an opinion/commentary host and not doing journalism. Same with Tucker. I would even give Rachel Maddow a pass because she's not claiming to be a "journalist". My problem is with people like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo and crazy lunatics on CNN who actually claim to be doing "objective journalism". There's a clip of CNN's board meetings video where it says "the most trusted news". LMFAO.
I am okay with someone being biased. I am not okay with them telling me they are unbiased while being a complete partisan hack. Don't piss on me and then tell me it's raining.
I haven't watched FOX in a year (except a few Tucker segments about Assange with Jimmy Dore) because I don't want to support any establishment news media. I have started to pay for independent creators like Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Viva Frei & Robert Barnes, Steven Crowder etc. With that said, I did find (before a year when I did watch FOX) that Bret Bair, Bill Hemmer, John Roberts, Martha Maccallum on FOX were during pretty middle of the political spectrum journalism. I would even say that it would be hard for me to know which party those 4 people support.
Imho you have to **seek out** both sides. Sites like realclearpolitics.com and its sister sites are brilliant for this because their staff combs the net for the best and brightest articles from *all* sides. (Although to be sure sometimes the articles are complete tripe. I think rcp includes them because radical nutcases are “a side” so I guess it’s legitimate to include them sometimes.) My rule is the instant I see name-calling of any kind, I instantaneously stop reading (sometimes you can’t even make it past the first sentence!) because there’s **nothing** to be learned from those writers. Trust me, for a time I gave them a chance and my suspicious was always confirmed. You’ll be *stunned* to see on a regular basis the stories no one knows about because - since they refer to “inconvenient truths” for Democrats - our “media” (and now probably more importantly, the Orwellians running big social media sites) completely **buries** them.
"My rule is the instant I see name-calling of any kind, I instantaneously stop reading (sometimes you can’t even make it past the first sentence!) because there’s **nothing** to be learned from those writers."
...reminds me of a few of the commenters in this very comment thread, and, in particular, a number of "writers" who have replied to my very few comments here!
You are, of course, spot on with that rule and I also follow it.
Glenn always provides sources with links. Check them out. But what is most telling is that those who participated in the fake reporting, as in most cases Glenn reports, don't deny it. They just make excuses for their behavior.
I'm sure this can be hard to figure out - who to trust. But you're not trusting Glenn in believing this information. He is showing you facts from a report from the officials who investigated the matter thoroughly. There is no need to trust Glenn specifically.
my comment may have contained too much "who" and not enough "what". my concern is mostly that i didn't exactly think i had to critically evaluate this narrative(a mistake, sure, but with all of the other material out there that the media pushed to shit on trump, this one didn't exactly seem like a consequential bombshell), but now it seems as though i do. so, aside from laying my own eyes on the evidence, how can i evaluate it for myself? i am just a guy, and i sort of have to rely on mediums to provide me with this info.
Pay attention to past track record. But even then, never ever trust blindly. Never ever take off your critical thinking hat.
Over the last decade I have made the sad experience that many once good journalists become sellouts or reveal their true nature over time. Two very sad examples are Democracy Now and Prof. Juan Cole.
You don't like supporting documentation? You prefer reports from unidentified sources. Why are you here if you are going to simply and dutifully challenge what he writes. I'm sure Rachel Maddow would be delighted to have you. How many Polk awards and Pulitzers does someone have to win for you to give their work the respect it deserves?
How about by looking at the report cited in the article with multiple statements, & communications that show the clearing of the plaza was planned before anyone knew that Trump was doing the photo op? It's scary that too many people only look at the messenger and give up on any attempt to look at evidence.
While it may seem difficult to determine what sources are trustworthy it might be best to start with individuals. Large corporations who fund and run media empires have a built in bias that always trumps truth. They by their very nature have little or NO integrity or interest beyond their bottom line. Some individual journalists just can't abide the compromises necessary to operate within that world of compromises and spin.
The faces and voices currently representing the corporate media are mostly "actors and news readers" who are just employees reciting what is given to them to read; along with the appropriate emotionally faked facial and voiced responses needed to illicit the response from the public desired by those same corporate entities. The truth by its' very nature is obvious when over time those truths and those who tell them are found to be consistently accurate.
MSM has proven over and over to be a machine dedicated to deceiving the American public. Fool me once okay but fool me twice it becomes my fault. How many false stories must Americans swallow before they begin puking and purging themselves of the poison being infused into their lives by those corporate news outlets that just cannot be trusted --- PERIOD?? With your eyes and mind open the truth will find you whether you agree or not the truth has a way of ringing little bells within most peoples bullshit detectors. Just gotta pay attention.
Around the time of this event, I called a brother, a committed Trump-hater, to talk about "things in general." He immediately brought up this event, and he was beyond livid. Trump had deliberately endangered the lives of peaceful demonstrators simply to massage his own ego. Trump was the worst human being imaginable. Having watched some video (NOT on CNN) of the "peaceful" demonstrators hurling frozen bottles *after* being warned not to, I took a more nuanced view. I urged "caution if your only source is CNN," and told him he needed to watch Fox and read online forums.
A week later we spoke again and he had grown even more angry. The truth had been confirmed by the fact checkers!
Your closing sentence made me laugh out loud. Your brother must also believe that what happened in January 6th must have been the worst thing since civil war.
Get him off social media. It's no different than Fox in the 90's creating hate for the Clintons, social media algorithms drive hate for Trump. It's a geometric effect because they first drive the hate in those that write for the MSM, and that then multiplies back across the media's primary reach itself plus their comments on social media.
Essentially, if social media can make people believe in a flat earth, it can hook anyone's brother on some topic. It's specifically evolving algorithms to trigger your brain biochemistry to manipulate you to engage with its content more, i.e. send you down rabbit holes of faith-building belief.
I love reading this stuff Glenn, but I did know the answer already. I've yet to test a negative media narrative about Trump that proved to be fully accurate, so I stopped wasting my time. I can predict that there are major falsehoods well enough to not bother.
Actually, I think this was the exact event when I stopped testing these narratives to figure out if they were true or not. I recall that I was sitting there trying to find time in my schedule to watch the hours of video of the protestors in the park to see if they were violent, etc. And I realized I didn't have to, because prior to that every narrative I looked for evidence in favor of or against was always a lie. Always.
"By any means necessary" certainly seems to be the depressingly accurate summary of what the media did to remove Trump from office. I voted for Obama in 2008, but felt that he did a terrible job and voted for Romney in 2012. (Talk about regret...) After sitting out the 2016 election, I voted for Trump in 2020, because I thought he did an very good job in the face of the most vicious and dishonest treatment by the media.
What the media did over the past 4 years is fully documented online by Sharyl Attkisson, and is truly disgusting. Read her list -- it is truly scary. Almost as scary as a walk through downtown Minneapolis, where 1500+ buildings were damaged and 137 of them completely destroyed, with virtually no coverage by the media. On the other hand, on 01/06 we had one building lightly damaged, and no end of (often innaccurate) coverage.
Perhaps worth mentioning that many Secret Service Agents and Security Officers were injured in the riot that attempted to breach White House barricades and forced the President and his family to be moved to a bunker. That riot, while studiously ignored, was in kind to the January 6th riot which gets so much press.
it doesn't matter how many people I talk to and provide proof of these shenanigans, it always comes around to me being labeled and ignored. truth be damned, if you don't hop on board with the demonization of all things not democrat, you have to be a trumper. there's no gray area, there's no quest for actual truth. sounds eerily familiar to good ol' W's "if you're not with us, your against us."
This mirrors my attitude to the hysterically anti-communist, anti-desgregation, anti-Kennedy Dallas Morning News when I was growing up: whatever the Dallas News was for, I was against and whatever the Dallas News was against, I was for.
You may want to reassess...I"m thinking they're well to the right of Reagan and Fox. I don't recall Fox OR Reagan actively censoring the President of the United States with pride.
"[T]hey have nobody but themselves to blame for the utter collapse in trust and faith on the part of the public, which has rightfully concluded they cannot and should not be believed."
Perhaps the best last sentence summation of an article ever written. How can any thinking person ever believe these clowns again. I'm almost surprised a few of them acknowledged they got it wrong. But will any acknowledge WHY they got it wrong. Were their original stories based upon any FACTS, or just conjecture that fit with their view of the world? They're damned lucky you don't have to have a license to practice journalism, as the disbarments would be taking a heavy toll.
I commented separately that unfortunately all this is not reaching the democrat constituents as they still trust the media and trust in media is at an all time high of 76% in democrat circles while lowest of 10% in Republican circles:
But registered Democrats are not monolithic. There are still a substantial parts of the party that are blue collar, as well as Hispanics. Especially with the far left nonsense filling MSM content - CRT/all whites are racists, birthing person instead of mother, defund the police, etc. - these Dem party constituencies are less likely to view the media positively. While less conservative on bread and butter issues, they tend more conservative on social issues. Both Reagan and Trump won blue collar Dems, and Trump made inroads into Hispanics. So I don't think all is gloomy on this front.
For a few years I quietly thought that perhaps I was being too cynical and even a little snide in dismissing mainstream media as little more than propaganda organs. More recently, I've reached a high degree of certainty on the matter, and this odorous episode is yet another confirming example.
The patrician left aka progressives, who constitute basically the entirety of corporate media, no longer practice journalism. They're merely a pr team for their fellow progressives and their goals (and thus the progressive-dominated Democratic Party). They know that fake stories like this would swing the election their way, and their plan worked.
Progressives are essentially the equivalent of country club Republicans of 50 and 60 years ago, a status-obsessed group of upper crust people and people who aren't upper crust but aspire to be. Both those Republicans of old and contemporary progressives are hostile to working class interests and aesthetics. Anyone seeking to flood our working class with imported, illegal labor is definitely not pro working class. Don't believe me? Just look at quotes from Bernie Sanders in 2015 articulating exactly what I just said. The big difference? Most of progressives' ideas are fairly radical and they seek total control of society.
Do you keep your mouth closed on jobs about your political choices lest you be fired while enduring political rants from your superiors? I do, twice now. Is there some other political group currently attempting to ideologically cleanse institution after institution? Schools, academia, more recently medicine.
Just for context - I'm on the right, but most conservatives I know barely consider me one. I would have been fired both times simply for being a Republican.
It's horrible to live like that - to have to fear job loss over politics. I hope you never have to experience it. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. My father also disowned me years ago due to his hard left progressive politics. It's a cancer.
They're self-described progressives. No one else even entertains such thoughts, but progressives have adopted these ideas en masse.
You perhaps define yourself as a progressive, but if you are here on Greenwald's substack, congratulations - you are probably a liberal. Being a liberal doesn't mean that you are more or less to the left than the average progressive, it simply means that you are somewhere on the and remain committed to liberalism, eg the actual definition of the term, not its common political definition. I'm on the right, but am just as committed to liberalism as Greenwald is. People like him (and perhaps you) have always been an essential piece of the American political pie (I'm assuming you're an American - forgive me if not, but the point stands).
Whatever you may think of Trump, it is shocking how easily the corporate media along with Big Tech manipulated the outcome of the election by publishing lies about one candidate while suppressing truthful stories about the other. This should be of concern to all thinking people.
And later, when President Trump was ushered into Capitol's bunker by SS, media laughed. The violent mob forced this country's President into his bunker. That wasn't an insurrection and threat to Democracy, it was a mockable event. Utterly contemptible assholes.
It's like they don't understand that we remember this happening. They MOCKED Trump for hiding in the bunker!
But AOC feared for her life!
Are you mocking her obvious PTSD resulting from her fear on that day?
Yeah, me too
So the same media that ignored the Wuhan Virology lab was dishonest about Trump? Shocked. We are all learning that we no longer have a press that serves any function beyond propaganda.
First of all, they weren't peacefully protesting. Burning a church used to be the most vile, hateful thing you could do in America until BLM and Antifa did it. This is further evidence that the MSM woke up every morning and did everything they could to spread negative hate for Trump and positive propaganda for the left. Any rational person still denying that has their head up their ass.
Exactly. President Trump showed his respect and support for the church in its difficult time.
i'm comfortable with not trusting corporate media, but who can i trust? is it okay to trust the word of Glenn? he seems to have the utmost integrity and holds himself to high standards professionally, but i'm just a guy who used to take much of corporate media at its word. aside from reading his material(and he is just one individual in this big world), how can one seek out information that doesn't have the stain of corporate media?
i think a lot of disagreement with Glenn comes from a place of cognitive dissonance. it's hard to reckon with the reality that your reality may be ONLY that- yours. the information within these articles is comparable is wildly informative but it is only available here, so how can i evaluate what i'm being told? clearly that's necessary, this article is proof. how does Glenn collect his information? connections as a journalist, sure, but surely connections can't be the only way? how can i begin to evaluate these claims and these narratives in a similar way without having to rely on Glenn to spoon feed it to me?
Trust evidence, documents and facts that can be shown to be true. Don't trust people.
Well said. But I do think individuals can earn trust over time
I agree. People, including journalists, can earn the benefit of the doubt. But everyone should still be listened to with a critical and scrutinizing mind.
The truly concerning part is how the "media consumers" apparently lost even basic common sense or "Occam's razor" capability to judge by themselves - in this case benefit of "church photo-op" for Trump vs. handing the MSM the ready-made opportunity to endlessly vilify him. Or "Russians attacking Vermont's electrical grid", or "paying for bounties" - why on earth would they?
Whatever happened to "If your father says your mother loves you, check it out first."
Remember the lyrics, "Nobody loves me but my momma and she may be jivin' too"
Who wrote/sang those?
Word.
Although this particular Substack article that you published on June 9 isn't entirely helping the goal of truth, your general point is right. I hope you will take whatever time is needed to think about the issue, since we are basically coming from the same place.
" isn't entirely helping the goal of truth,"--Mr Rose
What exactly do you mean by that?
If Glenn is reporting the truth of how the stories reported by MSM were false, how does this not 'help the goal of truth'?
\\][//
Everyone has their biases. I generally think most things Steven Pinker has to say are sensible, but MAN, he's got a few topics where he falls prey so hard to confirmation bias and groupthink it's embarrassing.
But what do I know? I'm just another imperfect person with my own biases.
When it comes to people like Taibbi, Greenwald, etc, my motto is "trust but verify."
And if people are telling you things you want to repeat with an "I KNEW it!" tacked onto the end, look a little harder. It's helped me avoid a lot of embarrassment when a convenient "truth" turned out to be bullshit. As a men's rights activist, I've had to get in the habit of double and triple checking everything, and having receipts.
That to me sounds like Zionists. I'm Zionist-friendly without having a real horse in the race, but man it's hilarious to watch super smart people elegantly lay out the two sides of a complex American legal issue and then get asked an opinion about Israel and turn into zealots with no allowance for nuance.
^ this is bait
Thanks for being a "men's rights activist"! I am not much of an activist myself, for anything, really, but i always thought of myself as a male "feminist," i.e. for equal rights among the sexes, and I take it that you believe in equal rights along the same lines, am I right?
Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
It's that second part a lot of feminists (and women in general) aren't too keen on.
I remember reading an article in the Guardian, if I recall. It was titled "The Torment of Being a 50/50 Mum." These divorced mothers had to SHARE custody 50/50 with the fathers of their children! These poor mums were missing crucial moments in their children's lives. First steps, first words, first tinkle in the potty! They had to spend night after night worrying about how their little angels were doing, barely able to sleep! These poor mums are missing out on so much, HALF of the incredibly valuable parent-child time during formative stages, and we all need to feel terrible for them. How hard done by they are! Oh, what a cruel, cruel system! Listen to these testimonials from 50/50 mums and try not to cry...
And I'm sitting there thinking, "before 50/50 became a thing, this was dad's existence 26 days per month. If he was lucky. Also, aren't you feminists all about free daycare so these mums can put their kids in the care of strangers when it's convenient for them?"
So yeah. I'm about equality. I'm also about really disliking inconsistent bullshit.
Nice diatribe! I will sign my name to it.
Hear hear!
I think Pinker is quite often wrong. I have personally investigated claims of his and they often are misleading or weakly supported. Others are sneakily vague.
I have not read any of his books, I am unfamiliar with his academic research and I don't even know what areas he defines as within his expertise...but I did once read an exchange he had that was both funny and filled with common sense.
Random feminist, neo-marxist: [paraphrase] rape has nothing to do with sex, it is about power and domination.
Pinker: "if I may be permitted an ad feminam suggestion, the theory that rape has nothing to do with sex may be more plausible to a gender to whom a desire for impersonal sex with an unwilling stranger is too bizarre to contemplate."
Heather MacDonald: "The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it's not reinstatement of the patriarchy."
Earnestly, it would be helpful to hear if this is in his linguistics work, in his books (and which in particular), or where else. Not to challenge you, just so I can be on guard when I engage with his stuff.
I recently read large parts of "Better Angels" and was massively unimpressed. Part of the problem, no doubt, is that he's way out of his field. But when I followed up on his claims, there were quite a few problems. It is a fascinating book with a lot of good stuff, but honestly separating the wheat from the chaff is too difficult.
I read his first popular book on linguistics with interest, but it is a very abstruse field that I cannot comment on with any depth at all. There were, however, some areas where I know something from years of teaching. When he touches upon education of children, his comments sometimes make me laugh or groan. He sometimes doesn't know what he's talking about (although I did strongly agree with his comments on "whole language" reading instruction and thought his position was entirely correct).
I don't think linguistics is a good starting point for other studies, by the way. I don't see a strong relationship between linguistics and history, politics, other sciences (if it really can be called a science), or practical matters of teaching technique. But Pinker seems willing to go out on a limb on every topic under the sun. I do think he offers a lot of leads to interesting and more reliable sources.
Taleb put up a couple of pages of Pinker where he annotates what Taleb considers his errors. You can find it on Taleb's Twitter.
Well, with all those examples and links to support it, Ill gladly blindly believe you, random internet poster.
/sarcasm
1. Unwavering trust.
2. Trust but verify.
3. Be skeptical of anything they say.
4. Believe nothing they say.
These are the 4 categories I put people in.
#1 has all of 2 people in it in my almost 60 years.
here's Chomsky on Pinker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srRfPfDeR2A
Chomsky claims in this video that mortality has got worse since 1970, the "neoliberal period" as he calls it. Well, the "neoliberal period" produced massive progress in gay rights, women's rights, immigrants' rights, etc. His comment about mortality rates is just wrong. Chomsky is such a liar. He says of "the neoliberal period," "that's why you see mortality increasing in the United States." The man has no conscience at all. "From 1999 to 2019, cancer death rates went down 27%, from 200.8 to 146.2 deaths per 100,000 population." Sorry, Noam "that's the neoliberal period." What hasn't worked is Noam's preferred model, the "village democracy" of North Vietnam. https://twitter.com/kyleworton/status/1022100542837936129?lang=en
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/25/mortality-in-the-united-states-past-present-and-future
great to see a happy servant of the plutocrats. Here's some non-cherry-picked stats for you
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2776338
As much as I respect and admire Mr. Pinker, sometimes he seems like someone who just wants to arrive doing 25mph instead of crashing at 150mph.
S'truth that yet individuals can be influenced (some more easily than others) in ways that erode their sensibilities, making what they present to others less trustworthy over time. Trust earned can become trust betrayed so one must stay vigilant with regard to the axiom "trust but verify" when it comes to media presentations.
What we've lost is objective presentation in the political arena. It's become a race to the bottom and by that we've lost the breadth of presentation that previously had given enough voice to real truth that one could verify what was being presented through exposure to other sources of information.
Wrong. She uses the tact of putting the US (and Israel) on the same level as Hamas and the Taliban. Not even close. It's a bizarre exercise in 'equity'. But it's classic socialist thinking: Bring everybody down to the same low level- then we are all equal. Terrorist groups are NOT the same as civilized countries defending themselves.
Indeed, couldn't agree more. The civilized countries kill a lot more people, in the lie of defending themselves.
Yes, of course. You're right. Civilization is way overrated. Good luck to you.
What a very capitalist way of thinking...Incoherent Empires good minion Read; Max Blumenthal's The Management of Savagery...Fletch Prouty's book: JFK. The CIA, Vietnam And The Plot To Assassinate John F. Kennedy..
Yes, very capitalist. The single economic system that has created more wealth and freed more people of every kind than all other economic systems combined. Don't even go down this path. You're pointing me to Max Blumenthal? Seriously- go read something of substance. Save your mind.
Very good and true, Amy. I don't disagree with what you've laid out. The US also backed and produced millions of doses of a Covid vaccine and is sending them all over the world, trying to help the world stop this 'gift' from the Chinese govt. (this after the world told the administration it could not be done in less than 3 years. In America we often do what cannot be done.) And of course, our thousands of US dead in other lands, not occupying, but freeing other peoples (the anniversary of D-Day having just passed is another example). We've blundered horribly, and typically by our government and/or military working beyond the written laws in our Constitution. And that's my point. We are based on sincere and real beliefs in individual liberty. We do a great job sometimes, and we are awful at other times- particularly when we don't hold our government to our own laws. But at our core, who we are, what we are, is about freedom for the individual to be great as they want or can be, and to help others. That is at our core. Now- ask Ilhan what's at the core of Hamas, or The Taliban. Ask her who is to be eliminated? Because that side...at their core, they want people eliminated. That's not OK with me. Finally- on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict...there is much to much to say, but using the end of the Ottoman Empire and insertion of British land maps is one place to start. Another might be a couple thousand years earlier when both were living there. Under Jerusalem they still find coinage from the Hebrews of the ancient times. They are not new in their home.
She is a politician. They cannot be trusted because for them to be truthful results in their defeat in the next election. Like a broken clock, she can occasionally get it right.
I am not a fan of Ilhan but I would give her credit for being a bit more sane than AOC and others who are nothing more than performance shows.
I would argue the point, but only if Ms. Omar came to hold as much political power as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
The point I was making is that I am willing to respect people for their viewpoint (even if ill-informed/wrong) if they actually stick to it when push comes to shove. AOC, Bernie etc are just putting on a performance theatre. Watch - 40 years from now, AOC will be known as the "Nancy Pelosi". They don't actually believe the shit they say - they just do it for votes. I disagree with Jimmy Dore, Glenn etc on so many things but I respect them for being consistent and not being a hypocrite.
Joseph McCarthy, Nelson Rockerfeller, George W. Bush, and John McCain were stains on the Republican party. Their counterparts in the Dems are George Wallace, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc., etc.. People distrust the uniparty for good reasons. I'd like to see Rand Paul and Tulsi run as independents. If the GOP doesn't win a resounding majority in both the House and the Senate next year, they'd have a good chance of winning. Let's just hope the USA continues to allow elections.
You can change "democratic party" to "established parties" and still be right, sadly. :(
Easy now. We want some of them to see the light.
3 steps forward and a step back is not a retreat.
https://www.jns.org/hamas-blasts-ilhan-omar-for-comparing-it-to-us-israel/
Just in ca
The thing is...I dont mind her supporting the voters she represents. If thats what they want her to do, I am ok with it. I think her voters are morons but that is a MN issue, and I am not represented by her.
Where I struggle is the exact article Glenn is posting, that these politicians are in no way consistent, and are 100% self serving in their statements and the media's response to them.
Bertrand Russel https://youtu.be/JtJmnDC0yMo
Well worth the few minutes it takes to listen. Thank you.
Cool and thanks!
Succinctly and accurately stated.
It's rough because even with the raw footage shown of the day and events this article is about, it's hard not to jump to the same conclusions as CNN et al with just the tiniest bit of framing provided. This kind of dishonest or at least lazy kind of journalism has been so prevalent with media outlets on both ends of political bias. Was there not a better way for them to get a more complete scoop at the time? By the way, I still think Trump's photo op was ridiculous. That church even wrote a letter afterward saying they were never informed he was going to do that. They were possibly more horrified than anyone.
"That church even wrote a letter afterward"
And 1200 scientists wrote a letter saying white supremacy is the biggest threat and therefore summer protests are okay even with COVID lockdowns. And virus from the lab was a crazy conspiracy theory - that too from the "pretigious" The Lancet and Science journals. You can get anyone to write any letter with anything you want.
I am not christian but can you blame someone for showing up with a bible after rioters literally burnt the church the night before?
They could have interviewed the chief of the park police for one, and he would have given them the same information, but they conveniently didn't, as it wasn't supporting their narrative. Raw footage is Calle draw for a reason, it can be framed to fit a story, whether that story is to discover the truth or to paint a picture thats where it gets tricky and you have to trust the integrity of the storyteller - or not.
My special forces friend in Vietnam said they staged photos and videos all the time. Consequently he believes nothing in video or photographs. Consider how a good photographer always gets the photo exactly right. Perfect smile. The choice of when to push the button or cut the tape changes everything. Always consider the agenda of the source. I like Glenn because he was fairly anti-Trump. So he has no agenda but the truth running counter to what he may wish was true.
It's been going on for ages. There was a protest (same place, I think) of Obamacare by Tea Partiers. One of the protesters was open carrying. MSNBC hosts said it was creating worries about white racists who object to a black man in the White House.
They cropped the footage to remove the man's head and hands, because he was black and it didn't fit the narrative.
Yeah, and Barr testified to all of this in congress. No one in media cared.
I was told 30 years ago to never accept incompetence as an excuse for anything in the public sphere. Sun Tzu implied this 2500 years ago, and his Greek contemporaries would have agreed.
Anyone remember the Japanese Koi incident? CNN cut the footage to try showing Trump was going to kill some sacred fish. Full footage showed the truth. As far as the photo-op, it seems silly now after all the bogus coverage. If you recall, the press had almost universally declared Trump a simpering coward, hiding from "peaceful" protesters in a bunker somewhere the day before (while frozen water bottle and rocks flew and the crowd fencing was overrun). I'm sure he was coming out to show his face and resolve. Walking across the street was a decent symbolic idea, but the slanted coverage of events surrounding it ensured it would not work out. The Church had no choice but to complain or be swept up in the anti-Trump ire of the media and risk more fires.
I thought it was funny to hear Don Lemon say that Trump was pretending to be president, when Lemon and his cronies are pretending to be journalists!
But it is clear that it happened because of attacks on the park workers putting up fences to protect Lafayette Park.
And that church is far left in its politics. Any normal church would have been gratified that the President came to the church to show his respect after it was damaged by the terrorists.
Cynthia, I think you may have hit it with the word lazy. I don't know about your experience, but mine in the work world showed that if it was possible to get through the workday without doing much, or exerting the least effort possible toward the job at hand, then do that. Journalism is a tough job if done right but easy to fluff by going along with "the story." It always amazed me at how easily I could be praised simply for doing what I was supposed to be doing.
Most reporters spend their time reporting on tweets and articles written by other "journalists" who got their information from Twitter and other reporters who got their....
That ins't going to work. Bill Barr had already given a fairly detailed interview to the Associated Press making this point clearly.
Greenwald repeatedly mentions that The Guardian never corrected their unfounded article which claimed that Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange in Ecuador's embassy, although they should have either withdrawn the article or corrected parts of it. The standards for Greenwald himself should be the same, I think. That's often what integrity looks like.
Glenn do you think that trust could be improved if journalists would normalize burning the sources on stories like this ? My guess is that the same anonymous sources where used by most of the news outlets that reported it.
Agreed!!! So, now, please provide the facts that substantiate your self-contradicting claim that the liberal journalists have provided more disinformation than Trump and the pro-Trump journalists over the past few years even though "it's hard to count." Did you actually count them? If so, please provide the data; or, perhaps edit your claim.
The difference between Trump supporters/"not that bad" crowd and haters is that his supporters take Trump seriously but not literally whereas his haters take him literally but not seriously.
"The statements that really matter are of a general nature and can not really be fact checked, like...US universities have been widely infected/overtaken by Marxism." [internal quotes omitted]
Not that long ago, a study revealed that 18% of social science/humanities professors self identified as Marxists and 24% as "radical" or "activist." Care to guess what percentage of them identified as Republicans?
Wapo counted as a lie every reference to the border wall, cuz it was really more of a fence. Around a thousand of these "lies" last I saw the list (mid-term somewhere).
Take any one of Trump's purported lies and it pales in significance in actual effect on people's lives to the lie "I will govern from the center and seek to bring the country together". tho in his slight defense, Biden finally worked reasonable hard so for on talking to GOP when it came to the infrsatructure bill
Talk is cheap. Remember that the figurehead-president made concessions that were later dismissed by those in the White House who actually make his decisions. It will be interesting to see whether Dr. Biden or Joe Biden is the main speaker at G7.
"Talk is cheap" - part of the 2016 election story is that the people finally realized that... who cares about small lies versus the smooth guy telling you what you want to hear when it's always a lie?
All of those require me to do work to simply understand truth.
Why are the US media allowed to lie 24/7? Oh right because their DNC partners enable it.
i guess some of the best recipes are the simple ones.
i take a bit of issue with this, however. your level of access and professional expertise no doubt put you in a better position to get your eyes directly on the evidence, documents, and facts. i'm just a guy who has to hear about things through some sort of medium.
i've always had a bit of an inclination to question what i was being told, and my education and life experiences have only bolstered that inclination. but at a certain point, the buck stops, no? after being fed the disinformation about the specific incident in this article (an event which, as i saw it, the corporate media would have no real reason to lie about, as they already had plenty of "trump bad man" content) and now being told the opposite narrative, WHAT am i to believe?
the evidence, documents, and facts seem to support what Glenn is saying here, but is there a reason to lie? is this "corporate media bad news" just like corporate media pushed "trump bad man" narratives throughout the administration?
perhaps i'm just coming off as a contrarian. i think i have a legitimate question to ask, though. maybe i will be able to tease it out in a more articulate manner somewhere down the road.
lastly, i just wanted to fan girl a little bit. pretty cool that you engage directly with people on this platform. i know it would be easier simply not to, and i know that's a part of the appeal of subscribing, but it's still cool nonetheless. thanks for doing the work that you do. i think it has helped me to be a better citizen.
Trust is earned by actions and results. Some stories are just mistakes made in the interests of time or trusting a source with an agenda. Consistency and accuracy are good indicators that the reporter has the integrity necessary to be believed.
The laundry list of inaccurate and just pernicious falsehoods told by the corporate media during the Trump years and before could fill a book. Many of them told at the behest of the government to justify some war or another & should have been a harbinger of things to come. Media become accustomed to advancing any narrative fed to them so in the end they began to just make up stories to serve their own interests. Could have been ratings, political bias or just becoming vehicles for political operatives to utilize them as stooges. Whatever, it all resulted in a fading industry that will soon be replaced by a new paradigm that values the truth and respects its' audience and the institutions that depend upon it for information.
Like the propaganda purveyors of the recent past, like Nazi Germany, their destiny is pretty predictably. Crash and burn will be their future. Lies have their own built in DNA. In the end they self destruct and hopefully the people that tell them will "get got."
I learn this lesson the hard way at work more often than I should.
Bertrand Russel https://youtu.be/JtJmnDC0yMo
You have to create your own filter, find real journalists, trust people, analyze, criticize, and try to get closer to the truth. Corporate media is billionaires paying millionaires what to say. And if they don't say; they are replaced. A real journalist will ask the right questions and have the humility to accept getting it wrong. I'll give you a few to try out that I feel are real journalists: Krystal and Saagar, Matt Tiabi, Katie Halper, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate, and Tim Poole. If you want some genuine and maybe fun opinions, check out these guys: Kyle Kuzlynski, Razorfist, Dan Bongino, Tucker Carlson, Viva Frie, and the Quartering
I would exclude Krystal from it because she's got severe TDS. She tried to use identity politics against Candace Owens 2 years ago and got so badly crushed that she ended up taking down the video from the channel.
Let's see Candace on Breaking Point. My money is Krystal having some humility and not going down the same road.
Love Viva Frei and Robert Barnes!
And you're onto my point, with the right people you can get closer to the truth. I love to listen to independent journalists and opinions that challenge a narrative. The corporate media and their propaganda should be readily challenged and laughed at. Their ideas and purpose serve corporations. Viva Frei and Barnes are freedom-biased, which makes them cool with me. More importantly in their simple explanations, they make everyone smarter about the law.
I've had enough of "genuine opinions." I like some of the folks on the list, and don't know some of the others, but it boggles my mind that Tucker Carlson would be included on a list of people to trust.
Tucker admitted on live TV that he had his opinions changed on Snowden and Assange after Jimmy Dore convinced him with proper reasoning. He even thanked Jimmy Dore for that. He also gives a platform to Glenn, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate, Tulsi Gabbard etc - people who have opposing view points.
Here's the video btw:
Tucker's done several segments on Assange, lies about Syria and wars. This is a Jimmy Dore segment where he plays his interview with Tucker thanking him for changing his mind:
https://youtu.be/je3tfciJtvY
You can find several others by searching DuckDuckGo for "tucker Assange" and "tucker Assange jimmy"
I think the question around Carlson is whether he is just a part of the echo chamber or if his opinion has some elements of an independent POV. In this complex world there is no one that is going to spell out the entire complex picture for you with absolute accuracy. Most of the time it is revealed over time. However when someone who says they are a journalist and then just repeats what every single other person of their ilk say, you know that what they are telling you is pretty worthless. Mr Carlson has many times come out at the front of an argument and thus there is some merit in listening to him. You may not agree with him but at least it is sharing a part of the complex picture that is America. So in that way I "trust" Mr. Carlson to give me an opinion which is not always (sometimes but not always) baked in an unending echo chamber of the right.
Carlson used to be part of the echo chamber. However, he started to become more independent and more frustrated with the Republican political establishment. Two years ago he broke ranks. I will never forget when he finally had enough. Neocons from National Review to CATO crapped their pants that someone would actually call them out on prime time TV.
It was a pretty good segment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSuQ-AyiicA
He even thanked Jimmy Dore on live TV for changing his opinions on Snowden, Assange because of the strength of Jimmy's arguments. I think the Tucker is more right leaning on social issues while more left leaning on economic issues.
I honestly think Tucker Carlson is just an old fashioned classical liberal conservative while people like Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore are classical liberal liberals. They happen to be opposed to establishment neoliberals and neoconservatives, and because they also have similar beliefs in what America should represent and the values it should stand for, they find themselves getting along fairly well.
By the way, do you have a link to that segment? I would like to see it.
Man he drops some heavy ordnance in that segment. Whoa.
Just watched. It was really good.
Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul probably played equal parts in talking Trump out of attacking Iran. Carlson gets some stuff wrong (fentanyl and Floyd, for example) but he's more right than wrong,
Tucker is genuine because everyone knows what part of the political aisle he is on. Also, corporate media is labeling him a villain. When MSM propaganda arm of the corporatocracy is so far from the truth, they've left enough of a truth lane for even Tucker to get there. Aside from his politics, he will challenge corporate narratives. I would like to see him go independent, but he would be canceled in a hot minute. Styxhexenhammer is another good one, but he layers in opinion. Tim Rogers with Nicauraga Dispatch is a genuine journalist. Go exploring and share your thoughts. It took time, patience, trial and error to find these people.
Based on how Tucker gets crazy views including from the honest liberals (not the DNC ones), he can get huge audience if he goes independent.
Tucker's on the verge of being cancelled off of Fox News Channel. He has the best nightly ratings (and I think one of the more centrist viewpoints on the channel), but advertisers increasingly won't touch him. He gets the views, but he makes them no money.
He's started a Fox Nation podcast called Tucker Carlson Today, I think to prep the ground if and when they cancel his nightly show on the main channel.
He can literally start his own podcast or news channel and based on how he brings on opposing political people like Jimmy Dore, Glenn, Aaron Mate, Tulsi etc, he can give them their own shows. That would easily get huge traffic.
If he gets the views he makes the money. That is the whole point of views. Some people are more interested in politics than money.
I wouldn’t ride in a rocket with bezos because I would not trust his risk tolerance.
People who use the term "Neoconservatives" or "Neocons" are often Truth-Tellers. Tucker and Laura Ingraham are the only two who used the term with regularity.
It has nothing to do with “trusting” Tucker Carlson…or anyone else. I follow independent media and check their links out.
The stupid people will quote Fox News, or MSNBC, or NYT or WaPo as authorities.
You owe it to yourself to read Tucker Carlson's book SHIP OF FOOLS. He spares no one - not even Ronald Reagan. The evidence of media corruption is everywhere. In the land of the blind, a person with a functioning third eye is a necessary guide.
I am right leaning and not a fan of Reagan (though I wasn't around then so maybe I am not educated enough). He seemed like a charismatic dude but things like the amnesty deal was a horrible idea. Some say he made bad decisions towards the end because of his obvious deteorating mental health issues.
"...but it boggles my mind that Tucker Carlson would be included on a list of people to trust." ~ What is your basis for that statement?
Go to FOX news and they will inform you of information provided here, but don't go there if you want the truth about climate change, or issues that are taboo on every TV news outlet. I knew they were lying when they said Trump ordered a gas crack down on those protesters because by then I understood your better off not believing what the media has to say about Trump, and as a result are much more informed then your fellow Americans whose heads were bogged down in lies, and so muddied in media lies they barely could trust their own sense of reality. Broadcasters sometimes said Trump raved and ranted when asked a question then they would show the video clip, and there he stood, orange haired and unflappable responding quite normally to questions asked. The media already knew the American mind was gone when it came to Trump and they could do and say anything they wanted. Did you have cognitive dissonance listening to K. Harris talk about her border visit, if she went to the border, or did she say she went to Europe, although maybe she didn't. See, nothing but trouble when you take them seriously, or even listen.
My problem isn't with climate change. My problem is with "left's" hysteria and hyperbole. Just like with everything - from using minorities as pawns to gain power, to women and trans rights - they don't actually care about these people. It's all about exploitation of these people for political purposes. From "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black" to Kamala's hypocritical "Do not come" speech.
Same with climate change. If they really cared even a tiny bit about climate change, they would be marching in India, China and Pakistan and getting them to take action. Not in USA or Canada. US was the one that made the most strides in reducing carbon emissions in 2019 (before covid) while not participating in the Paris climate accords meanwhile China, India, Pakistan isn’t called out on their lack of reduction. Politicians in Canada which is carbon neutral are exploiting it the same way Democrats are in the USA. I come from one of the biggest emitters of Carbon and filthiest places. People in western countries don't understand how bad things really are in those third world countries when it comes to emissions.
We are being asked to listen to hypocrites like Bernie Sanders who flies private jets and demands king size beds and 60 degree hotel rooms, John Kerry and Biden whose son work for corrupt oil companies, Obamas and Al Gore who own multi million dollar oceanfront mansions, Hollywood celebrities who fly private jets, Arnold Schwarzenegger who ate more steak than most humans alive to reduce our carbon foot print. While I love Elon Musk, even electric cars use lithium batteries being mined by underage kids in Africa.
While nuclear is being shunned. Data which doesn't fit the narrative is being scrubbed by scientists. Mr Michael Mann (hockey stick graph) couldn't even produce his own data in lawsuits and lost it. Any dissenting opinions are being censored and shunned and research grants aren't being given to them. Just like COVID leaking from a lab being censored for 1.5 years by "scientists and experts".
It’s not about the climate and environment. It’s about power & control.
Well, I really don't disagree that democrats while they talk the talk about climate change their efforts in this regard have been minimal. I guess it's akin to Kamala Harris handling the border crisis. I never reference America as being a democracy, because it isn't, not really, two parties making the rich who finance their campaigns top priority on their political agenda, as opposed to the needs of their constituents who elected them into office. In other words we're not a democracy.The democrats have a lot of people fooled with their support of liberal issues, like BLM, woman's rights, abortion, gays, and transgender people, etc. Even people who identify as democrats believe this BS, but have had little to any sympathy for the fact that many that constituted Trump's base were poor, often uneducated, or lived marginal lives. I was at Hofstra University for something shortly after Trump's win, and dropped in on a lecture meant for students and the general community, The speaker was trying to elicit sympathy for those who voted for Trump with pictures to show the poverty that existed among many of them. In other words he was trying to make these so called liberals sensitive to the needs of the poor. Good grief. I love this quote from a cousin and her son who supported Biden, are democrats, and define themselves as liberal. "Trump's base is a cultish uneducated lot who have no sense of morals." That very nicely, and concisely defines their hypocrisy.
I like how on one hand they claim “trump’s base consists of the rich donor class” while on another they claim “trump supporters are all uneducated white hillbillies living in poverty”. So much for the “white privilege”.
Smug, condescending and patronizing is how I describe “DNC leftists”.
When they speak of his base they are referencing the American people who elected him into office, and I have repeatedly seen their contempt expressed on Facebook, and elsewhere. Hilary called them a half basket of deplorable. His donor base like the donor base of any elected official are rich. They should do away with the latter.
I agree with all of this, but think it should also be noted that ascribing emissions to a country is somewhat of a mug's game in a world of global supply chains. OECD countries have basically priced most dirty industries out of their countries and exported them to countries with lower-cost labor forces, but continue to consume those same products. The clean part of the value added chain in an iPhone comes from California, the dirty part from mines in Africa and transportation and manufacturing in Asia. Finned tube steel production in Pittsburgh and Ohio is low volume and low emissions, while cold slab in China and India is the opposite.
Fair point about global supply chains. However I don't see anyone of these "climate saviours" raise even a finger and march in China, India, Pakistan. Because we all know that if they did, then they will get "disappeared" and called "racist" etc. Right now the "climate saviours" do what's easy - criticize America, Canada and western worlds while doing nothing to solve the bigger problem.
One more thing - these politicians come up with stupid ideas like Carbon tax and other things to make it as hard as possible to manufacture within the country. So what happens in return? Companies take the business to somewhere without carbon tax and also without any environment regulations - India, China, Pakistan etc. At least in western world, we take care about filtering the emissions as much as possible. None of that exists in those countries. So now we have dirty manufacturing happening in India, very little filtering of emissions, waste being dumped in the rivers, not a carbon neutral country (like Canada because of tons of trees), and jobs also get lost. It's a complete shit show all because of virtue signalling from the climate saviours.
It's all politics bullshit. Nothing about real change or saving shit. And that's why I went from being a liberal to a black pilled liberal/conservative. Because at least most conservatives don't lie to me about some "save the planet" or "care about the minorities" etc while doing the opposite. I would rather you have wrong and bad ideas and be honest about it instead of lying to me about the ulterior motives behind the ideas. That's why I respect the hell out of Jimmy Dore, Glenn etc even though I disagree with him on tons of things. They don't lie to me about their bad ideas (imo). Kamala, Biden and rest of DNC lies about it.
Actually, Fox News provides good coverage of climate science, better than the Washington Post or CNN or … . They frequently have had real scientists like Steve Koonin, John Christy, and Judith Curry on their programs.
But they don't believe in climate change. Not a legitimate issue for them, and I've watched them make fun of the whole very idea of it. Tucker Carlson, whom I like, laughs it away. If they bring scientists on, I suppose they are there to be dismissive of the science. 97% of scientists in the field believe in it's validity based on research findings, and changes in the environment that have resulted from it.
No scientist "believes" in "climate change". Scientists don't believe in scientific information, they accept it as the best we know now, and constantly test it.
The "97% consensus" was false. If you ask is climate changing? 100% of all scientists will say yes. Climate is always changing. As best as we know, the earth was as warm ~1000 years ago as it is now, and was warmer ~2000 years ago (the Roman Warm Period).
But the paper on the 97% consensus made many errors, using papers that did not discuss climate change at all:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002821
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
I never try to convince people of the reality of climate change. It's useless. Non the less it's a reality that is already creating problems on a global level. It's nothing knew and an issue discussed since the industrial revolution, since carbon dioxide a by product of industrialization prevents the escape of heat, as do other gases like methane, and it all gets backed up into our atmosphere and into our now warming oceans. It's not really something up for discussion, it's real and those that deny it will in there own way contribute to the destruction of life on this planet. Your on this site, no doubt, because you don't believe a lot of what politicians say, or how the media gets a lot of things wrong, and too often by lying, or an unwillingness to seek out the truth for themselves. Those WMD in Iraq that weren't there, but the mainstream media and politicians said they were and they pushed that lie and people were believers, and by listening and supporting those who claimed to be telling the truth, millions died, millions were displaced, millions of lives were destroyed in one way or another. I'm glad I was never part of that lie, and marched against that war, and called my representatives, etc, etc, etc. I will never be apart of the death of people or the destruction of our planet because I allowed myself to be lied to.
Thank you for your reply. I have heard ~200 science presentations by climate scientists for my work (now retired) and know a number of prominent ones. They do not claim that we know what future climate will be like. No model even just for temperature works.
They do point out that the increase in CO2 has had major benefits due to the improved growth of plants (that's why commercial greenhouses add CO2 to get a better product), and that the warmer climate is improving health of all life on earth (many studies have shown that far more people die in the winter months than in the summer months). See these papers (open access I think);
"Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient
temperature: a multicountry observational study"
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2962114-0.pdf "More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44)."
"Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest risk attributable to temperature in Japan" https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39538 "The attributable fraction to low temperatures was 23.64% (95% eCI: 19.76–25.87), whereas that of high temperatures was 0.29% (95% eCI: 0.21–0.35)."
Physicists point out that atmospheric CO2 has already absorbed much of the radiation that it can, so more CO2 will not significantly increase temperature (think of a set of colored glass discs: one plate absorbs some of the light, but five of them on top of one another absorb all, so you don't see anything through them).
Fran, please look up “Tony Heller” YouTube channel or bitchute channel. He presents receipts on “climate” lies.
Dentists also recommended Viceroys, but more doctors smoked camels than any other cig.
I don''t know exactly what you mean, perhaps your saying there is always a hold out who believes that whether gum has sugar or not, it's okay, or one shouldn't chew gum at all.
Under 40 Fran? It was a commercial/advertisement by Trident gum.
You weren't convinced that the media was lying after WMD. Kinda late to the game. But hey, we're on the same party boat now. I use this paradigm... Everything news-able is intentionally made political. It's all about the ratings. Many of these people are evil with an army of psychopaths. Foxnews might be a lesser degree of evil. Another paradigm to consider... news is made for smart people because the smartest dogs are the easiest to train.
I knew they were lying about WMD in Iraq and marched against that war. I listened to people, saw them speak in person, like Scott Ritter who was the inspector general in Iraq until 1998, no weapons of mass destruction, and I listened to others, and I also knew Iraq and other middle eastern countries were set up for war, and although they needed was a new pearl harbor, and they got that with 9/11. A long time ago, I gave up on the mainstream media and relied heavily on left wing sites, but during the Trump years they couldn't be trusted either, and I knew from the beginning Russia-gate was a lie. Sometimes intuitive insight accompanied by a background in politics keeps the monster at bay.
I think almost everyone here can agree that regardless of the viewpoints of Trump, the best thing to come out from his years was that many people started paying real attention to the lies of the media. They have always been this way but they really went overboard since last 5 years.
As much as I dislike Hannity, I don't mind him because he at least admits that he's an opinion/commentary host and not doing journalism. Same with Tucker. I would even give Rachel Maddow a pass because she's not claiming to be a "journalist". My problem is with people like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo and crazy lunatics on CNN who actually claim to be doing "objective journalism". There's a clip of CNN's board meetings video where it says "the most trusted news". LMFAO.
I am okay with someone being biased. I am not okay with them telling me they are unbiased while being a complete partisan hack. Don't piss on me and then tell me it's raining.
I haven't watched FOX in a year (except a few Tucker segments about Assange with Jimmy Dore) because I don't want to support any establishment news media. I have started to pay for independent creators like Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Viva Frei & Robert Barnes, Steven Crowder etc. With that said, I did find (before a year when I did watch FOX) that Bret Bair, Bill Hemmer, John Roberts, Martha Maccallum on FOX were during pretty middle of the political spectrum journalism. I would even say that it would be hard for me to know which party those 4 people support.
Libs Think Trump Said Kamala Quotes:
https://youtu.be/VrSURgmq-T8
Thanks, that was funny. Usually nothing about her makes me laugh.
I know lol. I find her to be provocative (I sometimes enjoy it, sometimes not) but this was perfect to show the cognitive dissonance.
Yeah, it was. I don't like her ever.
Imho you have to **seek out** both sides. Sites like realclearpolitics.com and its sister sites are brilliant for this because their staff combs the net for the best and brightest articles from *all* sides. (Although to be sure sometimes the articles are complete tripe. I think rcp includes them because radical nutcases are “a side” so I guess it’s legitimate to include them sometimes.) My rule is the instant I see name-calling of any kind, I instantaneously stop reading (sometimes you can’t even make it past the first sentence!) because there’s **nothing** to be learned from those writers. Trust me, for a time I gave them a chance and my suspicious was always confirmed. You’ll be *stunned* to see on a regular basis the stories no one knows about because - since they refer to “inconvenient truths” for Democrats - our “media” (and now probably more importantly, the Orwellians running big social media sites) completely **buries** them.
This comment:
"My rule is the instant I see name-calling of any kind, I instantaneously stop reading (sometimes you can’t even make it past the first sentence!) because there’s **nothing** to be learned from those writers."
...reminds me of a few of the commenters in this very comment thread, and, in particular, a number of "writers" who have replied to my very few comments here!
You are, of course, spot on with that rule and I also follow it.
Glenn always provides sources with links. Check them out. But what is most telling is that those who participated in the fake reporting, as in most cases Glenn reports, don't deny it. They just make excuses for their behavior.
I'm sure this can be hard to figure out - who to trust. But you're not trusting Glenn in believing this information. He is showing you facts from a report from the officials who investigated the matter thoroughly. There is no need to trust Glenn specifically.
that's a really good way to articulate that.
my comment may have contained too much "who" and not enough "what". my concern is mostly that i didn't exactly think i had to critically evaluate this narrative(a mistake, sure, but with all of the other material out there that the media pushed to shit on trump, this one didn't exactly seem like a consequential bombshell), but now it seems as though i do. so, aside from laying my own eyes on the evidence, how can i evaluate it for myself? i am just a guy, and i sort of have to rely on mediums to provide me with this info.
Look at Scahill and Goodman. Even they sold out.
Pay attention to past track record. But even then, never ever trust blindly. Never ever take off your critical thinking hat.
Over the last decade I have made the sad experience that many once good journalists become sellouts or reveal their true nature over time. Two very sad examples are Democracy Now and Prof. Juan Cole.
You don't like supporting documentation? You prefer reports from unidentified sources. Why are you here if you are going to simply and dutifully challenge what he writes. I'm sure Rachel Maddow would be delighted to have you. How many Polk awards and Pulitzers does someone have to win for you to give their work the respect it deserves?
How about by looking at the report cited in the article with multiple statements, & communications that show the clearing of the plaza was planned before anyone knew that Trump was doing the photo op? It's scary that too many people only look at the messenger and give up on any attempt to look at evidence.
Get rid of all the middle men and the answer reveals itself through honest conversations with people who are not middle men.
It’s become abundantly evident that Corp media can never be trusted and we must do our Own research to gain any truth at all.
You can trust yourself and strive to be a critical thinker. That goes a long way.
While it may seem difficult to determine what sources are trustworthy it might be best to start with individuals. Large corporations who fund and run media empires have a built in bias that always trumps truth. They by their very nature have little or NO integrity or interest beyond their bottom line. Some individual journalists just can't abide the compromises necessary to operate within that world of compromises and spin.
The faces and voices currently representing the corporate media are mostly "actors and news readers" who are just employees reciting what is given to them to read; along with the appropriate emotionally faked facial and voiced responses needed to illicit the response from the public desired by those same corporate entities. The truth by its' very nature is obvious when over time those truths and those who tell them are found to be consistently accurate.
MSM has proven over and over to be a machine dedicated to deceiving the American public. Fool me once okay but fool me twice it becomes my fault. How many false stories must Americans swallow before they begin puking and purging themselves of the poison being infused into their lives by those corporate news outlets that just cannot be trusted --- PERIOD?? With your eyes and mind open the truth will find you whether you agree or not the truth has a way of ringing little bells within most peoples bullshit detectors. Just gotta pay attention.
When a revolution takes place (as it has in the United States), often the only sources of true information are rumors. We have to make choices.
Look at Scahill and Goodman. Even they sold out.
Around the time of this event, I called a brother, a committed Trump-hater, to talk about "things in general." He immediately brought up this event, and he was beyond livid. Trump had deliberately endangered the lives of peaceful demonstrators simply to massage his own ego. Trump was the worst human being imaginable. Having watched some video (NOT on CNN) of the "peaceful" demonstrators hurling frozen bottles *after* being warned not to, I took a more nuanced view. I urged "caution if your only source is CNN," and told him he needed to watch Fox and read online forums.
A week later we spoke again and he had grown even more angry. The truth had been confirmed by the fact checkers!
Your closing sentence made me laugh out loud. Your brother must also believe that what happened in January 6th must have been the worst thing since civil war.
Essentially, yes.
Get him off social media. It's no different than Fox in the 90's creating hate for the Clintons, social media algorithms drive hate for Trump. It's a geometric effect because they first drive the hate in those that write for the MSM, and that then multiplies back across the media's primary reach itself plus their comments on social media.
Essentially, if social media can make people believe in a flat earth, it can hook anyone's brother on some topic. It's specifically evolving algorithms to trigger your brain biochemistry to manipulate you to engage with its content more, i.e. send you down rabbit holes of faith-building belief.
Corporate Media is the enemy of the American people-ENEMY!
Hopefully substack is the enema of corporate media
Good one!
I love reading this stuff Glenn, but I did know the answer already. I've yet to test a negative media narrative about Trump that proved to be fully accurate, so I stopped wasting my time. I can predict that there are major falsehoods well enough to not bother.
Actually, I think this was the exact event when I stopped testing these narratives to figure out if they were true or not. I recall that I was sitting there trying to find time in my schedule to watch the hours of video of the protestors in the park to see if they were violent, etc. And I realized I didn't have to, because prior to that every narrative I looked for evidence in favor of or against was always a lie. Always.
"By any means necessary" certainly seems to be the depressingly accurate summary of what the media did to remove Trump from office. I voted for Obama in 2008, but felt that he did a terrible job and voted for Romney in 2012. (Talk about regret...) After sitting out the 2016 election, I voted for Trump in 2020, because I thought he did an very good job in the face of the most vicious and dishonest treatment by the media.
What the media did over the past 4 years is fully documented online by Sharyl Attkisson, and is truly disgusting. Read her list -- it is truly scary. Almost as scary as a walk through downtown Minneapolis, where 1500+ buildings were damaged and 137 of them completely destroyed, with virtually no coverage by the media. On the other hand, on 01/06 we had one building lightly damaged, and no end of (often innaccurate) coverage.
And we still don't know the name of the police officer that murdered Ashli Babbitt.
Apparently her family has filed a lawsuit to get the name but the chances of that succeeding in corrupt Washington is tiny.
Perhaps worth mentioning that many Secret Service Agents and Security Officers were injured in the riot that attempted to breach White House barricades and forced the President and his family to be moved to a bunker. That riot, while studiously ignored, was in kind to the January 6th riot which gets so much press.
Always believe the opposite of what fake news “reports.” I believe we’ll see lots of articles like this from you in the coming months. Go Glenn.
it doesn't matter how many people I talk to and provide proof of these shenanigans, it always comes around to me being labeled and ignored. truth be damned, if you don't hop on board with the demonization of all things not democrat, you have to be a trumper. there's no gray area, there's no quest for actual truth. sounds eerily familiar to good ol' W's "if you're not with us, your against us."
This mirrors my attitude to the hysterically anti-communist, anti-desgregation, anti-Kennedy Dallas Morning News when I was growing up: whatever the Dallas News was for, I was against and whatever the Dallas News was against, I was for.
Whatever the left is saying about their enemies . . . THEY are doing. They've been projecting for years and morons continue to swallow the bait whole.
Liberals and Dems are not the left. They are half an inch less right than the Republicans and Fox
You may want to reassess...I"m thinking they're well to the right of Reagan and Fox. I don't recall Fox OR Reagan actively censoring the President of the United States with pride.
I hear you
"Liberals and Dems" are "...well to the right of Reagan and Fox."?!?!
What is the left? Who is the left? Can you articulate a coherent philosophy of the “real” left?
"The most dangerous psychological mistake is the projection of the shadow on to others; this is the root of almost all conflicts."--Jung
Love it. Keep pounding away Glenn. Maybe some minds glued shut will be pried open.
"[T]hey have nobody but themselves to blame for the utter collapse in trust and faith on the part of the public, which has rightfully concluded they cannot and should not be believed."
Perhaps the best last sentence summation of an article ever written. How can any thinking person ever believe these clowns again. I'm almost surprised a few of them acknowledged they got it wrong. But will any acknowledge WHY they got it wrong. Were their original stories based upon any FACTS, or just conjecture that fit with their view of the world? They're damned lucky you don't have to have a license to practice journalism, as the disbarments would be taking a heavy toll.
I commented separately that unfortunately all this is not reaching the democrat constituents as they still trust the media and trust in media is at an all time high of 76% in democrat circles while lowest of 10% in Republican circles:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx
But registered Democrats are not monolithic. There are still a substantial parts of the party that are blue collar, as well as Hispanics. Especially with the far left nonsense filling MSM content - CRT/all whites are racists, birthing person instead of mother, defund the police, etc. - these Dem party constituencies are less likely to view the media positively. While less conservative on bread and butter issues, they tend more conservative on social issues. Both Reagan and Trump won blue collar Dems, and Trump made inroads into Hispanics. So I don't think all is gloomy on this front.
The polls are already suspect, but also may not show the dry rot within.
For a few years I quietly thought that perhaps I was being too cynical and even a little snide in dismissing mainstream media as little more than propaganda organs. More recently, I've reached a high degree of certainty on the matter, and this odorous episode is yet another confirming example.
I really do hate to say it, but I'm not sure it's possible anymore to be too cynical when it comes to the MSM.
The patrician left aka progressives, who constitute basically the entirety of corporate media, no longer practice journalism. They're merely a pr team for their fellow progressives and their goals (and thus the progressive-dominated Democratic Party). They know that fake stories like this would swing the election their way, and their plan worked.
Progressives are essentially the equivalent of country club Republicans of 50 and 60 years ago, a status-obsessed group of upper crust people and people who aren't upper crust but aspire to be. Both those Republicans of old and contemporary progressives are hostile to working class interests and aesthetics. Anyone seeking to flood our working class with imported, illegal labor is definitely not pro working class. Don't believe me? Just look at quotes from Bernie Sanders in 2015 articulating exactly what I just said. The big difference? Most of progressives' ideas are fairly radical and they seek total control of society.
> progressives, who constitute basically the entirety of corporate media
I think you are very wrong here. The corporate media are shit-libs neocon trust babies.
"shit-libs neocon trust babies" are progressives along with those who aspire to get into their country club. Welcome to the New Left volume II.
Well, progressives are in the Movement for a People's Party. Can't agree with you there...
Do you keep your mouth closed on jobs about your political choices lest you be fired while enduring political rants from your superiors? I do, twice now. Is there some other political group currently attempting to ideologically cleanse institution after institution? Schools, academia, more recently medicine.
Perhaps you have some other term for it.
I have not and I'm sorry you had to. That doesn't prove those are the progressives. The political correctness run amok is a problem, I think.
Just for context - I'm on the right, but most conservatives I know barely consider me one. I would have been fired both times simply for being a Republican.
It's horrible to live like that - to have to fear job loss over politics. I hope you never have to experience it. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. My father also disowned me years ago due to his hard left progressive politics. It's a cancer.
They're self-described progressives. No one else even entertains such thoughts, but progressives have adopted these ideas en masse.
You perhaps define yourself as a progressive, but if you are here on Greenwald's substack, congratulations - you are probably a liberal. Being a liberal doesn't mean that you are more or less to the left than the average progressive, it simply means that you are somewhere on the and remain committed to liberalism, eg the actual definition of the term, not its common political definition. I'm on the right, but am just as committed to liberalism as Greenwald is. People like him (and perhaps you) have always been an essential piece of the American political pie (I'm assuming you're an American - forgive me if not, but the point stands).
Progressives are not liberals.