Fauxcohontas got into Harvard Law School as a minority hire, due to her falsely claiming to be Cherokee. Harvard proudly touted her as the school's first woman of color. No kidding, this really happened. Without it, does she get in? Who can say? We can only say that when she got in Harvard was desperate for people just like her.
She also contributed recipes to a cookbook called, and I am not making this up: "Pow Wow Chow". Yikes. Can you imagine? That's a career-killer for anyone but a Democrat. What if you found out one of your friends had contributed to a cookbook with an offensive name like that? Would you cut off all ties?
But that's not even the best part of the story. She plagarized two of the recipes from a French chef. Because that's what Harvard graduates do. The dishes? Why, those traditional Cherokee meals of Cold Omelets with Crab Meat and Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing. If there had only been some clue that a French chef was copied!
How did a bunch of school children know the schedule of a major world leader like that? Don't they keep those schedules secret for security purposes? This is even more remarkable if the kids did this on their own. I mean, well-funded foreign government intelligence operations can't even do this but a bunch of kids with no security clearances and no access can?
"is notorious for releasing tools that allowed ordinary people to hack computers running Microsoft's Windows."
In other words, malware. Back Orfice and BO2K were both identified by all virus scanners as such.
cDc was also playing for the other team: in 2006 cDc denounced a call to cyberwar against the Chinese government. Can you imagine? A hacker group advocating the interests of our strategic competitor? Maybe if we'd hacked China harder back then we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. cDc deleted the incriminating press release from their website but fortunately the internet never forgets. I went to one of Drunkfux' HoHoCons but I wouldn't have gone if I had known the cDc was going to turn out like this. Fortunately, I'm not running for office. But O'Rourke is. Members of malware groups who advocate for China's interests shouldn't be in any elected office.
So you're one of those weirdo coincidence theorists, huh? It is far more likely that this is being conducted with adult supervision, but whom? Youth have extended childhoods today, often going on until well into their 20s. You're going to tell me they can do complicated political activism, the kind that most adults can't get right, without any expert assistance?
Even if it's not there, I would feel more comfortable if this is thoroughly investigated by people we trust the most: journalists. In fact, that sounds like an even better story, children working alone successfully coordinate an extremely multi-country political activism campaign. This sort of thing is beyond the ability of most nation-states. Either way, it's a Pulitzer waiting to be won.
Who's coordinating this behind the scenes? Who are the adults in charge of this? "Get a free day off school if you just go with our political program" is too good to be true. Our investigative journalists are asleep at the wheel. This is big, very big. There's a Pulitzer Prize waiting for the one who busts this open.
The problem is that most journalists are not Liberal, they are Leftist. How do you tell the difference? Easy! Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.
Leftists have no problem with censorship and use it as a method of first resort. "Journalism isn't really journalism when it avoids stories for fear of how some might react." Think about that. It's an astounding confession. Ms Hinsliff is a staff journalist who worked at several of Britain's top newspapers for 22 years before she wrote that statement. You would think someone so experienced, who also benefited from a top-caliber Cambridge education, would have had the fundamentals of journalism sorted when she was a cub reporter in 1994. Appears she learned things much more devious. What else has she obscured and concealed during her career?
Why is the US still in NATO? The narrative I heard is we pay a ruinous cost for their defense and so they can afford comfortable welfare states, and in return we get agreement to our policy proposals. This already sounds like a bad deal. But, we aren't even getting that. The NATO "allies" are openly defiant and won't fall in line. Don't say this started with Trump, either, because it didn't.
"What should be a conversation about American military and its covert apparatus unduly meddling in other countries quickly becomes a referendum on the moral properties of those countries. Theoretically a good conversation to have (and one certainly ongoing among people and institutions in these countries), but absent a discussion of the merits of the initial axiom-that U.S. talking heads and the Washington national security apparatus have a birthright to determine which regimes are good and bad-it serves little practical purpose stateside beyond posturing. And often, as a practical matter, it works to cement the broader narrative justifying the meddling itself.
Do the U.S. and its allies have a moral or ethical right to determine the political future of Venezuela? This question is breezed past, and we move on to the question of how this self-evident authority is best exercised. This is the scope of debate in The New York Times-and among virtually all U.S. media outlets. To ante up in the poker game of Serious People Discussing Foreign Policy Seriously, one is obligated to register an Official Condemnation of the Official Bad Regime. This is so everyone knows you accept the core premises of U.S. regime change but oppose it on pragmatic or legalistic grounds. It's a tedious, extortive exercise designed to shift the conversation away from the United States' history of arbitrary and violent overthrows and into an exchange about how best to oppose the Official Bad Regime in question. U.S. liberals are to keep a real-time report card on these Official Bad Regimes, and if these regimes-due to an ill-defined rubric of un-democraticness and human rights-fall below a score of say, âoe60,â they become illegitimate and unworthy of defense as such.
For those earnestly concerned about Maduro's efforts to undermine the democratic institutions of Venezuela (he's been accused of jailing opponents, stacking the courts and holding Potemkin elections), it's worth pointing out that even when the liberal democratic properties of Venezuela were at their height in 2002 (they were internationally sanctioned and overseen by the Carter Center for years, and no serious observer considers Hugo Chavez's rule illegitimate), the CIA still greenlit a military coup against Chavez, and the New York Times still profusely praised the act. As it wrote at the time:
With yesterdays resignation of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chavez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.
They flat-out lied about Chavez stepping down. LIED.
Why was the whole point of the Paris agreement to take money from America and give it to hostile countries who hate us? It was a scam. We have tons of our own people who need help, after we fix their problems we can start meddling in other countries.
Think of the tragedy if we solved the problem overnight. The attempt to redistribute wealth from America to hostile countries who hate us would fail. Never let a crisis go to waste.
The fantastically large prices paid by Americans subsidize medical advances that benefit the rest of the world. To "fix" this problem would mean bringing healthcare advancement to a halt. Are you sure that's what you want?
People are regularly bankrupted.
Normal people have good health insurance. The only people who get bankrupted are the deplorables. Are you really going to stand up for them? Seriously?
There was also Bush Derangement Syndrome which had the exact same symptoms. You'd be talking about some totally unrelated topic, and someone wild-haired would burst into the conversation screeching about Chimpy McBu$hitler and how he was going to end everything. It was disconcerting and tiresome. Now we've got TDS which is the same thing. Can you believe people used to call GWB Hitler? Non-ironically, since you're a student of irony?
Making changes to complex systems and thinking the users don't need to know about it is a hallmark of Millenialism. No idea who Steve is, I guess you're having some kind of argument in your head that the rest of us aren't aware of.
I said Millennialism. Don't need to make it personal. Making changes to complex systems without caring about the consequences is very Millenial behavior.
In normal operation, it's impossible to stall an Airbus by pulling the stick all the way back as the software won't allow you. However the loss of speed data put the aircraft into alternate law where the pilots, not the computer, were in control of the aircraft. He pulled the stick back, stalling the aircraft, when if he had just let go things would have been fine.
AF447 was caused by one pilot pulling his sidestick all the way back, stalling the plane, and he kept it there until the plane hit the ocean. With a Boeing flight column, the other pilot would have felt it in his ribs and known to level off.
Sad to see the once-proud remnant of American industrial might, Boeing, brought low like this. I thought Airbus lost it on Air France 447 when the pilot pulled his sidestick all the way back and kept it there until the plane crashed. On a Boeing, the dual control sticks would have revealed this and lives would have been saved. But now, we have this:
"One high-ranking Boeing official said the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information â" and significantly more technical data â" than they needed or could digest."
So they:
1) Design an aircraft that has an inherent tendency to pitch up
2) Implement an a system to persistently add control inputs during critical phases of flight
3) Do NOT disclose system description to pilots in FCOM
How about fundamental rules:
Understanding what automation systems do.
Control the automated systems according to strong pilot skills.
The Nation of Islam published a book about the Jewish role in the African slave trade. This is no secret, they're very open about this and wish everyone to read it. In his own autobiography, Barack Obama admitted to being an avid reader of the Nation of Islam's Final Call newspaper, this did not seem to impede his eventual path to two presidential terms.
So let's review: Obama's mentor and fundraiser Tony Rezko was also the Nation of Islam's business manager. Obama read Farrakhan's newspaper regularly, posed for a photo with him that borders on the bromantic, and yet the press refuses to condemn him. Donald Trump said he didn't know David Duke and openly disavowed him, yet the press has nailed Trump and Duke together on the same cross.
Yet the country's self-described "journalists" still wonder why people don't trust them.
Mao's China pretty much eliminated crime. That legacy continues today; China is one of the safest countries on the planet. They're installing face recognition cameras everywhere to ensure this stays. The new police state will be unlike anything the world has ever seen; it will have the capability to watch everyone, all the time. Anyone who goes off the grid will be immediately suspicious. Being able to escape surveillance will be a great privilege, held only by our rulers and as a reward for their helpers.
Slashdot Mirror
Fauxcohontas got into Harvard Law School as a minority hire, due to her falsely claiming to be Cherokee. Harvard proudly touted her as the school's first woman of color. No kidding, this really happened. Without it, does she get in? Who can say? We can only say that when she got in Harvard was desperate for people just like her.
She also contributed recipes to a cookbook called, and I am not making this up: "Pow Wow Chow". Yikes. Can you imagine? That's a career-killer for anyone but a Democrat. What if you found out one of your friends had contributed to a cookbook with an offensive name like that? Would you cut off all ties?
But that's not even the best part of the story. She plagarized two of the recipes from a French chef. Because that's what Harvard graduates do. The dishes? Why, those traditional Cherokee meals of Cold Omelets with Crab Meat and Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing. If there had only been some clue that a French chef was copied!
How did a bunch of school children know the schedule of a major world leader like that? Don't they keep those schedules secret for security purposes? This is even more remarkable if the kids did this on their own. I mean, well-funded foreign government intelligence operations can't even do this but a bunch of kids with no security clearances and no access can?
"is notorious for releasing tools that allowed ordinary people to hack computers running Microsoft's Windows."
In other words, malware. Back Orfice and BO2K were both identified by all virus scanners as such.
cDc was also playing for the other team: in 2006 cDc denounced a call to cyberwar against the Chinese government. Can you imagine? A hacker group advocating the interests of our strategic competitor? Maybe if we'd hacked China harder back then we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. cDc deleted the incriminating press release from their website but fortunately the internet never forgets. I went to one of Drunkfux' HoHoCons but I wouldn't have gone if I had known the cDc was going to turn out like this. Fortunately, I'm not running for office. But O'Rourke is. Members of malware groups who advocate for China's interests shouldn't be in any elected office.
Here's the BBC misquoting a Reddit user. Here's the user spotting it and calling it out.
The BBC admits Aleppo Boy was propaganda.
BBC lied about women coding.
If the market could punish, the BBC would be begging for donations much like The Guardian. But with taxpayer support, this will never happen.
So you're one of those weirdo coincidence theorists, huh? It is far more likely that this is being conducted with adult supervision, but whom? Youth have extended childhoods today, often going on until well into their 20s. You're going to tell me they can do complicated political activism, the kind that most adults can't get right, without any expert assistance?
Even if it's not there, I would feel more comfortable if this is thoroughly investigated by people we trust the most: journalists. In fact, that sounds like an even better story, children working alone successfully coordinate an extremely multi-country political activism campaign. This sort of thing is beyond the ability of most nation-states. Either way, it's a Pulitzer waiting to be won.
Who's coordinating this behind the scenes? Who are the adults in charge of this? "Get a free day off school if you just go with our political program" is too good to be true. Our investigative journalists are asleep at the wheel. This is big, very big. There's a Pulitzer Prize waiting for the one who busts this open.
The problem is that most journalists are not Liberal, they are Leftist. How do you tell the difference? Easy! Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.
Leftists have no problem with censorship and use it as a method of first resort. "Journalism isn't really journalism when it avoids stories for fear of how some might react." Think about that. It's an astounding confession. Ms Hinsliff is a staff journalist who worked at several of Britain's top newspapers for 22 years before she wrote that statement. You would think someone so experienced, who also benefited from a top-caliber Cambridge education, would have had the fundamentals of journalism sorted when she was a cub reporter in 1994. Appears she learned things much more devious. What else has she obscured and concealed during her career?
Why is the US still in NATO? The narrative I heard is we pay a ruinous cost for their defense and so they can afford comfortable welfare states, and in return we get agreement to our policy proposals. This already sounds like a bad deal. But, we aren't even getting that. The NATO "allies" are openly defiant and won't fall in line. Don't say this started with Trump, either, because it didn't.
USA out of NATO!
When internet randoms have a better record of truth-telling than legitimate journalists, what are you going to do?
Here's something from an internet random that I bet you would never hear from the mainstream media: Your Complete Guide to the N.Y. Times' Support of U.S.-Backed Coups in Latin America
"What should be a conversation about American military and its covert apparatus unduly meddling in other countries quickly becomes a referendum on the moral properties of those countries. Theoretically a good conversation to have (and one certainly ongoing among people and institutions in these countries), but absent a discussion of the merits of the initial axiom-that U.S. talking heads and the Washington national security apparatus have a birthright to determine which regimes are good and bad-it serves little practical purpose stateside beyond posturing. And often, as a practical matter, it works to cement the broader narrative justifying the meddling itself. Do the U.S. and its allies have a moral or ethical right to determine the political future of Venezuela? This question is breezed past, and we move on to the question of how this self-evident authority is best exercised. This is the scope of debate in The New York Times-and among virtually all U.S. media outlets. To ante up in the poker game of Serious People Discussing Foreign Policy Seriously, one is obligated to register an Official Condemnation of the Official Bad Regime. This is so everyone knows you accept the core premises of U.S. regime change but oppose it on pragmatic or legalistic grounds. It's a tedious, extortive exercise designed to shift the conversation away from the United States' history of arbitrary and violent overthrows and into an exchange about how best to oppose the Official Bad Regime in question. U.S. liberals are to keep a real-time report card on these Official Bad Regimes, and if these regimes-due to an ill-defined rubric of un-democraticness and human rights-fall below a score of say, âoe60,â they become illegitimate and unworthy of defense as such.
For those earnestly concerned about Maduro's efforts to undermine the democratic institutions of Venezuela (he's been accused of jailing opponents, stacking the courts and holding Potemkin elections), it's worth pointing out that even when the liberal democratic properties of Venezuela were at their height in 2002 (they were internationally sanctioned and overseen by the Carter Center for years, and no serious observer considers Hugo Chavez's rule illegitimate), the CIA still greenlit a military coup against Chavez, and the New York Times still profusely praised the act. As it wrote at the time:
They flat-out lied about Chavez stepping down. LIED.
Why was the whole point of the Paris agreement to take money from America and give it to hostile countries who hate us? It was a scam. We have tons of our own people who need help, after we fix their problems we can start meddling in other countries.
Think of the tragedy if we solved the problem overnight. The attempt to redistribute wealth from America to hostile countries who hate us would fail. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Who are these rightists who want greater surveillance? The FISA court was abused by the FBI in an attempt to rig the election for Hillary.
[citation needed]
The fantastically large prices paid by Americans subsidize medical advances that benefit the rest of the world. To "fix" this problem would mean bringing healthcare advancement to a halt. Are you sure that's what you want?
People are regularly bankrupted.
Normal people have good health insurance. The only people who get bankrupted are the deplorables. Are you really going to stand up for them? Seriously?
There was also Bush Derangement Syndrome which had the exact same symptoms. You'd be talking about some totally unrelated topic, and someone wild-haired would burst into the conversation screeching about Chimpy McBu$hitler and how he was going to end everything. It was disconcerting and tiresome. Now we've got TDS which is the same thing. Can you believe people used to call GWB Hitler? Non-ironically, since you're a student of irony?
Again with the Trump Derangement Syndrome. Turn off the internet Grandpa, you've had too much.
We all live on the same planet. Borders are meaningless, your walls don't respect pollution.
Making changes to complex systems and thinking the users don't need to know about it is a hallmark of Millenialism. No idea who Steve is, I guess you're having some kind of argument in your head that the rest of us aren't aware of.
I said Millennialism. Don't need to make it personal. Making changes to complex systems without caring about the consequences is very Millenial behavior.
In normal operation, it's impossible to stall an Airbus by pulling the stick all the way back as the software won't allow you. However the loss of speed data put the aircraft into alternate law where the pilots, not the computer, were in control of the aircraft. He pulled the stick back, stalling the aircraft, when if he had just let go things would have been fine.
AF447 was caused by one pilot pulling his sidestick all the way back, stalling the plane, and he kept it there until the plane hit the ocean. With a Boeing flight column, the other pilot would have felt it in his ribs and known to level off.
Sad to see the once-proud remnant of American industrial might, Boeing, brought low like this. I thought Airbus lost it on Air France 447 when the pilot pulled his sidestick all the way back and kept it there until the plane crashed. On a Boeing, the dual control sticks would have revealed this and lives would have been saved. But now, we have this:
"One high-ranking Boeing official said the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information â" and significantly more technical data â" than they needed or could digest."
So they:
1) Design an aircraft that has an inherent tendency to pitch up
2) Implement an a system to persistently add control inputs during critical phases of flight
3) Do NOT disclose system description to pilots in FCOM
How about fundamental rules:
Understanding what automation systems do.
Control the automated systems according to strong pilot skills.
A breakdown of the media ignoring the senate and house intelligence committees finding no collusion between trump campaign and Russia.
The Nation of Islam published a book about the Jewish role in the African slave trade. This is no secret, they're very open about this and wish everyone to read it. In his own autobiography, Barack Obama admitted to being an avid reader of the Nation of Islam's Final Call newspaper, this did not seem to impede his eventual path to two presidential terms.
So let's review: Obama's mentor and fundraiser Tony Rezko was also the Nation of Islam's business manager. Obama read Farrakhan's newspaper regularly, posed for a photo with him that borders on the bromantic, and yet the press refuses to condemn him. Donald Trump said he didn't know David Duke and openly disavowed him, yet the press has nailed Trump and Duke together on the same cross.
Yet the country's self-described "journalists" still wonder why people don't trust them.
Mao's China pretty much eliminated crime. That legacy continues today; China is one of the safest countries on the planet. They're installing face recognition cameras everywhere to ensure this stays. The new police state will be unlike anything the world has ever seen; it will have the capability to watch everyone, all the time. Anyone who goes off the grid will be immediately suspicious. Being able to escape surveillance will be a great privilege, held only by our rulers and as a reward for their helpers.
It's OK to be a Republican.