Reason Roundup

How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?

Plus: Attacks on Saudi Arabia unlikely to raise U.S. oil prices

|

Criticism of The New York Times' botched story on a previously unreported sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh prompted the paper to answer questions about the editorial process—though not the most important one.

James Dao, deputy editorial page editor, said the story—an excerpt from Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly's new book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation—appeared in the Sunday Review section (part of the Opinion pages) rather than the news section because "The Sunday Review is the Opinion section's platform for longer essays as well as excerpts or adaptations from books. Sometimes those books are by Times writers, whose submissions go through the same review process as outside writers. In recent months, the Review has published essays adapted from books by Times news writers like Carl Hulse and Jason DeParle, and opinion writers like Bari Weiss and Binyamin Appelbaum."

Vanity Fair reports that news editors did consider writing about the new details uncovered by Pogrebin and Kelly, but ultimately decided "there wasn't enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page-one treatment."

Dao described the book as "the fruit of nearly a year of research by the authors, [exploring] in a nuanced way the social and cultural forces that shaped Justice Kavanaugh." He said it was important to include details of the latest allegation, which are similar to what Kavanaugh's Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez allegedly experienced. According to Pogrebin and Kelly, Max Stier—a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's and now president of the Partnership for Public Service—told the FBI he recalled seeing Kavanaugh with his pants down, and that friends pushed his penis toward a woman. Neither Stier nor the women would agree to speak with Pogrebin and Kelly, and the woman's friends told the authors she did not recall it. This important fact appears in the book but was somehow omitted from The Times' version.

Dao did not explain how this happened. On MSNBC last night, Pogrebin and Kelly blamed their editors, saying that the sentence was in the draft they submitted but then disappeared.

In any case, while several Democratic presidential candidates have called for Kavanaugh to be impeached, House Democratic leadership seems unlikely to move in that direction. "The same Senate that confirmed Kavanaugh is unlikely to remove him," Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) told BuzzFeed.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) said on Monday, "Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president."


FREE MINDS

Speaking of terrible New York Times articles, this one is a doozy: The paper of record trashed presidential contender Andrew Yang for daring to mildly dissent from cancel culture regarding SNL's firing of comedian Shane Gillis for making offensive jokes:

But as many "S.N.L." viewers and others across the country clamored for Mr. Gillis to be fired, believing his jokes to be beyond excusable, Mr. Yang's response unnerved those hoping for a more forceful condemnation from him. Perhaps the most pointed criticism has come from the Asian-American community itself, where some have expressed a mix of incredulity and weighty disappointment at the way Mr. Yang has talked about race throughout his campaign.

Mr. Yang took "a position that's very much at odds with the Asian-American community," said Jenn Fang, the creator of a long-running Asian-American advocacy blog, Reappropriate, who tweeted over the weekend about Mr. Yang's comments. "He's trying to let Shane Gillis off the hook so he can cater to other voters that he needs to get to the White House."

Mr. Yang also received significant blowback from people within and outside Asian-American communities for appearing to draw a comparison between how society treats anti-Asian racism and anti-black racism.

It's very easy to find three woke scolds on Twitter and pretend that their complaints about Yang not towing the militant far-left line are somehow representative of the Asian-American community, which is precisely what the Times did here.


FREE MARKETS

The weekend attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields will probably not raise oil prices for Americans. According to The Washington Post:

That's because if necessary, both Saudi Arabia and the United States could tap their strategic reserves, assuring they continue to meet demand for weeks. And the U.S. is hardly captive to foreign supplies, as it was during the 1970s oil shocks, since it has emerged over the last decade as the world's largest oil producer.


QUICK HITS

  • Controversial political advocates Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and Bob Bland have resigned from the board of the Women's March. Both were accused of making alliances with anti-Semitic groups like the Nation of Islam, whose leader Louis Farrakhan once compared Jewish people to termites.
  • Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) warned against U.S. intervention on behalf of Saudi Arabia, saying that she did not automatically trust the Trump administration to tell the truth about Iran's involvement.
  • E-cigarette company Juul is hoping a ballot initiative will thwart San Francisco's nanny state tendencies.
  • New York public school children have received official permission to skip school in order to protest government inaction on climate change.
  • The horror. The horror.

NEXT: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

344 responses to “How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?

  1. How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?

    Don’t become too personally invested in the outcome of a story.

    1. Hello.

      There’s no ‘how’ they botched anything. They’re just ideological incompetent buffoons.

      1. The NYT botched the Kavanaugh story the same way the 1919 Chicago White Sox botched the World Series.

        1. Say it ain’t so, Jerry.

          1. One thing we should all be able to agree about is that there should be criminal libelity for this sort of reckless omission–which, after all, has reputation-damaging consequences–just as there is, at least in New York, when a “parodist” criminally omits, or “forgets,” to explicitly inform his readers that they are reading a parody, or criminally fails to otherwise make his “parody” obvious enough. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

            https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

            Then again, some of us here at NYU have excellent relations with the NYTimes, so it might be better to develop this important criminal liable precedent when one of our own faculty members is damaged by the improper omission.

        2. Somewhere, Arnold Rothstein is smiling.

        3. The NYT botched the Kavanaugh story the same way the 1919 Chicago White Sox botched the World Series.

          This. It wasn’t no botch. They did exactly what they set out to do.

          1. Hell, when the WaPo says “There isn’t enough to go on to run with this”, you have a thin gruel story.

            As somebody pointed out — in this mess, one group hasn’t had to change a single thing said or claimed at any point….those who defended Kavanaugh.

        4. The same way Kermit Gosnell botched all those live deliveries.

      2. While you didn’t mentor me directly, I learned from you that quality counts for something.

        Thank you for that!

    2. How can you even say that when the Manhatten DA subpoened his returns for a case that’s past the statute of limitations. They got drumf for sure now.

      1. And it is a general warrant. There has been no crime identified by the DA.

        1. How can a court permit a blatant fishing expedition?

          I thought courts needed some proof of a crime to permit invasion of privacy such as this.

          1. Some animals are more equal than others.

          2. Theoretically;
            “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

            Evidently “looking for something, somewhere” is now good enough.

          3. “I thought courts needed some proof of a crime to permit invasion of privacy”
            But you don’t understand, it’s okay when it’s for the “Resistance”. Anything that benefits the DNC is always okay.

    3. The editors at NYT are sloppy in reviewing a story that seemingly confirms their preferred narratives or the are intentionally distorting a story to fit their narrative. Your choice is incompetence or malevolence, take your pick on which one is worse.

      1. No, you don’t get a choice.

        The writers say that they had the qualifier about the supposed victim “having no recollection” of the event (which is a softer way of saying she denies that it ever happened). Somehow that sentence got disappeared from the version that was published.

        That’s not an accident. That’s not incompetence.

        That is unquestionably malevolence.

        1. Don’t believe it?

          Here’s what Slate published late last night, after the bubble had burst.

          The New Kavanaugh Reporting Shows How Far Trump’s Control Goes
          The FBI, the DOJ, SCOTUS—Trump controls it all.

          They are really that unhinged. The fact that spurious copy-cat allegations that have been denied by the supposed victim was not front and center at the Kavanaugh hearings and subjected to months-long FBI investigations is proof-positive that everyone is living in a Trump dictatorship.

          These people are flat-out nuts.

          This isn’t some random blog post by a basement-dwelling troll. This is a headline publication featured in Slate, which is a fairly high level (albeit far-left and highly partisan) publication.

          And furthering the “it is the propaganda machine” narrative – I found this article because the google discover newsfeed on my Android phone pushed it to me. None of this is in my normally science and college sports oriented wheelhouse. But up it comes – Here! Read about the evil dictator that must be impeached!

          1. the commenters there went for it hook line and all, crazy what people get in their head.

            1. I wanted Trump to win in 2016, and again in 2020, just on the slim chance that these neurotics might finally do something good for the country and commit mass suicide in response.

              Oh well, if he wins in 2020, I’ll have to settle for the spectacle of watching them burn their own cities down. At least the rural voters can sit back, laugh, and shoot anyone that tries to squat on their land.

              1. “At least the rural voters can sit back, laugh, and shoot anyone that tries to squat on their land.”

                Damn, you just posted for me!

              2. Trump got around 20% of the vote in the Bay Area. That is astonishingly high based on my typical interactions with Bay Area residents. A lot of closet Trumpistas running around here.

                1. Sleeper Cells

                2. Here’s one. Don’t tell anybody. Especially my kids’ teachers.

            2. One of the more hinged responses:

              “Steve Tiger39 minutes ago
              The Republican-led Senate has gleefully abandoned its legislative role as an independent branch of government to serve as an agency of the Executive; and the Democrat-led House is ineffectual and thus irrelevant. With the judiciary now almost totally under political control, the dismantling of American democracy is essentially complete.

              How did it happen? It was inevitable, because America did nothing to prevent it. Throughout our history, we have focused on freedom, rights, and liberties, while ignoring the need for civic responsibility.”

              I like this one!

              Start with ordinary but politically biased evaluations – “my team is ineffective because they don’t control everything, and the other team is super-evil!” But then pivot to the real payoff!

              Focusing on freedom, rights and liberty is in opposition to your civic responsibility! Therefore, let’s chuck freedom, rights and liberty out the window!

              That was a really, really succinct presentation of the current “progressive” ethos. It really explains everything – the urge to abandon the first amendment, the disregard for the second, the public assault of political opponents… it all fits into that one sentence. Well done Steve Tiger39! Well done!

              1. “Throughout our history, we have focused on freedom, rights, and liberties, while ignoring the need for civic responsibility.”

                At some point, they just cannot help but let their cat out of the bag, can they?

                And that “need for civic responsibility?” I’d sure like to see his elaboration on that. I imagine it goes like this: “Not everyone does what they should do; so we need rules, and those rules need to be enforced.” When I hear that sort of drivel I imagine a group of children playing in the back yard, and the one who goes to mother to intervene because they do not think the others are playing “fair.”

                1. Where “fair” means “doing what I say”.

                  1. I see you have met my 7-year-old niece.

                2. When he says “throughout our history” how far in time is he going back? There are legit reasons on why those three things received so much focus. He obviously does not understand how the freedom he has today came to be.

              2. The sand of a progressive bitching about the judiciary being under “political control,” when their side has been crowbarring it that way since Bork.

      2. “Your choice is incompetence or malevolence,”

        Both.

        1. Yeah, they were pretty incompetent in their malevolence.

      3. Are we no longer obligated to pretend that ANY of the allegations to date have been “credible”?

        Because if they have been, then “credible” has no meaning.

    4. They didn’t botch anything. “Botch” assumes that they made a mistake by not doing their homework. They published exactly what they intended to publish, exactly how they intended to publish it.

      1. +10000 It may have started as a book review, but the editor deftly turned it into a hit piece by a simple act of omission.

    5. How did they botch it? By being purposefully mendacious, that’s how.

    6. Perhaps the “botch” is actually “getting caught”.

    7. The NYT is fake news. They did it on purpose.

      Sheesh!

    8. Begin profiting week after week. This is a significant low maintenance work for everybody. The best part work from solace of your home and get paid from $500-$2k each week.Start today and have your first money toward the finish of this week.
      For More Info.. Go to the web ===>> http://www.works55.com

    9. Botched? It was intentional political mudslinging from a “News” paper with the credibility of the National Enquirer and it’s Alien sitings.

  2. In any case, while several Democratic presidential candidates have called for Kavanaugh to be impeached, House Democratic leadership seems unlikely to move in that direction.

    No doubt they’re at least getting some nice donation emails out on it.

    1. As hard as I try I cannot imagine donating money to political candidates. Even with decent candidates I struggle to justify voting.

      It becomes even harder to imagine donating to someone who is promising to take more of my money through taxation.

  3. “Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.”

    Concentrate on the one who may be gone in a year and a half, not the one with the lifetime appointment.

    1. They aren’t concentrating shit. They have the Mueller Report and a majority in the House. It’s time to put up, or shut up. Call the vote. If you think Orange Man needs to go, cast your vote. Defend your record to the public. But they don’t want the inevitable blow back. So you have cowards that truly believe Trump should be impeached and don’t have the guts to call for impeachment, and a bunch of cynical congress critters making noises to appease their base.

      1. The Democrats’ timing is just awful. There’s just no “high crimes and misdemeanors” and they sure don’t want fruitless impeachment hearing that can’t go anywhere because the Republican Senate won’t vote to impeach anyways. Nancy Pelosi has known that from the start. As I have been saying since November, 2016: The Democrats need to focus on finding a candidate that can beat the sitting President. They have failed miserably at that task. I guess that’s why people are insanely praying for an economic recession.

        1. Impeachment has always been a base turnout and fundraising strategy for the Dims. They don’t want to actually have the House vote for impeachment, because then it goes to trial in the Senate and Trump’s legal team can cross-examine their witnesses and call witnesses in his defense, just like at a legal trial. And the Dims know they have no case. So they dangle impeachment in front of their crazy base like a carrot in front of a tired old nag.

      2. My guess is that they want to stretch it out until election time next year so Trump will be in the middle of impeachment when people go to the polls.

        1. It isn’t about impeaching him.

          It is about using the powers of an impeachment investigation to muckrake and dig through people’s private lives, hoping to find something that they can use to damage Trump.

          They’ll be accusing people of all sorts of crimes and using their “investigative” powers to unseal the permanently sealed, publish the most confidentially held, and smear the innocent, just so long as they can spin it to their advantage.

          They are already taking aim at things as innocent as staying in a hotel as evidence of public corruption. They are going to use “Mike Pence stayed at a Trump hotel” as an excuse to subpoena every record from any entity that he was ever involved with. We’ve already seen this with the banks, and they’ll move on to phone companies, internet companies… anywhere they think they can find something that can be spun their way.

          Politics has always been dirty, but they openly partisan abuse of government power for attacking political opponents is new here in the US.

          And the problem is with districts being completely safe, there’s no hope of the people responsible paying a price at the ballot box.

          1. You beat me to it and said it better. That is exactly what is going on and why the Democrats are utterly unfit to hold power. They have lost their fucking minds.

          2. I think teh left wants to hurt as many people around trump as possible to discourage any future outsiders from running for office and to turn people away from helping Trump any any form. Of course isn’t that what fascist do.

            1. Yes. Insiders can be neck deep in incestuous shit, defending their behavior openly, but outsiders will have to be as pure as the driven snow.

          3. We’ve already seen this with the banks, and they’ll move on to phone companies, internet companies… anywhere they think they can find something that can be spun their way.

            As a plus, in their wake, all will be under the domain of special investigations initiated by Congress. Not that anybody was really immune to such an action to begin with, but this officially codifies it as a potential part of the process of vetting candidates for office.

            1. Strange that they didn’t learn their lesson on “the nuclear option” with respect to the filibuster and nominees. For the expedience of Mr. Elections Have Consequences and the desire to avoid any compromise, they gave up any control they had over Trump’s nominees.

              And unfortunately for them, this is one area where he has been impeccably competent. Under no possible application of the prior criteria – the one that Sotamayor and Kagan were held to – would Trump’s nominees have been anything other than unanimous approvals. They are eminently qualified and fairly down the middle republican nominees.

              If Kagan can get confirmed without understanding anything about enumerated powers and the 9th and 10th amendments, Trump’s nominees should have sailed through an honest process.

              Of course, withholding a vote on Obama’s nominee didn’t help things, but the Democrats already destroyed things by deploying the nuclear option to get their way.

              1. Its been awhile, but we’re the Republicans refusing to even hold votes on Obama’s nominees? I’m pretty sure this was a two-way street when it came to being unwilling to compromise.

                1. I always said — they could’ve voted NO to Garland. I doubt the Left would’ve preferred that. The GOP did run the Senate and all.

                  1. Garland hadn’t even come up when the whole nuclear option issue was being debated. This was way earlier – Republicans were holding up judge appointments across the country if I recall correctly.

                    1. That’s politics for you. When the opposing party is in charge of approving your nominees…might want to nominate worthwhile ones.

          4. It’s also about getting the word out to potential Trump appointees or people who might consider taking a job in his administration: “we will destroy you and your family. You will be smeared in the nation’s top newspapers on the thinnest possible allegations, angry mobs will attack your homes and your children’s schools, and when it’s all over you will never work anywhere again.”

        2. Unless they come up with something that catches the public’s imagination, having it happen during the election would look even worse. I think they are just stalling for time hoping they find something, anything, on Trump that the public outside of the diehards will buy. Without that, trying to impeach Trump will be a disaster for them and they know it. If they didn’t, they would have already done it.

          1. This. Should the Democrats start moving towards an actual vote, without something of a real slam dunk, a large portion of their base is still going to expect a positive outcome. The inevitable letdown would lead to a terrible backlash. Leadership knows this so they will keep flinging poo and playing for time.

        3. that would be my guess as well TrickyVic

      3. “Call the vote.”

        They did so.

        On 7/16.

        It was voted down 322-95.

        But…fundraisers gotta fundraise.

      4. Do you think that they ‘truly’ believe anything?

    2. “Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.”

      Translation: “We are busy shuffling papers so that it looks like we’re doing what our loony constituents want us to do.”

  4. whose leader Louis Farrakhan once compared Jewish people to termites.

    can we get a ruling where this ranks on the bedbug scale?

  5. Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) said on Monday, “Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.”

    LOL

    1. “”on whether to impeach the president.”””

      Yeah, I guess “impeach the motherfucker” didn’t go very far.

  6. New York public school children have received official permission to skip school in order to protest government inaction on climate change.

    nothing our wokest generation loves more than permission-slipped protesting

    1. Well, how about *taxpayer-funded* protesting?

      1. the best permission slip of all!

    2. I’m an idiot. I thought I was clicking “like” on your review and clicked the “you should review this comment” flag. I apologize. Got no issue with your comment.

      1. If only there were an ‘idiot’ flag.

    3. They’re just like the heroes of the Civil Rights Era! Well, they feel like it.

    4. I suspect that the kids that don’t skip school to protest will grow up, get good jobs, look around and say “damn, if this is my competition in the job market, I’m gonna be just fine.”

    5. That’s fucked up. Even assuming that the orthodox position on climate change is correct, government action on climate change is a political issue and the schools should not be encouraging students to take a particular side on political issues.

    6. Since this is now officially sanctioned…can the state refuse to allow a protest for ANY cause to be done during school?

      I mean, it would seem pretty blatant official viewpoint discrimination.

      1. Yeah. So what’s your point?

      2. It’s New York, so of course they’ll gladly stop any conservative ‘protests’ since clearly those are racist gatherings.

        That said, none of those kids can vote so I fail to see what they hope to accomplish here. Of those kids who can vote, it’s near certain they won’t.

        1. They can appear on television crying and holding signs that say “Help me, Mommy! Only socialism can save the polar bears!”, dictating the voting preferences of suburban white women all over the country.

    7. Is it really a protest if they have permission? Maybe they could call it a rally or extra vacation day which will no doubt be added back in late June.

  7. …Mr. Yang’s response unnerved those hoping for a more forceful condemnation from him.

    Is there an equally problematic Asian equivalent to the problematic phrase “straying from the plantation”?

    1. All “Asians” apparently think exactly alike, says the people decrying racism

      1. Look, you can be the One Voice speaking for all Asians when Jenn Fang retires from the position.

      2. NYT should contact the following Asian leaders for their input, Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk and Bang Ding Ow.

        1. Damn that was funny. I’m reading this at work and my work mates wanted to know why I was laughing my ass off.

    2. Sure. It’s “stlaying flom the prantation”.

    3. ‘Railroading’ him out of the biz?

    4. Straying from the railroad, maybe?

      1. nipped you by that much.

    5. “Escaping the internment camp”

      1. Pretty good.

        Also, straying from the rice paddy.

        1. If they run they VC, if they don’t run they’re well disciplined VC?

    6. Is there an equally problematic Asian equivalent to the problematic phrase “straying from the plantation”?,br>
      Bitter Cringers.

  8. Yang not towing the militant far-left line

    Towing the lion, Rico. Get with it.

  9. And the U.S. is hardly captive to foreign supplies, as it was during the 1970s oil shocks, since it has emerged over the last decade as the world’s largest oil producer.

    MAGA-KAG

    1. we weren’t slaves to oil supply in the 70’s either it was government regulation that made it cost prohibitive to even pump oil out of the ground. When Nixon said you can only charge “x” for gas that put the locals out of business.

    2. NPR reported yesterday that the US is actually a net exporter of oil now. This is going to affect prices for a bit, but the real issue is whether more Saudi facilities are targeted down the road, now that the Iranians (or ISIS, they’re known for doing these type of mass drone attacks and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was actually one of their cells) have a successful operation under their belt.

      1. That’s refined oil products, not total Oil.

        We still import a good chuck of our crude oil. However, we have a lot of suppliers from all over the world. We also have a significantly higher fraction of local production. The impacts of such an incident would be significantly less should it repeat.

  10. “Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) said on Monday, ‘Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.'”

    The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.

    #Impeach
    #ItsMuellerTime
    #TrumpRussia

    1. When Nadler says “impeach”, he thinks about peach cobbler. That’s why he drools so much.

      1. “I wuv peach cobbwuh.”

  11. This is what life is now. #DWTS @seanspicer

    yeah, pinker, let’s see you spin this one.

    1. It’s a statement of our time that a political flunky is considered enough of a star to be on a show called “Dancing with the Stars” and every major news outlet covered it.

  12. Both were accused of making alliances with anti-Semitic groups like the Nation of Islam, whose leader Louis Farrakhan once compared Jewish people to termites.

    Maybe it’s Farrakhan who should have resigned.

    1. He aligns fairly well with the Nation of Islam. Their entire theology is based on white people being non-human devils created by an evil genie and Jews being an evil force in league with the devil. So his comments are not taken as problematic in their circles.

      It was the womyn’s group that needed some distance from anti-semitism.

      1. I don’t believe that Yakub was a djinn.

        I’m pretty sure he was just another black guy, a mad scientist who created white people through breeding them whiter from regular other black people.

  13. That’s because if necessary, both Saudi Arabia and the United States could tap their strategic reserves, assuring they continue to meet demand for weeks.

    i like to drive when i’m nervous about impending wars so i SINCERELY doubt this is true

  14. Omar (D–Minn.) warned against U.S. intervention on behalf of Saudi Arabia, saying that she did not automatically trust the Trump administration to tell the truth about Iran’s involvement.

    That’s OK. The Trump administration does not automatically trust her to tell the truth about her marriages and tax filings.

    1. Or her father and brother’s names

      1. Look, she’s Somali. Somalis are so poor they can’t afford more than a few names, that’s the only reason her brother and her husband and her father and her father’s friend share the same name.

        1. Much like French Canadians who are all named Paul or Jean.

    2. Doesn’t the House Intelligence Committee have access to the same information as the administration? Would she trust them?

      1. The intelligence information comes from the administration.

        So no, she wouldn’t trust them.

        1. and teh administration gets it from the CIA and no one should trust them after what they did to Bush, not to mention General Patton.

    3. According to Pelosi, “She has a different experience with the use of language.” I guess she comes from a culture of liars.

    4. Sweet burn, as my 6th grader likes to say!

  15. Mr. Yang’s response unnerved those hoping for a more forceful condemnation from him.

    unnerving my hope that a trump presidency would reduce the desire for a president to represent us

  16. …saying that she did not automatically trust the Trump administration to tell the truth about Iran’s involvement.

    With this president, you don’t trust or verify.

  17. Did they botch a story in which the writers didn’t actually interview the alleged witness(Max Stier a career political lawyer for different dems) and they neglected to mention that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed and whose friends they spoke to say she didn’t remember? In a book where the biggest news nugget was the fact Leyland Keyser told everyone she didn’t remember the events that Blasey Ford testified to and went so far as to explicitly doubt the story even happened to the FBI.

    1. Did CBF’s father congratulating the Kavanaughs make it into said book?

      1. That’s even better than Megan Rapinoe’s parents being Trump supporters.

        1. Or Taylor Swift’s dad being a conservative.

          1. Or my dating Taylor Swift when she was young and impressionable.

      2. I think it did. Also Leyland Keyser said she was pressured by friends to back up Ford. And Ford’s father and some of her other relatives were in contact with the Kavanaugh family.

    2. The only actual bombshell to come out of this seems to be that she says that Blasey-Ford’s friends and supporters threatened and cajoled her to lie about the events in support of her allegations.

      Well, that and if you think “vast left wing conspiracies” are worthy of noting… then you could say that the explosion of coverage of Kavanaugh based on an erroneous NYT story about a book that basically proves the opposite point combined with the simultaneous calls from the DNC presidential candidates for his impeachment sounds very suspiciously like prima-facia evidence of a coordinated smear campaign.

      1. The only actual bombshell to come out of this seems to be that she says that Blasey-Ford’s friends and supporters threatened and cajoled her to lie about the events in support of her allegations.

        That is a felony last I looked.

        1. John…you seem to forget that CBF is a Democrat.

          Laws don’t apply to them.

  18. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $59.3 billion

    Because of Drumpf’s tariffs and immigration restrictions, our billionaire benefactor is down over $100 million this year. Koch / Reason libertarianism is primarily about making the richest people on the planet even richer, and the #DrumpfRecession is preventing that.

    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. Primarily? How so?

      As in, what specific policy views do you believe will enrich the wealthiest at others’ expense?

    2. If Lizzie Warren has her way he’ll be down $1.2 billion and since it’s out there I imagine most all other blue team candidates will be happy to carry that torch if Warren doesn’t get the nod.

  19. New York public school children have received official permission to skip school in order to protest government inaction on climate change.

    Just getting them ready for college.

    1. Keep them woke, angry, and stupid.

      1. Hmm. Maybe they’ll protest *silently* to avoid putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

      2. I remember when it took hard work and good grades to get into the best schools. Today all you need to do is come out as gender non-binary, declare that your preferred pronouns are Xi/Xie and It, and write a college entrance letter declaring that the climate kept you down in high school and is to blame for you getting Cs and Bs.

        1. An entire generation of raging idiots who possess no marketable skills but make up for it by being deeply neurotic and having a victim complex. That ought to work out well.

          1. I think they know this and it’s why they want you to pay for their college.

          2. Fortunately, you only hear from the loudest and angriest. I think most students are pretty reasonable these days. They just keep their heads down to avoid attracting the ire of the woke fools. This generation will be alright.

          3. You underestimate the power of teenage countercultures. For every indoctrinated beta there will be another student disgusted by leftism and determined to fight it at every turn.

            As much as the left hates individualism they can’t take it as long as we have a strong second amendment

          4. “An entire generation of raging idiots who possess no marketable skills but make up for it by being deeply neurotic and having a victim complex. That ought to work out well.”

            The truth is the world functions with a predominance of idiots with no skills. How many people make living trying to sell you T Mobile service instead of Sprint? Or babysitting kids for 8 hours a day? A lot of jobs are just make work…

      3. Woke, angry and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

        -Updated version to Animal House where Dean Wormer is the hero.

    2. Well if you have permission to skip school it’s not really a protest then. What kind of wimpy protesters are we raising here?

      Besides they are just going to be hanging out at home vaping anyway right?

  20. The Times didn’t “botch” the story. The qualifier was removed on purpose. It is part of a larger campaign by the left to destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

    The attacks on Justice Kavanaugh are an attempt at intimidation to influence his opinions. But if Democrats fail in that, they want to portray conservative opinions of the current Court as illegitimate. Even Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota now says the Judiciary confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was “a sham.” She knows better but so much for her self-styling as a “moderate.”

    Glen Reynolds puts it perfectly,

    Chief Justice John Roberts, by yielding to bullying over ObamaCare and telling himself he was preserving the reputation of the Court, instead invited this assault. The only solution now is to refuse to give in further.

    1. John Roberts is a hack who cares fair nothing except how the corporate press views his courts legacy.

      1. That is exactly right. And the irony is that he is going to end up being despised by everyone.

      2. It’s called “growing in office”. The growth is only ever in one direction.

        I have a suspicion that Kavanaugh is more likely to be a second Roberts than a second Gorsuch.

        1. I agree with your suspicions. I don’t trust any of these establishment guys. Kavanaugh has his head so far up the ass of the Washington establishment that I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him. I never trusted Roberts for the same reason and my suspicions were confirmed.

          1. Well with your bad knee, Ed, you shouldn’t be throwing anyone.

          2. I share the concerns (judiciary deference) over Kavanaugh during the confirmation but if the left continues their attacks I can only hope that may inoculate him against the diseases of the swamp.

            1. I thought he was a lousy choice and would have been fine with the Senate rejecting him. That is until the retard left made rejecting him affirming their bullshit allegations.

              1. Yeah, that was the worst part. They pretty much had to confirm him after all that shit.

        2. He hasn’t been very good. Gorsuch has been fantastic.

        3. Kavanaugh already has voted a large number of times with the progressive justices. That is the whole irony. If they actually forced Kavanaugh out, it’s likely he would be replaced by someone even less likely to side with the progressives.

          1. Was that 4D chess on the prog side?

          2. I knew Kavanaugh was going to be terrible after his acceptance speech, after he was confirmed. He was basically all about diversity and feminism bla bla bla instead of growing a pair after what he went through.

      3. He also apparently caved to media pressure on the census. He initially agreed the admin could ask about citizenship then caved to the animus argument. Robert’s is a fucking coward.

    2. It is part of a larger campaign by the left to destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

      These people are fucking retards if this is their strategy, but it’s not a coincidence that this is happening right before the court is scheduled to convene.

      Last week, the 9th Circuit smacked down a federal judge who tried to put a nationwide injunction on Trump’s asylum policy. The Left is starting to realize that the 9th and these lower courts aren’t automatic rubber stamps for their agenda anymore. In the past, the Left would use the lower courts to advance their agenda, but that’s going to get a lot harder in the next few years–while Trump’s been distracting them with his antics, Cocaine Mitch has been dumping conservative-leaning judges into open slots across the country, thanks to Hammerin’ Harry Reid’s stupid, short-sighted tactic of eliminating the filibuster.

      This is significant because the court is about to hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. New York City, which covers whether a gun can be carried and transported outside the home. It’s a critical case that covers the idea of self-defense and concealed carry, and it has Democratic lawmakers so nervous, that fuckhead Sheldon Whitehouse outright threatened the Court with court-packing if they didn’t vote the way he wanted them to. They’re also about to hear the case over whether Trump can end DACA, and whether a citizenship question can be added to the census.

      The odds that the Left comes out on top in all three of these cases is miniscule, so by sliming Kavanaugh again, the New York Times can cast illegitimacy on any decision that doesn’t go in their favor. If they LOSE all three, then the “refugee” crisis probably ends overnight, gun control laws in blue states around the country are going to get cornholed, and it will be easier to cross-reference census data with voter rolls to see who’s been committing voter fraud. No wonder the Left is shitting their pants.

      1. I am starting the think that vote fraud is more endemic than even I imagined and I have always thought it was significant. It makes me wonder if even the deepest blue districts would be all that blue if we ever had a fair election.

        1. Remember Boss Tweed wasn’t convicted for his blatant voter fraud but because he was to greedy in his embazzlement. The problems of the 19th century still exists today in that regards. Only instead of Irish immigrants…

  21. E-cigarette company Juul is hoping a ballot initiative will thwart San Francisco’s nanny state tendencies.

    Did Mary Poppins let the Von Trapp kids override her good judgment?

    1. Just a spoon full of state violence helps the medicine go down.

    2. I saw Newsome making a statement about keeping young people from flavored vape products, which obviously are targeted at young people. I didn’t see anybody asking him what exactly he meant by using the term “young people” rather than the more common “children”. Would that be because the “young people” are in fact not children but, legally speaking, grown-ass adults presumed to be competent to make decisions for themselves?

      1. Have you seen today’s young people?

        1. I don’t know what to think about young people. The ones I actually know seem to be doing alright. The ones I read about, I don’t know.

          1. I suggest thinking about us in the same way we think about old people – some are assholes, some are alright.

    3. Fraulein Maria Augusta Kutschera. Not Mary Poppins. *shakes head, sighs heavily*

      John, Rich, Jerrys, and DLAM, as punishment for your glaring lack of awareness of 1960s musicals, I hereby sentence you to watch “The Sound of Music” and “Mary Poppins” on a continuous loop for 72 hours. With “Hello Dolly!” and “Paint Your Wagon” thrown in for variety.

      And yes, you will be restrained the whole time as in “A Clockwork Orange”.

      Fist gets a pass because he was obviously doing a “Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” type of joke.

      1. I thought it was a funny mistake akin to the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

        1. As Captain Kirk told Luke Skywalker – You shall not pass!

          1. I thought it was Spock.

            1. Or possibly Apollo

      2. I thought it was intentional, since Julie Andrews played them both in the movies.

        1. I always found Sound of Music to be kinda creepy for some reason.

          Julie Andrews sure had some pipes, can’t argue that. Heard Dick Van Dyke once say in an interview “you could tune a piano to her”.

  22. Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) said on Monday, “Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.”

    yeah, let us waste our time over here in peace

    1. Shorter Nadler, We already have a plan to destroy the re-election prospects of every Democrat from a swing district and we don’t need another.

      1. Yeah, the fact that they all announced that they were going to impeach him before he was sworn into office kinda puts the lie to investigating “whether to impeach the president”.

        And when you start with “we are going to prosecute this guy… we don’t know what for yet, but give us time and we’ll figure it out”, you have de-legitimized your entire effort.

  23. Yeh well Asians are terrible drivers.

    1. CANCEL ME!

  24. Ian Millhiser has an excellent piece at Vox describing how the progressive / libertarian alliance should approach these explosive new Kavanaugh allegations.

    How to remove Brett Kavanaugh without impeaching him

    #CancelKavanaugh
    #SaveRoe
    #SUPER-PRECEDENT

    1. The Times says that its reporters “found Dr. Ford’s allegations credible during a 10-month investigation”

      Well that settles it. Milhouser is a laugh riot.

      1. I’d like for them to explain how.

        Was it the lack of any corroboration?
        The contradictions in her story?

    2. #stackthecourt
      #believeallstories
      #truthoverfacts

    3. For this reason, Prakash and Smith claim that it is a mistake to read the Constitution as preventing a judge from being removed from office except by impeachment. The Constitution, they note, only permits impeachment of civil officers for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But the term “good behavior” was understood to allow an official to be removed for much lesser offenses. Therefore, the Constitution’s invocation of this term suggests that federal judges may also be removed through a process other than impeachment.

      So the left now wants to claim the judiciary and not the Congress can remove judges. They really want to play that game. The majority of judges are now conservative. I don’t think it would work out too well for liberals. What a dumb ass.

      But remember, Trump is destroying the democratic norms of America.

      1. That’s the funny part.

        Trump is a Clinton era Democrat and the modern Dems are looking to nuke the country to stop him.

        …while praising Clinton as a great leader.

      2. The most hilarious part is who do you think would decide if such a law is constitutional?

        These people are obviously retarded unless they think the Supreme Court is going to rubber stamp legislation that cuts off the Supreme Courts nuts. I.E. It’ll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

        Don’t get me wrong, the Supreme Court does have too much power but one of the reason’s that is so is because they took the power for themselves and no one stopped them. Now, well, you’d probably need an amendment which is incredibly unlikely to happen.

  25. Anyone who talks about the “x community” gets a free helicopter ride. Stop speaking for others!

    1. Yes, this. There is no such thing as “the Asian Community”. It is a diverse group of individuals from many very distinct cultures. It’s not a fucking community, it’s a vaguely defined demographic group. The presumption that idiot activists speak for their supposed “communities” needs to stop.

      1. Huh, here I thought he was cracking on Chinatown now I find out that there must be some Iranians who are really pissed off about his Chinatown bit.
        In other news, people finally learn he had a podcast.

    2. X games athletes hardest hit

  26. “According to Pogrebin and Kelly, Max Stier—a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s and now president of the Partnership for Public Service—”

    Really reason? Whitewashing who Stier is? Trying to be as bad as the NYT?

    1. The best part was Stier supposedly witnessing this horrific alleged act of sexual abuse, and he stood by and did nothing while it happened, nor confronted the perpetrators afterwards.

      30 years later–“Yeah, guys, I saw the whole thing!”

      Not to mention the reporters trying to coach the supposed victims and witnesses into giving them a juicy quote to confirm the narrative they’d concocted.

      1. Heh heh, you said “concocted.”

    2. It’s only a whitewash if Robby knew. Robby is too fucking lazy to do any actual legwork, so odds are Robby didn’t know.

  27. “New York public school children have received official permission to skip school in order to protest government inaction on climate change.”

    Government sanctioned child abuse.

    1. On second thought… I’d like to see a lawsuit at the school for political bias.

    2. Going by Welch’s article, it is not as if the primary purpose of NYC public schools for the people running them is educating children.

      1. “Teachers given an additional day off so that kids can protest.”

  28. “How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?”

    Is this a trick question?

    1. As “botch” implies it was an unintended error, then yes, it is a trick question.

      1. Well, the “botch” could have been in being so transparent in their partisan hackery. A more competent partisan hack would have found a more subtle way of slipping the slander into the conversation.

        Like, say, waiting for somebody else to make the slanderous accusation and then writing a thumb-sucking piece about the state of journalism today with a “to be sure” that it’s an entirely credible, if not accurate, accusation against Kavanaugh and it’s all Trump’s fault for degrading public discourse to this level.

        Not that I’ve read any such pieces, but I’m pretty sure a quick google search would find them.

  29. New York public school children have received official permission to skip school in order to protest government inaction on climate change.

    It’ll get interesting if some of those children protest something else — say de Blasio.

  30. Robby! Robby! As many others have said above, the NYT didn’t “botch” anything. It is a propaganda machine for the progressive left. It is doing exactly what it should be doing. Stop pretending it’s a newspaper. I’ve stopped pretending “Reason” has an editorial preference for free minds and free markets. It’s refreshing to shrug off that illusion. Try it with the Times. It feels great.

    1. I’m not sure it’s better for journalists to assume they know the motivations for things like this. Leave that to the comment section. Yes, it seems very likely that the Times deliberately made the story misleading. But we don’t know that with absolute certainty. Letting readers make up their own minds rather than telling them what to think seems like it’s in line with “free minds”.

      1. ” we don’t know that with absolute certainty.”

        You are like a broken record with this sort of equivocation, and it’s lame.

        Exactly how many things does ANYONE know with ‘absolute certainty’???

        Better yet, go read some fucking Rene Descartes to learn the rather immediate limits of ‘absolute certainty.’

        1. (There is a reason they named this place Reason rather than Metaphysical Truths.)

        2. Sure, okay. But when you’re literally doing a story about some journalists fucking up, maybe a bit of epistemic humility in your own article is just the thing, yeah?

          1. An interesting argument.

            Firstly, this is Robby we are specifically addressing. An author who, to be sure, has repeatedly displayed a willingness to extend benefit of the doubt to certain parties while also displaying a willingness to freely characterize others quite negatively. At this point, that this piece is entirely of a piece with that ouvre is really beyond question.

            Secondly, journalism is supposed to be a profession, no? Isn’t one of the defining characteristics of a profession that they engage in some form of self policing? So, when considering epistemic humility, shouldn’t any journalist examining what the NYT has done immediately question how they came to assert much of anything? Shouldn’t they be incensed (and possibly embarrassed) by the total lack of epistemic humility already on public display. No, I’m pretty sure Robby skipped right past any such considerations. Mostly, no doubt, by reflex, the same reflex mentioned in the previous paragraph.

  31. “Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) said on Monday, “Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.””

    Pshaw, Nadler would have us believe he can only handle one type of extreme retardation at a time. He doesn’t give himself and his allies enough credit.

    1. Someone needs to tell Jerry that there is no such thing as peak retard.

      1. “The witness will not call the Chairman a ‘weetawd.’ “

  32. Someone needs to tell Jerry that there is no such thing as peak retard.

  33. What’s the deal with Sean Spicerack?

    Oh, he was on Dancing With the Stars.

  34. Look, I don’t remember RBG putting her dick in my hand – can I sell my story to the National Enquirer?

    Probably not, because it wouldn’t meet their journalistic standards.

    1. Keep in mind from their handling of the Steele dossier story, CNN has higher journalistic standards than the NYT – and CNN doesn’t even have any journalists on staff.

    2. Replace RBG with alien and it will be on the front page.

      1. You’re thinking of the Weekly World News.

        1. Batboy lives!

          1. And Crazy Joe Biden wants to give him a hug

            1. Yeah, but it may cost Joe an eye.

  35. It’s very easy to find three woke scolds on Twitter and pretend that their complaints about Yang not towing the militant far-left line are somehow representative of the Asian-American community, which is precisely what the Times did here.

    Yeah, can’t imagine how a paper that hired censorship queen Sarah Jeong could have taken that position.

    1. The Times was just being cutting edge. Jeong is the new face of racism in the United States.

  36. “A female incel is a blogger” – Akaash

    If bored white women want to write and read political fear porn, fine. Perhaps they shouldn’t post it as news.

    1. There is no woman no matter how nasty that some guy somewhere won’t do. Therefore, there cannot be such a thing as a “female incel”.

      1. All women are beautiful.

        1. That’s what John Lennon kept telling himself.

      2. I started searching for a counter point and quickly realized that my success would not better my day

        1. You won’t find a counterpoint.

          His observation is not just accurate, it is so trivial as to be a truism.

      3. “there cannot be such a thing as a “female incel”.

        Not true. As with (at least some of the) men, there are often self imposed limits at work. Many guys who might otherwise be described as ‘incel’ could probably get some (and without any cash exchange) if they just altered a few behaviors, and substantially lowered their own expectations.

        1. As an example, when younger I had more than one female friend of a friend complain about not being able to meet guys.

          My solution was they each go buy an inexpensive .22 target pistol. I’d teach them how to safely use it, then they would go to the shooting range alone. No way they’d not be approached by multiple suitable guys.

          None of them ever took me up on the arrangement, because they really didn’t want to change. And that’s the primary reason for most people who cant get laid – they want the world to accommodate them, rather than the other way around.

        2. There is rarely a transaction without any cash exchange (or the equivalent thereof) in the mating game.

  37. “How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?”

    If ever a question answered itself.

  38. ‘Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) said on Monday, “Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.”‘

    They’re very busy not impeaching Trump.

  39. towing the militant far-left line

    The likelihood that Robbie reads the comments is slim, but it is definitively toeing the line. Even Wikipedia calls towing the line a misspelling, but George Orwell said it better.

    DYING METAPHORS

    …Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line… a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.

    And Rico gets pwned by a dead socialist.

    1. You put your toe on the line as in to line up with everyone else or fall in line. Of course it is “toe the line”. Towing a line makes no sense in the context of the analogy.

      Robby is another example of the failure of our education system.

      1. No, the failure is that here on this comments board it is “Tow the Lion”.

        The saying is “toe the line”.

        Either is perfectly acceptable. The joke about how many people get the saying wrong, or the original saying.

        What is not acceptable is falling short of either and towing the line.

        1. At least ‘tow the lion’ evokes a visual image. An smiling idiot with a lion on leash, pretending a wild animal is a housecat, blissfully ignorant of the mortal danger. It is the perfect metaphor for the Progressive who ‘believes’ in science.

          1. I’m still irritated by ‘another thing coming.’

      2. However there is “tow the line” as in reference to everyone grabbing the line to “tow the line” holding the boat to dock or canal or the “tow the line” to pull up the sails or etc…. so everyone is on board with Towing the line

        1. I took them to have two different shades of meaning. Someone toeing the line wants to be there and compete. Someone towing the line is undertaking the heavy lift or hard slog of dragging a large object to wherever it needs to go whether they want to or not or if only because everyone else is.

          Robby’s still toeing the line hoping for a better writing gig. Ron has largely tired of towing the line in support of the AGW narrative.

          1. I took them to have two different shades of meaning.

            ‘Toe the line’ is a dead metaphor. The fact that it is so often misspelled is evidence that it does not communicate the visual image it should evoke. ‘Tow the line’ is not a common phrase. It is as meaningful as ‘tow the lion’, which reference seems to have gone completely over your head.

            You might want to try reading Orwell’s essay. What he had to say is critical to understanding why discourse is so poor today.

            We live in an age where there are English dictionaries that have an alternative definition of figuratively for the word ‘literally’. That is an age where stupidity rules. The Progressive Age.

            1. So long as people do form up into line, and do so with a ground visual aid then the metaphor is not dead.

              Unlike “home before the milk is at the door.” Which is dead and buried.

            2. I am far from a linguistic prescriptivist – I think y’all is perfectly grammatical, for example – but the fact that “literally” got appropriated as an intensifier when that is directly opposed to its (literal!) meaning still makes me furious.

              I mean, guys, c’mon, there’s loads of other stuff you could’ve used, or even made up! Why appropriate a word that’s still in common use and then mount an effort to invert its meaning?! arrgh! You could’ve at least picked something archaic!

            3. gone completely over your head.

              Regal us with more more authoritative definitions of newspeak O enlightened one. Literally as a figurative sentiment was making people stupid since before Orwell was born.

              Since Orwell died, much has been learned about language, linguistics, the way the human brain functions, and the way information is transferred or conveyed. You might want to read up on some of it. Kinda suggests that distinctions between tow the line, toe the line, and toe the lion are largely moot and silly rules about what metaphors can and cannot be used are for brain dead grammar Nazis.

        2. there is “tow the line” as in reference to everyone grabbing the line

          I could find zero references of that being a thing. ‘Toe the line’ is an actual historical nautical term for standing at an assigned position on the deck. ‘Tow the line’ doesn’t make any sense as a command, as there are dozens of specific lines a sailor might need to grab and pull in the meaning you are assigning to ‘tow’, except for the actual tow-line, because in that case the ship is doing the pulling.

          Sailors are not known for being ambiguous about which rope you should be pulling on.

          1. Clearly you don’t know many sailors…

            1. The unambiguous sailors I know spend most of their time under the water operating a nuclear reactor, but I am pretty that you are making a penis joke.

              Like, 97% sure that’s a penis joke.

          2. except for the actual tow-line, because in that case the ship is doing the pulling

            So if one ship is pulling another on the lead ship it’s a tow line but on the ship being towed it’s just another line? If it’s an ox pulling a ship down a canal it’s just a line.

            Grandpa served on a tug boat in SF Bay during WWII and I get the impression you fell for a lot of excuses from sailors willing to oblige you in showing their citations.

      3. “I said, put your toes on the edge of the chalk line, you slimy worms!”

        Actually, I remember reading in one source (don’t remember which) that “toe the line” was a 19th century boxing term. There was no limit on the number of rounds in a match, so it kept going until one of the boxers couldn’t or wouldn’t step up to a line in the ring. A boxer could also concede by “throwing in the towel”, literally.

        1. The boxer doesn’t throw in the towel, his corner does.
          Still happens.
          Sometimes the fighter doesn’t know just how badly he’s getting beat up, and the trainer has to save him

        2. Actually, I remember reading in one source

          I remember reading a rant on the interwebz that the term ‘handicap’ came about from crippled beggars with ‘cap in hand’ to solicit charity and that it amounted to a viscous slur against those people.

          In actuality, exactly as any intelligent person might surmise, it originated as a gambling term ‘hand in cap’, related to laying odds against a horse based on the bets collected. In other words, relying on the entire group’s knowledge and self-interest to accurately assess an individual’s particular disadvantages while still allowing for the majority of horses to participate.

          Sources are like assholes. If you don’t identify it, Tony will come along and stick his dick in it.

    2. >>pwned by a dead socialist

      hilarious. and deserved.

  40. “The weekend attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields will probably not raise oil prices for Americans. According to The Washington Post:

    That’s because if necessary, both Saudi Arabia and the United States could tap their strategic reserves, assuring they continue to meet demand for weeks. And the U.S. is hardly captive to foreign supplies, as it was during the 1970s oil shocks, since it has emerged over the last decade as the world’s largest oil producer.

    I don’t think this was intended to be read in a sarcastic tone, but I’d reconsider leaning on the authority of The Washington Post on market matters.

    There isn’t anything about attacks on Saudi production facilities that makes them fundamentally different from any other news that swings the price of American oil–both up and down–and that’s regardless of whether the U.S. has strategic reserves.

    Here’s a chart for the price of WTI:

    https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=wti

    Hit the “Max” button, and you’ll see that West Texas Intermediate has fluctuated both up and down in price since 2006, bouncing between a low of $30.10 a barrel to $135.36. It should be noted that each and every have risen, they’ve done so despite the fact that the United States possessed strategic oil reserves that it could tap.

    IF IF IF and when these attacks on the Saudis prove to be the beginning of a new normal (rather than an isolated event), there is no good reason to believe that this won’t create more support in the market for higher oil prices–all over the world.

    To the extent that oil prices have been soft in recent quarters, a lot of that is about sluggishness in the economies of China and the EU associated with trade issues and a slow down in economic growth. As economic growth slows, so does the demand for oil–and that means the world’s production capacity may be churning out more oil than the world’s major economies demand. Again, it should be noted that these fluctuations occur both internationally and within the United States regardless of whether the U.S. possesses strategic oil reserves.

    I strongly suspect the reason the Washington Post and others are trying to make us believe that American oil prices are immune to market forces is because they’re afraid that people will support a war with Iran if they think that Iran’s attacks will increase the price of oil. This is called a “noble lie”. Noble lies can be traced back to Plato’s The Republic, in which he argued that it’s better if the people believe certain things–regardless of whether they’re true. I happen to agree that it’s better if we avoid war with Iran at this point, but conveying the lies of the Washington Post to that effect doesn’t make people more likely to oppose war with Iran on that basis.

    Rather, when we cling to beliefs that are obviously wrong or stupid, it’s much more likely to make people think we’re dishonest or stupid. If we can’t make the case for opposing war with Iran without believing things that are stupid–because the Washington Post says so–then people really should believe that we’re stupid since that’s what we are. Yes, if anything threatens to curtail the world’s oil production so that it falls below world demand, the price of crude will rise here in the U.S.–and that’s regardless of whether the U.S. has strategic oil reserves and that’s regardless of what the Washington Post says.

    Unless Iran attacks us directly (rather than our allies), I oppose war with Iran at this point anyway. Opposing war with Iran doesn’t require anyone to believe anything or say anything that is dishonest or stupid. On the other hand, being a purveyor of dishonest or stupid beliefs can does make you lose credibility with the people we’re trying to persuade.

    Meanwhile, what do you plan to say if sustained attacks on Saudi oil fields lead to an increase in the price of oil here in the U.S.? Don’t you realize that you’re queuing up the war you’re trying to avoid? If you manage to sell people on the idea that war with Iran should be avoided because their attacks on the Saudis don’t raise the price of oil in the U.S., you’ll also have managed to persuade plenty of them that if Iranian attacks on Saudi oil facilities raise the price of oil here in the U.S., then we should go to war.

    1. Everything you say is true Ken, if it were ten years ago. Today, not so much. The US can easily make up for the lost production in Saudi Arabia. The only difference is that US and Canadian oil is largely from fracking and costs more to get out of the ground than Saudi oil. So, the Saudis can make money at $10 a barrel and US frackers have to have around $40 last I looked to make a profit. Whatever the current cost of taking a barrel of oil out of the US and Canadian oil sands is the long term price of oil. It may fluctuation temporarily due to things like this attack but long term it will always settle back on that price whatever it is.

      1. Yeah, $13 per barrel was the floor a few years back with Saudi oil being the prime driver. Today there is another floor with US oil from fracking being the driver. Somewhere between $40 and $65, the spigots of new US production get opened and supply increases.

        That being said – an all out war of “destroy oil production” tit-for-tat in the middle east would certainly test that theory. Probably new infrastructure in Russia would also come online.

        1. The other thing is that since the US is now a net exporter, the price of oil rising doesn’t harm our economy or result in our losing any wealth. Higher oil prices just move money around the economy from consumers to producers rather than producing the shocks that they did when higher prices meant more wealth leaving the country to buy oil.

      2. “The US can easily make up for the lost production in Saudi Arabia. The only difference is that US and Canadian oil is largely from fracking and costs more to get out of the ground than Saudi oil.”

        If we make up for lost production by using more fracking, it will only happen because the price of oil has spiked to the extent that it makes fracking more profitable. Market forces are just as valid as they’ve always been–and that will always be the case.

        Incidentally, independent fracking companies, which make up a large chunk of the fracking done in the U.S., have been going bankrupt at increasing rates over recent quarters–and that’s despite the price of oil rising significantly since 2016. The reason they’re going bankrupt is because ramping up production required them to take on debt loads that required the price of oil to be even higher than its risen since 2016.

        “Bankruptcies are rising in the U.S. oil patch as Wall Street’s disaffection with shale companies reverberates through the industry.

        Twenty-six U.S. oil-and-gas producers including Sanchez Energy Corp. and Halcón Resources Corp. have filed for bankruptcy this year, according to an August report by the law firm Haynes & Boone LLP. That nearly matches the 28 producer bankruptcies in all of 2018, and the number is expected to rise as companies face mounting debt maturities.

        Energy companies with junk-rated bonds were defaulting at a rate of 5.7% as of August, according to Fitch Ratings, the highest level since 2017. The metric is considered a key indicator of the industry’s financial stress.

        The pressures are due to companies struggling to service debt and secure new funding, as investors question the shale business model.

        Many drillers financed production growth by becoming deeply indebted, betting that higher oil prices would sustain them. But investor interest has faded after years of meager returns, and some companies are struggling to meet their obligations as oil prices hover below $60 a barrel.

        —-WSJ, August 30, 2019

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-and-gas-bankruptcies-grow-as-investors-lose-appetite-for-shale-11567157401

        1. You see? I was right! That doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker. So nobody is going to understand it.

          Hence, Yea team!!

          See, much simpler. And easier to figure out too… just think whatever my team says to think. Done and done!

        2. If we make up for lost production by using more fracking, it will only happen because the price of oil has spiked to the extent that it makes fracking more profitable. Market forces are just as valid as they’ve always been–and that will always be the case.

          The price rises which in turn makes production more profitable increasing the supply causing the price to go down. Like I said, the long term price of oil is the lowest price at which fracking is profitable. Nothing that happens in Saudi Arabia is going to change that.

          1. Yeah, what’s changed is that the domestic oil industry can increase production in reaction to price spikes now, but price spikes in reaction to sudden disruptions in international production aren’t ever going away. That’s just the market sending price signals.

            If Lil’ Robbie’s quote from the Washington Post were about how Iran has a harder time inflicting long term pain on the U.S. economy these days because of fracking, I wouldn’t object to that observation.

            The observation that the price of oil in the U.S. won’t spike in reaction to attacks on international production because the Washington Post says that we have strategic oil reserves, however, is (a failure)^2.

        3. Many drillers financed production growth by becoming deeply indebted, betting that higher oil prices would sustain them. But investor interest has faded after years of meager returns, and some companies are struggling to meet their obligations as oil prices hover below $60 a barrel.

          So what? Bankruptcies don’t destroy the assets. They just allow someone else to buy them and use them more cheaply. From a price and production perspective, these bankruptcies mean nothing.

          1. Again, I was reacting to some of the observations being made about price spikes–and how their supposedly won’t be one because of our strategic oil reserves. That’s baloney!

            The frackers will react to price spikes–not prevent them from happening. If fracking production spikes when the price of oil rises above a certain level, then we should think of them as letting the steam out of a spike rather than preventing a spike from happening in reaction to a rogue nation taking out 5-10% of the world’s refining capacity with a few drones.

        4. “independent fracking companies, which make up a large chunk of the fracking done in the U.S., have been going bankrupt at increasing rates over recent quarters”

          Absent a lot more detail about the exact nature of those businesses – be it exploration, development, production, etc, then it is difficult to say what that actually means for supplies and prices.

    2. That analysis doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

      We can’t even acknowledge ideas that don’t fit on bumper stickers.

      Best to fall back to “no blood for oil”. It isn’t exactly a coherent or cogent argument, but it fits on a bumper sticker.

      1. Bumper sticker suggestions:

        1) “Market Forces are People Making Choices!”

        2) “If You Don’t Want People to Support going to War with Iran In the Future Because Oil Prices are too high, Don’t Persuade Them That We Shouldn’t Go to War with Iran Now Because Prices Are too Low!”

        Eh, that second one is still way too long.

        1. Ken….Yeah, that second one was a bit long. Whaddaya think about this one….?

          Fuck Iran….Frack more oil!

          1. Fuck Iran….Frack more oil!

            Fuck you. Cut spending.

        2. Hey that first one is pretty good. I feel like a lot of pro-market folks often fail to explain the natural freedoms argument for free markets very well (which is the strongest, in my opinion). That one cuts to the heart of it pretty quickly.

        3. “”Bumper sticker suggestions:

          1) “Market Forces are People Making Choices!”””

          How about “People Choose, Markets Move.”

      2. Hell, WWII (at least Japan attacking the US and Europeans) was about oil too. Not to mention the whole North Africa campaign.

        1. From faulty memory, Obama may have been at about his least popular during the Gulf Oil spill.

          The price of oil doesn’t really matter much–until it does. Once it does, it becomes about the only thing that matters.

          The price of oil is like politicians’ Achilles’ heel, and they know it. It’s been that way for a long, long time.

        2. As was the whole attempt by the nazis to capture the Caucasus. That, combined with the loss at Stalingrad was arguably the turning point in the war.

    3. Gas prices jumped $0.12/gallon from yesterday here in town. It now costs me $4.32 more to fill my tank. Yeah, this attack had no impact.

    4. Great post Ken. I would add that real newspapers have a Pavlovian conditioned attraction to war. They drool at the mention of it. It has always sold papers and now it sells clicks. So why is WaPo shilling against it?

      People who otherwise wouldn’t care will vote for the CIC in a time of war. Gulf War ends, Bush gets voted out. Iraq war begins, Bush gets a second term. WaPo knows that a brand new justified war will give Trump a boost, and so they need to delay the war until after the election or make it unjustifiable to begin it now. As you pointed out, if they can maintain the narrative, they can have it both ways, no war now, more chance of war later when it gives advantage to their candidate.

      Can you imagine how much permanent damage a socialist could do as POTUS with a US war economy and a reason to call for sacrifice against a real enemy like Iran supplied by Russia and China going after Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Israel? They could burn the Constitution to a crisp.

  41. >>>very much at odds with the Asian-American community

    wantz moar racism?

  42. botch the story do you read your own words?

  43. The weekend attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields will probably not raise oil prices for Americans.

    Huh? They already have. Prices spiked immediately. They’re drifting back down today, but they’re still higher than they were last week. ???

    1. Yeah, gas prices are weird like that.

      This has always been the case – the price of crude is a futures market – but the price at the pump is a spot price.

      Carter addressed this back in the 70’s with a Windfall Profits Tax. This was to address the inherent unfairness of an oil company profiting from paying $8 per barrel for oil and then having the price climb to $25 per barrel while the tanker was in transit – an unexpected windfall for the oil company when they offload at the refinery.

      Of course, they didn’t address the “windfall losses” issue, where the Saudi’s (or OPEC as a whole at the time) could announce production increases and drop a shipment of $25 per barrel oil to a $8 per barrel loser when it docks in Texas.

      So there’s a coupling at the producer and pump level because the supply chain is months long and swings of many percentage points happen on the supply side in unpredictable ways. So they simply move the wholesale and consumer price in concert with today’s prices, eliminating this arbitrage (or rather internalizing it).

      1. Yeah, gas prices are weird like that.

        Well, no one said anything about gas prices at the pump, but gas prices went up too. Around here they rose about 25c overnight. That’s about 10%, but still.

        They said that US oil prices would not rise, but of course they already have.

    2. To be fair, business reporters are always much better at explaining why prices moved the way they did after the fact, not so hot on predicting today which way they will move tomorrow. Nobody has ever reported that the Dow was up sharply today but nobody knows why, there’s always some obvious reason. Had the Dow fallen, there would have been an obvious reason for that, too. Strange that not a single reporter who confidently tells you the reason for the price move saw the price move coming 24 hours ago.

      1. In general I agree with that. But this was a (presumably) unanticipated military attack. If you went long on oil futures just before the drones struck, you’re probably being investigated by several agencies’ anti-terrorism units.

  44. Removing Kavanaugh from the Court would be a disaster for the Democrats in 2020, and that’s why Kavanaugh probably won’t be removed from the Court–no matter what the social justice warriors at the New York Times say.

    9 + 0 = 9.

    If Kavanaugh on the Court + social justice warriors = Kavanaugh on the Court, then social justice warriors = zero.

    The people who are pushing the New York Times’ narrative against Kavanaugh are probably only driving the Democrat base. Unfortunately for the social justice warriors, the Democrats need swing voters to win any national contest. It may not be safe to assume that the Democrats in leadership positions are smart, but if they’re interested in winning national elections, the smart move would not be to push this much further.

    This whole new narrative about Kavanaugh might even make an excellent example of “bothsidesism”.

    Teaching both sides of the flat earth “controversy” is illegitimate. Comparing the arguments of the flat earth society to its critics is just serving the interests of the flat earth society by giving them the appearance of legitimacy by way of comparison. If scientists are arguing with them, then it must have some merit! Watch the people who are writing about the Kavanaugh story. Are they presenting unsubstantiated accusations as if they’re worthy of a response?

    There’s this thing called “false equivalence” and the new charges against Kavanaugh reek of the stuff.

    1. Here is a perfect example of that and exactly the kind of propaganda that the Times story was written to enable.


      New allegations against Brett Kavanaugh have sparked a political furor, but the picture has been complicated by a media misstep.”

      http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/niall-stanage-throws-nyt-smear-merchants-a-lifeline/

      1. Media misstep?!

        I called the allegations “unsubstantiated”, but that may be giving them more credit than they deserve.

        If someone says Ken Shultz was abducted by aliens, and I say that I don’t remember that ever happening, then is the claim that I was abducted by aliens “unsubstantiated” or is it “denied”?

        If the “victim” doesn’t remember the event in question, then are the allegations only unsubstantiated?

        1. Allegations that Ken fucks sheep have been complicated by the media misstep of publishing them without any evidence they are true.

          1. Yeah, if the person who supposedly said I fucked sheep actually says they don’t remember any such thing ever happening, how can that justify an investigation to see if the allegations are true?

            The whole world hasn’t gone insane. It’s just TDS. It’s just Noble Lies.

            They want you us to believe things for the good of society–regardless of whether they’re true. But all they end up doing is undermining the credibility of the media and the political process.

            They’re actually creating the conditions that are necessary for a right-wing populist to take over the country–by making people disgusted with liberal society and making a mockery of legal norms.

            They keep selling their credibility short in small pieces, but that shit adds up. Once their credibility is completely gone and there’s no good reason to believe anything anyone on the establishment left has to say anymore, I don’t know what libertarians are supposed to do about that.

            I’d like to think that rational and honest libertarian voices can fill the void and argue for the values of liberty and justice as outlined in the Constitution, but I’m not sure it works that way. Orwell found himself in a position where he felt like he had to fight against the fascists in Spain–but even as a socialist, the communists were so opposed to honesty on the left, that they became the enemy, too.

            Civil society requires honest liberals, but they’ve practically gone extinct. I wish we could persuade them to be honest, but being willfully dishonest in the name of “noble lies” and the greater good seems to be central to what being a liberal is all about these days. They think honesty is the enemy, but they can’t win without credibility, and they’re flushing all that down the toilet more and more every day. If and when Trump wins another term, I hope it will make them wake up and see the light on intellectual honesty.

            If a Democrat wins in 2020, then it may need to get worse with the establishment media and liberals in general before it gets better.

            1. Ken…I would refer you (and Readership) to published journalism in the time period of 1852-60. It is eerie. The things you read that were written then are nearly identical to what we are reading today.

              It is as if the Progtards are the SC Fire-eaters of old.

        2. I believe the word is “credible”. Kind of like Easter Worshippers, the word “credible” had a weird viral life.

    2. also because the precedent for removal is Never.

      1. Yep. If we couldn’t get Earl Warren, nobody can get got.

    3. the Democrats need swing voters to win any national contest.

      Nah, just appeal to a few hundred blue checkmarks on Twitter and you’re good.

    4. It may not be safe to assume that the Democrats in leadership positions are smart, but if they’re interested in winning national elections, the smart move would not be to push this much further.

      Their problem is that their constituents’ children – people like AOC, actively hate the leadership. They’re actively campaigning to take down their own party. Plus, they keep on accidentally (or purposefully?) stating the democrat’s true motives – taking people’s firearms, taking people’s health care away, taking their wealth, taking their access to cheap energy, reducing their choices at the grocery store, etc. The democrats’ kids are digging a grave for the party in approximately half of the states that they used to be competitive in.

  45. The Newspaper of Record has become the Newspaper of Deleted Tweets.

  46. http://abcnews.go.com/US/legendary-journalist-political-commentator-cokie-roberts-dies-75/story?id=65633507

    Cokie Roberts completes the rule of three in celebrity deaths. Roberts, Rick Okasik, and Valerie Harper.

    1. Eddie Money on line 3 …

      1. I forgot about him casing in his two tickets.

    2. I’m sorry to hear about that one. She was the last of a long-dead breed – a principled democrat political writer/pundit who could have a reasonable opinion about people on the other side.

      That old round table with her and George Will is something that this country misses. Sam Donaldson was always the buffoon in that room, but these days he’d be the intellectual giant and bastion of honesty and responsibility.

      Her passing is a sad reminder of how far the profession has fallen in the last 20 years.

      1. It is very sad. She was never particularly attractive yet still got on TV. She actually got there for being smart and having something to say. That stands in stark contrast to people like Meghan Kelly or S.E. Cupp who got on the air because they were hot and willing to blow the right men.

        1. Don’t you dare say anything bad about S.E. Cupp.

          1. saw “hot” and “willing”

    3. I was looking at her Wikipedia page and I didn’t know she was from Louisiana… her full name is very southern “Mary Martha Corinne Morrison Claiborne Roberts”

      Someone will have to break the news to Rev about one of his beloved elites…she probably even has relatives that go hunting and don’t hate the flag.

    4. Did not realize before that Okasik was already in his mid 30s when the Cars started up. I guess because it was that late 70s early 80s power pop new wavish hipster style made me think he was younger.

  47. But as many “S.N.L.” viewers and others across the country clamored for Mr. Gillis to be fired, believing his jokes to be beyond excusable, Mr. Yang’s response unnerved those hoping for a more forceful condemnation from him.

    So Andrew Yang didn’t clap hard and long enough I guess.

  48. Midwittingly starting with premise that this big, corporate-press, narrative-peddler of record, botched the Kavanaugh story is what being blue-pilled is about

    1. Hmm. This is the second time today I’ve seen or heard the term midwit, and I had never seen or heard the term before. Interesting. Is that the new word the kids are using these days?

      1. Might be because it is wholly apropos.

  49. “New York public school children have received official permission to skip school in order to protest government inaction on climate change.”

    Can we send them all to China to protest them doubling their carbon emissions every decade os so? They could stop by India and protest the same thing there.

    1. Make it a world tour.

    2. Well, their parents hate poor people so I think this should be right up their alley.

  50. Jan Crawford Retweeted CBS Evening News

    We report tonight the real bombshell: Christine Ford’s close HS friend (who Ford says was at the party when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her) said Ford’s story is not believable and told the FBI Ford’s allies pressured her, threatened her with a smear campaign to say otherwise””

    https://twitter.com/JanCBS

  51. Wait, Yang’s not Asian?

    1. He’s not qualified to speak for the “Asian community”. Only angry idiots on Twitter can do that.

    2. Yang is about as German a name as someone can have.

  52. The accusation was published over thirty years after the alleged fact.

    That is reason enough to dismiss it.

  53. “How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?”

    Deliberately.

  54. I’ve only looked at the quasi-transcript, but it appears that Pogrebin and Kelly failed to mention this in the 42 minute interview on Fresh Air. I would like to see the receipts on their claim that the qualifier was in the article but removed by the editor.

    In the Vanity Fair article, a former high-ranking Times figure said “the irony is that this book is not an attack on Kavanaugh. It’s very balanced. If people actually read the book, they’ll see that it’s very fair and meticulous and well-reported.” I’m skeptical about its fairness, but it’s obviously meticulous enough that Byron York was able to tear apart the “seven corroborating witnesses for Deborah Ramirez” with the receipts of screen shots. Why market a “fair” book with a heavily slanted opinion piece and interview?

    The parallels to Abramson and Mayer are pretty amazing. Pogrebin and Kelly do not appear to have learned from history.

  55. “Botch” implies “accident’ and “carelessness”. This wasn’t an accident, it was simple (and effective) propaganda. The fact that the story was easily shown to be false doesn’t change its effectiveness as propaganda.

    1. The corollary being that anyone who describes this as ‘botched’ is effectively, if not necessarily intentionally, serving as a waterboy.

  56. “How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?”

    By getting caught.

  57. Really, people; if we want to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, how about the one that engaged in actual, recorded, political advocacy?

    1. Even Supreme Court justices have first amendment rights. Gotta defend everyone’s constitutional rights in all circumstances – they only ratchet down, kids.

  58. . . . the new details uncovered by Pogrebin and Kelly . . .

    I love the spin you’ve put on this here Soave.

    ‘Botched’ – as if it were a screwed up process or accident rather than a deliberate smear campaign.

    And ‘new details uncovered’. ‘new details’ that not only have no independent corroboration but the person at the center of the ‘new details’ has basically flat out said this shit didn’t happen.

    1. Neither Stier nor the women would agree to speak with Pogrebin and Kelly, and the woman’s friends told the authors she did not recall it.

      So, you know, not new details, just new uncorroborated allegations.

  59. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour….click here ======►► http://www.more.cash61.com

  60. The New York Times?
    Are you kidding me?
    The National Inquirer has more credibility than the NYT.

  61. New York Times: The Gray Liar.

    1. There is a book I read a while back Buried by the Times which documents how the NYT systematically squashed coverage of the Holocaust while it was going on.

      1. Holocaust or Holodomor?

  62. Before clicking on the article I asked myself, what is the likelihood this article got 300 comments. I then said, “we’ll, it’s pretty high because every time someone mentions Brett Kavanaugh or the Mueller Report the Team Red hivemind here comes out in full force. GET IT STRAIGHT LIBS, THE MUELLER REPORT FULLY CONFIRMED THAT TRUMP PROBABLY ISNT A RUSSIAN AGENT, OK. IT JUST SAYS THAT HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE TO IMPEDE CONGRESSIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS CORRUPTION AND, HILARIOUSLY, THE SAVING GRACE IS THAT TRUMP’S BUTTKISSERS DIDNT GO THROUGH WITH IT BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY’D WIND UP IN JAIL. THUS VINDICATION, BABY!!!

    Fuck, man, these Trumpian bullshitters are a fucking menace.

    1. Oh go suck Block Yomomma’s greased-up cock you faggot.

  63. They botched it when they got caught lying. That’s how serial liars always botch their lying. By getting caught doing what they always do.

  64. I am surprised it took these idiot reporter over a year to cook up this crock of shit story.

  65. “[Yang]’s trying to …cater to other voters that he needs to get to the White House.”

    So the official position of Asian community activists is that Asian candidates should only appeal to Asian voters…. and then not become president? I wasn’t aware that all previous presidential contests were so woke by not electing Asians to the presidency.

  66. Not how, but why?

  67. The two NYT authors did include the fact that the alleged victim had no recollection of the penis thrusting incident. The NYT cut that from their story, then added it back, making it look like the two authors left it out. And the NYT BG for Max Stier was scant.

    It is true that the firms and partnerships that Max Stier has worked for have worked for Dems and Reps. But that tells me nothing about him personally or his motivations.

    Not mentioned in most coverage of this issue is that:

    _ 1995 Stier was part of Pres. Bill Clinton’s defense team in the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal as a member of the Williams & Connolly firm of Washington D.C.

    _ 2016 President Obama nominated Stier’s wife Florence Yu Pan to become a federal District Judge; that nomination expired with the end of the 114th Congress. Jan 2017 President Trump did not renominate her.

    Those omissions would give the appearance of covering up possible partisan motivation to make this claim.

    I have suspected NYT “news coverage” to be tainted by advocacy journalism since the 1960s, in a slightly more elite manner than the yellow journalism of the 1890s, but still slanted.

    Chantal Da Silva, “Who is Max Stier?”, Newsweek, 16 Sep 2019.

  68. I don’t think many on the right, and even some on the left think that this was “botched” on the part of the editors at America’s paper of record. Fake news may be a non-issue, but a biased world view created by editors choosing which stories to run or emphasize may not be a non-issue.