With a push or two, Twitter suspends left-wing hatemongers
After Tucker Carlson’s home was targeted for protest and vandalism and his address posted by an antifa group called Smash Racism DC, Twitter responded by suspending their account. Not right away, mind you --- it took The Daily Caller News Foundation, of which Carlson is a co-founder, to call attention to the threatening mob videos and the “doxxing” by questioning Twitter about it.
But after being suspended, the “antifascists” (who are, judging from their behavior, fascists) simply broke Twitter policy by creating another account. Same name, same profile picture, slightly different handle.
TDCNF has persevered and published a new report about the new Twitter account, so now Twitter is suspending that one as well. Lesson: it’s possible to get Twitter to act to limit left-wing hatred --- but they’re not likely to do it without a push. Or maybe two.
"Bots" now pester financial writers to quote more women
Question: Would you rather read quotes on financial matters from experts who are male or female?
It doesn’t matter, right? In fact, if you had a preference either way, that in itself would be, well, kind of sexist. As long as the information is correct and useful to you, it’s immaterial.
But Financial Times, apparently in an effort to woo more female readers who might be put off by too many quotes from male financial experts, has developed a “bot” designed to make their writers include more quotes from expert women. Here’s how it works: a financial writer will be typing along and suddenly will be warned, through automatic textual analysis, that his (or her) piece lacks female voices. Presumably, sirens will blare and warning lights will flash in his (or her) cubicle.
I guess the sirens will stop once the writer has included a quote from at least one female financial expert --- ANY female financial “expert.” Gender is the important thing. Type in a quote from Alexndria Ocasio-Cortez, for example (I understand she has a degree in economics), and it’s okay.
Of course, any publication would want to avoid exclusion of expert advice from either gender. (Oops, I just realized we’re forgetting about the “nonbinary” financial experts! What to do??) But it just occurred to me: wouldn’t it be great if there could be a “bot” for all the popular magazines --- especially women’s fashion magazines --- that warned of the lack of conservative voices?
It’ll never happen.
Good article by Dov Fischer at Spectator.org:
What the Florida count tells us about how Trump stole the 2016 election from Hillary. Spoiler alert: it tells us he didn’t, and the Democrats are projecting their own penchant for stealing elections onto him.
The California Wildfires
I hope you will all join me in praying for those who are in the path of the wildfires in California that have killed 48 people, destroyed over 6500 homes and are still threatening many thousands more. California has suffered a number of devastating wild fires in recent years, but this is likely to be the worst ever, with eventual insurance losses estimated as high as $4 billion. Despite his controversial tweet about cutting off federal funds over incompetent forest management, President Trump has declared a major disaster in the state, allowing residents who’ve lost their homes to qualify for federal aid.
The destruction from these fires has been heartbreaking, and it’s made worse by attempts to politicize them. Gov. Jerry Brown’s blaming such fires, which have burned for millennia across the state, on Trump or “climate change deniers” (note: nobody believes the climate doesn’t change) is nakedly self-serving blame-shifting. And Trump’s artless tweet, as is often the case, was bluntly truthful, but the truth got buried in the angry backlash over the bluntness and seeming lack of compassion. Yes, incompetent forest management does have a lot to do with uncontrollable forest fires in California, but that argument should take a back seat to first insuring the fires are out, everyone’s safe, and respects are paid to the dead and displaced.
Once that time arrives (and let’s pray it’s very soon), we do need to have a discussion, though, about how letting environmental activists manage forests is making fires worse. Not everything that evil mankind does to the forests is an affront to Gaia, and some things that desperately need to be done are getting blocked by politics. They include controlled burns and clearing out underbrush to keep accumulations from turning into massive stockpiles of kindling. Even the far-left Mother Jones magazine agrees with that, although I’m sure their writers would set themselves on fire before they’d admit that Trump has a point.
In Florida, as the count of ballots cast in Broward County before Election Day and on Election Day and written on bar napkins since Election Day continues, Democrats have finally found an example of bending election laws they condemn. They are outraged that the head of elections allowed 158 hurricane victims to vote by fax or email – at least, they’re outraged that that was allowed in a heavily Republican Panhandle county.
Why do I get the feeling that if it were a Democratic county, they would demand that votes cast in the hurricane’s name be counted?
Excellent observation by Tucker Carlson
Excellent observation by Tucker Carlson in a video at the link, about how Democrats spent two years depicting their questioning of the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s election as the height of patriotism…and now, if Republicans question the blatant vote chicanery that’s going on in Florida and Georgia, that’s outrageous and un-American.
Of course, I could point out the left’s glaring double standards all day long. I caught another example just last night on Fox News. When someone pointed out how Hillary Clinton had been allowed to skate on charges of mishandling classified data that would’ve sent anyone else to federal prison, a Democratic strategist (yes, CNN, Fox does have people from both sides represented; it’s called “fair and balanced,” you should look into it) blithely dismissed that by saying that Hillary is in “retirement.” First of all, that’s highly doubtful. Second, where did Democrats get the notion that you can’t be held responsible for violating federal law if you’re no longer in office? I see this defense a lot on the Internet: “Why are you bringing up what Hillary did? The election is over! Move on!”
This from the same people who cheer when Robert Mueller sends a former Trump associate to prison for income tax violations that happened so long ago, they had to find a way around the statute of limitations to charge him. I think what liberals really mean is “Move on from me!”
Speaking of Tucker Carlson, here’s the reason why you haven’t been seeing anything from Fox News in your Twitter feed lately:
Here’s something extremely rare in climate news: a scary new global warming study on ocean temperatures made a big splash in the media (no, that’s hardly the rare part; stay with me.) Then, a scientist who is skeptical of apocalyptic climate studies based on computer models rechecked the math. Within a few hours, he found errors in the methodology that showed the study “vastly underestimates the uncertainty, as well as biasing up significantly — nearly 30 percent — the central estimate,” rendering the study unreliable (that’s not the rare part, either: this scientist recently co-authored a paper showing that computer model-based climate studies overestimate global warming by up to 45 percent.)
Okay, here comes the unusual, news-making part: Did the authors of the first study attack the other scientist for pointing out their errors? Did they demonize him as an eeeeeeevil “skeptic” who is in the pocket of Big Oil and just wants the Earth to become a giant smoldering cinder in space?
No. They actually thanked him for pointing out their errors so quickly, then they publicly retracted the study until they could redo it and fix the mistakes.
Do you know what that’s called, kids? When you don’t demand that people accept the results of studies just because they want to believe them, and when other scientists are skeptical of claims and attempt to replicate their findings objectively to prove or disprove them, based on solid, unbiased evidence and methodology?
It’s called “SCIENCE!”
See, I told you this was something extremely rare in climate news.