10 THINGS TIME HAS TAUGHT ME

The Media Bias No One is Talking About

The mainstream media has historically tried to balance left and right in its political coverage, and present what it views as a reasonable center.

That may sound good in theory. But the old politics no longer exists and the former labels “left” versus “right” are outdated. 

Today it’s democracy versus authoritarianism, voting rights versus white supremacy. There’s no reasonable center between these positions, no justifiable compromise. Equating them is misleading and dangerous.

You hear the mainstream media say, for example, that certain “Republican and Democratic lawmakers are emerging as troublemakers within their parties.” These reports equate Republican lawmakers who are actively promoting Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, with Democratic lawmakers who are fighting to extend health care and other programs to help people. 

These are not equivalent. Trump’s big lie is a direct challenge to American democracy. Even if you disagree with providing Americans better access to health care, it won’t destroy our system of government. 

You also hear that both sides are gripped by equally dangerous extremism. Labeling them “radical left” and “radical right” suggests that the responsible position is somehow between these so-called extremes. 

Can we get real? One side is trying to protect and preserve voting rights. The other side is trying to suppress votes under the guise of “election integrity.”  

But there isn’t and never was a problem of “election integrity.” The whole issue of “election integrity” in the 2020 election was manufactured by Donald Trump and his big lie about voter fraud, and was bought and propagated by the Republican Party. 

Today’s Republican Party is behind what historians regard as the biggest attack on voting rights since Jim Crow, but the media frames this as a right-versus-left battle that’s just politics as usual. Equating the two sides is false and dangerous.

Or compare the coverage of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, on one hand, with the coverage of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar on the other. You’d think they were all equally out of the mainstream, some on the extreme right, some on the extreme left. That’s bunk. 

Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, in addition to spreading dangerous conspiracy theories, harassing colleagues, and promoting bigotry, don’t actually legislate or do anything for their constituents. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar both organize to help everyday people, deliver for their constituents, and have pushed legislation to provide universal school meals, expand affordable housing, and combat the climate crisis.

Equating all these lawmakers suggests that the responsible position is halfway between hateful, delusional conspiracy theories on the one hand, and efforts to fight white supremacy, save the planet, and empower working people on the other. 

It’s similar to what the media did following Donald Trump’s infamous condemnation of “both sides” after the deadly violence sparked by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. In the ensuing weeks, America’s six top mainstream newspapers used just as much space condemning anti-Nazi counter-protesters as they did actual neo-Nazis.

But research shows white supremacists pose a significantly graver threat than those trying to stop them. White supremacists are animated by racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry, violence and hate. 

Battling white supremacy is not the same as advocating it. Passing laws to prevent voter suppression is not the same as passing laws to suppress votes. Fighting for our democracy is not the same as seeking to destroy it. 

The media equating both sides, one “left” and one “right,” suggests there’s a moderate middle between hate and inclusion, between democracy and proto-fascism. 

This is misleading, dangerous, and morally wrong. Don’t fall for it.

This is about Sci-Hub. yeah we get it.. gatekeep knowledge and protect the interests of capital…

TALKING HEADS - TAKE ME TO RIVER.

47 years ago today,

One particular and climactic highlight of 'Stop making Sense' came when the band took Al Green’s TAKE ME TO THE RIVER farther and deeper than ever imaginable – first an enormous boom-boom from Chris Frantz, then the doubled bass (Busta Jones and Tina) making the earth move, next the Baptist choir chanting of the title by Nona Hendryx and Dolette McDonald (the crowd was roaring), and finally "I don't know why I love you like I do."

Uisge-beatha! (Whisky)

It's believed whisky-making began in Scotland as winemaking methods spread from monasteries in Europe, but with no access to grapes, monks used grain mash instead to produce an early form of whisky. The name itself derives from the Gaelic name, uisge beatha, which translates loosely to 'water of life'. The first recorded instance of whisky being produced comes in 1494 – local records show Friar John Cor of Lindores Abbey in Fife was granted the king's commission to make Acqua Vitae, Latin for 'water of life'.

When King James IV was in Inverness during September 1506, his Treasurer’s Accounts had entries for the 15th and 17th of the month respectively: ‘For aqua vite to the King. . .’ and ‘For ane flacat of aqua vite to the King. . .’. lt is probable that the aquavitae in this case was spirit for drinking.

The earliest reference to a distillery in the Acts of the Scottish Parliament appears to be in 1690, when mention is made of the famous Ferintosh distillery owned by Duncan Forbes of Culloden. There is also a reference to distilling in a private house in the parish of Gamrie in Banffshire in 1614. This occurs in the Register of the Privy Council, where a man accused of the crime of breaking into a private house, combined with assault, was said to have knocked over some ‘aquavitie’.

One of the earliest references to ‘uiskie’ occurs in the funeral account of a Highland laird about 1618.

An unpublished letter of February 1622, written by Sir Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy to the Earl of Mar, reported that certain officers sent to Glenorchy by the King had been given the best entertainment that the season and the country allowed. It stated: ‘For they wantit not wine nor aquavite.’ This ‘aquavite’ was no doubt locally distilled whisky. Another writer affirms that aquavitae occasionally formed part of the rent paid for Highland farms, at any rate in Perthshire, but no actual date is given for this practice.

After the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, English revenue staff crossed the border to begin their lengthy attempts to bring whisky production under control. Ninety years later the excise laws were in such a hopeless state of confusion that no two distilleries were taxed at the same rate. Illicit distilling flourished, the smugglers seeing no good reason for paying for the privilege of making their native drink.

After a lengthy Royal Commission, the Act of 1823 sanctioned legal distilling at a duty of 2/3d (12p) per gallon for stills with a capacity of more than 40 gallons. There was a licence fee of £10 annually and no stills under the legal limit were allowed. The first distillery came into ‘official’ existence in the following year and thereafter many of the more far-sighted distillers came over on to the side of the law.

Today, there are around 109 distilleries in Scotland.

First screen Batmobile from 1948. 

So. The Supreme Court is overturning Roe v. Wade.

This is an incredibly scary moment for a lot of people, but I kind of want to put it in context. Because even now, I see a lot of people pointing out that banning abortion doesn’t reduce the number of abortions provided, it just makes it more dangerous for the mother.

They know. They don’t care.

We hear a lot about how Republicans are hypocrites, how their actions don’t line up with their stated belief system, but a lot of those actions will make sense once you recognize that their stated belief system is not their actual belief system. They are theocratic fascists, whose long term goals are to install their interpretation of their religion as official government religion and either expel or brutally repress anything who steps out of line.

Once you understand that, everything they do will make sense, and you can stop engaging with their reasons. Because their reasons are bullshit. “A fetus is a life” isn’t a consistent moral belief that they’ve thought out the implications of. It’s just what needs to be true for their beliefs to be even the tiniest bit morally defensible. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and they know it.

It’s not about protecting fetuses, it’s about controlling women.

It’s not about protecting children, it’s about persecuting queer people.

It’s not about protecting votes, it’s about preventing non-Republicans from voting.

This needs to be recognized, internalized and repeated, because engaging them on their own ground, arguing whether banning abortion reduces the number of abortions performed, is an illusion. Stop meeting them where they’re at, stop listening to their words and pay attention to their deeds.

Because their deeds are those of white supremacist, Christian dominionist hate group. And they are coming for other rights. The leaked draft specifically names Obergefell and Lawrence as other decisions which are not worthy decisions, implying that they too should be overturned. Frankly, I suspect Griswold will be on the chopping block too. Honestly, I doubt they’ll stop there, if they feel they can get away with it, they’ll probably go after Loving and Brown too. They aren’t going to stop until they have enshrined white supremacist christian theocracy into power.

You have to recognize that, and be ready to fight.

“In her dissent, Kagan underscored the political mechanics underlying the majority opinion in usually bald terms for a justice on a Court so prizing comity and respect. She traced the conservatives’ recent rulings, in which they give themselves enough excuses to toss Chevron since it’s become outmoded anyway. In each, the majority grasped for novel reasons to ignore the precedent. In a one-two punch, Kagan also pointed out that this kind of behavior, reverse engineering a string of cases to get a hall pass to overturn long established precedent, has become habitual. “This Court has ‘avoided deferring under Chevron since 2016’ because it has been preparing to overrule Chevron since around that time,” she wrote. “That kind of self-help on the way to reversing precedent has become almost routine at this Court.””

—

Supreme Court Executes Massive Power Grab From Executive Branch In New Ruling

“…reverse engineering a string of cases to get a hall pass to overturn long established precedent, has become habitual.“

That’s the entire game.

The stolen SCOTUS majority is throwing out precedent and overturning decades of settled law. It is taking rights and protections away from all Americans, and rightly has its lowest approval rating in history. It is almost finished making itself into an unelected, unaccountable, untouchable Star Chamber. It has become the enforcement arm of the people behind Project 2025. I fully expect them to rule in favor of Trump’s outrageous immunity claim, because they are fully on board with everything he did and intends to do if he seizes power again.

This SCOTUS majority is a direct and existential threat to everything we think of when we hear “the American way of life”, laws and precedent be damned.

As far as I can tell, the only way to do anything about this is to expand the Court to nullify them, and I just don’t see that happening any time soon.

Woody Guthrie and his guitar: “this machine kills fascists” - early 1940’s by SweeetPotato