Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
The ongoing problem for the @opcw is that it cannot erase the fact that it helped cover up the murder of 43 civilians in Douma during the investigation of an alleged chlorine gas attack in 2018.
1) When its own scientists sought to challenge the corrupted investigation, they were sidelined and then smeared. Inspector Brendan Whelan recently won his ILOAT case against the @opcw. thegrayzone.com/2026/05/24/opc…
2) During the course of the ILOAT legal battle, the @opcw inadvertently confirmed that they had censored a report from top NATO chemical weapons experts (toxicologists) which had concluded these civilians could not have been killed by chlorine gas:
I got tired of the Moody's K-shaped debate.
Still, it's worth repeating some additional, somewhat technical, but important issues.
0. Moody's approach essentially amounts to saying:
Share of Consumption done by top 10%
= Consumption of top 10% divided by Total Personal Consumption Expenditures
= (Disposable income of top 10% - Savings of top 10%) divided by (Total disposable income - Total savings).
To do this, you need:
- to define the top 10% of *what*
- good estimates of the amount of disposable income received by the top 10%, and the share of savings they do *out of that concept of disposable income*. Unfortunately, they have neither.
Still, it's worth repeating some additional, somewhat technical, but important issues.
0. Moody's approach essentially amounts to saying:
Share of Consumption done by top 10%
= Consumption of top 10% divided by Total Personal Consumption Expenditures
= (Disposable income of top 10% - Savings of top 10%) divided by (Total disposable income - Total savings).
To do this, you need:
- to define the top 10% of *what*
- good estimates of the amount of disposable income received by the top 10%, and the share of savings they do *out of that concept of disposable income*. Unfortunately, they have neither.
1. To find out the disposable income of the top 10%, Moody's starts from the BEA's total *personal disposable income* ($23 trillion: post-tax, inclusive of c. $1T owner-imputed rent and $2T in employer insurance/pension/Social Security contributions, excl. of realized K gains).
They then multiply it by the observed share of the *SCF's concept of total income* (pre-tax; exclusive of owner-imputed rent or employer contributions; incl. of realized K gains) accruing to the top 10% in the latest Survey of Consumer Finances.
This is plain wrong:
a. pre-tax income is more concentrated than post-tax (taxes are progressive!)
b. realized K gains are highly concentrated at the top (they are very lumpy and asset ownership is concentrated!)
c. both owner-imputed rent and employer contributions are an equalizing force for the distribution of BEA-style disposable income.
So this methodology yields highly inflated shares of BEA disposable income for the top 10% (about 50% instead of the BEA's own calculation of 34-35%).
NB: Moody's corrected their methodology since March 2026 to at least use a post-federal tax correction after many people, including me, pointed out this.
They then multiply it by the observed share of the *SCF's concept of total income* (pre-tax; exclusive of owner-imputed rent or employer contributions; incl. of realized K gains) accruing to the top 10% in the latest Survey of Consumer Finances.
This is plain wrong:
a. pre-tax income is more concentrated than post-tax (taxes are progressive!)
b. realized K gains are highly concentrated at the top (they are very lumpy and asset ownership is concentrated!)
c. both owner-imputed rent and employer contributions are an equalizing force for the distribution of BEA-style disposable income.
So this methodology yields highly inflated shares of BEA disposable income for the top 10% (about 50% instead of the BEA's own calculation of 34-35%).
NB: Moody's corrected their methodology since March 2026 to at least use a post-federal tax correction after many people, including me, pointed out this.
2. Moody's approach for allocating savings by disposable income groups amounts to then allocating the very tiny amount of BEA personal savings (e.g. 4% of disposable personal income in Q4-2025) across these groups. Note that even if they assumed that *all* personal savings were done by the top 10%, they would find a lower bound of 50-4=46% of consumption done by the top 10%, still above even the share of disposable income computed by the BEA for this top decile.
However, this concept of savings is completely inconsistent with the use of the SCF concept of income. Even abstracting from the tax part, the appropriate to use savings rates as a share of "SCF-style" income would be substantially higher at the top than personal savings rates as a share of "BEA-style" disposable cash income, because:
a. savings rates out of capital gains are much higher than out of disposable cash income
b. savings rates out of owner-imputed rent, employer-paid benefits, and imputed financial services are all zero in the BEA (pushing "BEA savings rates" down), but these are not part of the cash income SCF measure.
However, this concept of savings is completely inconsistent with the use of the SCF concept of income. Even abstracting from the tax part, the appropriate to use savings rates as a share of "SCF-style" income would be substantially higher at the top than personal savings rates as a share of "BEA-style" disposable cash income, because:
a. savings rates out of capital gains are much higher than out of disposable cash income
b. savings rates out of owner-imputed rent, employer-paid benefits, and imputed financial services are all zero in the BEA (pushing "BEA savings rates" down), but these are not part of the cash income SCF measure.
🚨 Callais plaintiffs accuse Louisiana of dragging out the redistricting process and concealing the state’s true election deadline to keep an allegedly unconstitutional race-based congressional map in place for the 2026 elections.
Plaintiffs argue that Louisiana’s leading proposed congressional map, SB121, preserves the race-based structure of the current majority-Black 2nd District, emulating the 2022 and 2011 maps.
The filing says Louisiana officials have repeatedly refused to disclose the state’s actual deadline for implementing a new congressional map, even as lawmakers move slowly on redistricting legislation.
@BalogunSonia4 I'm happy it is a woman that said this. I guess she had to say it.
The reason is because, there are too many pretty women while there are just few rich men.
Still the reason it is also easy to replace the pretty woman is because all women ever offer is pussy except the outliers.
The reason is because, there are too many pretty women while there are just few rich men.
Still the reason it is also easy to replace the pretty woman is because all women ever offer is pussy except the outliers.
@BalogunSonia4 So if you are breaking up with me, fine, you can go since you don't offer anything other than pussy. And there are other pretty girls begging to do the same because I'm rich.
@BalogunSonia4 But you as a pretty woman can't just get a rich man, except he picks you out of the multiple pretty women chasing him.
That is why there are so many pretty women with broke boyfriends and that is because women don't pick men, men pick women.
That is why there are so many pretty women with broke boyfriends and that is because women don't pick men, men pick women.
Listening to the Norman interview again and it's just blatant how he is trying to gatekeep the Palestine issue for reasons that have nothing to do with Palestine. He says so openly: he attacks the right out of a fear of possible blowback against American jews for the Iran war.
The whole song and dance about how the right is ~~never~~ motivated by suffering or injustice is a thin veneer covering the real problem: according to Finkelstein himself(!!!), jews have acted as a fifth column inside America and are now risking some kind of reckoning.
But if we're being cooly objective here, the motivations of someone like MTG shouldn't matter. If she is out there telling young people in America that Israel treats Palestinians horribly, how is that NOT greasing the skids for the Left to move in and capitalize?
Good evening, I will be live-tweeting the Newfields 143rd Annual Meeting today at 5:30pm for @indydocumenters @mirrorindy. #indydocumenters
Chairwoman Anne Sellers gave the greeting and introduction. She welcomed President and CEO Le Monte G. Booker Sr. He gave stats on the accomplishments and achievements of Newfields this year.
President Booker shared about his background coming from Chicago with a life shaped by art, and what it means to him. discovernewfields.org/newsroom/welco…
🧵 I watched Hasan’s Cuba doc so you don’t have to
A regular Hasan viewer asked me to watch his Cuba documentary, seemingly because it would change my mind. It actually did the opposite.
We are still waiting to learn more about the reported OFAC probe into the Nuestra América Cuba convoy, which Fox says involves as many as 40 Americans, including Hasan Piker.
But this is the “journalism” Hasan is going to point to as proof that his Cuba trip was legitimate.
The medical missions are presented as pure humanitarian virtue, with no serious scrutiny of the forced-labor allegations, how much of the doctors’ pay the regime keeps, or whether host countries are receiving fully accredited care.
Cuba’s blackout-ridden, Soviet-era power grid becomes a story about American cruelty and heroic solar panels from China, not the regime’s decades of mismanagement.
The medical “miracle cures” get the soft-touch treatment too, with no real interrogation of what has actually been proven, what is still experimental, and what is just regime hype.
And the doc literally ends with a close-up on The People’s Forum, CODEPINK, a Fidel Castro billboard reading “Fidel, faithful to your legacy,” as Hasan repeats the revolutionary slogan “Patria o muerte, venceremos.”
But wait, there’s more.
A regular Hasan viewer asked me to watch his Cuba documentary, seemingly because it would change my mind. It actually did the opposite.
We are still waiting to learn more about the reported OFAC probe into the Nuestra América Cuba convoy, which Fox says involves as many as 40 Americans, including Hasan Piker.
But this is the “journalism” Hasan is going to point to as proof that his Cuba trip was legitimate.
The medical missions are presented as pure humanitarian virtue, with no serious scrutiny of the forced-labor allegations, how much of the doctors’ pay the regime keeps, or whether host countries are receiving fully accredited care.
Cuba’s blackout-ridden, Soviet-era power grid becomes a story about American cruelty and heroic solar panels from China, not the regime’s decades of mismanagement.
The medical “miracle cures” get the soft-touch treatment too, with no real interrogation of what has actually been proven, what is still experimental, and what is just regime hype.
And the doc literally ends with a close-up on The People’s Forum, CODEPINK, a Fidel Castro billboard reading “Fidel, faithful to your legacy,” as Hasan repeats the revolutionary slogan “Patria o muerte, venceremos.”
But wait, there’s more.
I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like it.
Almost 15% of the entire documentary is just Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Carlos F. de Cossio, talking largely uninterrupted.
Almost 15% of the entire documentary is just Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Carlos F. de Cossio, talking largely uninterrupted.
Even Medea Benjamin, who is reportedly also facing a subpoena, has offered a more critical view of Cuba than Hasan’s documentary ever did.
The Egyptian Origins of the Tree of Life and Kabbalah - I
Before the Sefirot were written on parchment, they were engineered in stone. This part tracks how the structural matrix of the Tree of Life was built along the Nile, hidden inside temple geometry and divine genealogies.
🧵
Before the Sefirot were written on parchment, they were engineered in stone. This part tracks how the structural matrix of the Tree of Life was built along the Nile, hidden inside temple geometry and divine genealogies.
🧵
The Tree of Life is widely known as the geometric heart of Jewish Kabbalah. But history and archaeology reveal a deeper truth: its mathematical matrix, metaphysical laws, and initiatory structures were fully operated in Ancient Egypt millennia before.
To understand the historical transition of this sacred science, we must look beyond dogma. What medieval Cabalists codified into 10 abstract spheres (Sephirot) and 22 paths was a brilliant linguistic translation of Egypt’s pictographic and architectural mysteries.
A thread.
As much of this conversation is limited by blocks and its hard to follow I thought I’d put it all here in a thread.
Watch as JK Rowling tries to offer pearls. Communication appears impossible at this point.
It starts here. Simple enough. 1/
As much of this conversation is limited by blocks and its hard to follow I thought I’d put it all here in a thread.
Watch as JK Rowling tries to offer pearls. Communication appears impossible at this point.
It starts here. Simple enough. 1/
The misunderstanding begins immediately. 2/
JK Rowling attempts once again. Patiently. Oh so patiently. 3/
ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE!
We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.”
But that’s not really true.
Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear.
And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense.
This isn’t exactly new.
In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship.
Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory.
The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing.
And today, the problem is even worse.
We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.”
But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults.
That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children.
And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.”
That is untenable.
So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it.
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.”
The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.
A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.
Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?
If yes, it gets published.
And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.
That’s how science is supposed to work.
Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.
That’s what we’ve done.
Now it’s time for academics to use it.
Read our announcement on the @WSJ below.
🔗wsj.com/opinion/a-way-…
We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.”
But that’s not really true.
Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear.
And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense.
This isn’t exactly new.
In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship.
Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory.
The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing.
And today, the problem is even worse.
We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.”
But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults.
That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children.
And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.”
That is untenable.
So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it.
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.”
The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.
A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.
Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?
If yes, it gets published.
And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.
That’s how science is supposed to work.
Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.
That’s what we’ve done.
Now it’s time for academics to use it.
Read our announcement on the @WSJ below.
🔗wsj.com/opinion/a-way-…
A Way to Challenge the Groupthink of Scholarly Journals
wsj.com/opinion/a-way-…
wsj.com/opinion/a-way-…
Learn more about the new "Peer Review" format offered by Theory and Society below.
link.springer.com/collections/cf…
link.springer.com/collections/cf…
1/ Right now, a bill called C-22 is moving through Parliament. It would let police pull information on who you talk to, when, and where, all without a warrant. It's at committee this week. 🧵
2/ C-22 drops the bar for police to "reasonable suspicion," the lowest threshold in Canadian criminal law, and forces your providers to keep a year of everyone's metadata. Michael Geist calls it "a comprehensive surveillance map of virtually every Canadian."
3/ It even opens the door to handing your data to Trump's America without a Canadian judge. The biggest civil-liberties groups in the country, from the CCLA to OpenMedia, call C-22 the most expansive invasion of our privacy rights in modern history.
thewalrus.ca/trump-wants-to…
thewalrus.ca/trump-wants-to…
ALERT: 35 Former federal judges file motion in Florida asking court to *re-open* Trump's $10 billion lawsuit vs. his I.R.S.
Filing: "This court was deceived"
"The 'settlement' commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the U.S. Treasury"
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Filing: "This court was deceived"
"The 'settlement' commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the U.S. Treasury"
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Former federal judges in their filing asking court to re-open Trump's $10 billion lawsuit vs. I.R.S.
They argue Trump and his own I.R.S. and Justice Dept are plotting together
FILING: "The parties to this case are using this lawsuit as the legal justification for these actions. This is not speculation; the parties themselves have proclaimed it"
(MORE)
They argue Trump and his own I.R.S. and Justice Dept are plotting together
FILING: "The parties to this case are using this lawsuit as the legal justification for these actions. This is not speculation; the parties themselves have proclaimed it"
(MORE)
Former federal judges on the slush fund
"This “settlement” is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court"
"This “settlement” is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court"
