This should be an existential crisis for "60 Minutes," and maybe for the entire CBS News division.
Lucky for them, our "news" media has degenerated into such a gruesome circus of political propaganda that it probably won't even get anyone reprimanded.
The crude and fraudulent DeSantis hit piece is on par with Rathergate, but this time there probably won't be any pretense of an internal investigation or heads rolling. The media learned from 2004 that it should never admit wrongdoing, or even simulate accountability.
The media's takeaway from Rathergate and the rise of blogging and alternative media wasn't "tell the truth and don't let political partisans invent phony news stories." It wasn't even "try not to get caught lying." It was "do not admit error or seek accountability."
The only thing panicked DNC Media operatives want right now is to manufacture a storyline that Ron DeSantis, a rising Republican star with a remarkable record of achievement under difficult circumstances, is "controversial" somehow. They just need that label to stick.
They couldn't get anything else to stick to DeSantis, so 60 Minutes just invented a phony scandal out of thin air. They deliberately ignored or suppressed everything that didn't fit their prewritten narrative. It started falling apart within minutes of air time.
This wasn't just a badly-researched piece, reporters with ideological blinders failing to notice key facts that disputed their narrative. 60 Minutes deliberately deleted everything that interfered with their drive-by shooting. They knew exactly what facts they were suppressing.
And now DNC Media gets to prance around for the next three years mumbling about a "cloud of suspicion" around DeSantis, "allegations" about "big donors" that will forever "shadow" him and "raise questions." He's been branded "controversial."
It's not just about targeting a GOP hopeful to weaken him before 2024. It's about reinforcing the media's coronavirus narratives and distracting from grotesque monsters like Andrew Cuomo. They're incapable of reporting honestly on Florida, or New York. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
American culture and politics are largely based on assuming the worst intentions and motivations for everything individuals say and do. Imagine where we could go if we flipped that script and assumed the best: trusting each other, showing patience and forgiveness.
There would be mistakes and debacles, of course. People are not always worthy of trust. They don't always respond to goodwill in kind. Sometimes it's a mistake to assume good intentions. People don't always take the second chance offered by forgiveness.
We wouldn't want to become utterly naive or dangerously ignorant, of course, but in our conversations and culture, we've grown dangerously short of goodwill, and that is a vital resource for a functioning civil society, a nation of sovereign individuals who value liberty.
For decades we argued about the fictitious "wall of separation between church and state," when we should have been building a higher and thicker wall of separation between corporations and state.
What was the point of all that "wall between church and state" stuff? In theory, it's about separating elections and government from not religious FAITH, but religious ORGANIZATIONS. You can't order individuals not to vote based on their deep personal religious convictions.
The fear was that religious organizations would exercise power over the elected government, imposing their beliefs on everyone. The image of medieval popes manipulating European kings was constantly invoked. We supposedly had to be on guard against Bible pages becoming law.
At the same time the Left was sneering at ordinary people for being too obsessed with money and materialism, they were using gigantic amounts of money - much of it pilfered from us through taxes and gov't spending - to destroy our society and remake it in their image.
For all their pious sermons about the Evil Dollar and rising above material concerns to achieve spiritual fulfillment, leftists are the most money-grubbing people in the world. Their "movement" is fueled by mountains of cold hard cash, not popular appeal.
One suspects the decades of leftist sermons against the sins of money and materialism were largely intended to make gullible middle-class people stop valuing their income and assets, making it easier for the Left to seize them. And seize they did, on a staggering scale.
A coldly rational and impartial observer, comparing the outcomes between states and counties, would have no choice but to conclude that masks make the coronavirus pandemic WORSE.
Another possibility is that masks have very minimal benefits, which are completely overwhelmed by other factors in different locations - but in comparisons were other factors seem nearly identical, states with strict mask mandates and high compliance tend to fare worse.
This seems like an awfully important point to resolve, doesn't it? Shouldn't we be urgently digging into this "mask paradox" with every scientific tool at our disposal? We are not just urged, but often FORCED to wear them. We should determine if they're worse than useless.
"Universal basic income," under any label, means you work for the State and the State owns you. Politicians have no reason to fear voters who depend on them for food.
The idealistic model for universal income is a small, homogenous country with a very modest government and a small political class. In THEORY, such a state could implement UBI as the ONLY government welfare program. It would still be dangerous, but the danger would be limited.
Why is a homogenous population important? Because the lack of serious internal conflicts means the State would be less inclined to use UBI as political weapon. Why is a small population important? Because big governments are INEVITABLY more corrupt.
WHO's report makes laboratory origin seem like the MOST likely explanation, not the least. There is more hard evidence to disprove all of the other theories. Labs are "ruled out" solely because China says so.
The WHO report is an amazing read. 120 pages, and basically one page that says "lab origin is very unlikely because China told us all of its labs are super safe and none of them were researching coronaviruses." The recommended follow-up is to hassle every OTHER lab in the world.
Everything firm - i.e. not because the Chinese Communists say so - in the WHO report argues against the OTHER theories of Covid-19 origin. They can't find any animals to back up the zoonotic theories. Nothing really lines up with the "human ate a pangolin who ate a bat" ideas.