I’ll enthusiastically second ProPublica. They’ve been absolutely killing it lately. They’re the gold standard of investigative journalism.

I totally agree about Greenwald, but he was pushed out/resigned in 2020, he has nothing to do with them anymore. When he co-founded it, he was still a well-respected journalist. He isn’t anymore, but The Intercept still does exceptional journalism. I recommend taking another look.

Yeah I appreciate this take, and I think it’s still mostly accurate, but Glenn Greenwald was pushed out from The Intercept in 2020, when his weird political transformation became apparent. I was very sad to see his weird red-pilling, I really respected the way he handled the Snowden leak. Can’t really take him seriously anymore though. I don’t think they have anyone with his bizarre beliefs on staff anymore.

When people talk about the New York Times’ neoliberal bias, this is what we’re talking about. Lots of people won’t notice because it’s relatively subtle, but it is absolutely biased against progressives/actual liberals.

The New York Times published the headline “Bowman Falls in House Primary, Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money” — before swapping it out for “Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats.”

This is why we need more independent outlets like The Intercept. This shit needs to be called out.

I used to live downwind of an oil refinery, and at least once a year (sometimes 5 or 10 times in a year) there was an illegal emission that blanketed the entire town with particulate matter. The air quality would go from perfectly safe to barely breathable in minutes. As someone with asthma, I felt it immediately, and would have to lock myself indoors with an air purifier.

We’re going to be dealing with significantly more wildfires and increasingly poor air quality thanks to climate change, so the least we could do is ensure that businesses don’t fuck up the air more than it already is.

Fuck the supreme court for doing everything it can to make our lives worse.

Yeah, seriously. It actually sounds like she might have had it even worse than his “normal” victims. What an absolutely disgusting piece of shit. As time goes on and we learn more, he only looks more and more fundamentally evil.

Brad Edwards, an attorney for Doe, told The Daily Beast, “In addition to Epstein’s rotation of victims, there was typically one person who he made believe was his girlfriend, usually completely in the dark about his criminal abuse.”

“Jane Doe 200 was that girlfriend during this period of time, which means she learned more information than most other victims,” Edwards added. “In the end, Epstein violently raped her in a manner far worse than his usual modus operandi. This victim has lived in a particular fear for a long time and she deserves justice.”

Okay, instead let’s care because she’s an activist and founder and director of a foundation that advocates for disabled children. Seems like she matters to a lot of people, despite who her half-brother is.

Very good points, thanks for the correction. My blind rage got in the way…

Frankly I don’t even trust the ‘liberal’ justices to get this right. There is absolutely no reason for nine lawyers with no medical background to make a ruling that will impact the availability of life-saving medical treatments for one of our most vulnerable populations.

I’ve got an idea, let women do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies, and stop being so creepy about the genders of our children. This shit is nobody’s business.

Well that’s some backwards bullshit.

Everything you said is true, but I still think her shift is being overblown. The opinion in which she criticized Thomas’s historical approach was a concurring opinion, she agreed with the result, but not the methodology. The result is what the vast majority of Americans will see, not that she happened to take a different road to get to the same place.

And in the same concurring opinion, she had the audacity to hold up stare decisis, despite her hair-trigger willingness to overturn precedent in critical cases like Dobbs.

I follow the court, and read the article. I guess I’m just way more cynical than you. I appreciate your moderating tone though, I hope I’m wrong about her.

It’s these kinds of whitewashing bullshit articles that are why the court isn’t even more unpopular. There’s a concerted effort to make the court appear reasonable. It’s not. Barrett might ask a question here or there during oral argument that sounds reasonable or moderate, but she still almost always votes with the extreme right wing majority. She is not an impartial jurist, she’s a hateful Christian extremist with a normal-sounding voice. Don’t fall for it.

This makes me sick. Or rather, them sick. Or, whatever, this was a totally fucked up and inexcusable thing to do.

Yeah I almost watched Baby Driver the other day, but then I saw him on the poster and got that revolting feeling in my stomach. Decided that if I have a choice, there’s just no reason to watch him. I like Ansel Elgort though, so I’ll just watch Tokyo Vice.

That’s super interesting, thanks for sharing your experience! The way you describe it, it actually makes a lot of sense that deference would be given to the defense side.

I’m so conflicted, because I tend to automatically sympathize with most defendants since the system is so often stacked against them. Trump has turned that upside down. Never thought I’d cheer for a prosecutor…

Yeah, I could see it as a conflict if she only appointed him after they started dating, but Willis testified vehemently that they only started their relationship after she appointed him. She said the witness who claimed otherwise was either lying or misremembering. I guess it comes down to who should be believed, and while I would never blindly believe any officer of the state, I think she has more credibility than Trump and his defense team.

This is one of those examples that we can all point to for why Trump’s behavior as a corrupt mob-style boss is not just bravado, and anyone who tells you it is is either ignorant or has an ulterior motive.

There is no conflict of interest here, and I also firmly believe there isn’t even an appearance of a conflict of interest. A Georgia lawyer can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there’s a specific statue that spells out that it is acceptable for a married couple to be on opposing sides of a trial. It was determined that’s entirely fine. So how could it be that two prosecutors, who happen to be fucking, while working on the same side of a trial have a conflict of interest? What, they know how each other look naked, so that gives them some legal advantage over their platonic opposition? It just doesn’t track.

I completely agree. It’s why I’ve never been on the apps, how could I possibly trust them when they clearly don’t want to succeed at their function? It’s also probably why I’ve been single for years…

A fully non-profit transparently administered dating app is a great idea, and I would sign up immediately.

You’re totally right about the SEO industry. My comment wasn’t meant as an endorsement of SEO, I agree it’s one of the internet’s most fundamental problems. I’m just so frustrated by how consistently google lies about these things. Their first impulse, in so many different situations, is to immediately tell a bald-faced lie, then double down on the lie, and then when the truth comes out, they somehow always seem to get a pass. That’s what’s despicable to me.

But it did expose all the lies google has been telling about SEO and how it works with their algorithm. Basically all the times google was asked “so are you sure you don’t do x, y, or z to prioritize certain sites?” They said no, emphatically, despite some very clever folks who had a pretty good idea of how things were working based on independent tests and experiments on SEO. So google was lying all along, while trying to convince the experts that what they were seeing wasn’t real. Pretty despicable if you ask me.