deleted by creator

A great deal of this has to do with mainstream, established media. There is still a strong unspoken assumption that mainstream media speaks for all of us. This is how we can all be pissed off about a specific thing and yet honestly think nobody cares, just because mainstream media doesn’t report it as a problem.

When the media reports something across the board as a problem and continues to do so without letting up, change is quick to follow.

But when it reports something as not a problem, or fails to report it much at all, that seems to be a cue that no correction is necessary.

For example, compare and contrast reporting on presidential mental acuity during the Biden administration vs Trump’s administration: this is a perfect example of how the media treats the same problem very differently depending on who’s got the problem, even when the problem itself is magnitudes more obvious, serious, and damaging in one case than in the other.

This media selectivity has always been there to some extent, but this weird media equivocation toward Republican misbehavior really seemed to go off the deep end in the summer of 2015; I remember hearing some Republican who got caught doing something and expecting the same old tired apology, but instead he said the equivalent of, “Deal with it, I don’t care.” And it’s been that way ever since, as though they all got the memo that the fix was in.

Even now, no one I know personally has stopped talking about the Epstein files or caring about them, except the media. Same thing.

Feel free to disagree, but I don’t even have to guess that if Zohran Mamdani, as a very hypothetical example, said religious freedom only belongs to Muslims, white billionaire heads would explode and no mainstream news outlet would let go of it until the end of days. But this well-connected right-wing white pseudo-christian woman can drop that load on live tv and mainstream media doesn’t even blink.

It very much is against the law. Read to the end. Here’s the last paragraph of the article:

According to the law offices of Ned Barnett, Texas law prevents registered sex offenders from working in places frequented by children, including schools, daycare centers and playgrounds or attending school events like sports games. Some can interact with children at family gatherings or public events, supervised when interacting with children according to court orders and the nature of the offense.

This isn’t a problem with the law as much as it is a specific group of people trying to wallpaper a sort of compliance with the law while ignoring the substance of it altogether. First paragraph of the article, emphasis mine:

The Texas Home Educators Sports Association (THESA) thought it could get away with allowing a registered sex offender to coach minors by sending parents a waiver to sign, with the coach’s testimony attached, according to Amy Smith at watchkeep.org.

Note also from somewhere in the middle of the article:

The waiver mentioned nothing about his offender status.

And if you’re wondering wtf, you’re not wrong: all this careful arrangement of fact seems like a very creative effort on the part of the author and editor to actively distance point A from point B. It’s possible they’re just trying very hard not to piss anyone off in what is already a lost cause.

Or to put it another way, in a state with a very high year-round accumulation of snowflakes, this article involves three very special groups of special snowflakes all at once: a sex offender and his personal fans, the homeschoolers, and the evangelical Christians, and how they are faking compliance with state law by making sure the parents sign a waiver – one that hides the relevant information about a sex offender with a history of minors – before giving him free access to their children in direct contradiction to the law, a law they knew enough about to deliberately circumvent.

Yep, sure did. You got me, lol.

Lol, okay. Imagine my dismay and be happy. 👍

Entire quote in context, which held nuance you are clearly choking on:

While I’m personally in doubt the administration tells Goebbels Barbie anything of substance, there is also a non-zero possibility, however scant, this shooter event was staged for some other batshit insane reason the sane among us could not possibly begin to guess.

I mean, at this point can you prove it wasn’t staged?

So . . . where are those high IQ advanced thinking skills you’re sure you have? Because they’re not operative now.

“If you can’t disprove it then it happened”. That’s where your bar is.

That’s not even remotely what I said, lol. What I said had far more nuance, and referenced holding mental space for the unknown in the presence of fear.

By contrast, you seem to be holding onto tropes as self-referential proofs: your constant othering of those deemed intellectually lesser; your evidence-free “something dumb and pointless that would never happen,” argument, even as you plainly ignore the guts of what I said.

You needed strawmen, and you built a few out of nothing but your own imagination. Why?

And there it is, even if you can’t see it yourself.

Frankly, you’ve made my point better than I ever could have: emotional tolerances, and emotional states, have far more to do with belief in questionable evidence-light conclusions than any IQ point ever could. You even flash yours at the end:

Just another nail in humanity’s coffin and another reason to think we are doomed. The concept of evidence is apparently beyond our species now.

From where I sit, it seems possible that part of your overwhelming scorn for the “low intelligence individuals” with “flawed thinking” your pointedly label is born of the fact that your own emotional needs require you to hold onto a different bit of propaganda – “we’re all DOOMED!” – than theirs do.

I say this only because your mental mechanics of holding onto what you need to believe to assuage your own fears seem to be exactly the same as those you scorn: deny, discard key portions, reshape, lather in pejoratives, and regurge.

But people who can understand their own fear and sit with it have no need to prove or disprove anything at all, much less have any desire to do so outside conclusive evidence one way or another. Maybe give that a shot (no pun intended) before calling other people idiots for doing exactly the same mental gymnastics that you do.

If you believe this is not a coincidence and that she’s really referring to the gunman, you are exactly as gullible as an info warrior and you should do some soul searching.

Huh, that’s some strong language for something still unproven. While I’m personally in doubt the administration tells Goebbels Barbie anything of substance, there is also a non-zero possibility, however scant, this shooter event was staged for some other batshit insane reason the sane among us could not possibly begin to guess.

I mean, at this point can you prove it wasn’t staged?

In the absence of evidence, one has to ask if it is even possible to definitively prove anything that happens with this administration: what used to be basic assumption and the understanding of norms, what you seem to be relying upon to call others idiots, has all been destroyed for many of us via the deluge of Trump’s excesses and extremes of behavior.

So while I understand your scorn and frustration, I can’t say I share it to the same extent, if only because there is a world of difference between fear and idiocy, and everyone’s tolerance for fear and in what measure is different. “Gullible info warriors” are made out of people desperate for something that makes sense in times of dread, and none of us here are any different except to the degree that we are not consuming the propaganda and we mentally hold space for the unknown in the presence of fear.

As an ex-Christian still vaguely acquainted with eschatology, seeing him choose that passage about the dedication of the temple put me directly in mind of this:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A15-16&version=NASB

And specifically baked separation of church and state into the Constitution because they didn’t want that never-ending European War Between the Christians to ruin the new place too, itself written in large part by a guy who was more spiritual than religious and who had zero patience for churches in national government?

We have a perfectly good Constitution, be nice if it wasn’t being shat on by a discount Burger King.

Yeah, unfortunately I’m one of those who understand. We’re not yet at a place where you can be proven right, but that said, you may not be wrong.

There is a whole world of inexplicable “coincidences” and patterns that happen around these people. I’m not saying RFK Jr “has a demon” – and how the hell would I know anyway? – but I am absolutely certain that he IS a personal “Shit Happens” event walking around on two legs, and sometimes that language/cognitive construct is all someone has to try to explain what is otherwise inexplicable. And all that surrounds RFK Jr is most certainly inexplicable.

To explain to those who do not understand, the book People of the Lie, simply put, is a book written by a psychiatrist about his observations of those without conscience among us, and the draining-to-overwhelmingly-destructive effect they have on the people forced to remain in their personal orbit, like children or dependent spouses.

Long before the explosion of works in the 90s and later written for laymen in regard to psychopathy and narcissism, there was People of the Lie, and that’s ALL there was at the time except for works by and for clinicians, like Cleckley’s Mask of Sanity which you couldn’t just check out from the local library, and that’s if you even knew about it. People of the Lie is all about the line – and if there even is a line – between this kind of aberrant, conscienceless behavior and what the religious know of as evil. That book was there when I needed it, and I’m not ashamed to say it changed the course of my life for the better, profoundly so. I suspect I am not the only one.

So all that said, I am a diehard atheist, yet I have personally seen wayyyyyy too much strange and inexplicable shit surrounding the conscienceless among us to tell anyone else they’re wrong. Especially when the kind of folks Dr. Peck was talking about are involved.

I’m jealous of the people that can just write what you said off as foolishness, because once you know, you know.

It has been said that in times of trouble, the arts flourish. I don’t know how true that is, but of all the tributes I’ve seen to the batshit crazy that is RFK Jr, I think our own @Formfiller@lemmy.world has captured RFK Jr’s true self best in the most fitting artistic memorialization I’ve seen yet:

Source

No tinfoil needed, because what we put out into the world in terms of behavior and choices and the way we interact with others comes back to us, and everything you said simply matches what they regularly put out. They both thrive on chaos, and he especially goes out of his way to blow up whatever just quietly works, using kindness and the goodwill of others as an opening through which to exploit and destroy, so whatever comes back to them both – especially in terms of their ongoing antisocial and criminal behaviors and associations – is not going to be sane, stable, or predictable. What you wrote is prescient, not crazy.

are both acting like they are being actively blackmailed.

Yes, and imagine how much, and by how many. Think about all the parties they went to twenty-thirty years ago; all the illegal, immoral, and repugnant shit they did when none of it seemed to matter. Imagine them being quizzed by their attorneys, "Are you sure you’ve told me everything?" and having to say no because even if they do remember some of what they did, they did far too much over too long a period of time to remember any of the specifics now. Picture the moment they realize that Epstein’s penchant for having secret cameras everywhere (including tissue boxes, apparently) in addition to the cameras of paparazzi as well as the straight media means they literally have NO idea what old evils will surface next, or from where or when, or with what proof.

In that context, an individual blackmailer that comes forward with a specific demand is almost a mercy, lol.

I think you’re probably more right than you know when you surmise that their evil is coming back to them in ways and from directions they never imagined, and cannot now control. But it’s not like they are people that spared the children and family members of others, or value that kind of morality in the people they associate with, so they shouldn’t be too offended when that’s how their own actions return to them.

Yes! I saw that after I posted, it’s short and well worth the watch. I think he put his finger directly on it by dissecting the actual language of her statement: it is crafted to be specific to the elements of a successful defamation case. In other words, the way he sees it, it’s a very carefully worded warning to whoever is about to release some immensely damning story on her. Excellent recommendation.

For myself, what I noticed when Voidzilla dissected her speech was her repetitive mention of photos, pictures, images, meaning that if she’s trying to get ahead of something by shooting a “you know who you are” legal warning across the bow of someone about to publish, then whatever they have it’s pretty bad, and it includes photographic evidence, just going by the content and direction of her own statement.

But I saw something else as well that you might find interesting: a brief appearance by Rep. Ro Khanna on MS NOW where, after the host shows a bunch of happy group pictures of Melania not being friends with Epstein and Maxwell, he discusses one of the bizarre statements she made – “Epstein did not act alone,” which is in direct contradiction to the government line that it’s all a “hoax” and nothing to investigate – with Rep. Khanna.

Rep. Khanna’s position is simply that Melania could not have said that unless she has relevant information, and if she has relevant information, she should testify under oath before the committee. If the standard for appearance that was applied to Hillary Clinton – “I don’t know him” – is the bar for requiring someone to testify under oath in regard to their relationship with Epstein, then Melania by all means should also be among those who do. I agree.

I did not know this when I posted the above, but apparently the press conference itself was both unexpected and highly unusual, or as Heather Cox Richardson put it more than once this evening, “bizarre.”

Apparently Melania walked out of the White House, stood behind the presidential seal – in itself a huge breach of White House protocol and tradition, not that they care – and spoke for several minutes in the place of the president, who was possibly unaware that she was even doing this, and made her statement direct to camera before walking back in without another word to any of the reporters assembled for it.

Meanwhile, no one has any real idea why she did this, nor why today, nor what denying the mountains of proof of her interactions with both Epstein and Maxwell was meant to accomplish. From the NYT: (archive link)

In remarks that lasted just under six minutes, she said she wanted to clear “my good name.” She addressed rumors about the origin story of how she met her husband, the president of the United States. And she called on Congress to give a hearing to victims of Mr. Epstein’s crimes. “The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” Mrs. Trump said. She talked about “numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me” that “have been percolating on social media for years now.”

It was not clear why she chose to speak out now, or to what reports she was referring.

A spokesperson for Mrs. Trump said the president knew that the first lady planned to make a statement, but later said it was not clear if Mr. Trump was aware of the topic of her remarks. In a phone call with an MS Now reporter, Mr. Trump said he had no prior knowledge of what she had planned to say.

The White House did not respond to questions about what the president knew on the matter and when.

Another pundit, George Conway, believes it is possible that she did it because she knows something that is about to come out, but no one has any real idea. Even the NYT is flummoxed, ending their article with,

And then she turned on her stiletto heels and stalked out as the dazed reporters started shouting after her: “Why now!? Why now!?”

No one knows. So if anyone can bring a cloud of confusion to a duststorm of conflicting reports and call it a job done, that’s apparently what she has accomplished today.

Note: I am aware there are problems with archive.world, but it has the content. If you have a better alternative, feel free to post it.

Given that the survivors at every turn are asking for privacy, for protection, and that their own names be redacted from the process, this is, in my own opinion, nothing short of a brutally insane twisting of the judicial process to force the victims to carry the weight of it all.

Also, Mrs. Trump’s statement becomes even more farcical for anyone aware of the Congressional Record of which she speaks.

“Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the congressional record,” she said.

Yeah, no. As any historian will tell you, if you want truth, the Congressional Record is not the first place you go look for it. From Wikipedia,

By custom and the rules of each house, members also frequently “revise and extend” their remarks made on the floor before the debates are published in the Congressional Record.

What this means in practice is that there is a certain amount of time during which any member can edit and even remove whatever they want from the official record of what they said, among other allowed changes. Thus it is not nearly so much a record of what was actually said, as it is a record of what a member would have liked to say.

Add to this the fact that the other Epstein-related depositions have been conducted privately and under very different rules via subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee, and any survivor would be unwise, at best, to engage in any part of this charade: they would have no protection whatsoever not only from the public, but from the very members of the Committee they would be testifying in front of, or whatever body of Congress actually conducts this circus.

To put it bluntly, for every Ro Khanna or Thomas Massie who genuinely wants to see the truth come out, there are a hundred Gym Jordans and James Comers and Lindsey Grahams who desperately want the survivors to shut the fuck up, and will do whatever immoral, illegal act they have to do to make sure that happens.

If Melania Trump had set out to victimize the survivors further, she literally could not have done a better job than this.

I posted this in the other sub and forgot to do it here, my apologies. Anyway, the actual letter sent yesterday by Ro Khanna and Nancy Mace to Chairman Comer explains the actual legal position and precedent, and the DoJ refusal to have Bondi appear has no legal substance at all. It’s an easy read, so I included the text along with the source. See it for yourself.

Note especially the assertion made in paragraph 5, “As you know, Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties.”

Even a President and an ex-Secretary of State/Senator had to appear in response to the same kind of subpoena from the same committee: there is no legal room for Pam Bondi to refuse. Whether there is poitical will to hold her feet to the fire is another matter, and with Republicans crossing the aisle for this, there just might be. Time will tell.

Source

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515

April 7, 2026

The Honorable James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Comer,

We urge you to make clear former Attorney General Pam Bondi remains obligated to comply with the Oversight Committee’s subpoena and appear for her scheduled deposition on April 14, 2026.

We moved to subpoena Pam Bondi, and the Committee voted to approve this motion on a bipartisan basis, because the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) still has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law No: 119-38), and because serious questions remain regarding the DOJ’s non-compliance and their handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while she was Attorney General.

The removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General does not diminish the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests in seeking her sworn testimony or the need for accountability and information about files withheld from the public by the DOJ. On the contrary, it makes her sworn testimony even more important, especially with respect to actions she took as Attorney General, matters already under investigation, and decisions made under her leadership.

When Pam Bondi appeared last month for a briefing, you reiterated you would continue to pursue her sworn testimony and would discuss holding her in contempt of Congress if she failed to comply. She also stated that she would follow the law with respect to her subpoena, which clearly requires her to appear before the Oversight Committee.

As you know, Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties. The American people deserve answers about whether Congress was misled and whether information is being withheld by the DOJ.

We ask you to publicly reaffirm that Pam Bondi must appear on April 14 for a sworn deposition as ordered or face appropriate enforcement if she refuses to comply.

Sincerely,

Ro Khanna
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives

Nancy Mace
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives

It’s a baby shower. Wanda’s meatstorm already came.

Oh, yeah. Another one is Sad Eyes by Robert John, telling his his temp girl that his real girl is coming home today, she knew it was going to happen and he doesn’t want to see her cry. “I never used you,” lol.

There are quite a few of them. One that’s been in the news lately is Lola by The Kinks, which Moby called unenlightened and he’s right. One I always found creepy was Cat Stevens’ Wild World saying goodbye to his lady, because whatever he’s wishing her it’s not well. “I’ll always remember you like a child, girl.”

That’s not even starting with all the underage lyrics.

The 70s were amazing for music, but there sure are some clunkers in there.

It is a righteous text.

It’s hard to believe he’s been gone 35 years.