 | openai has allowed its stunning chatgpt ai to reach out into the world with staggering new powers. It can now access the internet, run its own code to solve problems, accept and work on uploaded files, and write its own interfaces to third-party apps. newatlas.com |
| | What's happening in this movie clip? Chucky (Brad Dourif) kills his wife, Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly), in front of their child. Rent or buy Seed of Chucky here: https://amzn.to/324nBXZ What's the movie about? Chucky (Brad Dourif) and Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) are resurrected by their innocent child. The three of them travel to Hollywood where ... www.youtube.com |
 | the train was traveling eastbound from eagle pass to San Antonio, according to a statement from union pacific. www.kvue.com |
Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons….
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
["The Years of Shame," by Paul Krugman, New York Times, September 11, 2011.]
Weighing in at 181 words, this is the most succinct and eloquent column I’ve ever seen from Krugman. Granted, I happily go years at a time without reading the man. My criterion for judging one of his propagandistic productions is this: How much of my time has it wasted? He could easily make all of his columns this brief, but his communist publisher, "Pinch" Sulzberger, demands more wordage to fill the space between ads. And truth be told, leftists can’t get enough of this stuff, and wonder that anyone can dare to question this Nobel Laureate.
Conversely, neo-conservatives have expressed outrage over this column. Donald Rumsfeld reportedly said he cancelled his subscription to the Times. And at the Washington Post, blogger Jennifer Rubin is up in arms.
Lefty WP blogger Erik Wemple responded by mocking Rumsfeld not once, but on consecutive days.
In “Rumsfeld cancels New York Times subscription: Who cares?,” Wemple insists,
The Krugman stuff, after all, was neither over-the-top nor surprising nor unsubstantiated.
This is the mentality of the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” and his supporters.
Mixing her metaphors, Jennifer Rubin responded to Krugman,
One cannot begin to imagine what motivates such hatred and contempt for his countrymen, especially on a day when the overriding theme was unity….One thing you can say for Krugman: The jewel of the liberal media is revealed to be an intellectual black hole and a spiritual wasteland. No wonder it is a dying enterprise. Its countrymen have better things to do than be insulted by the likes of Krugman.
I wouldn’t overstate the case for unity. If the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” avoided swinging rhetorical brickbats that day, it wasn’t out of a sense of national unity or decency, but out of cold political calculations. Krugman was simply saying what “Obama” wanted to say that day, but couldn’t, and so the latter likely farmed the job out to the former. “Obama” and his handlers have been doing this sort of thing since at least spring 2004, when supporters such as then-New York Times columnist Bob Herbert and the editors at the UK-based Economist magazine began sending out trial balloons for his presidential campaign. (Officially, “Obama” was running for the U.S. Senate for the first time but, unbeknownst to the public, his presidential campaign was already underway, under the direction of Svengali David Axelrod.)
I found Rubin’s sanctimony less impressive—especially her comparing Krugman to Joseph McCarthy, replete with the famous money shot from Judge Joseph Welch—than her recalling of an earlier outrage from Krugman when, following the Tucson Massacre, he “accus[ed] the Republicans of sparking mass murder.” The most important line in Krugman’s screed was the last:
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
While publishing viciously dishonest letters from readers attacking its house “conservatives” (the late William Safire, David Brooks), the New York Times has protected its leftwing writers from criticism for at least 20 years through especially heavy-handed censorship on its letters page. Its editors even censor online comments, so that it will seem as if only a tiny minority of troglodytes disagreed with its leftist writers. (During the 1990s, the newspaper prominently placed several of my letters to the editor in the Sunday magazine and Week in Review sections, but whitelisted me sometime during or after 1997, and has more recently put me on its block list for online comments, as well. Thus, if I want to get a letter or comment published, I have to use an alias, via a different computer. One can only imagine how long the Times’ whitelist must be.)
But not even the virtual equivalent of a limousine armored and bullet-proofed against critics is safe enough for Krugman.
Then again, should anyone be surprised by this? I don’t mean “surprised” in the sense of an Erik Wemple. Krugman is both a tenured professor of economics at Princeton, and a “tenured” NYT columnist. He is ensconced in two professional worlds, each of which is dominated by people like himself, who believe that dissenters, no matter how well the latter can defend their positions with facts, logic, and principles, must be silenced, whether by censorship, whitelisting, imprisonment or execution.
Lies are every bit as important to the Left’s power as the above-cited forms of oppression. After all, do leftists not always remind us that they are the soul of tolerance, equality, non-discrimination, truth, justice, blah, blah, blah? And so, a commenter at Jennifer Rubin’s blog asserted, against a commenter who had noted that Rubin permitted comments, while Krugman did not,
KurtOvermeyer
TheGJ - you expletive deleted liar. Go straight to where you belong - under a rock. The comments were on for 2 days until creepy jerks like you started with the death threats. You folks are NOT Americans. 9/12/2011 8:44:29 PM EDT
A two-fer, at that: Overmeyer lied both about Krugman permitting comments, and in manufacturing right-wing death threats. In leftwing fantasyland, the threats and murders always come from the Right, but in the real world, they are overwhelmingly the work of Democrats.
But it gets better. Apparently, there is a good chance that Krugman didn’t even write the 9/11 screed that appeared under his name.
Alexis Zarkov, a reader at Larry Auster’s blog writes,
I was long puzzled my [sic] Paul Krugman. Sometimes he would come across in his columns, articles, and books as a rational, intelligent and sensible person. At other times, he comes across as petulant, immature, bilious, and irrational. He contradicts himself…. Who is the real Krugman? What accounts for this Jekyll-Hyde behavior? After reading a New Yorker article about Krugman, I think Mr. Hyde is actually Mrs. Krugman--an angry black woman, Robin Wells. According to the New Yorker, Paul has Robin edit his copy.
When he has a draft, he gives it to Wells to edit. Early on, she edited a lot--she had, they felt, a better sense than he did of how to communicate economics to the layperson. (She is also an economist--they met when she was a postdoc at M.I.T. and he was teaching there.) But he's much better at that now, and these days she focusses on making him less dry, less abstract, angrier. Recently, he gave her a draft of an article he'd done for Rolling Stone. He had written, "As Obama tries to deal with the crisis, he will get no help from Republican leaders," and after this she inserted the sentence "Worse yet, he'll get obstruction and lies."
Zarkov:
If this article is accurate, then Wells could be the source of the extreme partisanship and anger we find in many of Krugman's publications. I know the angry-black-woman personality type. While intelligent and academically successful (often through affirmative action), she has a chip on her shoulder, and thinks of Republicans and conservatives as racist. In my opinion, Robin is hurting Paul's reputation. If she's behind the 9/11 blog, then this time she's gone too far. I also suspect that Paul can't say no because like many Jewish men, Paul is henpecked. Too bad because I think he's [sic] is basically a sane and intelligent man.
Larry Auster:
This is funny. On a day on which I had posted items about two angry and anti-socially self-assertive black women, Michelle Obama and Serena Williams, who were in the news, a third item I posted, about the insanely angry and hate-filled New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, turns out to be in reality about an insanely angry and hate-filled black woman.But if this is true, if he has turned over the key writing of his NYT op-eds to another person, isn't that a serious scandal? It would, however, help explain how he writes so many op-eds. It seems to me that almost every time I pick up a Times, there is a Krugman op-ed in it, all of them over-the-top angry in the same Krugman way, which now turns out not to be the Krugman way, if this revelation is correct.
Given that whites turned out to have ghostwritten the pearls of wisdom of black Nobel Prize winners Martin Luther King and Barack Obama, there would be no lack of irony, if it turned out that the work of a white Nobel Prize-winner had secretly been ghosted by a black woman. And to those leftists who insist that Krugman got his Nobel for his contributions to economics, as opposed to his shrill shilling for the left wing of the Democratic Party, I say, I’ve got a great deal for you on a slightly used bridge.
I have a question for my liar, er, lawyer-readers: If the Krugmans ever have a falling out, would Mrs. Krugman have a legal claim to the family Nobel?
If we were talking about a legitimate newspaper—humor me, here—with any sense of journalistic integrity, there would be an investigation, and should the worst prove true, Krugman would be fired in disgrace, and be finished as a columnist. Granted, the scandal might well furnish his wife with a well-paid, new, second career. But this is the New York Times we’re talking about, a leftwing rag that serves as a punchline, and as the inspiration for journalistic booby prizes. This is the same newspaper whose publisher, after determining that there could be no doubt that it had won a Pulitzer Prize for fraudulent dispatches by reporter Walter Duranty, refused to return the award.
Come to think of it, the best outcome for lovers of real newspapers would be if Krugman is exposed as a fraud, but Sulzberger refuses to fire him. Then we can say, “The New York Times? You mean the Walter Duranty-Jayson Blair-Paul Krugman Times?
If the IQs of self-identifying African-Americans don’t vary by fraction of white admixture in their DNA, then that would suggest that it isn’t genetics that is responsible for the IQ gap but instead social constructionism: the act of ascribing African-American identity to them.
Not surprisingly, scientists have tried to carry out this key test quite a few times going back to 1934. For example, writing in The New York Times in 2009, Jim Holt confidently asserted in a review of U. of Michigan psychologist Richard E. Nisbett’s book Intelligence and How to Get It, which attempts to debunk The Bell Curve:
“Among his more direct evidence, Nisbett cites impressive studies in population genetics. African-Americans have on average about 20 percent European genes, largely as a legacy of slavery.”The second clause of the last sentence is false. It should read ‘largely as a legacy of emancipation.’
Safe Now: “Critics, Ted Kennedy for example, would repeatedly argue that the reforms are finally in place but the funding was never delivered by Congress. It’s too bad that there was a funding cheapness, because this gave critics something to point to as an excuse for the failure to close the gap.”
N.S.: You’re fantasizing. Education budgets weren’t underfunded, they were overfunded. Already during the pre-Brown early 1950s, segregated, black Southern public schools were getting as much or more than White schools (the late, great Raymond Wolters).
By the 1970s, education spending needed to be cut at every level, from pre-K to the antiversity. Instead, congress stuck its hand ever deeper into White taxpayers’ pocket, in order to pauperize them, and enrich black and hispanic grifters and their White “allies.”
Years ago, first Pat Buchanan, and then Jason Richwine showed that black-dominated schools were drowning in cash, with spending typically twice as much per student as in those still dominated by White students. And many public schools in well-to-do, White districts were black-dominated a generation or more ago, as racist, black thugs (whose parents did not pay for their kids) ran out all of the White kids.
Meanwhile, the White kids’ parents, like millions of other White parents, had to pay twice for education: Once for their own kids’ private schools, and once for the racist, black thugs who had taken over the public schools.
URGENT: The newest effort to claim Sars-Cov-2 has natural origins is even more cynical than it first seemsAnd the scientists involved with this charade must know the truth, because they know raccoon dogs are a near-impossible animal host - and what real evidence of a natural virus would look like.
(NOTE TO READERS: THIS PIECE TURNED OUT LONG. I TRY TO WRITE SHORT, BUT I WANTED TO TAKE THE TIME TO LAY OUT THE TIMELINE AND FACTS CONCLUSIVELY. I HOPE YOU THINK THEY ARE AS COMPELLING AS I DO…) — I am not making this up. Last week, The Atlantic hyped a new research preprint as the "Strongest Evidence Yet That an Animal Started the Pandemic." That in late 2019 raccoon dogs shit (or bled, or maybe sneezed) at the market in Wuhan where they were sold for slaughter. And that human beings were infected with Sars-Cov-2 at the same market. That's it. By the way, these raccoon dogs that the paper's authors want to blame for the epidemic? They have never - as in, not once - been found to be infected with Sars-Cov-2 in the real world. Not making that part up either. This new preprint is the scientific equivalent of Alex Murdaugh's decision to take the stand at his double-murder trial last month. Murdaugh was arrogant enough to believe he could outsmart the jury, but as soon as he started dry-crying about "Pawpaw," he might as well have put the cuffs on himself. He should just have kept his mouth shut. (A raccoon dog. Not a raccoon. Not quite a dog. Also probably not the source of Sars-Cov-2.)
Worst of all, the people who ginned up this nonsense know exactly what they're doing. They know what strong evidence of animal origins of Sars-Cov-2 would look like. How can I be so sure? Because we have been through this drill before, with the original SARS. So what would strong evidence of animal origins be? What are we getting instead? And how did we get here? (ANSWERS BELOW, PAYWALLED FOR 72 HOURS - OR SIGN UP FOR A TRIAL AND READ THEM NOW.)... |
 | |
|
