"Not only has an ex-DOGE bro been accused of running around with the Social Security information of every American on a flash drive, he also may have the ability to edit and manipulate data at the Social Security Administration at will." newrepublic.com/post/207596/...
"It’s giving weak and desperate,” the Human Rights Campaign’s Laurell Powell said.
www.advocate.com/politics/nat...
More info on how they rigged the findings of their study on teens www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-nhs-en...
New horrors on the way for trans adults in the UK... (When they did a similar review for trans teens, they threw out 97% of all studies and then basically went "wow, there's not any research to demonstrate this if effective; guess we gotta ban it.") Now it looks like they're doing same for adults.
If you're still reading the NYT and expecting real journalism, that's a you problem.
Blocking out the user name so I don't put anyone on blast here, but I see these comments and I can't help but just think "You're really missing the point of my criticism of the paper."
It's not a "me" problem. It's an all of us problem, because the paper shapes how the public understands reality.
lol, holy crap bsky.app/profile/unti...
bsky.app/profile/park...
(You see this in stories about trans issues where they'll interview Brianna Wu, who is there to be a trans person willing to shit on other trans people. It makes biased reporters go, "See? I was fair! I included one!" when really they specifically sought out someone who repeats their own beliefs)
The reporter has a pretty clear bias against Muslims. She went out of her way to get a quote from a conservative Muslim who wished that Mamdani had gone on some rant about radical islamic extremism or something or other.
Like, this Mamdani piece. You read it, you read, "There were no short-form videos posted to social media about the attack in front of Gracie Mansion," and it becomes extremely obvious that the reporter is too biased to write the piece in an evenhanded way.
I see that a lot when it comes to NYT covering things like trans issues. It's not necessarily that anything is outright false (though, sometimes there is...). It's more about decisions about who gets interviewed for stories, whose stories get lifted up, how it gets framed, the language used, etc.
I think this story is a really good example for people to look at when it comes to understanding bias at NYT. It's not that the reporter, Dana Rubinstein, says anything outright false. But the framing, word choices, etc., add up to an unprofessional and biased account.
Merchant vessel Seaway Hawk transporting decommissioned U.S. Navy Avenger-class Mine Countermeasures Ships USS Devastator, USS Dextrous, USS Gladiator and USS Sentry in the Delaware Bay to unload in Philadelphia tomorrow - March 9, 2026 SRC: FB- Delaware River Shipping / Andy Wyrick 📷
We live in a world beyond parody. The United States has had four minesweeper vessels in the Persian Gulf for 35 years. Just yesterday these ships arrived in Philadelphia to be decommissioned, a day before Iran announces that they are mining the Strait of Hormuz.
If I were this much of a fuckup I would simply not start wars with countries that were minding their own damn business, and launch myself into the sun instead
Anyway I love that they're acting like how Iran is holding the Strait out of the 500 cheap, obvious, and super simple methods to do it is a big secret, all because none of them can identify a chokepoint on a map.
"how many carrier battle groups are you moving into position first to defend the Strait of Hormuz? Is the answer 'all of them' because if it's not you need a new plan"
Also if you had said "hey we're gonna bomb Iran" to any of the thousands of former or current sailors who have transited the Strait, down to a damn Boatswain's Mate we all would have said "what's the plan for the Strait of Hormuz?"
Also the first decent sized ship sunk in the Strait is going to be a giant hazard to navigation. Like if I were Iran and in full on "fuck the global economy" mode I'd tow a derelict out there and blow a hole in it and walk away.
I cannot stress enough how narrow the channel is in the Strait and the fact that like. Two guys with a bass boat, a shoulder mounted rocket launcher, and a decent sense of determination could hold the thing for long enough for 6 more bass boats with 12 more guys to show up and fuck up your day.
...any of the thousands of US Navy members current and former who have transited the Strait of Hormuz while Iran trolled the ship for shits and giggles can describe for you at least 3 ways they can close the Strait without attending any briefing.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower
I spent 45 minutes trying and failing to convince a full bird Colonel with multiple Afghanistan and Iraq deployments that Afghanistan is not an Arabic speaking country. I was helped in this discussion (to no avail) by two Afghan interpreters who were more polite than I was.
i am being absolutely serious here: CENTCOM had one job and it was literally to prepare for an Iran contingency
Its one thing to know the abyss is real, its another to stare into it. You know?
More than a few folks (rightfully) pointing out that this is down to everyone in the room now being incredibly stupid, but folks... I just don't understand how so many people could be so fucking stupid, at the same time, about this very specific thing.
I really just do not understand how this could be possible
5/ And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN. I can't go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it say, right now, they don't know how to get it safely back open.
Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.
4/ Ok, so what ARE the goals? It seems, primarily, destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories.
But the question that stumped them: what happens when you stop bombing and they restart production?
They hinted at more bombing. Which is, of course, endless war.
3/ Second, they confirmed "regime change" is also NOT on the list. So, they are going to spend hundreds of billions of your taxpayer dollars, get a whole bunch of Americans killed, and a hardline regime - probably a MORE anti-American hardline regime - will still be in charge.
2/ Maybe the lead is that the war goals DO NOT involve destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is, uh...surprising...since Trump says over and over this is a key goal.
But then of course we already know air strikes can't wipe out their nuclear material.
