When time gets away from me, I take advantage of Substack's text-to-speech feature, which does an adequate job.
But when I gave up on making some and resigned to have this read to me, I was surprised to hear a British accent instead of the neutral tone general American accent I heard before.
Apparently, the artificial voice is the writer's choice, so I would like to know if it was accidentally or intentionally changed. Because I think the previous voice, which I assume was default, is better.
Thank you for your research and clarity on the legal claims and violations involved. Too often the media reports things as "likely unconstitutional/illegal" when Drumpf is firing people for no or false reasons, taking away funding approved by Congress, violating the separation of powers, and anyone with a basic understanding of legal principles can see that the law is being broken and it is simply unconstitutional/illegal. Period.
They use obfuscatory language such as (Guardian today) "increased fears - already high after Patel's confirmation as director - that the administration would try to use the agency to prosecute its political enemies."
Drumpf has been whining his way back into the White House for four years, crying wolf all the time that the legal system was being politicized against him. The "fake media" as he calls them - and I tend to agree with him - simply acted as a megaphone for him. All his lies, false claims, insults and provocations were simply reported. And while it’s obvious that Trump is politicizing all federal agencies against his opponents, none of the mainstream media outlets is telling it like it is. What’s stopping them? Are they afraid of the wrath of Mr. Bone Spurs? The wrath of MAGA? Are they afraid of libel suits claiming $10 billion and having to settle for $15 million, like ABC did?
Is there any single reliable source for objective reporting (beside you and HCR) at this point? I gave up on broadcast news and grimly open Ground News daily, but even aggregator sites are just the same clickbait/chickenshit/candyass headlines times 10. None US alternatives that you’d think would be more objective: BBC America? Nope. Al Jazeera? Nope. So frustrating.
It does depend on what you mean by 'objective'. Mr. Larsen isn't sterilizing his stories and that's a good thing!
Denise Conroy (Bridges to Burn) has some recommendations if you like the cut of her jib; I have to say she doesn't convince me that Matt Taibbi is 'independent' at this point...
Aaron Parnas seems to be doing a fairly good job on balance.
I haven't gone too deeply into Gabe Fleisher's work yet, but he can't exactly be accused of ignoring the sausage-making.
Jess Piper is unapologetically 'Blue' in a sea of 'Red' and I don't think I've seen her ever bend the truth for clicks or clout.
It doesn't matter. They're ignoring ALL laws and making up their own. They will not obey, nor pay one bit of attention to what they're being told. Now conservative judges can kick in and let that fucker go. ☹️🙄
…..it seems to be OK to not speak or report with specificity or expertise anymore… expertise has been devalued in the current MAGA culture… 🧐 can’t imagine why🤦♀️🙄
I hope that your sharing of this info helps prevent the head banging and high blood pressure that encountering such frustrating levels of idiocy, evil, and laziness would otherwise cause. Stay well, and thank you.
Since the Reagan Democrat establishment has fully taken the knee don't you think it's time that we discuss Obama and Biden not stopping billions in contracts from being given to Amazon and the penis rocket ship company AKA Bezos, and SpaceX AKA president Muskkkrats company? In order to get out of this mess if we can, we need to get rid of the complicit spineless appeasing Reagan Democrat leadership and then we can start working on the Reagan Democrat center of the Republican party, oops I mean the Democratic Party.
This is exactly the type of information I look to understand. First, it isn't complicated. Second, it speaks to how disingenuous he is wrt his politics.
This is the kind of coverage that used to appear in mainstream media. It's really not enough to write "DOJ says this/SpaceX says that" when the answer is in the statutes and in pretty plain language by legal standards.
Obama appointee (but not Obama supporter) Judge approved this switcheroo by Bondi on what grounds? Neither the facts nor the law changed…and as you so newsfuckingly explained, neither is in dispute. Because…corruption?
In fairness, when prosecutors decide to drop a case, it's a BIG deal for a judge to reject it. (See the Eric Adams situation in New York! And that only happened in the context of an explicit quid pro quo...)
In fairness, a Trump loyalist AG dropping a case against his co-President isn’t “explicit quid pro quo”, prime facie, and any other Latin phraseology you might prefer??? It sure ain’t Blind Justice”.
This is so complex. Kudos for explaining as well as you could, but my head still feels like exploding. A lot of it is the ping-ponging of cases these days between DoJ, judges, special prosecutors, the FBI (pre-Patel) and speculators (not you).
"Allegedly" has infested the discourse, too! It drives me mad when something that is patently obvious is described as "allegedly." This is FoL) (fear of lawsuit syndrome).
Yeah, when I go down a rabbit hole and rush to tell everyone what I found, it's not as concise and easy to follow as when I have some time to gain some distance from it myself before writing it. In this case, that could've meant someone else would beat me to the punch!
There are actual journalists out there, at the NYTimes, etc, even one or two at Fox News. But they have been compromised and shackled by the constant news cycle, attracting clicks, and capitalist greed.
Yeah, I've only ever regularly followed lefty and indie rags/shows/newsletters since *Manufacturing Consent* The Movie, but I do occasionally notice items that trickle through "legacy" cracks — of course they pay folks to pay attention, they just don't necessarily pay (or get 'paid') to evenly distribute their notes!
OMG I love TFN so much!
When time gets away from me, I take advantage of Substack's text-to-speech feature, which does an adequate job.
But when I gave up on making some and resigned to have this read to me, I was surprised to hear a British accent instead of the neutral tone general American accent I heard before.
Apparently, the artificial voice is the writer's choice, so I would like to know if it was accidentally or intentionally changed. Because I think the previous voice, which I assume was default, is better.
Thank you for your research and clarity on the legal claims and violations involved. Too often the media reports things as "likely unconstitutional/illegal" when Drumpf is firing people for no or false reasons, taking away funding approved by Congress, violating the separation of powers, and anyone with a basic understanding of legal principles can see that the law is being broken and it is simply unconstitutional/illegal. Period.
They use obfuscatory language such as (Guardian today) "increased fears - already high after Patel's confirmation as director - that the administration would try to use the agency to prosecute its political enemies."
Drumpf has been whining his way back into the White House for four years, crying wolf all the time that the legal system was being politicized against him. The "fake media" as he calls them - and I tend to agree with him - simply acted as a megaphone for him. All his lies, false claims, insults and provocations were simply reported. And while it’s obvious that Trump is politicizing all federal agencies against his opponents, none of the mainstream media outlets is telling it like it is. What’s stopping them? Are they afraid of the wrath of Mr. Bone Spurs? The wrath of MAGA? Are they afraid of libel suits claiming $10 billion and having to settle for $15 million, like ABC did?
Is there any single reliable source for objective reporting (beside you and HCR) at this point? I gave up on broadcast news and grimly open Ground News daily, but even aggregator sites are just the same clickbait/chickenshit/candyass headlines times 10. None US alternatives that you’d think would be more objective: BBC America? Nope. Al Jazeera? Nope. So frustrating.
It does depend on what you mean by 'objective'. Mr. Larsen isn't sterilizing his stories and that's a good thing!
Denise Conroy (Bridges to Burn) has some recommendations if you like the cut of her jib; I have to say she doesn't convince me that Matt Taibbi is 'independent' at this point...
Aaron Parnas seems to be doing a fairly good job on balance.
I haven't gone too deeply into Gabe Fleisher's work yet, but he can't exactly be accused of ignoring the sausage-making.
Jess Piper is unapologetically 'Blue' in a sea of 'Red' and I don't think I've seen her ever bend the truth for clicks or clout.
Under Musk's logic, Musk can't work for SpaceX.
It doesn't matter. They're ignoring ALL laws and making up their own. They will not obey, nor pay one bit of attention to what they're being told. Now conservative judges can kick in and let that fucker go. ☹️🙄
…..it seems to be OK to not speak or report with specificity or expertise anymore… expertise has been devalued in the current MAGA culture… 🧐 can’t imagine why🤦♀️🙄
Search for Asimov quote about US anti-intellectualism. And SCOTUS reified that anti-intellectualism last year by trashing 'chevron deference'.
I hope that your sharing of this info helps prevent the head banging and high blood pressure that encountering such frustrating levels of idiocy, evil, and laziness would otherwise cause. Stay well, and thank you.
What a different story this is when you include all the facts and context. Excellent reporting!
Since the Reagan Democrat establishment has fully taken the knee don't you think it's time that we discuss Obama and Biden not stopping billions in contracts from being given to Amazon and the penis rocket ship company AKA Bezos, and SpaceX AKA president Muskkkrats company? In order to get out of this mess if we can, we need to get rid of the complicit spineless appeasing Reagan Democrat leadership and then we can start working on the Reagan Democrat center of the Republican party, oops I mean the Democratic Party.
This is exactly the type of information I look to understand. First, it isn't complicated. Second, it speaks to how disingenuous he is wrt his politics.
Thanks for turning over the stones for us. More Perfect Union did an excellent video on SpaceX in Texas. https://youtu.be/5cZEZoa8rW0?si=7RxZHLbzdqnddUVk
TFN is SO worth the monthly subscription! Thank you!
Thank YOU!!!
This is the kind of coverage that used to appear in mainstream media. It's really not enough to write "DOJ says this/SpaceX says that" when the answer is in the statutes and in pretty plain language by legal standards.
Obama appointee (but not Obama supporter) Judge approved this switcheroo by Bondi on what grounds? Neither the facts nor the law changed…and as you so newsfuckingly explained, neither is in dispute. Because…corruption?
In fairness, when prosecutors decide to drop a case, it's a BIG deal for a judge to reject it. (See the Eric Adams situation in New York! And that only happened in the context of an explicit quid pro quo...)
In fairness, a Trump loyalist AG dropping a case against his co-President isn’t “explicit quid pro quo”, prime facie, and any other Latin phraseology you might prefer??? It sure ain’t Blind Justice”.
Right, but the issue was the judge.
This is so complex. Kudos for explaining as well as you could, but my head still feels like exploding. A lot of it is the ping-ponging of cases these days between DoJ, judges, special prosecutors, the FBI (pre-Patel) and speculators (not you).
"Allegedly" has infested the discourse, too! It drives me mad when something that is patently obvious is described as "allegedly." This is FoL) (fear of lawsuit syndrome).
Bullshit is what it is
Yeah, when I go down a rabbit hole and rush to tell everyone what I found, it's not as concise and easy to follow as when I have some time to gain some distance from it myself before writing it. In this case, that could've meant someone else would beat me to the punch!
Now that I've pretty much given up on most MSM I won't mind reading "scoops" in two or more publications like yours. There aren't that many of them.
Wait, there are still actual journalists out there to compete with? What year is it again?
There are actual journalists out there, at the NYTimes, etc, even one or two at Fox News. But they have been compromised and shackled by the constant news cycle, attracting clicks, and capitalist greed.
Yeah, I've only ever regularly followed lefty and indie rags/shows/newsletters since *Manufacturing Consent* The Movie, but I do occasionally notice items that trickle through "legacy" cracks — of course they pay folks to pay attention, they just don't necessarily pay (or get 'paid') to evenly distribute their notes!