I’D LIKE TO MEET THIS MAN. HE FIGHTS

I’D LIKE TO MEET THIS MAN. HE FIGHTS: Can Monica Nieporte and William (Bill) Lawhorn’s Careers and Reputations Survive Jason Sanford?

In my last article I exposed amateur journalist and z-list science fiction author Jason Sanford’s misleading recent article about Baen Publishing’s webforum, “Baen’s Bar”.  In this second (of at least three) articles, I deal with the aftermath. A third article will deal with some of Sanford’s writing that is, in my opinion, sexually problematic, racially insensitive and offensive to people with some disabilities. There may be a fourth article but I am still investigating. Anyone who has felt that Jason Sanford has dealt with them inappropriately in any way (but especially at conventions), is invited to get in touch in confidence via the email on the, ‘About’ page.

Since Jason Sanford’s article misinformed but zealous readers of his have inundated the organisers of WorldCon 2021, a science fiction convention, with complaints to the extent that Baen Publisher Toni Weisskopf has been uninvited from being a guest of honour. The problem is that the allegations are, largely, just not true. At the same time, darker and darker information is emerging about Sanford. I have received a statement from lawyers for Sanford’s employers, the Ohio News Media Association (ONMA) trying to distance themselves from the scandal. However, given they are a media organisation, given Sanford uses his employment with them to advertise himself and given his followers standard of tenuous-guilt-by-association, that position seems untenable. These events can only reflect badly on ONMA, Sanford’s boss Monica Nieporte (ONMA President) and Discon III Chair Bill Lawhorn.

….

So, to analyse ONMA’s claims. Was Sanford’s article written as part of his paid employment for them? No. Are they legally responsible? No. Does it raise questions about their reputation and integrity? Yes.

Jason Sanford is a self-defined journalist. He works for a media organisation in a creative role. So, the conduct in which he has behaved unjustly is directly related to his work and his suitability for same. Furthermore, Jason’s online profiles such as his LinkedIn profile (currently down) advertise his personal brand with his work for ONMA in tandem with his science fiction work. Finally, Jason himself and his friends take the view that associating in any way with someone who has behaved (in their view) unethically is complicity. So, WorldCon 2021 had to be inundated with complaints until Toni Weisskopf was removed. Now, Monica Nieporte finds herself in a symmetric position.

By Jason Sanford’s dystopian ideology, Monica Nieporte is morally responsible for all of his acts and omissions that are thought to be unethical until she fires him. Her difficulty is that now I am looking deeply into Sanford. There are other problems. The details of his problematic writing are something that I will include in my third article. I will need to put the allegations to Interzone, the magazine that has (up until now) been enabling him.

Source: Matthew Hopkins News

Hat tip: I’D LIKE TO MEET THIS MAN. HE FIGHTS: Can Monica Nieporte and William (Bill) Lawhorn’s Careers a…

SNOWFALLS ARE NOW JUST A THING OF THE PAST: John Kerry says Earth has 9 years to avert the worst c…

SNOWFALLS ARE NOW JUST A THING OF THE PAST: John Kerry says Earth has 9 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crisis: “There’s no faking it on this one.” Flashbacks: John Kerry: False Prophet of the Climate Apocalypse .

Source: SNOWFALLS ARE NOW JUST A THING OF THE PAST: John Kerry says Earth has 9 years to avert the worst c…

I think Edgar Cayce was notorious for predicting the rise of Atlantis from the depths, in several different years depending on which edition of his book you read.

What was behind all the Limbaugh hatred

 Jeff Charles:

Well, you already saw how the left was jumping for joy when the news of conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh passed away, right? So-called progressives on social media took the opportunity to lambast him for hurting their feelings for nearly 50 years, and their reaction demonstrated just how effective the conservative icon was. (See: Left-Wingers Turn in a Disgusting Performance Following Rush Limbaugh’s Death)

But what exactly motivated this outpouring of vile vitriol from high-profile leftists? Well, many indicated that their over-the-top hateful response was inspired by – you guessed it – Limbaugh’s supposed racism. I bet you didn’t see that coming, did you?

As with any other prominent individual who spent most of his time in front of a microphone, Limbaugh has made racially insensitive remarks, some of which he has apologized for. But let’s cut the crap, shall we?

Many in his position have made comments they have had to walk back or apologize for. But the reality is that the majority of the people grave dancing in response to Limbaugh’s death don’t care one iota about racism, and there is absolutely no reason to take them seriously on this.

Those who criticized Limbaugh for supposedly making racist remarks while remaining silent when the lily-white President of the United States intimated that minorities lack the intellectual capacity to use the internet are not serious people. To them, racism is not a societal ill to be fought, but an issue to be weaponized against their political opponents.

So, since we have established that Limbaugh’s supposed racism isn’t the real factor here, what is? The answer is rather simple: Limbaugh was the first person to figure out how to get the conservative message to the masses without having to deal with the leftist gatekeepers in the media.

Source: What was behind all the Limbaugh hatred

The Media Has Been Lying About the Capitol Protests

Look up any story about the storming of the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters, and you will find it described as a “deadly riot” that killed five people.

Worse still, one of the deaths was that a police officer who – the story goes – was killed by rioters after getting hit in the head by a fire extinguisher.

Then there is the story of the protestor who “carried Zip Ties into the Capitol,” which led to accusations that the protestors intended to take hostages.

There have also been endless media descriptions of the event as an “armed insurrection.”

And there were stories claiming that, as Reuters put it, “Capitol rioters meant to ‘capture and assassinate’ officials.”

What is common about all of these media-fed narratives?

Not one of them is true. Not. One.

Let’s take each claim in turn.

The “fact” that five people were killed is false. Only one person is known to have been killed inside the building. She was a protester who was shot at close range by a police officer. (Had she been a minority, there would have been riots in the streets over police brutality.)

….

But what about Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who was, we’ve been told repeatedly, killed by a protester who threw a fire extinguisher at him?

….

There’s other evidence to show that the media had it all wrong. ProPublica reports that Sicknick texted his family Wednesday night to say that “he had been pepper-sprayed” (he didn’t say by whom) and “was in good spirits.” CNN later admitted that investigators have been “vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death.” More tellingly, a Capitol Police statement said Sicknick returned to his office after the melee and only later went to the hospital. So what caused his death? Nobody knows, but it clearly wasn’t caused by a hell-bent Trump mob.

Why is this important? As Greenwald explains, “Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate violence by pro-Trump protesters.”

The press has recently tried to increase the death count by including suicides that occurred weeks later.

….

That guy who supposedly “carried Zip Ties into the Capitol” (suggesting he intended to take hostages)? Turns out he found them on a table inside the building and grabbed them to keep the police from using them on the protesters.

The “armed insurrection”? There’s been no evidence that anyone carried firearms into the Capitol, except the police.

The report that protesters planned to “capture and assassinate” officials? The Department of Justice says “there is no direct evidence at this point of kill-capture teams and assassinations.”

….

The only reason this story has and continues to be grossly exaggerated by the press and by Democrats (but we repeat ourselves) is to sow fear in the public, portray conservatives as violent extremists, and justify more ferocious attacks on anyone who isn’t a left-wing Democrat.

Which is why the media will never come clean about their role in misleading the public. And why Pelosi’s “truth” commission can be counted on not to tell the truth about any of it.

Source: The Media Has Been Lying About the Capitol Protests

Red States Trounce Blue States

One of the notable features of 21st century life is that America’s blue states are failing and losing population, while red states are thriving and growing. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who travels around the country, or to those who have seen half of their friends move to Nashville. But today Stephen Moore’s Committee to Unleash Prosperity sent an email that shows the trend graphically:

[I]f progressive tax, spend, borrow, and regulate economic policies are so superior then why are all the big blue states collapsing economically/financially? The chart below shows the highest and lowest unemployment rate states at the end of 2020.

Click to enlarge:

It takes a special kind of partisanship not to recognize that liberalism has demonstrably failed.

Source: Red States Trounce Blue States

AOC Blamed Trump for Assaults on Elderly Asians; The Attacker was Muslim

When a video of an assault on a 91-year-old Asian man went viral, the media and civil rights groups were quick to blame President Trump for using the term, “Chinese Virus”.

“We stand with our Asian American & Pacific Islander community against the rising tide of racism and hate crimes that have been stoked to a fever pitch, much of amplified by the actions of our last president,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted another false accusation.

But when the perpetrator was arrested, he turned out to be Muslim.

Yahya Muslim had allegedly attacked a 60-year-old man and a 55-year-old woman the same day. His arrest told a larger story about why Asian people are really being attacked in Oakland.

Source: AOC Blamed Trump for Assaults on Elderly Asians; The Attacker was Muslim

Who were the January 6th rioters?

This article purports to answer a question I’ve been wondering about since January 6: who were the rioters? But there are some curious gaps in the story.

Here’s the general description of the group charged with committing violations at the Capitol that day:

So far, only about 10% of those charged have been found to have ties to organised far right militias or other right-wing extremist groups.

“What we are dealing with here is not merely a mix of right-wing organisations, but a broader mass movement with violence at its core,” wrote Dr Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security & Threats.

Dr. Pape and the Project are affiliated with the University of Chicago, and I can’t find much about Pape’s politics. But I wondered two things: how he got access to the information on the arrested people, and what were they charged with?

….

I had previously read that there were thousands of people “storming” the Capitol, but this article says 800. That’s a group that could easily have been handled by a proper number of security people on duty, but we already know that despite warnings the security was very light that day.

Here’s how the subjects seem to have been chosen by Pape for study [emphasis mine]:

In recent weeks, our team of more than 20 researchers has been reviewing court documents and media coverage for information on the demographics, socioeconomic traits, and militant-group affiliations (if any) of everyone arrested by the FBI, Capitol Police, and Washington, D.C., police for offenses related to the January 6 insurrection. As of late last week, 235 people fell into that category, and the number is expected to grow.

Of these suspects, 193 have been charged with being inside the Capitol building or with breaking through barriers to enter the Capitol grounds. We focused our research on these 193.

I found the data here as well as here.

So the people in the study were arrested for trespassing and for getting through some type of barrier, although we don’t know how permeable the barriers were or what they did to pass through them (did only some break them, for example, and the rest just followed?). The research does not mention any of them being charged with violence against Capitol Police. Not even broken windows, as far as I can see. Not spraying pepper spray. Those things aren’t listed, although there must be some people at the Capitol that day who were arrested for that sort of thing. But it seems to me that those are the ones who should interest us.

Other all-important data I was looking for wasn’t there either. For example, how many were merely arrested for trespassing? How many for breaking through barricades? Why isn’t that data there? Surely the researchers ought to have discovered those figures.

It appears from the study and the articles that everyone in that building, even if only arrested for trespassing, is assumed to have been intent on violence and trying to overthrow the government. The entire set of conclusions – these insurrectionists were just regular Trump supporters, so be afraid, be very afraid – is based on that idea. But the study doesn’t demonstrate it. It doesn’t even deal with it; it merely assumes it.

Source: Who were the January 6th rioters?

GLENN GREENWALD: The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.

GLENN GREENWALD: The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot .

One of the most significant of these falsehoods was the tale — endorsed over and over without any caveats by the media for more than a month — that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by the pro-Trump mob when they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. That claim was first published by The New York Times on January 8 in an article headlined “Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” It cited “two [anonymous] law enforcement officials” to claim that Sicknick died “with the mob rampaging through the halls of Congress” and after he “was struck with a fire extinguisher.”

….

After publication of these two articles, this horrifying story about a pro-Trump mob beating a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher was repeated over and over, by multiple journalists on television, in print, and on social media. It became arguably the single most-emphasized and known story of this event, and understandably so — it was a savage and barbaric act that resulted in the harrowing killing by a pro-Trump mob of a young Capitol police officer.

It took on such importance for a clear reason: Sicknick’s death was the only example the media had of the pro-Trump mob deliberately killing anyone. In a January 11 article detailing the five people who died on the day of the Capitol protest, the New York Times again told the Sicknick story: “Law enforcement officials said he had been ‘physically engaging with protesters’ and was struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

But none of the other four deaths were at the hands of the protesters: the only other person killed with deliberate violence was a pro-Trump protester, Ashli Babbitt, unarmed when shot in the neck by a police officer at close range.

….

The problem with this story is that it is false in all respects. From the start, there was almost no evidence to substantiate it. The only basis were the two original New York Times articles asserting that this happened based on the claim of anonymous law enforcement officials.

Despite this alleged brutal murder taking place in one of the most surveilled buildings on the planet, filled that day with hundreds of cellphones taping the events, nobody saw video of it. No photographs depicted it. To this day, no autopsy report has been released. No details from any official source have been provided.

Not only was there no reason to believe this happened from the start, the little that was known should have caused doubt. On the same day the Times published its two articles with the “fire extinguisher” story, ProPublica published one that should have raised serious doubts about it.

The outlet interviewed Sicknick’s brother, who said that “Sicknick had texted [the family] Wednesday night to say that while he had been pepper-sprayed, he was in good spirits.” That obviously conflicted with the Times’ story that the mob “overpowered Sicknick” and “struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher,” after which, “with a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.”

But no matter. The fire extinguisher story was now a matter of lore. Nobody could question it. And nobody did: until after a February 2 CNN article that asked why nobody has been arrested for what clearly was the most serious crime committed that day: the brutal murder of Officer Sicknick with a fire extinguisher. Though the headline gave no hint of this, the middle of the article provided evidence which essentially declared the original New York Times story false:

In Sicknick’s case, it’s still not known publicly what caused him to collapse the night of the insurrection. Findings from a medical examiner’s review have not yet been released and authorities have not made any announcements about that ongoing process.

According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.

The CNN story speculates that perhaps Sicknick inhaled “bear spray,” but like the ProPublica interview with his brother who said he inhaled pepper spray, does not say whether it came from the police or protesters.

….

The fire extinguisher tale was far from the only false or dubious claim that the media caused to circulate about the events that day. In some cases, they continue to circulate them.

In the days after the protest, numerous viral tweets pointed to a photograph of Eric Munchel with zip-ties. The photo was used continually to suggest that he took those zip-ties into the Capitol because of a premeditated plot to detain lawmakers and hold them hostagePolitico described Munchel as “the man who allegedly entered the Senate chamber during the Capitol riot while carrying a taser and zip-tie handcuffs.”

But on January 21, the “zip-tie man’s” own prosecutors admitted none of that was true. He did not take zip-ties with him from home or carry them into the Capitol. Instead, he found them on a table, and took them to prevent their use by the police.

(A second man whose photo with zip-ties later surfaced similarly told Ronan Farrow that he found them on the floor, and the FBI has acknowledged it has no evidence to the contrary).

Just today, PolitiFact purported to “fact-check” a statement from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) made on Monday. Sen. Johnson told a local radio station:

“The fact of the matter is this didn’t seem like an armed insurrection to me. I mean armed, when you hear armed, don’t you think of firearms? Here’s the questions I would have liked to ask. How many firearms were confiscated? How many shots were fired? I’m only aware of one, and I’ll defend that law enforcement officer for taking that shot.

The fact-checking site assigned the Senator its “Pants on Fire” designation for that statement, calling it “ridiculous revisionist history.” But the “fact-checkers” cannot refute a single claim he made. At least from what is known publicly, there is no evidence of a single protester wielding let alone using a firearm inside the Capitol on that day. As indicated, the only person to have been shot was a pro-Trump protester killed by a Capitol police officer, and the only person said to have been killed by the protesters, Officer Sicknick, died under circumstances that are still completely unclear.

One can — and should — condemn the January 6 riot without inflating the threat it posed. And one can — and should — insist on both factual accuracy and sober restraint without standing accused of sympathy for the rioters.

Source: GLENN GREENWALD: The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot. Over …