ReportWire

Tag: truth

  • Commentary: This is not normal: Why a fake arrest photo from the White House matters

    [ad_1]

    How do you know what you know?

    Did you learn it in school, read it in a newspaper? Did you get your information on social media or though chatter with friends?

    Even in an age of misinformation and disinformation — which we really need to start clearly calling propaganda — we continue to rely on old ways of knowing. We take it for granted that if we really need to get to the truth, there’s a way to do it, even if it means cracking the pages of one of those ancient conveyors of wisdom, a book.

    But we are entering an era in America when knowledge is about to be hard to come by. It would be easy to shrug off this escalation of the war on truth as just more Trump nonsense, but it is much more than that. Authoritarians take power in the short term by fear and maybe force. In the long term, they rely on ignorance — an erasure of knowledge to leave people believing that there was ever anything different than what is.

    This is how our kids, future generations, come to be controlled. They simply don’t know what was, and therefore are at a great disadvantage in imagining what could be.

    This week, the White House altered a photo of Nekima Levy Armstrong, the civil rights lawyer arrested in Minneapolis for protesting inside a church.

    The original photo shows Armstrong in handcuffs being led away by a federal officer with his face blurred out. Armstrong is composed and steady in this image. A veteran of social justice movements and a trained attorney, she appears as one might expect, her expression troubled but calm.

    In the photo released by the White House, Armstrong is sobbing, her mouth hanging open in despair. In what is clearly nothing more than overt racism, it appears her skin has been darkened. Her braided hair, neatly styled in the original picture, is disheveled in the Trump image.

    On the left, a photograph from the X (formerly Twitter) account of U.S. Secretary Kristi Noem, showing Nekima Levy Armstrong being arrested. On the right, the photo has been altered before being posted to the White House’s X (formerly Twitter) account.

    (@Sec_Noem via X/@WhiteHouse via X)

    A strong, composed resister is turned into a weeping, weak failure.

    “YET AGAIN to the people who feel the need to reflexively defend perpetrators of heinous crimes in our country I share with you this message: Enforcement of the law will continue. The memes will continue. Thank you for your attention to this matter,”

    That was the official White House response to inquiries about the photo, posted on social media.

    The same week, the Trump administration began ripping down exhibits at the President’s House in Philadelphia that told the story of the nine Black people held in bondage there by George Washington. I’ve been to that exhibit and had planned to take my kids this summer to learn about Joe Richardson, Christopher Sheels, Austin, Hercules, Giles, Moll, Oney Judge, Paris and Richmond.

    They are names that barely made it into American history. Many have never heard of them. Now, this administration is attempting to erase them.

    How do you know what you know? I learned most of what I knew about these folks from that signage, which is probably in a dump somewhere by now.

    The information we once took for granted on government websites such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is gone. Climate change information; LGBTQ+ information; even agricultural information. Gone (though courts have ordered some restored).

    The National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, which tracked federal police misconduct, has been shut down.

    The Smithsonian is undergoing an ideological review.

    And now, our government is telling us it will alter in real time images of dissenters to create its own narrative, demand we believe not our own eyes, our own knowledge, but the narrative they create.

    “I’ll end with this, we’re being told one story which is totally different than what’s occurring,” said Cumberland County, Me., Sheriff Kevin Joyce.

    He was speaking specifically about an incident in his town in which a corrections officer recruit was detained by ICE this week. In video taken by a bystander, about five agents pull the man from his car as he drives home after work. They then leave the car running in the street as they take him away.

    Joyce told reporters the man had a clean background check before being hired, had no criminal record, and was working legally in the country. The sheriff has no idea where the man is being held.

    Joyce’s sentiment, that what we are being told isn’t what’s happening, applies to nearly everything we are seeing with our own eyes.

    A woman shot through her temple, through the side window of her car? You don’t understand what you are seeing. It was justified, our vice president has told us, without even the need for an investigation.

    Goodbye Renee Good. They are attempting in real time to erase her reality and instead morph her into a domestic terrorist committing “heinous” crimes, and maybe even worse.

    “You have a small band of very far left people who are doing everything they can … to try to make ICE out to be the ultimate enemy, and engage in this weird, small-scale civil war,” Vice President JD Vance said this week.

    Protesting turned into civil war.

    Next up, artificial intelligence is getting into the erasure game. Scientists are warning that those who wish to destroy truth will soon unleash AI-run operations in which thousands if not millions of social media posts will offer up whatever alternative reality those in control of it wish. Under the pressure of that avalanche of lies, many will believe.

    The message the White House is sending with Armstrong’s photo is that they control the truth, they decide what it is.

    Our job is to fight for truth, know it when we see it, and demand it not be erased.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    [ad_1]

    Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    CRAWLING ON YOUR FRONT OR BACK PORCH. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE WOOLY BEAR CATERPILLAR. DEFINITELY HAVE SEEN THEM. RUMOR HAS IT THAT THESE CATERPILLARS MAY HAVE SOMETHING UP THEIR SLEEVES IN TERMS OF FORECASTING WINTER WEATHER. FOR MORE ON THAT, LET’S TURN OVER NOW TO STORM TEAM METEOROLOGIST RYAN ARGENT, WHO HAS THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE CATERPILLARS? RYAN, IS IT TRUE? YEAH. SO SO LET’S LET’S GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF SOME CONTEXT ON THE SITUATION. SO WE’VE GOTTEN SO MANY PEOPLE REACHING OUT TO US THROUGH EMAIL, THROUGH FACEBOOK SAYING, HEY, YOU SEE THE WOOLY BEARS, IT’S ALL BLACK. OR IT’S LIKE IT’S SOME BROWN, SOME BLACK, RIGHT? LIKE, HOW’S THE WINTER GOING TO BE, RYAN? WELL, LET’S LET’S TAKE A STEP BACK. LET’S TALK ABOUT THE WOOLY BEAR FOLKLORE TO BEGIN WITH. SO IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, LET’S CHAT ABOUT IT HERE. SO THESE THIS CUTE LITTLE GUY THAT YOU’VE PROBABLY BEEN SEEING ON YOUR FRONT PORCH OR BACK PORCH, LIKE THOSE ME AND MICHAEL WERE SAYING THIS. YOU CAN SEE THE FUZZ ON IT. YOU CAN SEE THERE’S SOME BLACK AND THERE’S SOME BROWN ON IT. BUT IF THERE’S MORE BLACK THAN BROWN, RUMOR HAS IT THAT MEANS IT’S GOING TO BE A HARSHER WINTER. NOW STEP ON THIS SIDE OF THE SCREEN. IF THERE’S MORE BROWN THAN BLACK, THAT MEANS THAT THERE’S GOING TO BE A MILDER WINTER. OKAY, SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. WE DID GET SOME PICTURES FROM SOME FOLKS. WE DID. WE DID GET SOME PICTURES FROM JAMIE OUT OF WRIGHTSVILLE ISLAND FROM MOUNT GRETNA. MELISSA FROM COLUMBIA GOT SOME PICTURES FROM YOU GUYS. SO THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING THOSE. BUT YOU CAN SEE IT’S A VARIATION OF THE FUR COLOR. SO IT’S NOT REALLY CONSISTENT. SO HERE’S IF YOU WANT A MORE OF LIKE AN EXPLAINER GRAPHIC. SO WE PUT THIS TOGETHER FOR YOU. SO AGAIN THE AMOUNT OF BLACK IN AUTUMN CORRELATES WITH THE SEVERITY OF THE UPCOMING WINTER. THAT’S THE FOLKLORE. IF THERE’S MORE BLACK LONGER, COLDER, SNOWY WINTER, IF YOU SEE MORE BROWN, THEN IT’S GOING TO BE A MILDER WINTER. AND ALSO THERE’S 13 SEGMENTS ON ITS BODY WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE 13 WEEKS OF WINTER. BUT THAT’S WHAT THE FOLKLORE SAYS. NOW HERE, DO GIVE ME A LITTLE DRUM ROLL HERE. WHAT IS IT? IS IT TRUE OR IS IT FALSE? IT IS. FALSE. GUYS. AND NO, THIS CATERPILLAR CANNOT FORECAST THE UPCOMING. I LOVE THAT GUY. BY THE WAY GUYS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. SO NO THIS CATERPILLAR GUYS THIS DOES NOT. THIS LITTLE GUY IS AS CUTE AS HE IS. HE CAN’T FORECAST THE WEATHER. THE THE WOOLY BEAR’S COLORING IS ALL BASED ON ITS FEEDING HABITS, ITS AGE, THE SPECIES, AND THE WIDTH OF THE BANDING INDICATES THE CURRENT OR THE PAST GROWING SEASON OF WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH LIKE EVENTUALLY TURNING INTO A I THINK IT’S A MOTH. I THINK IT IS OR A BUTTERFLY LATER AS IT, AS IT COMES UP. BUT AGAIN, IF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN HEARING ALL THE FOLKLORE AND THE AND THE RUMORS ABOUT THIS CATERPILLAR, NOPE, IT DOES NOT. IT DOES NOT FORECAST THE WEATHER. NOW ENJOY THE FOLKLORE. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FORECASTING, AS WE LIKE TO SAY

    Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    Updated: 9:13 PM PST Nov 22, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    Woolly bear caterpillars, often seen crawling on porches, are rumored to have something up their sleeves in terms of forecasting winter weather.Meteorologist Ryan Argenti from Hearst sister station WGAL reveals the truth about these caterpillars.Woolly bear caterpillar folkloreThese caterpillars are hairy creatures featuring brown and black colors. Folklore says if these caterpillars have more black than brown color, you can expect harsh winter conditions. If there is more brown than black colors, you can expect a mild winter.The 13 segments on its body correspond to the 13 weeks of winter.Truth behind the folkloreThe woolly bear caterpillar cannot forecast the upcoming winter conditionsThe coloring on the caterpillar is based on feeding habits, age, and speciesThe width of the banding indicates the current or past growing season

    Woolly bear caterpillars, often seen crawling on porches, are rumored to have something up their sleeves in terms of forecasting winter weather.

    Meteorologist Ryan Argenti from Hearst sister station WGAL reveals the truth about these caterpillars.

    Woolly bear caterpillar folklore

    These caterpillars are hairy creatures featuring brown and black colors.

    Folklore says if these caterpillars have more black than brown color, you can expect harsh winter conditions.

    If there is more brown than black colors, you can expect a mild winter.

    The 13 segments on its body correspond to the 13 weeks of winter.

    Truth behind the folklore

    • The woolly bear caterpillar cannot forecast the upcoming winter conditions
    • The coloring on the caterpillar is based on feeding habits, age, and species
    • The width of the banding indicates the current or past growing season

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    [ad_1]

    Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    CRAWLING ON YOUR FRONT OR BACK PORCH. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE WOOLY BEAR CATERPILLAR. DEFINITELY HAVE SEEN THEM. RUMOR HAS IT THAT THESE CATERPILLARS MAY HAVE SOMETHING UP THEIR SLEEVES IN TERMS OF FORECASTING WINTER WEATHER. FOR MORE ON THAT, LET’S TURN OVER NOW TO STORM TEAM METEOROLOGIST RYAN ARGENT, WHO HAS THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE CATERPILLARS? RYAN, IS IT TRUE? YEAH. SO SO LET’S LET’S GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF SOME CONTEXT ON THE SITUATION. SO WE’VE GOTTEN SO MANY PEOPLE REACHING OUT TO US THROUGH EMAIL, THROUGH FACEBOOK SAYING, HEY, YOU SEE THE WOOLY BEARS, IT’S ALL BLACK. OR IT’S LIKE IT’S SOME BROWN, SOME BLACK, RIGHT? LIKE, HOW’S THE WINTER GOING TO BE, RYAN? WELL, LET’S LET’S TAKE A STEP BACK. LET’S TALK ABOUT THE WOOLY BEAR FOLKLORE TO BEGIN WITH. SO IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, LET’S CHAT ABOUT IT HERE. SO THESE THIS CUTE LITTLE GUY THAT YOU’VE PROBABLY BEEN SEEING ON YOUR FRONT PORCH OR BACK PORCH, LIKE THOSE ME AND MICHAEL WERE SAYING THIS. YOU CAN SEE THE FUZZ ON IT. YOU CAN SEE THERE’S SOME BLACK AND THERE’S SOME BROWN ON IT. BUT IF THERE’S MORE BLACK THAN BROWN, RUMOR HAS IT THAT MEANS IT’S GOING TO BE A HARSHER WINTER. NOW STEP ON THIS SIDE OF THE SCREEN. IF THERE’S MORE BROWN THAN BLACK, THAT MEANS THAT THERE’S GOING TO BE A MILDER WINTER. OKAY, SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. WE DID GET SOME PICTURES FROM SOME FOLKS. WE DID. WE DID GET SOME PICTURES FROM JAMIE OUT OF WRIGHTSVILLE ISLAND FROM MOUNT GRETNA. MELISSA FROM COLUMBIA GOT SOME PICTURES FROM YOU GUYS. SO THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING THOSE. BUT YOU CAN SEE IT’S A VARIATION OF THE FUR COLOR. SO IT’S NOT REALLY CONSISTENT. SO HERE’S IF YOU WANT A MORE OF LIKE AN EXPLAINER GRAPHIC. SO WE PUT THIS TOGETHER FOR YOU. SO AGAIN THE AMOUNT OF BLACK IN AUTUMN CORRELATES WITH THE SEVERITY OF THE UPCOMING WINTER. THAT’S THE FOLKLORE. IF THERE’S MORE BLACK LONGER, COLDER, SNOWY WINTER, IF YOU SEE MORE BROWN, THEN IT’S GOING TO BE A MILDER WINTER. AND ALSO THERE’S 13 SEGMENTS ON ITS BODY WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE 13 WEEKS OF WINTER. BUT THAT’S WHAT THE FOLKLORE SAYS. NOW HERE, DO GIVE ME A LITTLE DRUM ROLL HERE. WHAT IS IT? IS IT TRUE OR IS IT FALSE? IT IS. FALSE. GUYS. AND NO, THIS CATERPILLAR CANNOT FORECAST THE UPCOMING. I LOVE THAT GUY. BY THE WAY GUYS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. SO NO THIS CATERPILLAR GUYS THIS DOES NOT. THIS LITTLE GUY IS AS CUTE AS HE IS. HE CAN’T FORECAST THE WEATHER. THE THE WOOLY BEAR’S COLORING IS ALL BASED ON ITS FEEDING HABITS, ITS AGE, THE SPECIES, AND THE WIDTH OF THE BANDING INDICATES THE CURRENT OR THE PAST GROWING SEASON OF WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH LIKE EVENTUALLY TURNING INTO A I THINK IT’S A MOTH. I THINK IT IS OR A BUTTERFLY LATER AS IT, AS IT COMES UP. BUT AGAIN, IF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN HEARING ALL THE FOLKLORE AND THE AND THE RUMORS ABOUT THIS CATERPILLAR, NOPE, IT DOES NOT. IT DOES NOT FORECAST THE WEATHER. NOW ENJOY THE FOLKLORE. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FORECASTING, AS WE LIKE TO SAY

    Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    Updated: 12:13 AM EST Nov 23, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    Woolly bear caterpillars, often seen crawling on porches, are rumored to have something up their sleeves in terms of forecasting winter weather.Meteorologist Ryan Argenti from Hearst sister station WGAL reveals the truth about these caterpillars.Woolly bear caterpillar folkloreThese caterpillars are hairy creatures featuring brown and black colors. Folklore says if these caterpillars have more black than brown color, you can expect harsh winter conditions. If there is more brown than black colors, you can expect a mild winter.The 13 segments on its body correspond to the 13 weeks of winter.Truth behind the folkloreThe woolly bear caterpillar cannot forecast the upcoming winter conditionsThe coloring on the caterpillar is based on feeding habits, age, and speciesThe width of the banding indicates the current or past growing season

    Woolly bear caterpillars, often seen crawling on porches, are rumored to have something up their sleeves in terms of forecasting winter weather.

    Meteorologist Ryan Argenti from Hearst sister station WGAL reveals the truth about these caterpillars.

    Woolly bear caterpillar folklore

    These caterpillars are hairy creatures featuring brown and black colors.

    Folklore says if these caterpillars have more black than brown color, you can expect harsh winter conditions.

    If there is more brown than black colors, you can expect a mild winter.

    The 13 segments on its body correspond to the 13 weeks of winter.

    Truth behind the folklore

    • The woolly bear caterpillar cannot forecast the upcoming winter conditions
    • The coloring on the caterpillar is based on feeding habits, age, and species
    • The width of the banding indicates the current or past growing season

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lynx star Napheesa Collier rips WNBA: ‘worst leadership in world’

    [ad_1]

    (Photo credit: Jesse Johnson-Imagn Images)

    Minnesota guard Napheesa Collier blasted WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert for ‘the worst leadership in the world’ in a resounding statement sending shockwaves around the league on Tuesday.

    ‘We have the best players in the world. We have the best fans in the world. But right now we have the worst leadership in the world,’ Collier said in reading from a prepared statement lasting just over four minutes.

    Collier, a face of the league and runner-up for WNBA Most Valuable Player for the second season in a row, also criticized the league office for what she perceives as a ‘lack of accountability.’

    ‘I want to be clear this conversation is not about winning or losing,’ Collier began referencing a written statement in front of her at her season-ending press conference. ‘It’s about something much bigger. The real threat to our league isn’t money, it isn’t ratings or even missed calls or even physical play. It’s the lack of accountability from the league office.’

    She also revealed Engelbert purportedly made alarming commeints in a conversation in February about players’ compensation, an unsettled issue for a new collective bargaining agreement between the WNBA Players Association and the league. Collier wanted to know what star players like Caitlin Clark of the Indiana Fever, Angel Reese of the Chicago Sky and Paige Bueckers of the Dallas Wings aren’t making more money while on their rookie contracts.

    ‘I also asked how she planned to fix the fact that Caitlin,, Angel and Paige, who are clearly driving massive revenue for the league, are making so little for their first four years,’ Collier said. ‘Her response was, ‘Caitlin should be grateful she makes $16 million off the court because without the platform the WNBA gives her, she wouldn’t make anything.’

    ‘And in that same conversation,’ Collier continued, ‘she told me players should be on their knees thanking their lucky stars for the media rights deal that (she) got them.

    ‘That’s the mentality driving our league from the top. We go to battle every day to protect a shield that doesn’t value us. The league believes it succeeds despite its players, not because of them,’ she said.

    Engelbert and the league had not commented as of early Tuesday afternoon.

    Collier’s criticisms followed the scathing comments made by her coach, Cheryl Reeve, about the officiating following the top-seeded Lynx’s 84-76 loss to the Phoenix Mercury on Friday in Game 3 of their semifinal playoff series.

    Collier injured her left ankle in the final seconds of the game when no foul was called on the Mercury’s Alyssa Thomas, who stripped the ball from her and made a steal. Reeve was ejected for arguing for a foul, and her conduct and postgame comments got the veteran coach suspended by the league for one game.

    Without Reeve and Collier, who watched Game 4 in a walking boot, the Lynx were eliminated by the Mercury. Collier said on Tuesday that she tore some ligaments and severely sprained the ankle, and she wouldn’t have been able to play if the Lynx, who had the league’s best record in the regular season, had made a return trip to the WNBA Finals.

    ‘Since I’ve been in the league, you’ve heard the constant concerns about officiating and it has now reached levels of inconsistency that plague our sport and undermine the integrity of which it operates,’ Collier, who turned 29 on Sept. 23, said on Tuesday.

    ‘Whether the league cares about the health of our players is one thing, but to also not care about the product we put on the floor is truly self-sabotage. Year after year, the only thing that remains consistent is the lack of accountability from our leaders.’

    Reeve was fined $15,000 for her comments and conduct, ESPN reported on Monday. Collier said she is not worried about getting fined by the league for her comments.

    ‘Our leadership’s answer to being held accountability is to suppress everyone’s voices by handing out fines,’ Collier said. ‘I’m not concerned about a fine. I’m concerned about the future of our sport. At some point, everyone deserves to hear the truth, from someone who I hope has earned the benefit of the doubt to fight for what is right and fair for our athletes and our fans.

    ‘We serve a league that has shown they think championship coaches and Hall of Fame players are dispensable, and that’s fine, it’s professional sports. But I will not stand quietly by and allow different standards to be applied at the league level.’

    Collier has averaged 18.4 points, 7.8 rebounds, 3.0 assists and 1.2 blocks in 193 regular-season games (all starts) in her career. She is a five-time All-Star in seven seasons, all with Minnesota. She was the WNBA Rookie of the Year in 2019 and first-team All-WNBA in 2023 and 2024.

    Collier’s full statement can be read below:

    ‘First of all, I’d like to congratulate the Mercury for advancing to the Finals. I want to be clear this conversation is not about winning or losing, it’s about something much bigger. The real threat to our league isn’t money, it isn’t ratings or even missed calls or even physical play. It’s the lack of accountability from the league office. Since I’ve been in the league, you’ve heard the constant concerns about officiating and it has now reached levels of inconsistency that plague our sport and undermine the integrity with which it operates.

    Whether the league cares about the health of the players is one thing, but to also not care about the product we put on the floor is truly self-sabotage. Year after year, the only thing that remains consistent is the lack of accountability from our leaders. The league has a buzzword that they rolled out as a talking point for the CBA as to why they can’t pay the players what we’re worth; that word is sustainability. But what’s truly unsustainable is keeping a good product on the floor while allowing officials to lose control of games. Fans see it every night. Coaches, both winning and losing, point it out every night in pre- and post-game media. And leadership just issues fines and looks the other way. They ignore the issues that everyone inside the game is begging them to fix. That is negligence.

    At Unrivaled this past February, I sat across from Cathy and asked how she planned to address the officiating issues in our league. Her response was, ‘Well, only the losers complain about the refs.’ I also asked how she planned to fix the fact that players like Caitlin, Angel and Paige, who are clearly driving massive revenue for the league, are making so little for their first four years. Her response was, ‘Caitlin should be grateful she makes $60 million off the court because without the platform the WNBA gives her, she wouldn’t make anything.’

    In that same conversation, she told me ‘players should be on their knees thanking their lucky stars for the media rights deal that I got them.’ That’s the mentality driving our league from the top. We go to battle every day to protect a shield that doesn’t value us. The league believes it succeeds despite its players, not because of them.

    I have the privilege of watching my husband run a league where he has to balance 100 different things at once. I won’t pretend the job is easy, but even with all of that on his plate, he always reaches out to players when he sees an injury, whether it’s Unrivaled or even during the WNBA season. That is what leadership looks like. It’s the human element, it’s basic integrity, and it’s the bare minimum any leader should embody. But do you know who I haven’t heard from? Cathy. Not one call, not one text. Instead the only outreach has come from her No. 2 telling my agent that she doesn’t believe physical play is contributing to injuries.

    That is infuriating. And it’s the perfect example of the tone deaf, dismissive approach that our leaders always seem to take. I’ve finally grown tired. For too long, I’ve tried to have these conversations in private, but it’s clear there’s no intention of accepting there’s a problem. The league has made it clear it isn’t about innovation, it isn’t about collaboration, it’s about control and power. I’ve earned this platform and I paid the price to get here, and now I have a responsibility to speak on behalf of the fans and everyone in this league that deserves better.

    Our leadership’s answer to being held accountable is to suppress everyone’s voices by handing out fines. I’m not concerned about a fine. I’m concerned about the future of our sport. At some point, everyone deserves to hear the truth from someone who I hope has earned the benefit of the doubt to fight for what is right and fair for our athletes and our fans. We have the best players in the world. We have the best fans in the world. But right now we have the worst leadership in the world.

    If I didn’t know exactly what the job entailed, maybe I wouldn’t feel this way, but unfortunately for them, I do. We serve a league that has shown they think championship coaches and Hall of Fame players are dispensible, and that’s fine, it’s professional sports. But I will not stand quietly by and allow different standards to be applied at the league level.’

    –Field Level Media

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Commentary: Who’s winning the redistricting fight? Here’s how to read the polls

    [ad_1]

    Proposition 50, the California-slaps-back initiative, is cruising to a comfortable victory on Nov. 4, a slam dunk for Gov. Gavin Newsom and efforts to get even with Texas.

    Or not.

    It’s actually a highly competitive contest between those wanting to offset the GOP’s shameless power grab and opponents of Democrats’ retaliatory gerrymander — with many voters valuing California’s independent redistricting commission and still making up their minds.

    Obviously, both things can’t be true, so which is it?

    That depends on which of the polls you choose to believe.

    Political junkies, and the news outlets that service their needs, abhor a vacuum. So there’s no lack of soundings that purport to show just where Californians’ heads are at a mere six weeks before election day — which, in truth, is not all that certain.

    Newsom’s pollster issued results showing Prop. 50 winning overwhelming approval. A UC Berkeley/L.A. Times survey showed a much closer contest, with support below the vital 50% mark. Others give the measure a solid lead.

    Not all polls are created equal.

    “It really matters how a poll is done,” said Scott Keeter, a senior survey advisor at the Pew Research Center, one of the country’s top-flight polling organizations. “That’s especially true today, when response rates are so low [and] it’s so difficult to reach people, especially by telephone. You really do have to consider how it’s done, where it comes from, who did it, what their motivation is.”

    Longtime readers of this space, if any exist, know how your friendly columnist feels about horse-race polls. Our best advice remains the same it’s always been: Ignore them.

    Take a hike. Read a book. Bake a batch of muffins. Better still, take some time to educate yourself on the pros and cons of the question facing California, then make an informed decision.

    Realizing, however, the sun will keep rising and setting, that tides will ebb and flow, that pollsters and pundits will continue issuing their prognostications to an eager and ardent audience, here are some suggestions for how to assay their output.

    The most important thing to remember is that polls are not gospel truth, flawless forecasts or destiny carved in implacable stone. Even the best survey is nothing more than an educated guess at what’s likely to happen.

    That said, there are ways to evaluate the quality of surveys and determine which are best consumed with a healthy shaker of salt and which should be dismissed altogether.

    Given the opportunity, take a look at the methodology — it’s usually there in the fine print — which includes the number of people surveyed, the duration of the poll and whether interviews were done in more than one language.

    Size matters.

    “When you’re trying to contact people at random, you’re getting certain segments of the public, rather than the general population,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the nonpartisan Berkeley IGS Poll and a collaborator with The Times. “So what needs to happen in order for a survey to be representative of the overall population … you need large samples.”

    Which are expensive and the reason some polls skimp on the number of people they interview.

    The most conscientious pollsters invest considerable time and effort figuring out how to model their voter samples — that is, how to best reflect the eventual composition of the electorate. Once they finish their interviews, they weight the result to see that it includes the proper share of men and women, young and old, and other criteria based on census data.

    Then pollsters might adjust those results to match the percentage of each group they believe will turn out for a given election.

    The more people a pollster interviews, the greater the likelihood of achieving a representative sample.

    That’s why the duration of a survey is also something to consider. The longer a poll is conducted — or out in the field, as they say in the business — the greater the chances of reflecting the eventual turnout.

    It’s also important in a polyglot state like California that a poll is not conducted solely in English. To do so risks under-weighting an important part of the electorate; a lack of English fluency shouldn’t be mistaken for a lack of political engagement.

    “There’s no requirement that a person be able to speak English in order to vote,” said Keeter, of the Pew Research Center. “And in the case of some populations, particularly immigrant groups, that have been in the United States for a long time, they may be very well-established voters but still not be proficient in English to the level of being comfortable taking a survey.”

    It’s also important to know how a poll question is phrased and, in the case of a ballot measure, how it describes the matter voters are being asked to decide. How closely does the survey track the ballot language? Are there any biases introduced into the poll? (“Would you support this measure knowing its proponents abuse small animals and promote gum disease?”)

    Something else to watch for: Was the poll conducted by a political party, or for a candidate or group pushing a particular agenda? If so, be very skeptical. They have every reason to issue selective or one-sided findings.

    Transparency is key. A good pollster will show his or her work, as they used to say in the classroom. If they won’t, there’s good reason to question their findings, and well you should.

    A sensible person wouldn’t put something in their body without being 100% certain of its content. Treat your brain with the same care.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • While mourning, Christian nationalists are calling Charlie Kirk a ‘martyr’ and want vengeance

    [ad_1]

    A few hours after Charlie Kirk was killed, Sean Feucht, an influential right-wing Christian worship leader, filmed a selfie video from his home in California, his eyes brimming with tears.

    The shooting of one of the nation’s most prominent conservative activists, Feucht declared, was no less than “a line in the sand” in a country descending into a spiritual darkness.

    “The enemy thinks that he won, that there was a battle that was won today,” he said, referencing Satan. “No, man, there’s going to be millions of bold voices raised up out of the sacrifice and the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk.”

    Soon afterward, Pastor Matt Tuggle, who leads the Salt Lake City campus of the San Diego-based Awaken megachurch, posted a video of Kirk’s killing on Instagram, adding the caption: “If your pastor isn’t telling you the left believes a evil demonic belief system you are in the wrong church!”

    People place lighted candles below a photo of Charlie Kirk at a vigil in his memory in Orem, Utah.

    (Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

    Kirk’s death has triggered a range of reaction, much of it mournful sympathy for the 31-year-old activist and his family. But it also has sparked conspiracy theories, hot-take presumptions the left was responsible and calls for vengeance against Kirk’s perceived enemies.

    At a vigil for Kirk in Huntington Beach this week, some attendees waved white flags depicting a red cross and the word “Jesus,” while some chanted, “White men, fight back!” Kirk spread a philosophy that liberals sought to disempower men, and some of his male supporters see his killing as an attack against them.

    Whether the calls for vengeance will ebb or intensify remains to be seen, especially with Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s announcement Friday that a suspect in the fatal shooting, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, had been arrested after a family member turned him in.

    In life, Kirk spoke of what he called a “spiritual battle” being waged in the United States between Christians and a Democratic Party that “supports everything that God hates.”

    In death, Kirk, one of the Republican Party’s most influential power brokers, is being hailed by conservative evangelical pastors and GOP politicians as a Christian killed for his religious beliefs.

    President Trump called Kirk a “martyr for truth and freedom,” and ordered flags to be flown at half-staff in his honor. He blamed Kirk’s death on the rhetoric of the “radical left.” Vice President JD Vance, who helped carry Kirk’s casket to Air Force Two, retweeted a post Kirk wrote on X last month reading, “It’s all about Jesus.” And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, quoting Jesus, wrote on X: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

    A woman rests her head on a church seat.

    A woman lays her head down on a seat during a vigil at CenterPoint Church for Charlie Kirk in Orem, Utah.

    (Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

    Experts on faith and far-right extremism say they are troubled by the religious glorification of Kirk in this era of increased political violence — and the potential vengeance that may spring from it. The activist’s death, they say, seems to have ignited various factions on the right, ranging from white supremacists to hard-core Christian nationalists.

    “The ‘spiritual warfare’ rhetoric will only increase,” and Kirk is now being lifted up as “a physical manifestation” of a religious battle, said Matthew Boedy, a professor of rhetoric and composition at the University of North Georgia who has written a forthcoming book about Christian nationalism that prominently features Kirk.

    “Spiritual warfare rhetoric was a big part of Jan. 6,” he said of the deadly 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. “Making a martyr out of Charlie Kirk will change our nation in severe ways.”

    Samuel Perry, a sociologist at the University of Oklahoma and expert on Christian nationalism, said he is a Christian himself but that religion, cynically used, “has the potential to amplify what would otherwise be very secular political conflicts between Democrats and Republicans.”

    “What if those are amplified with a cosmic and ultimate significance?” he said. “It becomes, ‘This is God vs. Satan. This is angels vs. demons — and if we lose this next election, we plunge the nation into a thousand years of darkness.’ … It basically provokes extremism.”

    Feucht, a Christian nationalist and failed Republican congressional candidate from Northern California, said that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” and that, in the wake of Kirk’s death, “we have to do something.”

    Kirk — who rallied his millions of online followers to vote for Trump in the 2024 election — declared that God was on the side of American conservatives and that there was “no separation of church and state.” He was also known for his vitriol against racial and religious minorities, LGBTQ+ people, childless women, progressives and others who disagreed with him.

    Kirk called transgender people “a throbbing middle finger to God.” He said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “a huge mistake” and called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “awful.” On his podcast, he called with a smirk for “some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area [who] wants to really be a midterm hero” to bail out of jail the man who attacked then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer in their home in 2022.

    A memorial is set up for Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

    A memorial is set up for Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

    (Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

    In 2023, Kirk sat on the stage of Awaken Church in Salt Lake City and said: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

    Two days before his death, Kirk retweeted a video of himself saying that a “spiritual battle is coming for the West,” with “wokeism or marxism combining with Islamism” to go after “the American way of life, which is, by the way, Christendom.”

    Perry said, “There’s no need to whitewash the legacy of Charlie Kirk.”

    “This is a tragedy, and no one deserves to die this way,” Perry said. “Yet, at the same time, Charlie Kirk is very much part of this polarization story in the U.S. who used quite divisive rhetoric, ‘us vs. them, the left is evil.’”

    Perry noted that Kirk’s Turning Point USA had placed him on its Professor Watchlist, a website that says it aims to expose professors “who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda.” The entry on Perry flags him for “Anti-Judeo-Christian Values.”

    Some on the right say their recent fiery words are only a response to the hateful rhetoric of the left. One widely shared example: Two days before Kirk’s killing, the feminist website Jezebel published an article titled, “We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk.” It has since been removed and replaced by a letter from the site’s editor saying it had been “intended as satire and made it absolutely clear that we wished no physical harm.”

    Kirk was killed by a single sniper-style shot to the neck Wednesday during an outdoor speaking event at Utah Valley University.

    After announcing the suspect’s arrest Friday, Gov. Cox said he had prayed that the shooter was not from Utah, “that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country.” But that prayer, he said, “was not answered the way I hoped for.”

    He then said that political violence “metastasizes because we can always point the finger at the other side” and that, “at some point, we have to find an offramp, or it’s going to get much, much worse.”

    Some of Kirk’s most prominent evangelical followers have said that his death represents an attack on conservative Christian values and that he was gunned down for speaking “the truth.”

    Jon Fleischman, Orange County-based conservative blogger and former executive director of the California Republican Party, who started out as a conservative college activist, knew Kirk and said “there is one hell of a martyr situation going on.”

    “A lot of people are getting activated and are going to walk the walk, talk the talk, and give money as their way of trying to process and deal with losing someone they care about,” he told The Times.

    In recent years, Kirk had become more outspoken about his Christian faith. He founded the nonprofit Turning Point USA in 2012 as an avowedly secular youth organization and became known for his college campus tours, with videos of his debates with liberal college students racking up tens of millions of views.

    But in 2020, during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, college campuses closed. Kirk started speaking at churches that stayed open in violation of local lockdown and mask orders, including Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Ventura County, which was led by Pastor Rob McCoy, a former Thousand Oaks mayor.

    McCoy is now the co-chair of Turning Point USA Faith, which encourages pastors to become more politically outspoken. McCoy, who could not be reached for comment, wrote in a statement Friday: “For those who rejoiced over his murder, you are instruments of evil and I implore you to repent. For those of you who mock prayer, you would do well to reconsider. Prayer doesn’t change God, it changes us toward a more peaceful and civil life.”

    Professor Boedy said McCoy turned Kirk toward Christian nationalism, specifically the Seven Mountains Mandate — the idea that Christians should try to hold sway over the seven pillars of cultural influence: arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, media and religion.

    Christian nationalism, which is rejected by mainline Christians, holds that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that the faith should have primacy in government and law.

    Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism and a professor emeritus at Cal State San Bernardino, said, “the more violent fringes of Christian nationalism have disturbing aspects that are eliminationist and antidemocratic.”

    He noted that some of the same Christian nationalists and white supremacists who are now calling Kirk a martyr already deified Trump, especially after he survived two assassination attempts on the campaign trail last year and said he had been “saved by God to make America great again.”

    Levin said many Christian nationalists portray Trump as “an armed Christian warrior protecting America from a disturbing assortment of immigrants, religious minorities, genders and sexual orientations.” And so, when he uses martyr language to describe Kirk, his adherents latch on.

    “Where do martyrs come from? From violent conflicts and wars,” Levin said. “The fact of the matter is that this is a moment that Trump could have more effectively seized, but he veered into divisive territory.”

    California Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-Santee) also called Kirk “a modern day martyr.” In a statement, Jones quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    Jones wrote: “Let us take care that we allow that tree to grow and blossom as it feeds on the lifeblood of Charles J. Kirk in the years to come.”

    Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Hailey Branson-Potts

    Source link

  • Survivors, lawmakers demand release of all Jeffrey Epstein files

    [ad_1]

    Survivors, lawmakers demand release of all Jeffrey Epstein files

    Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and a bipartisan group of lawmakers are pushing for a discharge petition, forcing a House floor vote to release nearly everything related to the case.

    Updated: 3:17 PM PDT Sep 3, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    Demanding transparency, truth and their own healing, survivors of sexual abuse, along with bipartisan lawmakers, called for the release of all documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Survivors accuse Epstein of abusing and trafficking countless underage girls for decades before his death in a New York jail cell in 2019. Survivors, including some speaking out for the first time, joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers, pushing for a discharge petition that would force a House floor vote on releasing nearly everything related to the Epstein case. “I am no longer weak, I am no longer powerless and I am no longer alone,” Anouska De Georgiou, a survivor, said before reporters on Wednesday. “With your vote, neither will the next generation be.”On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released more than 30,000 pages on the case, which some say were heavily redacted and revealed too little new information. The petition’s supporters want all investigation files released, emphasizing that the issue should be non-partisan.”The American people deserve to see everything,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said. “When you sign this discharge petition, it should mean nothing should be off limits.””The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we are demanding come out,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said.But the petition is already facing some roadblocks. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says he believes the House Oversight Committee should be responsible for carefully handling the documents, while President Trump dismissed the effort Wednesday, calling it “a Democrat hoax.”Related video below: Speaker Johnson on meeting with Epstein victimsSurvivors responded directly to President Trump’s dismissal, with one registered Republican calling on him to meet her at the Capitol to share her story and explain why the issue is not a hoax. Others pleaded that he recognize the abuse as real and humanize them.Lawmakers leading the petition are close to a House floor vote, needing only two more signatures to reach the required 218. So far, the petition includes all Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans, including Greene and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.Lawmakers emphasized the rare coalition of bipartisanship, signifying the growing issue. If the petition passes the House, it still needs to pass the Senate before heading to Trump’s desk.Regardless of the petition’s outcome, survivors are planning their own action for justice by compiling a list of those involved in Epstein’s network of abuse, though they did not specify if or when they would release it. In Wednesday’s press conference, the victims said they aim to hold the powerful accountable and help their healing, despite concerns about retaliation from Epstein’s circle.

    WASHINGTON —

    Demanding transparency, truth and their own healing, survivors of sexual abuse, along with bipartisan lawmakers, called for the release of all documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.

    Survivors accuse Epstein of abusing and trafficking countless underage girls for decades before his death in a New York jail cell in 2019.

    Survivors, including some speaking out for the first time, joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers, pushing for a discharge petition that would force a House floor vote on releasing nearly everything related to the Epstein case.

    “I am no longer weak, I am no longer powerless and I am no longer alone,” Anouska De Georgiou, a survivor, said before reporters on Wednesday. “With your vote, neither will the next generation be.”

    On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released more than 30,000 pages on the case, which some say were heavily redacted and revealed too little new information. The petition’s supporters want all investigation files released, emphasizing that the issue should be non-partisan.

    “The American people deserve to see everything,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said. “When you sign this discharge petition, it should mean nothing should be off limits.”

    “The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we are demanding come out,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said.

    But the petition is already facing some roadblocks. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says he believes the House Oversight Committee should be responsible for carefully handling the documents, while President Trump dismissed the effort Wednesday, calling it “a Democrat hoax.”

    Related video below: Speaker Johnson on meeting with Epstein victims

    Survivors responded directly to President Trump’s dismissal, with one registered Republican calling on him to meet her at the Capitol to share her story and explain why the issue is not a hoax. Others pleaded that he recognize the abuse as real and humanize them.

    Lawmakers leading the petition are close to a House floor vote, needing only two more signatures to reach the required 218. So far, the petition includes all Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans, including Greene and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.

    Lawmakers emphasized the rare coalition of bipartisanship, signifying the growing issue.

    If the petition passes the House, it still needs to pass the Senate before heading to Trump’s desk.

    Regardless of the petition’s outcome, survivors are planning their own action for justice by compiling a list of those involved in Epstein’s network of abuse, though they did not specify if or when they would release it. In Wednesday’s press conference, the victims said they aim to hold the powerful accountable and help their healing, despite concerns about retaliation from Epstein’s circle.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Power of Sincerity – And How to Stop Hiding Behind Sarcasm and Irony

    The Power of Sincerity – And How to Stop Hiding Behind Sarcasm and Irony

    [ad_1]

    Modern culture has become dominated by sarcasm, irony, and carefully crafted personas. Sincerity and earnestness have become rare, but still powerful forces. Discover how embracing these qualities can transform personal relationships, enrich public discourse, and inspire acts of genuine heroism.

    Sincerity is one of the most important yet under-appreciated traits in today’s world. It’s the simple ability to be open and honest about your thoughts, beliefs, and intentions, without needing to play games, try to manipulate, or retreat to humor or sarcasm when conversations get tough.

    First and foremost, sincerity requires you to be honest with yourself and what really matters to you. It means you believe in something, and you are willing to speak and act on that conviction even if it makes you unpopular or unlikable. People will often see you as being genuine and authentic if you stand up for what you believe in, especially when it comes with social costs.

    Philosopher Thomas Carlyle emphasized the importance of “sincerity” and identified it as one of the universal threads behind all types of heroes, including writers, political leaders, and religious figures. For Carlyle, heroes don’t just preach or philosophize; they embody their beliefs in every action, making them prime examples of what true conviction looks like. They morally refuse to run, hide, or cower in the face of opposition, even when their very lives are at stake.

    Sincerity stands out sharply in our current environment, especially on the internet and social media where we are exposed to countless manufactured images and personas, driven by a general pattern of cultural narcissism and “fake it ’till you make it” philosophies. People believe as long as they can appear “happy” and “successful” on social media then it will become a reality in their actual lives. Lies, distortions, and deception are the modus operandi in today’s online world, you see it almost everywhere.

    The scary truth for most people is that sincerity makes you vulnerable and open to criticism. It invites others to judge you for who you are and what you really believe in. Negative feedback comes with the territory, and it will hurt because it will feel like a direct attack on you (and maybe it is). The alternative is to not be yourself – then you’ll never be attacked for who you are. That sounds safe and comfortable, but it’s also a form of quiet surrender.

    Hiding Behind Sarcasm

    One common way people protect themselves from this vulnerability is by being sarcastic or ironic in how they present themselves and their views.

    Sarcasm and irony can become convenient cop-outs when you are confronted with opposition or pushback from others. Instead of staking your ground and defending your beliefs, you can always fall back and tell people, “I was just joking,” or “I didn’t really mean that.”

    Nowadays it’s hard to tell what anyone really believes or doesn’t believe, which adds an extra layer of chaos and confusion in what is already a toxic environment for healthy dialogue.

    Sarcasm is a common defense mechanism in teens and young adults when confronted with a difficult or uncomfortable situation that they aren’t equipped to talk about. In the movie Inside Out 2 (which I wrote a recent article on here), the character Ennui – who represents disinterest and boredom – was a fun illustration of how sarcasm is used to deflect attention away from more serious situations or conversations that a person isn’t ready to tackle head-on.

    This is not uncharacteristic of the modern discourse we see in politics and culture, which is – at its core – childish, dishonest, and insincere. We are taught to not be too serious or care too much about the truth, but to focus on cheap wins, sensationalist headlines, silly memes, gotcha moments, snappy slogans, juicy scandals, and mean-spirited insults, trolling, and harassment. We are focused not on what is true, but what makes us “look good” or “feel good.”

    In theory, the goal of a healthy debate is to share different perspectives, exchange information, test out your ideas, provide facts and evidence to support your position, and come to some common ground or understanding of differences. None of this is happening in today’s intellectual environment.

    Sarcasm is just one way we avoid and shutdown these honest and difficult conversations. It can be a roadblock to understanding in both personal relationships and broader social and political issues.

    Of course sarcasm has its place as a vehicle for humor. It can be especially effective when you are responding to someone who is insulting you, or trolling you, or is acting in bad faith and isn’t interested in a sincere conversation from the start.

    At the same time, we need to try to give people the benefit of the doubt and at least try to have good faith conversations whenever possible. Without sincerity, there is no real path forward – only more conflict and hostilities.

    Sincerity as the Mark of Heroes

    As mentioned before, the philosopher and historian Thomas Carlyle identified “sincerity” as one of the universal threads behind all types of heroes, whether they be writers, philosophers, religious leaders, or political leaders.

    In his work On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History, Carlyle champions figures like Martin Luther, the religious reformer who famously nailed his “95 Theses” to the church door, fully aware that it could bring him condemnation and peril. Luther challenged the powerful Catholic Church, especially its practice of selling indulgences, making his public protest an act of great personal risk. This unwavering belief in his cause, despite threats from powerful institutions, is a prime example of sincerity in action.

    Similarly, Carlyle held Oliver Cromwell, the military and political leader of the English Civil War, in high regard for his conviction and honesty. Cromwell was often criticized for his decisions, yet he remained steadfast in his mission to reshape England according to his moral and religious beliefs. Carlyle saw Cromwell’s sincerity as his defining characteristic, even if it made him deeply unpopular.

    Another chapter is dedicated to the prophet Muhammad. For over a decade, Muhammad faced ridicule, persecution, and exile for preaching his monotheistic beliefs in a society dominated by polytheism. Despite immense personal hardship, including the loss of family and status, Muhammad never wavered or compromised his beliefs, showing an unshakable faith in the truth of his message. As Carlyle writes:

      “A silent great soul; he was one of those who cannot but be in earnest; whom Nature herself has appointed to be sincere. While others walk in formulas and hearsays, contented enough to dwell there, this man could not screen himself in formulas; he was alone with his own soul and the reality of things. The great mystery of Existence, as I said, glared in upon him, with its terrors, with its splendors; no hearsays could hide that unspeakable fact, ‘Here am I!’; Such sincerity, as we named it, has in very truth something of divine. The word of such a man is a voice direct from Nature’s own heart. Men do and must listen to that as to nothing else;—all else is wind in comparison.”

    Regardless of how you feel about these historical figures, you can’t deny that they were sincere in their intentions and lived according to their values and convictions. These figures, according to Carlyle, demonstrate that heroes are people who not only believe in what they do but live and act upon that belief with wholehearted consistency, even in the face of tremendous personal and social costs.

    Sincerity remains a rare force for truth and change, and we need it now more than ever.


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • The Many Faces of Deception: Understanding the Different Types of Lying

    The Many Faces of Deception: Understanding the Different Types of Lying

    [ad_1]

    Learn how to identify the many types of lying and deception, including overt forms like outright fabrications and gaslighting, to subtle forms like white lies and lying by omission.

    Lying is not always as clear-cut as telling a blatant falsehood. It can take many different forms, from subtle omissions to outright fabrications, each hurting our ability to understand reality, communicate effectively, and build honest relationships.

    Some people try to justify certain forms of lying by claiming they didn’t technically say anything wrong, but knowing they were engaging in deception by not mentioning a key fact or framing an event in a misleading way.

    This is why it’s important to recognize the many forms of deception and dishonesty. It allows us to better spot lying in our daily lives at home, work, or in the news, while also making us more honest communicators by avoiding these conveniently deceptive tactics.

    Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of the many types of lying so that you can better recognize them in the future. Which do you have a hard time spotting? Which do you sometimes engage in yourself?

    1. Falsehood

    The most straightforward type of lying is the falsehood, where someone knowingly presents information that is entirely untrue. Falsehoods are blatant lies meant to deceive the listener by fabricating facts, events, or circumstances. “2 + 2 = 5” is a lie, no matter who says it or what day of the week it is. This form of lying is often the easiest to identify, especially when you have clear evidence that disproves it. This is what typically comes to mind when we think of a “lie.”

    Example: Claiming you were at work all day when, in reality, you took the day off.

    2. Lying by Omission

    Lying by omission involves leaving out critical information that changes the nature of the fact. While the information provided may be true, the omission of key details results in a misleading impression. This type of lying is subtle and can be particularly insidious, as it allows the liar to maintain a facade of honesty, they may even claim they just “forgot” that one fact or didn’t think it was important to mention, knowing full well it changes the nature of their story.

    Example: Telling a partner, “I went out with some friends last night,” but leaving out that you also met up with an ex during the outing.

    3. Out-of-Context Lying

    Out-of-context lying happens when someone presents an isolated truthful statement or quote in a way that strips it of its original meaning or intention. By removing context, the speaker can still be “technically” correct while deceiving the listener. This type of lie is frequently used in media, politics, and interpersonal conflicts to distort the truth while avoiding outright falsehoods.

    Example: Quoting someone as saying, “I don’t care,” without mentioning that they were referring to a trivial matter rather than something important.

    4. Starting the Story in the Middle

    This type of lying involves telling a story or recounting an event but beginning at a point that omits important prior details. By starting in the middle, the liar can shift blame, change the narrative, or make themselves appear more favorable. This creates a skewed version of events that misleads the listener into forming a biased conclusion. This form of lying is particularly effective where the full story can’t be known until you get both sides’ perspectives.

    Example: Describing an argument with a friend but starting with the moment they shouted at you, without mentioning that you had insulted them first.

    5. Dishonest Framing

    Dishonest framing involves presenting a story or situation from a deliberately biased or one-sided perspective, often emphasizing certain details or using dramatic language. This tactic is used to guide the audience toward a particular interpretation, typically one that benefits the person doing the framing. In many cases, individuals cast themselves into roles like “victim,” “savior,” or “persecutor” (see the drama triangle framework) to manipulate how others see them.

    Example: After being criticized by a coworker for missing a deadline, you recount the incident to others by saying, “I’m being unfairly targeted at work for no reason,” without mentioning that you had repeatedly ignored reminders about the approaching deadline.

    6. White Lies

    White lies are minor, often well-intentioned, lies told to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or to prevent minor inconveniences. These lies are typically considered harmless, like telling a friend, “I like your band,” even when their music isn’t to your taste. However, while white lies may seem innocuous, they can accumulate over time, leading to bigger issues such as a pattern of dishonesty or a gradual erosion of trust. To avoid white lies, try shifting the focus to something you genuinely appreciate about the person. For example, instead of saying, “I don’t like that outfit,” you might say, “I prefer this outfit of yours.”

    Example: Telling a friend you love their new outfit when you think it’s not flattering, just to spare their feelings.

    7. Silence

    Silence can be a form of lying when someone withholds information or refuses to speak up on important matters, especially when they know that their silence will lead others to a false conclusion. Like lying by omission, silence can be used to manipulate a situation without saying anything outright false.

    Example: Knowing that a coworker is being falsely accused of a mistake but choosing not to speak up to correct the record.

    8. Exaggeration

    Exaggeration involves inflating or overstating the truth to make it seem more significant or severe than it really is. Common forms of exaggerated thinking include overgeneralizing (“this always happens to me!”), catastrophizing (“this is the worst thing ever!”), and jumping-to-conclusions (“I’m always right!”). Exaggeration often serves as a way to evoke sympathy, justify actions, or amplify the importance of a situation to gain attention.

    Example: Saying you “had the worst day of your life” because you spilled mustard on your shirt, when in reality, it was a minor inconvenience.

    9. Minimization

    Minimization is the opposite of exaggeration; it involves downplaying the significance or impact of a fact, making it seem less important or harmful than it actually is. This tactic is often used to avoid responsibility, diffuse conflict, or lessen the perceived severity of an issue. By quickly glossing over key details or understating the consequences, the person minimizes the importance of the situation.

    Example: Describing a car accident that resulted in significant damage as “just a little fender bender” to avoid admitting the seriousness of the incident.

    10. Ambiguity

    Ambiguity involves the use of vague or unclear language to avoid giving a direct answer or fully addressing the truth. This technique often includes sidestepping the main issue, providing incomplete information, or being purposefully elusive. Ambiguity allows the person to create a sense of uncertainty or misinterpretation, which they can later exploit by claiming they weren’t lying but were simply misunderstood.

    Example: When asked if you completed a task, you respond with, “I’ve made some progress,” leaving the impression that you’re almost done when, in reality, you’ve barely started.

    11. Misleading Statistics

    People can lie with statistics too. Misleading statistics occur when data is manipulated or presented in a way that distorts the truth. This can involve cherry-picking data, using biased samples, or presenting figures without the necessary context to understand them accurately. The goal is to deceive the audience into drawing false conclusions based on the manipulated numbers.

    Example: Reporting that “90% of users love our product,” without mentioning that only 10 people were surveyed.

    12. Fabrication

    Fabrication involves creating entirely false information, events, or details that never happened. This is similar to falsehood but often involves more elaborate story-telling and imagination. Fabrication is common among individuals who seek to impress, manipulate, or deceive others for personal gain or attention, including pathological liars who get a thrill by making up bigger and bigger lies.

    Example: Inventing a fictional story about heroically stopping a robbery to impress someone on a first date.

    13. Gaslighting

    Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic where the liar attempts to make the victim doubt their own perceptions, memory, or sanity. This is done by consistently denying reality (“You’re just imagining things”), distorting the truth (“It didn’t happen that way”), and making the victim question their own experiences (“You’re insane” or “You’re the real liar”). Gaslighting is often part of a broader pattern of abuse and manipulation, and it can involve complex webs of lies designed to control and disorient the victim.

    Example: Telling someone they’re “overreacting” or “remembering things wrong” when they confront you about an event that just happened.

    Conclusion

    As you can see, lying and dishonesty can take many different forms. By recognizing these various types of lying and the subtle ways in which the truth can be manipulated and distorted, we can better identify these tactics in our daily interactions — both as a speaker and a listener.


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • Information Pollution: The Tragedy of the Commons and Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    Information Pollution: The Tragedy of the Commons and Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    [ad_1]

    Discover how the internet propagates “information pollution” and how it threatens our collective understanding of facts and truth. Here’s how to navigate the chaos and find clean water to drink.

    In a healthy and functional society, shared common resources are essential for the well-being and sustainability of the community.

    These resources can include natural goods such as land, water, and the environment, as well as man-made goods such as public schools, parks, and libraries.

    Generally, the ability to manage, sustain, and distribute these resources determines the success of a society, community, or nation as a whole.

    The Tragedy of the Commons

    The tragedy of the commons is a concept introduced by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, describing a scenario where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overuse and deplete a shared resource, ultimately harming the entire community.

    Classic examples include overgrazing on common land, overfishing in shared waters, and pollution of air and water. The key issue is that while the benefits of exploitation are enjoyed by individuals, the costs are distributed among the entire community.

    Information as a Shared Resource

    One common resource that is often neglected is news and information.

    Over the last century, newspapers, radio, TV, and the internet have become the lifeblood of many nations, shaping public opinion and collective consciousness.

    Truth and reliable information function as shared resources critical for various societal functions, including governance, public health, and social interaction.

    Just as a community depends on clean water, society relies on accurate information to make decisions, build trust, and maintain peace and harmony.

    When these information resources are polluted, the consequences can be severe, leading to mistrust, division, and poor decision-making.

    Information Pollution

    Information is a shared resource that is susceptible to degradation through neglect or deliberate actions, leading to a type of “information pollution.”

    This phenomenon mirrors the “tragedy of the commons,” where the self-interested actions of individuals can spoil a common resource for everyone.

    Information pollution occurs when false, misleading, or harmful information is introduced into the public discourse. This can happen through:

    • Misinformation: Incorrect or misleading information spread unintentionally.
    • Disinformation: False information spread deliberately to deceive.
    • Malinformation: Information that is true but presented in a misleading context to cause harm.

    All three types of information pollution hurt people’s ability to discern truth from fiction.

    Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    The internet can be a wonderful place to learn new things, but it’s also littered with information pollution, especially on social media sites filled with bots, spammers, and grifters.

    When a water well is poisoned, everyone in the town ends up drinking dirty and contaminated water. The same is true for information pollution on the internet – and social media is dirty water.

    There are a lot of factors that drive information pollution on the internet, but key ones include:

    • Clickbait and engagement farming – For most people, the only measure of success on the internet is how much attention you get. An outrageous lie or falsehood will get a million impressions before anyone tries to confirm what’s been said. People rarely correct themselves if a lie is getting them a lot of impressions.
    • Grifting and easy money – Many people see the internet as an opportunity for a quick buck, so a lot of content you see is purely money-driven, including advertisements, sponsored content, or superficial merchandise (mugs, t-shirts, diet supplements, brain enhancement pills, etc.) If you see anyone selling these types of products on the internet, you can be certain that truth is not their main motivation.
    • Bots and algorithm-hacking – Artificial engagement on the internet is a huge problem. A lot of viral content you see these days is pushed by bot farms and clever algorithm manipulation. Organic growth by independent thinkers and creators used to be a genuine thing about a decade ago, but most big e-celebrities and influencers you see today are completely astroturfed.
    • Politics and propaganda – A lot of misinformation and disinformation is politically driven propaganda. Governments and corporations are known to create their own bots and internet campaigns to shape public opinion in one direction or another.
    • Echo chambers and groupthink – While it’s natural to associate with people who think like us and share the same beliefs, the internet tends to heighten this tendency. People only spend time on online spaces that confirm their existing beliefs and very rarely seek out different perspectives.

    All of these factors make the internet a less reliable place for seeking truth and information. These phenomenon have only increased over the past decade, making the internet increasingly harmful and stupid (to be frank).

    Filtering Dirty Water

    Now more than ever we need to find ways to filter the information we are being exposed to online. Effective strategies you can employ include:

    • Pay attention to your digital environment – Ideas and information can often seep into our brain without us even realizing it, especially when we are consistently exposed to the same information over and over again. What are the top five websites you visit? Where do you go for news and current events? What’s your social media feed look like? All of these make up a part of your digital environment which is having an influence on you whether you realize it or not, so pay close attention to the types of online spaces you’re spending time in.
    • High value vs. low value information – Not all information is created equal. A random social media post that goes viral doesn’t have the same level of rigor as a peer-reviewed study. The information pyramid is a helpful guideline for assessing what information sources tend to be more trustworthy, accurate, and high value. Please note that this doesn’t mean a social media post is always wrong, or a scientific study is always right, just that one source tends to have more substance than another and you should generally give it more weight.
    • Be your own fact-checker – Too many people take funny memes, shocking screenshots, and catchy headlines at face value without ever digging deeper. This causes a lot of misinformation and disinformation to go viral, and it can also lead to some comical and embarrassing errors (“You actually believed that?!”). While there are many professional “fact checkers” on various sites, even those can be misleading and ideologically motivated. Unfortunately, in our low trust information world, there’s only one fact-checker you can really count on and that’s yourself. Learn how to double-check sources, dig up original links, and read full articles so you understand the context before accepting something as true.
    • Learn basic statistical literacy – Numbers can be very persuasive on a purely psychological level; if someone can make a claim with a statistic to back it, we tend to automatically think it must be true. However, statistics and graphs can be easily manipulated and deceptive. Understanding basic statistical literacy (such as knowing “correlation doesn’t mean causation,” or checking the “y” and “x” axis before looking at a graph) can give you a clearer idea of what a number is really telling you, and what is just being speculated, guessed, or misunderstood.
    • Beware of personality-driven consumption – Many people get their news and information from famous personalities such as news commentators, celebrities, influencers, or podcasters. While it’s natural to listen to people we like and trust, this can backfire when we end up mindlessly accepting information rather than confirming it on its own merit. For many, there’s an entertainment factor too: it’s fun to root for your “leader/clan” and make fun of the other “leaders/clans,” some people even form parasocial relationships with their favorite personalities, seeing them as a type of best friend. However, what often happens in these hyper personality-driven spaces is that they devolve into petty drama and gossip. That may be “fun” to participate in for some people, but it’s not education.

    If you keep these guidelines in mind, you’ll be able to navigate the dirty waters of the internet more effectively and hopefully find some springs of fresh and clean water to drink from.

    Conclusion

    Truth and reliable information are vital commons that underpin a healthy and functional society. Just as communities must manage natural resources responsibly to avoid the tragedy of the commons, societies must actively protect and nurture the integrity of their information ecosystems. Each of us plays a role in managing the information commons and minimizing information pollution.


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • Paradigm Shifts: A Complete Change in Worldview

    Paradigm Shifts: A Complete Change in Worldview

    [ad_1]

    Discover the power of paradigm shifts in driving individual and societal transformation, from overcoming cognitive dissonance to fueling scientific revolutions.

    When’s the last time you changed your mind about something?

    Many people are stuck in their beliefs and worldview, especially once we reach a certain age. Our map of reality is shaped most by early life experiences, including lessons we’ve learned from parents, teachers, and friends.

    A worldview can be hard to break out of on a purely psychological level.

    Once we are set in a view, we seek new information that continues to confirm these beliefs by only looking at sources that already agree with us. When new information contradicts these beliefs, we can easily ignore it or distort it to keep our map of reality intact.

    Accepting that we are wrong about something can be hurtful to our ego and pride, and in many ways our brains are designed to protect ourselves from this discomfort by simply ignoring contradictory information unless it has a real world effect on our lives. As Philip K. Dick once said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

    The average person isn’t primarily driven by a search for truth, they just need a map of reality that is good enough to navigate their lives effectively and not get themselves into too much trouble, which includes social pressures to conform to certain beliefs or stay silent about others.

    People can go through radical changes in beliefs though. Young adults and teenagers may go through “phases” as they come-of-age, where they question what they’ve been taught, rebel against orthodoxy, and search for their own meaning or purpose in life. These transformative years can lead to paradigm shifts that last a lifetime, such as adherence to new political, religious, or philosophical ideologies. Many may still return to their old beliefs later in life, but with a fresh new perspective.

    Learning about a new worldview, ideology, or philosophy doesn’t mean you need to adopt it – and it doesn’t necessarily lead to a paradigm shift. Often times learning about radically different belief systems can give us a firmer understanding of our current beliefs. There’s wisdom in learning about worldviews you find wrong, mistaken, or incorrect; at the very least, it will give you a better understanding of where other people are coming from.

    Paradigm shifts aren’t just new or updated knowledge, they represent a complete change in your perspective that makes you see and interpret old knowledge in a different way.

    This shift in perspective can be jolting and uncomfortable at first. We depend on worldviews to make sense of reality, so deep changes in perspective can often make reality feel more confusing or unstable at first.

    We often need to re-evaluate old knowledge and experiences through a new lens, and re-integrate them into a new and better map of reality. This is a mental shift that can sometimes take months or years before it is fully developed.

    My Paradigm Shifts

    My mind has changed a lot over the past decade, which hopefully is a sign that I’m learning and growing. When I first started this website over 15 years ago, my worldview was very different than what it is today.

    A few ways my mindset has changed:

    • Less Individualistic – During my college years, I explored a lot of libertarian philosophy that emphasized the individual over the collective. This is a common starting point in many “self help” circles too, which have an ethos of “take responsibility” and “pull yourself up by your boot straps.” While I still believe strongly in individual responsibility and initiative, I’ve grown to recognize the “no man is an island” mantra and focus more on the importance of social support, community-mindedness, and asking for help. This understanding has led to changes in my political and economic views too.
    • Less Materialistic and Money-Focused – It’s a bit embarrassing looking back on it, but I used to want to be rich and famous. I think a lot of it is just part of America’s narcissistic culture, where everyone strives to become some type of celebrity. As I get older, I’ve discovered new core values that have helped me focus on the more important things in life. I’ve also learned that a lot of my drive for money was really a drive for independence, and those aren’t the same thing. A person can make a lot of money and be trapped in their career to sustain their luxurious lifestyle, but a person of more modest fortune, who can be happy with less, often has more independence because they can then focus on other things in life. That was a counter-intuitive idea for me that took awhile to process.
    • Focus on Social and Cultural Forces – When I was younger, and likely a product of my libertarian days, I used to focus more on the importance of economics rather than culture. Generally, I saw things like music, art, and film as just a peripheral aspect of society, but now I’m beginning to understand their central importance. Every culture reflects and propagates a certain set of values, and a culture that promotes harmful and destructive values will lead to a harmful and destructive society. When I look at today’s world, I see a lot of cultural forces going in the wrong direction. I’m not pro-censorship in anyway, but I find many aspects of our culture need to be analyzed, criticized, and abandoned if they are hurting the happiness and health of a people.

    This is how my mindset has shifted over the years – and my mind will likely keep changing as long as I stay open to new information, new knowledge, and new experiences. At this point, most of my learning has happened outside of school and that’s a path I will continue on for the rest of my life.

    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    One of the most popular discussions on the topic of paradigm shifts is Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 book
    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    Kuhn describes that scientific progress isn’t just an accumulation of facts, which he calls “normal science,” but also periods of “revolutionary science,” where anomalies are discovered that force scientists to look at a field in a completely new way.

    Common examples of paradigm shifts in science include:

    • The Copernican Revolution in the 16th century, where there was a change from geocentrism (“earth is the center of the universe”) to heliocentrism (“sun is the center of the solar system”)
    • Newtonian Physics in the 17th century, where classical mechanics discovered by Isaac Newton replaced previous models of Aristotelian physics.
    • Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection in the 19th century, which changed how humans viewed themselves in relation to animals and nature.

    Often there is initial resistance to accept new paradigms, which can go through heated periods of controversy and criticism among contemporary scientists and laymen.

    However, once these new paradigms were adopted, they allowed for research and discoveries into new phenomenon which ultimately expanded the boundaries of science and learning.

    New paradigms completely change how a scientific field is looked at. Thomas Kuhn used the example of the duck-rabbit optical illusion to demonstrate how new paradigms can change how we see old information:

    duck-rabbit optical illusion

    A duck or rabbit? It depends on your perspective.

    New paradigms can take awhile to be fully adopted. Old facts need to be looked at through a new lens. New books, research, studies, lectures, and textbooks need to be re-written from this new perspective, leading to a type of cognitive restructuring of society. The philosopher Immanuel Kant referred to the advancements of Greek mathematics and Newtonian physics as “revolutions in thinking,” and they take time to process.

    Generally, new scientific paradigms are better than old ones because they have more explanatory power over understanding natural phenomenon and predicting future outcomes.

    The best measure of scientific truth is its predictive power: if a new paradigm fails to better explain or predict a natural occurrence over a previous paradigm, then there’s no real point in replacing the old model (from a scientific perspective).

    Paradigm Shifts: An Antidote to Cognitive Dissonance

    Paradigm shifts are spurred on when new facts don’t fit into old worldviews. This leads to feelings of cognitive dissonance which is when someone is forced to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

    Often the only way to reconcile this disconnect between facts vs. experience is to find a completely new paradigm that accounts for all old and new knowledge. This may require recognizing wrong or mistaken beliefs from your past, or cultivating a worldview with more complexity and nuance.

    Cognitive dissonance is a painful experience that most people choose to ignore or avoid. Many people double-down on wrong beliefs when they are passionately invested in them, which leads to excessive confirmation bias and conspiracy theories when beliefs continue to be held unchecked.

    At the same time, cognitive dissonance can be a catalyst for change – it’s a signal that we need to adjust our understanding of reality. This can become a real avenue for transformative thinking as long as you are honest with yourself, seek out diverse sources of information, and open-minded enough to see things in a new light.

    Conclusion

    Paradigm shifts are a part of learning and growing on both an individual and societal level. They are necessary for both radical self-improvement and radical scientific progress.

    While it’s important not to “change your mind just for the sake of changing your mind,” honest searches for knowledge and truth inevitably come up against walls that require a paradigm shift to get over and move onto the next stage.


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • Here’s how users on Truth Social are feeling about Trump Media’s steep stock decline

    Here’s how users on Truth Social are feeling about Trump Media’s steep stock decline

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump (left) and a phone displaying his social media app, Truth Social.Brandon Bell/Christoph Dernbach/Getty Images

    • The crash of Trump Media stock has rattled some Truth Social users.

    • Some on the social media site have claimed the company’s stock has been artificially devalued.

    • Shares of Trump Media are down about 30% in the last week.

    Truth Social users are feeling glum about Trump Media’s stock crash.

    Users on the social media platform — referred to on the site as “Truthsayers” — have been buzzing about the stock’s steep decline since it went public at the end of March. Shares of Trump Media have tanked more than 50% since March 27, with the stock dropping another 18% this week after the company moved to allow insider shareholders to potentially sell stock before the six-month lockup period is up. Shares declined further on Tuesday after the company announced that it would launch a streaming platform.

    Reactions to the plunge on the social media site ranged, with some users expressing shock and dismay, to acknowledgment that the shares might not regain lost value. A few said the sell-off was evidence of a conspiracy to discredit the former president and tank his net worth.

    “What is happening to DJT stock,” one user said in a reply to a post from Donald Trump’s official account, claiming they had invested their life savings into the company. “Please do something about the crash.”

    More conspiratorial Truthsayers have accused short-sellers of foul play, claiming that the share price has been artificially lowered somehow.

    “Remain Calm,” one user wrote on April 15, the day Trump Media shares plummeted 18%. “This drop was literally just someone selling 140k shares in 10 minutes premarket. This is extreme manipulation at best. There isn’t a massive sell-off. It’s one or a handful of people trying to cause panic.”

    “They’ll do anything to discredit President Trump,” another user replied. “God has different plans and will save the nations in HIS Perfect timing.”

    Other users blamed the Securities and Exchange Commission, as regulators did not pause trading of the stock during its decline. The SEC may suspend trading for up to 10 days if it believes doing so would protect the public in the event a company is not meeting its duties to shareholders. This is different, however, from a trading halt, which is ordered by an exchange to protect investors from excessive volatility.

    “DWAC has fallen over 30% over the last few trading days but they don’t cease trading.  They don’t like President @realDonaldTrump and his policies, especially his creation, Truth Social, so they are trying to destroy his company, DJT,” one user claimed.

    A smaller number of users were still touting the stock amid the plunge. Buying the shares is an “excellent” way to support Trump’s presidential campaign, and an investment in “uncensored free speech,” some Truthsayers wrote.

    Trump, who owns about 58% of Truth Social’s parent company, has fiercely defended the site from its critics. In a recent post on the site, the former president called his social media platform “AMAZING,” saying it had $200 million in cash on hand and no debt on its balance sheet.

    Truth Social has also looked to pass blame for the recent damage to its business. Shortly after the stock’s steep decline, Trump Media filed a suit against two of Truth Social’s creators, claiming they had failed “spectacularly” at their jobs and done “significant damage” to the company ahead of its highly-anticipated public debut.

    “I think daddy Trump has some surprises for us, we just have to be patient and wait for it,” one Truthsayer recently wrote on Trump Media stock. “NFA but I’ll buy more tomorrow. Gotta love the price.”

    Read the original article on Business Insider

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 20 truth-bombs we all needed to hear from a therapist

    20 truth-bombs we all needed to hear from a therapist

    [ad_1]

    Making the decision to see a therapist is hard enough. Digesting the information and advice that they give you, and using it to better yourself is something different altogether. It’s always a process, and it definitely doesn’t happen overnight.

    As harsh as some of these may sound, therapists are usually spot-on when it comes to pointing out things that we ourselves maybe can’t (or don’t want to) see.

    [ad_2]

    Zach Nading

    Source link

  • Audio: Vivek Ramaswamy Says He Wants ‘the Truth About 9/11’

    Audio: Vivek Ramaswamy Says He Wants ‘the Truth About 9/11’

    [ad_1]

    This summer, I set out to write about Vivek Ramaswamy because I thought that his public-speaking skills set him apart from his GOP presidential rivals. Whereas most candidates were struggling to find their lane, Ramaswamy knew exactly what he was offering: a message that seemed to be libertarian at its core, paired with views that were consistent with more extreme corners of the right. Ramaswamy’s team agreed to participate in the profile.

    Ramaswamy let me shadow him over the course of three days at the end of July. I visited his Ohio campaign headquarters and got a behind-the-scenes view of several of his media appearances. He brought me to his home and introduced me to his family. I flew aboard a private jet with him and rode on his campaign bus in Iowa.

    Read: Vivek Ramaswamy’s truth

    Over the three days, Ramaswamy and I had regular conversations—sometimes in short bursts, other times in longer sit-down sessions. Last night, in an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, he used the phrase free-flowing to describe our interactions. Our discussions were often challenging, but they were always respectful. With Ramaswamy’s permission, and in keeping with standard journalistic practice, I recorded all of our interviews.

    During our final interview aboard his campaign bus, I brought up one of his more explosive claims—a suggestion that we don’t know “the truth” about January 6. I asked him: What is the truth about January 6 that you’re referring to? His answer went down a curious path, invoking the investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, among other topics. At one point, he said this to me: “I think it is legitimate to say, How many police, how many federal agents were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers? Like, I think we want—maybe the answer is zero, probably is zero for all I know, right?”

    Yesterday, after The Atlantic published my story and his comments about 9/11 and January 6 drew attention, Ramaswamy told Semafor that the quote we published wasn’t “exactly what I said.” Last night, asked by CNN’s Collins about the same quote, Ramaswamy said, “I’m telling you the quote is wrong, actually.”

    The quote is correct.

    Here is the unedited audio and a transcript of our exchange about 9/11 and January 6.

    John Hendrickson: When you talk about all the things, We can handle the truth about X, you know, and you list off a bunch of stuff—one of them that you said last night is: We can handle the truth about January 6. What is the truth about January 6 that you’re referring to?

    Vivek Ramaswamy: I don’t know, but we can handle it. Whatever it is, we can handle it. Government agents. How many government agents were in the field? Right?

    Hendrickson: You mean like entrapment?

    Ramaswamy: Yeah. Absolutely. Why can the government not be transparent about something that we’re using? Terrorists, or the kind of tactics used to fight terrorists. If we find that there are hundreds of our own in the ranks on the day that they were, that they were—I mean, look …

    Hendrickson: Well, there’s a difference between entrapment and a difference between a law-enforcement agent identifying—

    Ramaswamy: I think it is legitimate to say, How many police, how many federal agents were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers? Like, I think we want—maybe the answer is zero, probably is zero for all I know, right? I have no reason to think it was anything other than zero. But if we’re doing a comprehensive assessment of what happened on 9/11, we have a 9/11 commission, absolutely that should be an answer the public knows the answer to.

    Well, if we’re doing a January 6 commission, absolutely, those should be questions that we should get to the bottom of. And there can’t be hush-hush, separate, it shouldn’t be outside the commission, leaked to some media personality the hours of footage. No, this is transparent. These are the doors that were open. Here are the people that opened the doors, to whom? Here are the people who were armed. Here are the people who were unarmed. What percentage of the people who were armed were federal law-enforcement officers? I think it was probably high, actually. Right? There’s very little evidence of people being arrested for being armed that day. Most of the people who were armed, I assume the federal officers who were out there were armed. And so, I don’t know the answers. We deserve to know the answers, right?

    We did a Jan. 6 commission. There are certain questions you can ask. We did a 9/11 commission, and if there are federal agents on the plane we deserve to know. And if we’re doing a Jan. 6 commission and there are federal officers in the field, we deserve to know. Just tell us the truth. Tell us what happened.

    Read: A bouncy, fresh brand of Trumpism

    And it’s not just that, right? I think it’s also the reflective, the reflection on the truth about the underlying motivations of people. What were the sources of the frustration? Right? Is it really just, Donald Trump riled them up in an eight-week period? Or are these people who have been lied to and suppressed for a longer period of time? I think it’s clearly the latter, right? And I think that the failure to recognize the whole truth—we want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That’s, that’s really, when I say we deserve—and I don’t think we’ve gotten it on any of those questions. On the Jeffrey Epstein client list, on unidentified flying objects, on January 6, on vaccine—on COVID-19 vaccine—on the origin of the pandemic, which we now know, by the way, systematic efforts by people who had no idea what the origin was to shoot down the origin. And I remember this at the time there were people in sort of the, uh, like, in the sort of the greater Harvard/MIT space, the Broad Institute and otherwise, who were sort of talking about, Well, there’s a decent chance it could have, but we should be careful about talking about this or It could undermine, erosion of trust in science. There’s no such thing as a noble lie. That’s my view. The noble lie is nonexistent. No lie is noble.

    Hendrickson: I think it’s interesting to compare and contrast 9/11 and January 6.

    Ramaswamy: Oh, yeah. I don’t think they belong in the same conversation. I’m only bringing it up because it was … I am not making the comparison. I think it’s a ridiculous comparison—

    Hendrickson: I’m not comparing—

    Ramaswamy: But I’m saying that I brought it up only because it was invoked as a basis for the Jan. 6 commission.

    Hendrickson: Of course. What I’m saying, though, is that I think Democrats and Republicans would agree that 9/11 is a day that’s like Pearl Harbor day, where there are good guys and bad guys and America was attacked. I mean, I think that’s very clear—

    Ramaswamy: I mean, I would take the truth about 9/11. I mean, I am not questioning what we—this is not something I’m staking anything out on. But I want the truth about 9/11.

    [ad_2]

    John Hendrickson

    Source link

  • “History Has Become a Battleground”: Why We’re Still Living in Trump’s Post-Truth America

    “History Has Become a Battleground”: Why We’re Still Living in Trump’s Post-Truth America

    [ad_1]

    The Republican Party’s assault on truth, supercharged by Donald Trump—whose prolific lying and “fake news” catchphrase defined his presidency perhaps more than his policies—brought scores of historians to the fore of mainstream news media. But the task of correcting the record has proven to be a daunting challenge in the current information ecosystem. Few historians understand the country’s historical battleground better than Kevin Kruse and Julian Zelizer, who, in their new book, Myth America: Historians Take On the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past, trace the origins of 20 age-old right-wing myths that continue to permeate American discourse today.

    The book’s incisive essays poke holes in everything from American exceptionalism and white backlash to Confederate monuments and America First, taking us on a sobering tour through some of the nation’s deepest and darkest chapters. Kruse and Zelizer, two Princeton professors, argue that Republicans are no longer just revising those chapters; they’re trying to expunge them altogether. “It’s easy to say, ‘Just stick to the facts, and assume that will win out,’” Zelizer tells me. “But that’s not the era that we live in.” 

    This interview has been lightly edited for style and clarity.

    —

    Vanity Fair: A good place to start is where Myth America begins in its introduction, which centers on Trump’s use of alternative facts and the concept of fake news. What do you think it is about Trump in particular that’s allowed him to create an entire political movement around completely disregarding facts, and not just bending them and shaping them to his liking, as Republicans have done in the past?

    Julian Zelizer: There are two factors that were important: One is the state of the party. The Republican Party had changed a lot in the last few decades to a point where they were more comfortable with a politics that wasn’t grounded in fact. Often, disinformation became a normal way of talking about policy issues like climate change. So part of it is the party, and part of it is the media ecosystem, which over the years has lost a lot of the filters that were important. And we’ve also seen the emergence of an openly conservative media ecosystem. So there was Trump, but there was this environment that allowed him to thrive.

    I know both of you are particularly public-facing historians. You write for major outlets and make TV appearances. Do you feel like Trump and his deliberate historical amnesia has compelled more historians to venture out from the academy into the mainstream media?

    Kevin Kruse: Yeah, I think so. A lot of us are catching up with the work he and others have done in the last few years, and Trump has been a big part of that. Trump and his enablers and the conservative media ecosystem have pushed a series of really bold and startling claims about the American past to make their standing or their accomplishments in the American present seem bigger, better, and bolder than they otherwise might have been. And that’s, in turn, prompted a lot of us to get engaged. And I think, in this case, social media has been a two-way street. It has certainly helped Trump and his supporters spread a lot of falsehoods, but it’s also given every historian on Twitter or Facebook or Substack an easy way to respond.

    Zelizer: I think one other factor is that history has become a battleground. And it always has been, but the intensity has really accelerated. You’re seeing in different states efforts to legislate what can go on in the classroom. The former president made American history a central theme. He ended his term with [the 1776 Commission]—a response, in some ways, to the 1619 Project. So I think you’ve seen a broadening of interest among historians—even historians who don’t just do modern US history, like the two of us—to get engaged and to jump in.

    What are your thoughts on the mayhem that’s taking place on Capitol Hill right now, where we essentially have a House Speaker-in-waiting, who’s failed 11 times now to get enough votes from his own party. What do you think is historically unique about the chaos with Kevin McCarthy and do any aspects of it harken back to earlier times or political moments in America? [This interview was conducted last week, prior to McCarthy’s confirmation as House Speaker.]

    Kruse: One way to look at it would be to say, what does this moment tell us about the larger continuum of increasing extremism in the Republican ranks? If you see Kevin McCarthy as part of this group of self-styled young guns that came out about a decade ago, where Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan and McCarthy put this clip out where they were kind of a new generation. They’ve all been picked off one-by-one as the party has moved even past their own kind of extremism on the right. Cantor got primaried for being squishy on immigration. Paul Ryan got basically forced into retirement because he couldn’t deal with the crazies on the right. And McCarthy has tried to cultivate them, but even he is not enough. So it’s less about the votes for him and more about seeing this larger race to the far fringes. 

    [ad_2]

    Jon Skolnik

    Source link

  • Lots of Americans Lied to Others About COVID (Study)

    Lots of Americans Lied to Others About COVID (Study)

    [ad_1]


    By Cara Murez HealthDay Reporter

    HealthDay Reporter


    MONDAY, Oct. 10, 2022 (HealthDay News) — At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 40% of Americans were untruthful about whether they had the virus or were ignoring safety precautions, a nationwide survey shows.

    The December survey of 1,700 people found 721 respondents had either misrepresented their COVID status or failed to follow public health recommendations.

    Folks ignored quarantine rules, told someone they were about to see that they had been taking more precautions than they actually were, and didn’t mention they might or did have COVID when they entered a doctor’s office. They were also untruthful about vaccination status, claiming they were vaccinated when they weren’t or that they were unvaccinated when they had taken the jab, the survey revealed.

    The most common reasons for the lack of transparency were that people wanted to feel normal or to exercise personal freedom.

    “COVID-19 safety measures can certainly be burdensome, but they work,” said co-author Andrea Gurmankin Levy, a professor of social sciences at Middlesex Community College in Connecticut.

    Co-author Angela Fagerlin, head of population health sciences at University of Utah Health, said the survey raises concerns about how reluctance to truthfully report health status and adherence to masking, social distancing and public health measures could lengthen the pandemic and spread infectious diseases.

    “Some individuals may think if they fib about their COVID-19 status once or twice, it’s not a big deal,” Fagerlin said in a University of Utah news release. “But if, as our study suggests, nearly half of us are doing it, that’s a significant problem that contributes to prolonging the pandemic.”

    Respondents gave a variety of reasons for their deception. Among them: They didn’t think COVID was real or a big deal; they didn’t feel sick; they couldn’t miss work or stay home; they were following the advice of a public figure or celebrity; and finally, it was no one else’s business.
     

    “When people are dishonest about their COVID-19 status or what precautions they are taking, it can increase the spread of disease in their community,” Levy said in the release. “For some people, particularly before we had COVID vaccines, that can mean death.”


    Continued

    Those most likely to engage in misrepresentation included all age groups under 60 and those with a greater distrust of science. About 60% of respondents said they had sought a doctor’s advice for COVID-19 prevention or treatment.

    The study did not find an association between misrepresentation and political beliefs, party affiliation or religion.

    Fagerlin said this survey asked about a broader range of behaviors compared to previous studies on this topic and included far more participants.

    But the researchers said they could not determine if respondents answered honestly and the findings may underestimate how often people were dishonest about their health status.

    “This study goes a long way toward showing us what concerns people have about the public health measures implemented in response to the pandemic and how likely they are to be honest in the face of a global crisis,” said co-author Alistair Thorpe, a postdoctoral researcher at University of Utah Health. “Knowing that will help us better prepare for the next wave of worldwide illness.”

    The findings were published Oct. 10 in JAMA Network Open.


    More information

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on COVID-19.

     

    SOURCE: University of Utah Health, news release, Oct. 10, 2022



    WebMD News from HealthDay



    Copyright © 2013-2022 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In Support of Truth, Right Conduct, Peace, Love and Nonviolence

    In Support of Truth, Right Conduct, Peace, Love and Nonviolence

    [ad_1]

    Volunteers from The Way to Happiness Association of Toronto joined the Walk For Values 2019

    Press Release
    –


    updated: Jun 5, 2019


    TORONTO, June 5, 2019 (Newswire.com)
    –
    The Way to Happiness volunteers from the Church of Scientology Toronto joined peace-loving people from throughout the city who gathered at Nathan Phillips Square and walked together to show their support for the Walk for Values campaign. The walk was organized by the Sathya Sai School of Canada.

    Walk for Values began in Toronto in 2003 and is now celebrated in 30 cities across Canada and the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, India and Malaysia. Its purpose is to raise awareness and respect for five human values: Truth, Right Conduct, Peace, Love and Nonviolence. 

    These values are shared by The Way to Happiness Association of Toronto, whose members live by the common-sense precepts of The Way to Happiness by author, humanitarian and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, which begins with these words: 

    True joy and happiness are valuable.

    If one does not survive, no joy and no happiness are obtainable.

    Trying to survive in a chaotic, dishonest and generally immoral society is difficult.

    ​Any individual or group seeks to obtain from life what pleasure and freedom from pain that they can.

    Your own survival can be threatened by the bad actions of others around you.

    I am sure you can think of instances of this actually happening. Such wrongs reduce one’s survival and impair one’s happiness.

    You are important to other people. You are listened to. You can influence others.

    The happiness or unhappiness of others you could name is important to you.

    Without too much trouble, using this book, you can help them survive and lead happier lives.

    While no one can guarantee that anyone else can be happy, their chances of survival and happiness can be improved. And with theirs, yours will be.

    Walk organizers ask each participant to pledge to practice one or more of the five values — truth, right conduct, peace, love and nonviolence — in their daily lives to become better Canadians and global citizens. 

    The Church of Scientology and its members are proud to share the tools for happier living contained in The Way to Happiness. Some 117 million copies have been distributed in 186 nations.

    Watch The Way to Happiness book on film on the Scientology Network.

    Source: ScientologyNews.org

    [ad_2]

    Source link