Wednesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, February 26. 2025

The Corruption of The New England Journal of Medicine - A leading medical journal has capitulated to transgender activists.

They're Fired: 100 Intelligence Officials In Sick Chat Group 'Terminated And Their Security Clearances Revoked'

Wednesday Potpourri

US taxpayer dollars were going to be spent on the following items, all which have been cancelled

This Washington Post Story on DOGE is Just Democratic Fear Mongering

Reporter Nick Sortor Confronts Eric Swalwell on Sleeping with a Chinese Spy Fang Fang While Calling Elon Musk a ‘National Security Threat’

Texas rancher, 74, is killed by IED planted by the cartel along the border

Trump Moves To Sell Pelosi Federal Building As Crime, Cost Concerns Grow

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:07 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Trump Moves To Sell Pelosi Federal Building As Crime, Cost Concerns Grow

Hey! Pelosi and her grifter husband are rich. Let 'em buy their own damn building.

#1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2025-02-26 10:59 (Reply)

Re: spending of taxpayers hard earned money.

$52 million for the World Economic Forum? Are you kidding me?The US taxpayer has to subsidize the billionaires at Davos? The same meetings that are held in secret and security wouldn’t even let you on the property. But some how, some congressional ‘representative’ got that dollar amount into the continuing resolution bill. At this point, I am beginning to wonder just how many in congress are actually honest, and working for Americans. A half a dozen?

I especially like this one: -$45mm to "address[] the needs, opportunities, and challenges identified by activists and other civic actors engaged in nonviolent collective action"
I’m trying to imagine how this even comes up? How does that conversation go? What does that even mean? Civic actors? They’re just pretending, reading words from a script? Who are the activists? How much of that $45 million comes back to the congressman that got that spending into the bill? Can’t the ‘representatives’ be identified? There has to be a record of who put that spending into the bill.

Our ‘representatives’ need to be audited. Too many of them are multimillionaires by the time they leave office. If they ever leave. Vote the bums out.

#2 B. Hammer on 2025-02-26 11:00 (Reply)

re Texas rancher, 74, is killed by IED planted by the cartel along the border

[quote]A 74-year-old Texas rancher has been killed after driving over an IED planted by a cartel on his land in Mexico, 80 miles south of the US border.

I wouldn't call 80 miles south "along the border."

Misleading headline to generate clicks IMO.

#3 feeblemind on 2025-02-26 11:13 (Reply)

As more evidence of the less than exemplary journalism in the Daily Mail link, consider this gem:

QUOTE:

The rancher lived just over the border from Mexico in the tiny Texan town of Brownsville. The explosion also killed a man in the same truck, and injured a woman.

Brownsville has a population of 145,000, according to Wikipedia. Tiny town?

Or is this an example of "things are bigger in Texas," where 145,000 is the population of a tiny/small town. Outside of Texas, a small or tiny town would have, shall we say, a population of several thousand or smaller. But small towns--or tiny towns-- are bigger in Texas.

At least the article is accurate in stating that Brownsville is "just over the border."

#3.1 Gringo on 2025-02-26 13:56 (Reply)

If you're an hour's drive from the border you are near the border. For practical purposes it is the border. And when an American citizen is killed by an IED on his property, even if the property is in Mexico, that's a major problem.

#3.2 jack walter on 2025-02-26 16:00 (Reply)

Not even a little bit our problem. The victim probably was also a Mexican citizen, there is no evidence he was intentionally targeted, and certainly no evidence that he was targeted because he was American.

We have enough problems without people making up more.

#3.2.1 James on 2025-02-27 07:06 (Reply)

Does anyone here seriously believe we are going to make the transitions necessary under the new administration without small and large scale rebellions?
There will be little "agents of change" fineggling the books somewhere along the line in your life.
Large professional organizations whose sole practice is organizing large scale protests?

You should watch carefully every where you go: VA health, city tax bill,court secretaries and attorney's office staff. Universities that have removed any visible DEI programs will be lecturing DEI strategies in the classroom anyway, etc.,etc.etc.

The (f)dems have educated, trained, and raised up three generations of obedient "do gooders" and "agents of change". When called upon they will each bodly step forward and proudly do their little bit to "stop Trump". Count on it!

#4 faculty wife on 2025-02-26 12:50 (Reply)

Breaking: Shakeup at the Washington Post?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/breaking-shakeup-at-the-washington-post.php

#5 feeblemind on 2025-02-26 13:25 (Reply)

NEJM are relative newbies.
The Lancet has been deeply left-wing for years.

#6 Assistant Village Idiot on 2025-02-26 15:46 (Reply)

I greatly approve of the Trump cuts. I do remain worried about medical research. There are databases and longitudinal studies we might lose. I only hope they go wisely. Ted Cruz's "Woke Science" list is 40% real, 20% borderline, and 40% mistaken.

#7 Assistant Village Idiot on 2025-02-26 15:50 (Reply)

Ah, a corollary to Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy: "Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge." In this case, all the cuts are good except the ones that affect programs related to your particular field of knowledge.

#7.1 Zachriel on 2025-02-26 16:48 (Reply)

Then it is better to just cut them all. There has been too much fraud, deceit, favoritism, corruption, and illegality by people without the best interest of our country involved in setting these up.

The important issues will resurface and we can decide transparently and with public debate whether or not to fund them.

#7.1.1 ruralcounsel on 2025-02-26 19:17 (Reply)

ruralcounsel: Then it is better to just cut them all.

Cutting all science funding would mean interrupting ongoing experiments, research into new treatments, and monitoring of contagions. Experiments include those where people have been entered into trials, such as for new cancer treatments. Top scientists may simply decide to move elsewhere. America’s competitors have little compunction about spending on research with potential long-term economic benefits.

ruralcounsel: There has been too much fraud, deceit, favoritism, corruption, and illegality by people without the best interest of our country involved in setting these up.

How much? Evidence?

#7.1.2 Zachriel on 2025-02-26 22:39 (Reply)

How much? Evidence?

Rhetorical much, Quibble-DickZ ?!?!?

#7.1.2.1 Zachinoff on 2025-02-26 23:25 (Reply)

For example: Musk claims DOGE ‘restored’ Ebola prevention effort. Officials disagree. What Musk and his acolytes fail to understand is that if you cut a program, the infrastructure collapses, and people move on. There can be years of work learning and developing programs, especially in complex fields like disease response. Once broken, they can be hard to restore. Meanwhile, they apparently can’t even manage to restore the funding.

QUOTE:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’

— G.K. Chesterton

This is an important statement of conservatism. That’s why Trump is not a conservative, but a would-be autocratic reactionary. Sure, a conservative would probably have been against FDR creating Social Security; but today, a conservative would be cautious about too radical change because so much now depends on the program.

#7.1.3 Zachriel on 2025-02-27 07:17 (Reply)

Zach-GPT opining on what defines 'True Conservatism' is comedy gold on so many levels.

#7.1.3.1 eeyore on 2025-02-27 09:35 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, February 26. 2025

Wednesday morning links