From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
There are many good organizations, many bad organizations. I'm more likely to comment on organizations whose reputation doesn't match their reality. If I hear too much corporatism (corporate worship), whether that's a Union, University or "Non-partisan" organization... or too much corporate bashing (by the same folks that rationalize worse behavior of other companies), then I'm probably going to write something on it.



A once reliable Civil Liberties non-partisan organization, now spotty and issues based that often aligns with the DNC. Their pool of followers seem lean more and more non-libertarian left, and that seems to be tainting them on issues they don't belong in, or way less reliable and a civil liberties organization. You can't be for minority rights and not for individual rights, as the smallest minority is one. Yet, they often try, choosing collective rights over individual ones, racism to fix racism (affirmative action), and ignoring parts of the constitution they don't like (like the 2nd Amendment).


List of riots and antifa attacks on free speech. They protest what they are, they hate their own actions. They're violently intolerant towards the civilly intolerant, which makes them violent and intolerant.

Black Lives Matter

I'll start taking BLM seriously, when they stop behaving like thugs. They're a bunch of racists that polarize humanity and promote ignorance. Maybe if they could pick better victims, the rational could get behind them? So far it's mostly repeat felons, getting shot by minority officers, for brandishing weapons.

California Coastal Commission

The CCC is what happens when community organizers run development planning: they "To protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline" by obstructing development and improvement of one of our countries great resources, saving it from humanity and the usefulness it might have to individuals or our country. Good for the locals who don't want to share. Bad for everyone who isn't already there. It's what tolerance looks like in California.


In 1980 Ted Turner started CNN, and put his left center spin on "the news". His later marriage to Hanoi Jane Fonda didn't help perceptions, nor did the newsrooms agenda convey a fully objective tone. He wanted to be the 24 hour version of the same left of center news outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC. So it started on a biased foot, and went downhill -- which I wouldn't mind as much, if they were just honest about it. It is wrapping themselves in faux objectivity and denial of any bias, that causes me to want to rub their noses in it until they just own what they are.


ESPN was told not to politicize sports, that they were just entertaining escapism. They ignored the advice. So what did we learn?




FDA is composed of Food, Drugs, and Administration. While I'm not against administration, if you look at what they do, and what it costs to do it, the rational and economic minded, understand that it could be done cheaper and better, if there was more accountability and less bureaucracy. It's not always how much you spend, but how well you spend it.



In 1995, two 20-something Ph.D. students from Stanford were looking for something to do their dissertations on, and decided that they should focus on a Web crawler and indexer research. Once they found funding and a revenue stream based on advertising, they became what's known in the Valley as a Unicorn: a multi-billion dollar company. And their saga from Intolerant College Dormitory Culture to Intolerant Corporate Cult began.


Mit logo.gif
MIT: Communism for Kids publisher. Seriously.



Starting a section on MSNBC and their bias is like starting one on listing all the names in the Holocaust. This is a Sisyphusian task to try to create a comprehensive list -- so I won't do that. Heck, it'd be impossible to list all the failures of any on of their personalities alone (Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, Mika, Maddow, and the other Hurricane Katrina's of journalistic ethics). So I'll just cherry pick, and offer a few nuggets, links to aggregate sources, greatest misses, and things that can point out the obvious to those capable of getting it.



I have nothing against the NEA/NEH, except how it's funded.

  1. The NEA is “welfare for cultural elitists"
  2. Over half their funding goes to the 10 most liberal states (New York, California, etc).
  3. Places like the MET get $300M from private contributions, and have $4B in assets, why should rural taxpayers have to contribute anything to them?
  4. Then there's waste -- like grants for "Sitting with Cactus", or subsidizing productions of Julius Caesar where our President is assassinated.

So if you like it, fine -- contribute to it. Forcing others to contribute to it, is not what liberty looks like. So you can support Liberty or the politicization of the arts (Cultural Marxism), but not both.


I so dread starting an NPR section, because I listen to them a lot, and hear at least 2 or 3 fuck-ups per day, unless it's a weekend or later at night, then it's more like 10. Thus, starting this section would be a full time job of correcting much of what they say about Conservatives, Libertarians, or anything but left leaning feel good stories.



A magazine that fell from mediocrity into the annals of incompetent partisanism

New Yorker

The New Yorker was once a renowned for their fact checking and quality. Then David Remnick took over as Editor and they became the cheap partisan low-quality mock-worthy rag that they are today. This details just a small portion of that.

New York Times

A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased by their own Ombudsman and editors, as well as exposed confessions. They still have occasionally good content, but that can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to deceive, commit lies of omission, or present things in a biased way.

Occupy Democrats

RMVP or Propagandaministerium of America. They exist to take things out of context, lie, distort, and feel that any means to their ends (of furthering the power of government over the people) is justified. At least based on their actions. If you can't look at anything they post, and find at least 10 things wrong with it, then you're not qualified to have a discussion.


List of evidence that supports the popular opinion that PolitiFact is biased partisan hackery. Worse than that, they act like angry grade schoolers when caught, which is fairly often. So there are basically two camps: those that think PolitiFact is non-partisan, and those who know what's going on in the world.

Silk Road

Licensing is a protection racket: the government takes away your right to something, then leases it back to you for a fee. Fuck with that, and the mafia will kill you, the government will give you life in prison (with no possibility of parole). That just happened to Ross Ulbricht for creating Silk Road (eBay for the DarkNet).



Despite a cabal of liberal editors, most of Snopes isn't that bad. But many fair stories doesn't correct for completely biased and unfair ones. And as a source, each article deserves it's own scrutiny, with many falling far below journalistic standards.


SPLC Logo.png

A far left site created to fear-monger for money. Their platform is used to attack anyone on the right, and by their own standards, they would qualify as a hate-group, if they applied their standards to left-of-center institutions.

Time Magazine

Time Magazine



Twitter is an enemy of free speech and tolerance. Examples include them shadow banning conservatives (and admitting it, on-tape), some of their employees getting excited about violating their members privacy (assuming those members are conservatives/Trump), and how they suppressed anti-Hillary tweets during the election. That's scarily Orwellian.

United Airlines

Here's the basics of what happened: Overbooked plane, Poker-playing unethical doctor (who lost his license due to trading drugs for sexual favors) is asked to leave -- he takes the moderate response of calling his lawyer who tells him to make a scene. He ignores directions of the flight crew (a federal crime) and tells the airport police to drag him off, makes a scene, and injure himself in the fight. The media and the uninformed blame the airline.

United Nations


“The time has come to recognize the United Nations for the anti-American, anti-freedom organization that it has become. The time has for us to cut off all financial help, withdraw as a member, and as the United Nations to find headquarters location outside the United States that is more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of voting members, someplace like Moscow or Peking.” ~ Barry Goldwater

USA Today


USAToday has a long history of dumb, and they should have been renamed USSA (United Socialist States of America) because that seems to be their bend/lean. But here's an example of their dumb.

Washington Post

A once great paper, now a liberal fake news rag that looks more like Bezos Blog than a Newspaper. A list of falsehoods, embarrassments, and mistakes.



Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good, or at least good enough. But don't let that lull you into an "Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Celebrity" fallacy. Science is skepticism. Wikipedia is hegemony. Wikipedia has millions of articles, across hundreds of thousands of topics -- and each topic is a community (clique) of editors, but herd-think rules most of them. That means if one clique is bad, that whole area can be bad. And there are bad (biased) areas of wikipedia. Especially in History, Science, Politics, and anything that's controversial. And everything can be political and controversial to folks that focus on any topic.

Media Bias

Short summary