Organizations

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
Organizations.png
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.

ACLU

ACLU.png

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).

Berkeley

Berkeley.png
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

BLM.png
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

CCC.png
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.

CNN

CNNaganda.jpeg
CNN is to News what Chlamydia‎ is to promiscuity. Though that's not completely fair, since Chlamydia‎ doesn't pretend to be honest, and you can cure it with antibiotics.

ESPN

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

FDA

FDA.png
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.

MIT

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

MSNBC

Msdnclogo.png

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.

NEA/NEH

NEAforDummies.jpg

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.

NPR

NPR.png
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.

New York Times

NYTbullshit.png
A sad shadow of a once great News Agency. Admittedly biased (by their own Ombudsman and editors). 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

Occupy-Democrats.png
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.

PolitiFact

Politifact.png
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

SilkRoad.png
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).

Snopes

Snopes.png

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

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.

United Airlines

United.jpg
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

GoldwaterUN.jpg

“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

Washington Post

WaPo.png
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

Wikipedia.png

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

LastManStanding.png
Short summary