Matt, I think I speak for mostly everyone here when I say, if you want to take a few weeks or months to work on a single big story that you feel is worth it, then you should. I’d rather get the stories you feel are most important if it means not having something to read from you for a while.
that’s how it be when you pass all your laws in a massive omnibus at the end of the year, with no transparency into any of it ahead of time, leading to the majority of it going directly into your own pocketbook. that, and being able to continue this unabated for decades
As a lowly gig worker who takes public transportation,I for one am looking forward to a $12,500 subsidy for buying a Tesla. Elon Musk just took a beating on stock so he could use the sales. Also looking forward to having my SALT tax deduction reinstated. Oh, wait...
I just drove from to the east coast and back in an "import" - in two days. Not yet Tesla proof. The infrastructure is great for Tesla, but if I'm in a hurry, going with an ICE. The US charging infrastructure is not close to ready for mass EV adoption. Another story worthy of Matt's talents.
I’ve commented maybe twice in the land of the interwebs, but I’d come to echo this sentiment. Screw the (self-imposed) pressure of producing daily content, just work on whatever you want to work on.
And it seemed that RS gave him the time and funding that he needed. There wasn't the pressure of a regular column or schedule of articles, they came out when they were ready.
+1 for deep pieces. I would sprinkle in more regular short updates on those as you put them together plus any updates on old stories or news. Alex B does a good job of this - he wrote a book while also putting out related content and book news
"White Supremacy/racist/whatever" is the only card the left really has anymore. Covid fear is falling, people are starting to look closely at a lot of the so-called plans that have been animating the left for decades; the Democrat Jenga is starting to get really shakey.
meh..the whole race thing is played out too. It's actually sad to see them flailing so desperately. Ok, maybe not sad, maybe richly rewarding. It couldn't happen to a more deserving cabal of fucknuts!
There is a new poll out saying something like 40-50% of Latinos were actively offended/opposed to the term LatinX and only something like 4% supported it’s usage.
Well, then the "whole world" over there has run out of steam, and is long past believing their own BS. And it's THEIR Jenga that is shaky like falling down buildings.
Correct. The role of the Dem party is to exclude from the left, to be the gatekeeper for anything actually progressive, and to offer empty lefty sounding jargon and platitudes(which are supremely annoying) in lieu of anything substantive. Amazingly, this seems to satisfy many liberals and fool people like Jolly as to what a real left is.
Even though I'm a lefty, I don't fool myself into what this country is; fundamentally, we are center right, militaristic and convinced of our exceptional nature, despite all evidence to the contrary. After all, this is a country which views Marion Morrison as an actual hero, conflating the screen image with the real life man who deserted his wife and two sons for lefty bisexual Marlene Dietrich before and during WWII, until she dumped him for George Raft, and somehow never got round to actually fighting the enemy he so readily dispatched in movie after movie.
Good golly, I thought you were sane and was going to offer to start an actual dialogue about how this country really isn’t center right or militaristic until you veered off into that obscure meaningless film no one has seen reference
No. My post said this country is center right. I'm definitely left, but I don't fool myself into thinking I'm representative, because I know I'm not. One obvious thing that cancels the left in this country is that the Dem party, not left at all, stands in for it and positively bores people to death and irritates them with their contrived woke jargon and offers little substantive policy to help the working class, preferring the triangulating of Bubba Clinton and Obama as a way of advancing their big money agenda. The Repubs, meanwhile, speak plainly and don't overthink or bother explaining themselves; they just continue their same policies, knowing full well the Dems will "fold" because both are there to serve big money, the Repubs openly, the Dems surreptitiously.
The comment about Marion Morrison was there to show that people are less concerned with reality than with image. The fact that he was a big man and played the tough guy in movies is what sticks in people's minds, not his actions during WWII, which were either cowardly or purely selfish, probably some of both. People tend to be impressed by the visible and ascribe qualities to it that may not be there. After all, who looks the part of the All American hero, 6'4" Marion, or 5'5", Audie Murphy?
To his credit, and I give him little, he never legally changed his name, which is why I use it.
That, plus it tends to trigger his fans. Back in the day, Marion was not that uncommon a name for a man, for instance, a great pro football player like Marion Motley.
There is always the good old class war, but that would require the Democrats to leave their new-found PMC friends and go back home, which they are not likely to do given the money.,
Because there is so much Democrat BS, you have to come up with metaphors to keep it sounding fresh. If we simply did "Dem BS example #56,214,240,010" that would be a bit cumbersome.
What a lot of people missed is the context. The lead in to the Toobin segment was, "And now, for some legal commentary on this matter, is our legal expert, Jeffrey Toobin, who has matters well in hand."
By the way, I think "toobin" has become a verb in some circles.
Wait a minute. Didn't Toobin lose his job at fancy magazine for jerking off on an office zoom call? You can get on the freaking sex offenders list for pissing in a freaking alley. Now he is on CNN? Is that like, like hires like? We need to close the circle, jerk?
You must know the rule: 'If anything exists, however bizarre, someone has made porn out of it, and it's on the Internet.' Maybe Zoom, Jitsi, Citrix, etc., should consider promoting group-sex enhancements more overtly.
Matt I agree with Joe. I would be willing to put up $$ to a point if you crowdfunded for investigative work. The caveat that these things can turn up nothing is understood by most rational people
Matt talked a lot about how the next generation entering the journalism industry hasn't been trained how to do real Journalism.
Note to any early twenties folks out there that are unclear on their career path and interested enough in this stuff to subscribe to this newsletter: Come up with a good pitch for Matt and offer to work for him for laughably low wages as an intern/research assistant. Getting good on-the-job training and mentorship from someone like Matt is a way better idea than getting some grad degree because you don't know what else to do with your life.
Wait, don't we all put $5 a month into that? I mean, that is what I am doing...
But to your point about nothing turning up, we all know that happens, but as long as it is noted (and a good journalist will) make a story out of the chase.
Thank you for the comment Mr Swagman, I respect the challenge. I've heard from a view journalists that real investigative reporting (see Spotlight) takes time mate and is expensive. And that Matt had earned enough capital in my opinion, to ask for investment in pursuing deeper stories. How else would we find out who stole that Jumbuck?
"there clearly is something deeply wrong with this country; there clearly is white domestic terrorism" --Matt Taibbi
Matt, in a country of more than 330 million, we can find examples of literally anything, so I'm sure we could find examples of violent white supremacists. But what evidence is there that this is more than incidental, or that it shows "something deeply wrong with this country"?
But regardless, is anything going on in a basement as racist as continuing the war on drugs? Why does Biden get a pass for literally passing the laws that created this racist hellscape to begin with? Harris, too, for that matter.
How can they claim violence is at the core of people who believe that force is justified to restore Trump to the White House and/or Biden stole the election when the vast majority of these people, as far as we know, haven't actually done anything?
Doesn't the punishment come after the crime?
The whole presentation smacks of greasing the wheels for Thoughtcrime. Even the Qanon stuff... like, people have the right to think dumb shit.
This isn't to say white supremacy isn't present in the US or a potential problem, but I don't think this report calms anyone (like myself) who believe white supremacy is being used a straw man to justify Global War on Terror-like measures.
It's not "white supremacy" per se. They're linked, to be sure, but the sups are the fringe of the movement, the ones who garner the ink and video time. Did you read the Atlantic piece? The research methods, parameters, the subjects studied, and conclusions are rather straightforward.
The piece or the research project profiled therein did not address the notion that "white supremacy" is being "used a straw man to justify Global War on Terror-like measures." It wasn't about that at all. I can't even speak to this. Do you have evidence that the gov is gearing up for this? Maybe they are. I should think that the government would keep any formal plans that have been drawn up for this type of campaign under wraps.
If I were you, I'd worry more about "Global War on Terror-like measures" that might be executed if the entire global economy crashes. And I don't know about you, but if I'm hungry and homeless, I'll be taking to the streets regardless of whose in the oval office.
Curious where you found any research in the Atlantic piece. The conclusions were hysterical and unsupported by facts in evidence. How could Jan 6 be coherently labeled as a practice for the real insurrection when the FBI has already stated that they found no coordination? Aren’t you tired of reading pieces for the last 5 years that urged you to resist the imminent destruction of our democracy? Ho, hum. Boring. There’s more evidence that this is #13 “Doomsday thinking” in the list of “traits of extremists” than that it describes an real and present danger to democracy.
So now we're embracing FBI "research" because it comfortably dovetails with our learned biases? The same learned biases that might be---just might be--- leading you down the road of shame? Who knows? A journey that might yet end in disgrace? Again, who knows? Yet, how utterly true to form.
The Feds are bad, bad boogeymen one day---say, a day when they shine a little light on your boyfriend, the two-bit fascist conman (short-fingered vulgarian), then when it gets a little too "hot" in a conversation, the G-men are cinematically transformed into Eliot Ness-like superheroes, handing off the "right" research to your satisfaction, sweetened with "honeypot"-like conclusions? I didn't think you were that helpless.
So, once again ignoring your gratuitous insults and sticking to the point: where is the research in the Atlantic article? How are you more endangered by right wing protesters than by rampant crime around the UC campus? Are we to understand that you don’t believe the FBI’s analysis of coordination? Since you don’t believe that analysis, by your own standard we can assume you disregard as false all FBI analysis? Can you state a coherent position and defend it rhetorically without insulting someone?
I have not read the Atlantic piece. Perhaps I will.
Regarding my comments on a Domestic War on Terror, in my view that's one of the major reasons people think the threat of white supremacy is overblown. Did you see my joke about the UChicago map, showing where all these dangerous people live? It's straight up fear mongering.
Besides that? "Holding the line for Democracy" my asshole. Anyone with basic skepticism knows the person telling you that (especially when it's attached to sure a foreboding picture of the Capitol) is feeding you a line of bullshit.
In any case, as far as any evidence it's hard to say. But I was around for 9/11 and saw what happened after. Like they say, game recognize game. Just look at how easy it is to call people white supremacists. It's the new terrorist, just with less towels on our heads.
The map makes sense if you read the piece. It has nothing to do with "white supremacists." It profiles the demographics of the Jan. 6 rioters and the findings are somewhat surprising. Somewhat surprising info about them. Stop looking at pictures and reading only headlines. You can dismiss the study as meaningless, but the study is composed of facts and raw research data.
And don't take my conclusions or opinions at face value---listen and watch Trump and Bannon et al. Draw your own conclusions from all of this. Neither one of them are exactly being coy about their plans and strategy for the '24 election. None of this is difficult to grasp---unless you're existentially invested in not grasping it.
Do you actually believe that crap or the crap gellman, applebaum, and goldberg wrote in Atlantic? I think you are not seeing the forest through the trees. That cpost stuff is fascinating, besides being mostly white men, the demographics are pretty much in line with the nation. Remind me again, what those people achieved (for their side, not yours).
*Note: Points are placed at the city centroids, and not specific addresses of those arrested
604!!! Argh... It's funny that with 5,000+ blacks actually murdered every year by other blacks (hundreds in Chicago alone and some UC white students), 604 protestors have got tens of millions of blacks, hispanics, and one must presume all other non-striaght-white-christians, running for the hills.
I read it already. It is laughable hyperbole meant to confirm the biases of abject morons, like yourself. You are in no danger from a rouge band of "insurrectionists." If you go to the UC campus, you are in danger of being killed on or just off campus, by actual real people who will kill you. Dennis Shaoxiong Zheng was murdered by Alton Spann. Ther Alton Spanns of Chicago kill hundreds of people a year around the UC campus. You keep believing that a cross section of White America is out to get you...
No need to respond to me or anyone else anymore, we all know what you think because it is exactly what the msm tells you to think. Pathetic.
Gellman was just on PBS and concluded the segment by criticizing the fireman highlighted in the article as being woefully misinformed despite following news because he’s “not watching PBS and not reading the Atlantic”…
That's a foolish take on Gellman's part. The latter supposition is superfluous insofar that the fireman is in all probability not woefully misinformed but willingly misinformed.
He also threw out a quick shot at Rumble (referencing McInerney) as being a "right wing" site, to leave it hanging there.
Sadly, as more awaken to their biases, these types of things are going to destroy any credibility they may have once had, no matter how good anything else they report on may be.
It can't be unseen or unheard once one is attuned to it.
Aren’t all of our counties becoming more Hispanic? Saying there is a correlation between the browning of the country and the places the insurrections hailed from has to also mean that the counties that didn’t supply insurrectionists *arent* more BIPOC and that hasn’t been proven by this study nor is it anywhere to be found in the raw data
My personal conclusion of the findings: The insurrectionists aren't necessarily white supremacists or even racists, as many would posit. I conclude they're merely fellow honkies who can't handle the heat and, having demonstrated that they're also a minority of poltroonish candy-asses, are making the rest of us honkies look bad. What's your assessment?
My assessment is that the study is very interesting and that it’s a new way to think about what motivates political movements and that it’s a net gain to apply data analysis to solve political questions even if I don’t 100% agree with the conclusions, thank you for asking!
No, not all of our counties are becoming more hispanic. At any rate, the study DOES NOT say that.
From the study: I will use ALL-CAPS to highlight the salient data points which hopefully will serve as helpful study and comprehension aids.
"...Only one meaningful correlation emerged":
"...Other things being equal, insurgents were much more likely to come from a county where the WHITE SHARE OF THE POPULATION WAS IN DECLINE..."
*Note: A county where the white share of the population is in decline is not the same as a county that, in your words, is "becoming more hispanic."
"...For every one-point drop in a county’s percentage of non-Hispanic whites from 2015 to 2019, the likelihood of an insurgent hailing from that county INCREASED BY 25 PERCENT. This was a strong link, and it held up in every state..."
*What is being measured is the declining ratio of non-hispanic whites relative to relative to the population as a whole.
Either you're once again turning in a poorly diagrammed job of gaslighting, or demonstrating an irritating admixture of laziness, stupidity, and ignorance.
"...Only one meaningful correlation emerged. Other things being equal, insurgents were much more likely to come from a county where the white share of the population was in decline. For every one-point drop in a county’s percentage of non-Hispanic whites from 2015 to 2019, the likelihood of an insurgent hailing from that county increased by 25 percent. This was a strong link, and it held up in every state..."
The stats on the different rates of browning in the various counties are important because they drive the whole conclusion, but they are meaningless as written. Surprised you didn’t pick up on how stats can be misleading when you use percent change numbers to describe one set but don’t give percent change numbers to describe the comparison set and also don’t give raw data so a reader can determine if the raw change numbers can even be accurately reflected in rate of change numbers. Not enough info in the raw data to draw the conclusion being drawn
I really *dont* have to be much smarter, and I don’t know why you keep writing that. I’m smart enough to contribute to the conversation, and I have a law degree and passed 2 bar exams on first try so by any rational measurement I am smart enough for whatever you have in mind for me that drives you to demand my intellectual improvement. The conversation is weird, so let’s move on. No?
Right, that was just a rhetorical question. Forgive me. Question: What body of evidence would satisfy you? Still interested? Idea: Get off of both your ass and substack and gather the evidence yourself. It's out there.
If there's so much white supremacy out there, why does your side have to fake incidents of it so often? Why did the media present Jacob Blake as a victim of white supremacy, and why did Biden, Harris, and the media immediately seize on the transparently ludicrous story of Jussie? Because the demand for white supremacy exceeds the supply.
It's a nation of 330 million, so you can find instances of just about anything, including violent white supremacists, violent black supremacists, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.
Don't be daft. I'm a lone wolf---I don't do "sides." Curious: What "side" would you have me on anyway? Get back to me on that one, please. Always a cause for concern when a relative stranger takes a pass at pigeonholing me.
Your examples---the media, Blake, fake incidents, diversions, blah, blah, blah. And who gives a fuck about Biden and Harris? Why'd you bring them up? Old friends of yours gone sour? What do those two have to do with anything that's remotely edifying? Or that might shed some light on some questions that we might like answered on a few salient issues? None. Last person to infer that I was a democrat got punched in the face, by the way. Not that you have anything to worry about---I don't punch down. It's bad form.
Everybody around here bitches and moans about the bad old MSM, yet y'all can't get your sneering, sniveling faces out of the stuff long enough, or off your asses, to gather some decent information and intelligence---field research, reporting, reliable data that might explain some things to you, that is if you're not already too far gone down the Newsmax bunny hole, or whatever propaganda trough you floaters feed from. Boo! Hey skeptic---there's a democrat under your bed!
Still with me? And the problem isn't "white supremacy." The problem, the issue, the people we're talking about here, extends deeper and encompasses much more than a few phalanxes of neo-nazis. That's clickbait hyperbole that substack merchants like Taibbi trot out from time to time to moisten up the crowd's salivary glands.
Not that there aren't a good many white supremacists roaming the nation's back alleys and byways, and not that they aren't a growing menace threatening the peace and tranquility of this greatest of all nations, but they actually represent a smaller subset within the cohort of 20-30 million Americans---that's "Americans"---who harbor strange and bogus notions about election outcomes, voting laws, who's a fascist and who's not a fascist, etc.
A representative cross-section of these confused and troubled citizens could be found generally loitering inside and out of the nation's capitol way back on Jan. 6 of this year. Seems long in the distant past, doesn't it? Why not read the links?
I already read that Atlantic article and it was hilarious. Red meat for the pearl clutching suburban wine moms and Don Lemon watchers. Quite a bit of hyperbole, but little substance. Anyone remember the original narrative? First Officer Sicknick had his skull caved in with a fire extinguisher then it turns out he died of a regular stroke and there was no fucking bear spray. The FBI was caught by surprise, oh wait, no it turns out they had people there the whole time and even the New York Times had to admit it. They were heavily armed with "assault weapons", no wait, the weapon stories were bullshit. etc. etc. It is even more funny when you remember "hanging chads, "what happened in Ohio?," "Russian hacking," "faithless electors," "not my president," and all the bullshit stories about how the United States was supposedly controlled by a cabal of all powerful fascists lead by Trump. Then you link me an article from a security state think tank of all places? Really Martha? These guys are the enemies of civil liberties everywhere and they will make up excuses to go after the left whenever politically convenient. I will personally take what Glenn Greenwald has to say over you.
We might have to collectively start asking you to get to the point, to stay focused so you can contribute to the conversation here. I’ve read this twice and I think you are actually agreeing with Skeptic that there aren’t actually alot of white supremacists in the US and that the insurrectionists are more to be mocked than feared. Why not just say that? I am curious what you gain by this, as an aside
Evidence, or conclusory platitudinous party-line poop? Gellman’s last story was hateful and incendiary. What happened to rational exchange of ideas or fair debate?
Does the existence of Dylan Klebold say something about a nation of 330 million? And if it does, what does the existence of Darrell Brooks say? Or maybe those are a couple of messed up dudes.
Turns out in real life, Matt sounds like a cheery Mormon missionary. The "I'm baked all the time" inflection is a desperate gambit for journalistic credibility.
Seriously though, can't wait for the Loudoun pieces. If there is justice in the world, someday there will be a Matt Taibbi School of Journalism.
I absolutely don't think you sound like Elizabeth Holmes. I saw a youtube video with her once, and she was spouting the biggest bunch of bullshit i've ever heard. How did it take so long for people to catch on to the fact that she was so totally full of shit?
My PhD thesis was in that area and failure modes for Luminex. I tried to contact them, because all she had to do to have a great business is to let go of her own stuff and license one of the several that are out there which work. Roche has one, Prolume/Blind Pig has one, Luminex has one. Etc.. Here's an old quora where I warned people in a very diplomatic way. https://www.quora.com/Did-Theranos-get-a-high-evaluation-because-Elizabeth-Holmes-went-to-Stanford
It never occurred to me that she got it because she went to Stanford. I figured it was looks and confidence and marketing flimflam, and that some people wanted a girlboss story.
I'll try. I'm one of those who doesn't listen to audio, i read. If there's a transcript, i'll read it. I did read the pieces by the WSJ guy who got the clue, but that was years ago.
I just have a few questions. When you say that no one tells MSM journalists to do shoddy & misleading journalism, why is no one ever fired for it? Do they not have bosses? Do their bosses not care about shoddy & misleading journalism?
Since you say that their choices are "strategic" in what way are they strategic? Strategically placed to mislead? Strategically placed to garner clicks?
Rachel Maddow, as just one example, seems to practice nothing else but shoddy & misleading journalism yet she is being amply rewarded for it. It doesn't appear that will end any time soon. If she was outed as a confabulator by a source her audience would actually believe wouldn't that negatively effect her employer's bottom line?
Excuse my paranoia but the idea that the copious amount of shoddy & misleading journalism that's spewed out of every MSM orifice on a daily basis is just laziness & click hunger seems a trifle thin.
Their editors are running scared. If they tell the candy-ass snowflakes to start doing their job, said snowflakes will dig up something from 15 years ago and accuse their bosses of being cos-gendered white supremacists and get them fired. The inmates are running the asylum at many legacy media outfits.
You actually sound like my college English Professor who we affectionately called Dr. Droopy cuz HE sounded like the 3rd tier cartoon afterthought/sidekick Droopy Dog. He taught a great course on Twain that I highly recommend. He also wrote a book on Nabokov. Who cares what you sound like? As one of only a handful of actual journalists left in the US, bask in the knowledge that your “voice” is not a vibration emanating from your mouth, rather the truth emanating from your pen.
Respectfully disagree Re: Droopy. Our crew growing up thought that Droopy was hilarious. Including the antagonists, like Butch. (Bulldog with 5 o clock shadow and Irish brogue).
lmao. You've got me all wrong. I love Droopy and his slacker ways. And yes, Butch was the perfect stereo type of a potato-loving angry dockworker. I'm a fan of the 2nd and 3rd tier cartoon characters that never got the fame and fortune of a Bugs Bunny or Pink Panther. In fact my youthful interest in politics and social studies came from watching and reading stuff like Yogi Bear, Underdog, Fractured Fairy Tales Mad Magazine and later of course Twain, Salinger and Kafka etc
One wonders if the press' wrongful use of isolationist to describe non-interventionist actions is similarly distorted intentionally or just sheer stupidity; when the real journalists like Matt and Glenn expose this shit in an undeniable fashion, slowly the signal grows
Ironically, with the way the dollar payments system currently works, one (non-interventionism) naturally entails the other. (isolationism). The dollar’s reserve currency status can only be sustained by massive military spending and low trade barriers. Otherwise the US can’t run the vast balance-of-payments deficits needed to emit enough dollars into the world economy to finance global trade. Granted, we could theoretically replace that military spending with non-military investment in other countries, a la China’s belt-and-road initiative, but that would still be a form of interventionism. (and we’re America, we don’t really know much about building roads in other countries, having spent the last century building military bases and not much more)
I thought the podcast with Rogan was great. I loved listening to you passionately describe, at some length, how awesome a job being a journalist could be, vs. what it is now. I listened to the whole thing, and may run through it again.
He was a research/diligence guy at Enron. There were more than a hundred VP’s and he was never a public company level officer. He wasn’t even on the pre-BK cash payout list published on SLATE.
His point was that despite the fact he was _A_ VP doesn't mean he had much of a leadership role in the business, he was just 1/100th of it or so. Think of it this way, imagine if obama had 100 bidens...
I know a kid, valedictorian, 36 ACT, great extra-currs., and mother was 2x national champ at Stanford, he didn't get in. Stanford, Ivy, Duke...doesn't mean much and will mean less going forward.
So I went to the Enron 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Report / 10k. Each lists Sr Management and Board Members on separate pages (it is a U Chicago link but the SEC still has them as well). He wasn’t listed in any. And all the VP’s were noted as Executive VP’s since that was the next title after Managing Director (following the McKinsey naming conventions). Below that was director/manager/senior analyst and analyst.
The guys I knew who hired in during my tenure as VP were always a little older, had a narrow but deep skill and were deal support. So they had a VP card to be seen as relevant.
And he missed the 5 year reunion (the sad one), the 10 year reunion (pretty even emotions) and the 20 year reunion (fuck we’re getting old but good to see the smiling faces). Oh and at the 20th last week nobody knew who he was but we all had a laugh.
I worked at Tenneco Energy and on the sale of that segment to El
Paso Energy. I was at Tenneco Corporate designated to Corp and Energy and went to El Paso Energy post close. Those were 75 person deal teams (1996 was less efficient on diligence/structure/finance) but he was nowhere on the Tenneco Energy side.
As an aside, among the funny things about working at Enron was there were always fresh young analysts rotating around (except for trading). 1999/2000 we were all working our butts off. New analyst would walk in (from water/broadband/international/?) and say, “it was fucked where I was” every time. We’d all laugh and go back to work fixing stuff, unfucking stuff, trying to orig new stuff. And in the end they were all correct. Pretty much. My diagnosis was Shitty Board, Shitty Auditor and Shitty top 5-10 leaders who were in a unique position to grasp the consolidated balance sheet, interaction with MTM accounting (when you are the market your auditor shouldn’t let you provide marker pricing for marks), and sloppy, sloppy, sloppy use of corporate guaranty’s to plug holes. Fastow/Skilling for certain. Their side deal/hustles were truly wrong. The next level of management was 50/50 (and some even survived there post BK) Below that you worked hard on your thing alone.
Btw, at the end of the day, if a counter party had an Enron North America agreement with Enron Corp. guaranty their recovery was high 90%.
Thanks for the kind pushback though. It’s what makes MT comment board better than most.
Matt, I think I speak for mostly everyone here when I say, if you want to take a few weeks or months to work on a single big story that you feel is worth it, then you should. I’d rather get the stories you feel are most important if it means not having something to read from you for a while.
Agreed. Investigative journalism. How is Pelosi worth 315 million??
that’s how it be when you pass all your laws in a massive omnibus at the end of the year, with no transparency into any of it ahead of time, leading to the majority of it going directly into your own pocketbook. that, and being able to continue this unabated for decades
As a lowly gig worker who takes public transportation,I for one am looking forward to a $12,500 subsidy for buying a Tesla. Elon Musk just took a beating on stock so he could use the sales. Also looking forward to having my SALT tax deduction reinstated. Oh, wait...
Actually, that's simplified a bit, Teslas aren't eligible for the full credit.
I just drove from to the east coast and back in an "import" - in two days. Not yet Tesla proof. The infrastructure is great for Tesla, but if I'm in a hurry, going with an ICE. The US charging infrastructure is not close to ready for mass EV adoption. Another story worthy of Matt's talents.
lmfao
It’s a tax deduction, not rebate.
Right, any rebates are at the state level, varying by state.
My bad.
It's been covered before and nothing happens. Congress is exempt from insider trading rules.
And your point is?
Yes to this 👆 you don't owe subscribers an amount each month. Quality over quantity, you will be supported!
I would rather read a few good investigative stories then a lot of media insider stuff.
Part of the reason we're here is we've noticed Matt has good instincts on what matters and where the light needs to be shone.
I’ve commented maybe twice in the land of the interwebs, but I’d come to echo this sentiment. Screw the (self-imposed) pressure of producing daily content, just work on whatever you want to work on.
Yeah, the investigative pieces he used to do for RS apparently took a lot of time to do.
Yes of course because they were actually true and verified lol
And it seemed that RS gave him the time and funding that he needed. There wasn't the pressure of a regular column or schedule of articles, they came out when they were ready.
Here-here. Loved the interview btw. Rogan's show allows time for people to express themselves fully and Matt took full advantage.
While appreciate your editorials….you’re quite good at deep dive investigations. Looking forward to it.
+1 for deep pieces. I would sprinkle in more regular short updates on those as you put them together plus any updates on old stories or news. Alex B does a good job of this - he wrote a book while also putting out related content and book news
"White Supremacy/racist/whatever" is the only card the left really has anymore. Covid fear is falling, people are starting to look closely at a lot of the so-called plans that have been animating the left for decades; the Democrat Jenga is starting to get really shakey.
meh..the whole race thing is played out too. It's actually sad to see them flailing so desperately. Ok, maybe not sad, maybe richly rewarding. It couldn't happen to a more deserving cabal of fucknuts!
For one thing, minorities are starting to realize how insulting the whole premise is
There is a new poll out saying something like 40-50% of Latinos were actively offended/opposed to the term LatinX and only something like 4% supported it’s usage.
The Democrats are not the left. There's a whole world over here, that the Dems exist to pre-empt.
Well, then the "whole world" over there has run out of steam, and is long past believing their own BS. And it's THEIR Jenga that is shaky like falling down buildings.
(PS, that is the world I came from)
Correct. The role of the Dem party is to exclude from the left, to be the gatekeeper for anything actually progressive, and to offer empty lefty sounding jargon and platitudes(which are supremely annoying) in lieu of anything substantive. Amazingly, this seems to satisfy many liberals and fool people like Jolly as to what a real left is.
Even though I'm a lefty, I don't fool myself into what this country is; fundamentally, we are center right, militaristic and convinced of our exceptional nature, despite all evidence to the contrary. After all, this is a country which views Marion Morrison as an actual hero, conflating the screen image with the real life man who deserted his wife and two sons for lefty bisexual Marlene Dietrich before and during WWII, until she dumped him for George Raft, and somehow never got round to actually fighting the enemy he so readily dispatched in movie after movie.
Good golly, I thought you were sane and was going to offer to start an actual dialogue about how this country really isn’t center right or militaristic until you veered off into that obscure meaningless film no one has seen reference
No. My post said this country is center right. I'm definitely left, but I don't fool myself into thinking I'm representative, because I know I'm not. One obvious thing that cancels the left in this country is that the Dem party, not left at all, stands in for it and positively bores people to death and irritates them with their contrived woke jargon and offers little substantive policy to help the working class, preferring the triangulating of Bubba Clinton and Obama as a way of advancing their big money agenda. The Repubs, meanwhile, speak plainly and don't overthink or bother explaining themselves; they just continue their same policies, knowing full well the Dems will "fold" because both are there to serve big money, the Repubs openly, the Dems surreptitiously.
The comment about Marion Morrison was there to show that people are less concerned with reality than with image. The fact that he was a big man and played the tough guy in movies is what sticks in people's minds, not his actions during WWII, which were either cowardly or purely selfish, probably some of both. People tend to be impressed by the visible and ascribe qualities to it that may not be there. After all, who looks the part of the All American hero, 6'4" Marion, or 5'5", Audie Murphy?
Marion Morrison is better known as John Wayne. Not exactly an obscure reference even if most are not familiar with his real name.
To his credit, and I give him little, he never legally changed his name, which is why I use it.
That, plus it tends to trigger his fans. Back in the day, Marion was not that uncommon a name for a man, for instance, a great pro football player like Marion Motley.
Maybe wishful thinking, but it feels that way to me too.
Another diversion creating crisis. Stay tuned.
And certainly the crisis will be … dividing
Ukraine!!!
There is always the good old class war, but that would require the Democrats to leave their new-found PMC friends and go back home, which they are not likely to do given the money.,
Is this "jenga" thing a new right wing meme? Or just a small enhancement to the work-a-day substack vocabulary? I'm trying to stay current.
Because there is so much Democrat BS, you have to come up with metaphors to keep it sounding fresh. If we simply did "Dem BS example #56,214,240,010" that would be a bit cumbersome.
I understand. Thanks. On the other hand, tracking them numerically would streamline future scholarship and research.
It’s “house of cards” 2.0 and far more descriptive.
No.
The M-W's "anti-waxxer" definition has stayed the same since 2018:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/17/viral-image/no-merriam-webster-didnt-change-definition-anti-va/
I stand corrected. I will delete.
Such a great point!
And award for the best line ever dropped on Jeffrey Tobin:
'Noted Zoom onanist and sometime legal expert'
Put some ice on that Jeffrey or it will swell up ... in a bad way!
Another years membership paid for Taibbi!
What a lot of people missed is the context. The lead in to the Toobin segment was, "And now, for some legal commentary on this matter, is our legal expert, Jeffrey Toobin, who has matters well in hand."
By the way, I think "toobin" has become a verb in some circles.
Kinda like santorum became a noun.
I forgot about that.
Thank you, kind soul, for brightening my otherwise dreary day.
Nice
Wait a minute. Didn't Toobin lose his job at fancy magazine for jerking off on an office zoom call? You can get on the freaking sex offenders list for pissing in a freaking alley. Now he is on CNN? Is that like, like hires like? We need to close the circle, jerk?
This **** is getting too bizarre for fiction.
Reality killed parody.
On the bright side, have confirmation life imitates art.
You must know the rule: 'If anything exists, however bizarre, someone has made porn out of it, and it's on the Internet.' Maybe Zoom, Jitsi, Citrix, etc., should consider promoting group-sex enhancements more overtly.
Matt includes a priceless zinger like that in almost every column.
Yup, that was a knee slapper for me too!
Yes
#metoo
It's cool, Matt. You the man. Write WTF you want to write.We're here for the long term...............
Matt I agree with Joe. I would be willing to put up $$ to a point if you crowdfunded for investigative work. The caveat that these things can turn up nothing is understood by most rational people
Matt talked a lot about how the next generation entering the journalism industry hasn't been trained how to do real Journalism.
Note to any early twenties folks out there that are unclear on their career path and interested enough in this stuff to subscribe to this newsletter: Come up with a good pitch for Matt and offer to work for him for laughably low wages as an intern/research assistant. Getting good on-the-job training and mentorship from someone like Matt is a way better idea than getting some grad degree because you don't know what else to do with your life.
Hobo-hitching on our nation's great freight rail lines is the next big thing career-wise.
Great comment PLG - really positive thoughts
Wait, don't we all put $5 a month into that? I mean, that is what I am doing...
But to your point about nothing turning up, we all know that happens, but as long as it is noted (and a good journalist will) make a story out of the chase.
Thank you for the comment Mr Swagman, I respect the challenge. I've heard from a view journalists that real investigative reporting (see Spotlight) takes time mate and is expensive. And that Matt had earned enough capital in my opinion, to ask for investment in pursuing deeper stories. How else would we find out who stole that Jumbuck?
$5 dollars. A month. Speechless.
"there clearly is something deeply wrong with this country; there clearly is white domestic terrorism" --Matt Taibbi
Matt, in a country of more than 330 million, we can find examples of literally anything, so I'm sure we could find examples of violent white supremacists. But what evidence is there that this is more than incidental, or that it shows "something deeply wrong with this country"?
It is weird that a large portion of the really terrible stories are 100% fake.
But regardless, is anything going on in a basement as racist as continuing the war on drugs? Why does Biden get a pass for literally passing the laws that created this racist hellscape to begin with? Harris, too, for that matter.
Never seen a goalpost get moved that far that quickly.
The goalposts have been planted in the ground the entire time, you just ignore them when your team has the ball.
My team is trained exclusively to move the ball into the end zone---there is no contingency plan after 4th down.
And that's why you stop at nothing trying to control others. You don't care how many lives you ruin as long as the idiots bow before you.
Whoop whoop!
I feel like that makes it very difficult to score.
We know what you "feel"---what do you actually think?
Don't forget expanding on the Trump administration's use of the title 42.
Denies most people at the border the right to petition for asylum and instead either makes them stay in Mexico or flies them "home" immediately.
Also, kids in cages.
It's worse now than under Trump at the border.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/
https://cpost.uchicago.edu/
I have some questions about the UChicago stuff.
How can they claim violence is at the core of people who believe that force is justified to restore Trump to the White House and/or Biden stole the election when the vast majority of these people, as far as we know, haven't actually done anything?
Doesn't the punishment come after the crime?
The whole presentation smacks of greasing the wheels for Thoughtcrime. Even the Qanon stuff... like, people have the right to think dumb shit.
This isn't to say white supremacy isn't present in the US or a potential problem, but I don't think this report calms anyone (like myself) who believe white supremacy is being used a straw man to justify Global War on Terror-like measures.
It's not "white supremacy" per se. They're linked, to be sure, but the sups are the fringe of the movement, the ones who garner the ink and video time. Did you read the Atlantic piece? The research methods, parameters, the subjects studied, and conclusions are rather straightforward.
The piece or the research project profiled therein did not address the notion that "white supremacy" is being "used a straw man to justify Global War on Terror-like measures." It wasn't about that at all. I can't even speak to this. Do you have evidence that the gov is gearing up for this? Maybe they are. I should think that the government would keep any formal plans that have been drawn up for this type of campaign under wraps.
If I were you, I'd worry more about "Global War on Terror-like measures" that might be executed if the entire global economy crashes. And I don't know about you, but if I'm hungry and homeless, I'll be taking to the streets regardless of whose in the oval office.
Curious where you found any research in the Atlantic piece. The conclusions were hysterical and unsupported by facts in evidence. How could Jan 6 be coherently labeled as a practice for the real insurrection when the FBI has already stated that they found no coordination? Aren’t you tired of reading pieces for the last 5 years that urged you to resist the imminent destruction of our democracy? Ho, hum. Boring. There’s more evidence that this is #13 “Doomsday thinking” in the list of “traits of extremists” than that it describes an real and present danger to democracy.
So now we're embracing FBI "research" because it comfortably dovetails with our learned biases? The same learned biases that might be---just might be--- leading you down the road of shame? Who knows? A journey that might yet end in disgrace? Again, who knows? Yet, how utterly true to form.
The Feds are bad, bad boogeymen one day---say, a day when they shine a little light on your boyfriend, the two-bit fascist conman (short-fingered vulgarian), then when it gets a little too "hot" in a conversation, the G-men are cinematically transformed into Eliot Ness-like superheroes, handing off the "right" research to your satisfaction, sweetened with "honeypot"-like conclusions? I didn't think you were that helpless.
You need to be smarter. Much smarter.
So, once again ignoring your gratuitous insults and sticking to the point: where is the research in the Atlantic article? How are you more endangered by right wing protesters than by rampant crime around the UC campus? Are we to understand that you don’t believe the FBI’s analysis of coordination? Since you don’t believe that analysis, by your own standard we can assume you disregard as false all FBI analysis? Can you state a coherent position and defend it rhetorically without insulting someone?
I guess you missed the priming of the War Machine's pump when they were bleating about the "Domestic War on Terror" for the past 8 months.
I have not read the Atlantic piece. Perhaps I will.
Regarding my comments on a Domestic War on Terror, in my view that's one of the major reasons people think the threat of white supremacy is overblown. Did you see my joke about the UChicago map, showing where all these dangerous people live? It's straight up fear mongering.
Besides that? "Holding the line for Democracy" my asshole. Anyone with basic skepticism knows the person telling you that (especially when it's attached to sure a foreboding picture of the Capitol) is feeding you a line of bullshit.
In any case, as far as any evidence it's hard to say. But I was around for 9/11 and saw what happened after. Like they say, game recognize game. Just look at how easy it is to call people white supremacists. It's the new terrorist, just with less towels on our heads.
The map makes sense if you read the piece. It has nothing to do with "white supremacists." It profiles the demographics of the Jan. 6 rioters and the findings are somewhat surprising. Somewhat surprising info about them. Stop looking at pictures and reading only headlines. You can dismiss the study as meaningless, but the study is composed of facts and raw research data.
And don't take my conclusions or opinions at face value---listen and watch Trump and Bannon et al. Draw your own conclusions from all of this. Neither one of them are exactly being coy about their plans and strategy for the '24 election. None of this is difficult to grasp---unless you're existentially invested in not grasping it.
Do you actually believe that crap or the crap gellman, applebaum, and goldberg wrote in Atlantic? I think you are not seeing the forest through the trees. That cpost stuff is fascinating, besides being mostly white men, the demographics are pretty much in line with the nation. Remind me again, what those people achieved (for their side, not yours).
Did you like the big, scary map with all the mushroom cloud looking dots?
*Note: Points are placed at the city centroids, and not specific addresses of those arrested
604!!! Argh... It's funny that with 5,000+ blacks actually murdered every year by other blacks (hundreds in Chicago alone and some UC white students), 604 protestors have got tens of millions of blacks, hispanics, and one must presume all other non-striaght-white-christians, running for the hills.
Dipshit: read the piece and then you might be able to make sense of the data the map provides. But then again, given your progress thus far....
I read it already. It is laughable hyperbole meant to confirm the biases of abject morons, like yourself. You are in no danger from a rouge band of "insurrectionists." If you go to the UC campus, you are in danger of being killed on or just off campus, by actual real people who will kill you. Dennis Shaoxiong Zheng was murdered by Alton Spann. Ther Alton Spanns of Chicago kill hundreds of people a year around the UC campus. You keep believing that a cross section of White America is out to get you...
No need to respond to me or anyone else anymore, we all know what you think because it is exactly what the msm tells you to think. Pathetic.
You are from the midwest, aren't you?
Rust Belt.
So what?
Gellman was just on PBS and concluded the segment by criticizing the fireman highlighted in the article as being woefully misinformed despite following news because he’s “not watching PBS and not reading the Atlantic”…
That's a foolish take on Gellman's part. The latter supposition is superfluous insofar that the fireman is in all probability not woefully misinformed but willingly misinformed.
He also threw out a quick shot at Rumble (referencing McInerney) as being a "right wing" site, to leave it hanging there.
Sadly, as more awaken to their biases, these types of things are going to destroy any credibility they may have once had, no matter how good anything else they report on may be.
It can't be unseen or unheard once one is attuned to it.
How true.
And it’s coincidental that your post ends with my nom de plume.
Aren’t all of our counties becoming more Hispanic? Saying there is a correlation between the browning of the country and the places the insurrections hailed from has to also mean that the counties that didn’t supply insurrectionists *arent* more BIPOC and that hasn’t been proven by this study nor is it anywhere to be found in the raw data
My personal conclusion of the findings: The insurrectionists aren't necessarily white supremacists or even racists, as many would posit. I conclude they're merely fellow honkies who can't handle the heat and, having demonstrated that they're also a minority of poltroonish candy-asses, are making the rest of us honkies look bad. What's your assessment?
My assessment is that the study is very interesting and that it’s a new way to think about what motivates political movements and that it’s a net gain to apply data analysis to solve political questions even if I don’t 100% agree with the conclusions, thank you for asking!
Poltroonish candy-asses! That’s a term that hasn’t been in vogue since 1850! I agree w/ your assesment.
This comment is substantive! You’re doing it! You can still weave your magic word smithing wand AND add to the conversation!!!! Congratulations!!!
No, not all of our counties are becoming more hispanic. At any rate, the study DOES NOT say that.
From the study: I will use ALL-CAPS to highlight the salient data points which hopefully will serve as helpful study and comprehension aids.
"...Only one meaningful correlation emerged":
"...Other things being equal, insurgents were much more likely to come from a county where the WHITE SHARE OF THE POPULATION WAS IN DECLINE..."
*Note: A county where the white share of the population is in decline is not the same as a county that, in your words, is "becoming more hispanic."
"...For every one-point drop in a county’s percentage of non-Hispanic whites from 2015 to 2019, the likelihood of an insurgent hailing from that county INCREASED BY 25 PERCENT. This was a strong link, and it held up in every state..."
*What is being measured is the declining ratio of non-hispanic whites relative to relative to the population as a whole.
Either you're once again turning in a poorly diagrammed job of gaslighting, or demonstrating an irritating admixture of laziness, stupidity, and ignorance.
Regardless: you need to be smarter. Much smarter.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/
"...Only one meaningful correlation emerged. Other things being equal, insurgents were much more likely to come from a county where the white share of the population was in decline. For every one-point drop in a county’s percentage of non-Hispanic whites from 2015 to 2019, the likelihood of an insurgent hailing from that county increased by 25 percent. This was a strong link, and it held up in every state..."
The stats on the different rates of browning in the various counties are important because they drive the whole conclusion, but they are meaningless as written. Surprised you didn’t pick up on how stats can be misleading when you use percent change numbers to describe one set but don’t give percent change numbers to describe the comparison set and also don’t give raw data so a reader can determine if the raw change numbers can even be accurately reflected in rate of change numbers. Not enough info in the raw data to draw the conclusion being drawn
I really *dont* have to be much smarter, and I don’t know why you keep writing that. I’m smart enough to contribute to the conversation, and I have a law degree and passed 2 bar exams on first try so by any rational measurement I am smart enough for whatever you have in mind for me that drives you to demand my intellectual improvement. The conversation is weird, so let’s move on. No?
Love to answer this, but you're not making yourself clear. If it's helpful, I don't read applebaum or goldberg. What demographics?
"The prospect of this democratic collapse is not remote."
HAHAHAHAHA
Good one, but that horse left the barn in a mail bag during the COVID Wars.
One of the casualties was the 2020 election.
Highly credible stuff.
Right, that was just a rhetorical question. Forgive me. Question: What body of evidence would satisfy you? Still interested? Idea: Get off of both your ass and substack and gather the evidence yourself. It's out there.
If there's so much white supremacy out there, why does your side have to fake incidents of it so often? Why did the media present Jacob Blake as a victim of white supremacy, and why did Biden, Harris, and the media immediately seize on the transparently ludicrous story of Jussie? Because the demand for white supremacy exceeds the supply.
It's a nation of 330 million, so you can find instances of just about anything, including violent white supremacists, violent black supremacists, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.
Don't be daft. I'm a lone wolf---I don't do "sides." Curious: What "side" would you have me on anyway? Get back to me on that one, please. Always a cause for concern when a relative stranger takes a pass at pigeonholing me.
Your examples---the media, Blake, fake incidents, diversions, blah, blah, blah. And who gives a fuck about Biden and Harris? Why'd you bring them up? Old friends of yours gone sour? What do those two have to do with anything that's remotely edifying? Or that might shed some light on some questions that we might like answered on a few salient issues? None. Last person to infer that I was a democrat got punched in the face, by the way. Not that you have anything to worry about---I don't punch down. It's bad form.
Everybody around here bitches and moans about the bad old MSM, yet y'all can't get your sneering, sniveling faces out of the stuff long enough, or off your asses, to gather some decent information and intelligence---field research, reporting, reliable data that might explain some things to you, that is if you're not already too far gone down the Newsmax bunny hole, or whatever propaganda trough you floaters feed from. Boo! Hey skeptic---there's a democrat under your bed!
Still with me? And the problem isn't "white supremacy." The problem, the issue, the people we're talking about here, extends deeper and encompasses much more than a few phalanxes of neo-nazis. That's clickbait hyperbole that substack merchants like Taibbi trot out from time to time to moisten up the crowd's salivary glands.
Not that there aren't a good many white supremacists roaming the nation's back alleys and byways, and not that they aren't a growing menace threatening the peace and tranquility of this greatest of all nations, but they actually represent a smaller subset within the cohort of 20-30 million Americans---that's "Americans"---who harbor strange and bogus notions about election outcomes, voting laws, who's a fascist and who's not a fascist, etc.
A representative cross-section of these confused and troubled citizens could be found generally loitering inside and out of the nation's capitol way back on Jan. 6 of this year. Seems long in the distant past, doesn't it? Why not read the links?
I already read that Atlantic article and it was hilarious. Red meat for the pearl clutching suburban wine moms and Don Lemon watchers. Quite a bit of hyperbole, but little substance. Anyone remember the original narrative? First Officer Sicknick had his skull caved in with a fire extinguisher then it turns out he died of a regular stroke and there was no fucking bear spray. The FBI was caught by surprise, oh wait, no it turns out they had people there the whole time and even the New York Times had to admit it. They were heavily armed with "assault weapons", no wait, the weapon stories were bullshit. etc. etc. It is even more funny when you remember "hanging chads, "what happened in Ohio?," "Russian hacking," "faithless electors," "not my president," and all the bullshit stories about how the United States was supposedly controlled by a cabal of all powerful fascists lead by Trump. Then you link me an article from a security state think tank of all places? Really Martha? These guys are the enemies of civil liberties everywhere and they will make up excuses to go after the left whenever politically convenient. I will personally take what Glenn Greenwald has to say over you.
"Last person to infer that I was a democrat got punched in the face, by the way."
You do realize what a fucking crazy person this makes you look like, right?
Love your acerbic descriptions! While differing with some of your views here and there.
We might have to collectively start asking you to get to the point, to stay focused so you can contribute to the conversation here. I’ve read this twice and I think you are actually agreeing with Skeptic that there aren’t actually alot of white supremacists in the US and that the insurrectionists are more to be mocked than feared. Why not just say that? I am curious what you gain by this, as an aside
Evidence, or conclusory platitudinous party-line poop? Gellman’s last story was hateful and incendiary. What happened to rational exchange of ideas or fair debate?
Enlighten me re: Gellman's last article.
Oh Oklahoma? Charleston?
Does the existence of Dylan Klebold say something about a nation of 330 million? And if it does, what does the existence of Darrell Brooks say? Or maybe those are a couple of messed up dudes.
As someone who teaches in Eric Harris’ former school district pre-Columbine, it freaks me the hell out!!!!
Idk How many jihadists - 12? Population of all Muslim countries? Angels on the head of a pin?
Where are you quoting MT from? just wanna know where/when. Thx.
It's in the Joe Rogan clip that he includes above.
As a 25 year resident of Loudoun with 4 kids either in or through the school system, I can’t wait.
Turns out in real life, Matt sounds like a cheery Mormon missionary. The "I'm baked all the time" inflection is a desperate gambit for journalistic credibility.
Seriously though, can't wait for the Loudoun pieces. If there is justice in the world, someday there will be a Matt Taibbi School of Journalism.
I absolutely don't think you sound like Elizabeth Holmes. I saw a youtube video with her once, and she was spouting the biggest bunch of bullshit i've ever heard. How did it take so long for people to catch on to the fact that she was so totally full of shit?
My PhD thesis was in that area and failure modes for Luminex. I tried to contact them, because all she had to do to have a great business is to let go of her own stuff and license one of the several that are out there which work. Roche has one, Prolume/Blind Pig has one, Luminex has one. Etc.. Here's an old quora where I warned people in a very diplomatic way. https://www.quora.com/Did-Theranos-get-a-high-evaluation-because-Elizabeth-Holmes-went-to-Stanford
She's a tragedy too. 19 and Draper dumped $15 million on her head. She thought she was a genius then. She wasn't. She was just an ordinary girl with ordinary brains. 4 years after that diplomatic quora post above, I wrote this. https://www.quora.com/Could-Theranoss-technology-work-if-the-technology-was-more-advanced (No, and her CTO committed suicide.)
It never occurred to me that she got it because she went to Stanford. I figured it was looks and confidence and marketing flimflam, and that some people wanted a girlboss story.
Those are the reasons people go to Stanford now.
True story.
George Schutz was a family friend. That’s really all it took.
That may explain how she got started and got investors and PR. Still doesn't explain why so many people swallowed it whole.
Read an hour's worth of comments on these threads and it becomes rather easy to understand "why so many people swallowed it whole."
Listen to the dropout podcast.
I'll try. I'm one of those who doesn't listen to audio, i read. If there's a transcript, i'll read it. I did read the pieces by the WSJ guy who got the clue, but that was years ago.
Too long lol
I just have a few questions. When you say that no one tells MSM journalists to do shoddy & misleading journalism, why is no one ever fired for it? Do they not have bosses? Do their bosses not care about shoddy & misleading journalism?
Since you say that their choices are "strategic" in what way are they strategic? Strategically placed to mislead? Strategically placed to garner clicks?
Rachel Maddow, as just one example, seems to practice nothing else but shoddy & misleading journalism yet she is being amply rewarded for it. It doesn't appear that will end any time soon. If she was outed as a confabulator by a source her audience would actually believe wouldn't that negatively effect her employer's bottom line?
Excuse my paranoia but the idea that the copious amount of shoddy & misleading journalism that's spewed out of every MSM orifice on a daily basis is just laziness & click hunger seems a trifle thin.
But, like I said, I'm paranoid.
At this stage I think it’s safe to presume such behavior is a feature, not a bug.
MSM? Fox trot news has 13 of the top 15 cable news shows and more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined.
I think it's a feature, not a bug.
*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/italian-who-presented-fake-arm-for-covid-jab-has-since-been-vaccinated
Their editors are running scared. If they tell the candy-ass snowflakes to start doing their job, said snowflakes will dig up something from 15 years ago and accuse their bosses of being cos-gendered white supremacists and get them fired. The inmates are running the asylum at many legacy media outfits.
You actually sound like my college English Professor who we affectionately called Dr. Droopy cuz HE sounded like the 3rd tier cartoon afterthought/sidekick Droopy Dog. He taught a great course on Twain that I highly recommend. He also wrote a book on Nabokov. Who cares what you sound like? As one of only a handful of actual journalists left in the US, bask in the knowledge that your “voice” is not a vibration emanating from your mouth, rather the truth emanating from your pen.
Respectfully disagree Re: Droopy. Our crew growing up thought that Droopy was hilarious. Including the antagonists, like Butch. (Bulldog with 5 o clock shadow and Irish brogue).
lmao. You've got me all wrong. I love Droopy and his slacker ways. And yes, Butch was the perfect stereo type of a potato-loving angry dockworker. I'm a fan of the 2nd and 3rd tier cartoon characters that never got the fame and fortune of a Bugs Bunny or Pink Panther. In fact my youthful interest in politics and social studies came from watching and reading stuff like Yogi Bear, Underdog, Fractured Fairy Tales Mad Magazine and later of course Twain, Salinger and Kafka etc
"There is a heightened responsibility to get it right when people are amped up."
And yet, nobody in the mainstream media seems to feel the slightest obligation to do so.
Tell me, why the hell haven't we given this a name yet?
"These are uncomfortable things to talk about..."
Not for me, they're not. It's called sociopathy.
Or perhaps, religious zealotry.
Or a flimflam. I just like that word so much
I like voodoo better. As in "voodoo economics". But i'd probably get in trouble for using it nowadays.
I like voodoo too. I will work it in to conversation at work tomorrow and come back to report!
I just think of the Clintons when I hear or see “flimflam”. I forgot how much I like that word. Must use it more IRL
Mendacity
One wonders if the press' wrongful use of isolationist to describe non-interventionist actions is similarly distorted intentionally or just sheer stupidity; when the real journalists like Matt and Glenn expose this shit in an undeniable fashion, slowly the signal grows
"Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and smash your windows once a month."
Ironically, with the way the dollar payments system currently works, one (non-interventionism) naturally entails the other. (isolationism). The dollar’s reserve currency status can only be sustained by massive military spending and low trade barriers. Otherwise the US can’t run the vast balance-of-payments deficits needed to emit enough dollars into the world economy to finance global trade. Granted, we could theoretically replace that military spending with non-military investment in other countries, a la China’s belt-and-road initiative, but that would still be a form of interventionism. (and we’re America, we don’t really know much about building roads in other countries, having spent the last century building military bases and not much more)
Calling Ron Paul anything but a retrograde loon is a waste of both breath and time.
Ug if I would have read this comment first I could have realized that reading all your other comments was a waste of time.
Yeah, she's probably paid to come here, or worse: she volunteers her time and energy to trolling any pages that don't toe their party line.
"noted Zoom onanist"!
I thought the podcast with Rogan was great. I loved listening to you passionately describe, at some length, how awesome a job being a journalist could be, vs. what it is now. I listened to the whole thing, and may run through it again.
It seems it is hereditary. Elisabeth Holmes' father was a VP at Enron... - one of the "smartest guys in the room"....
He was a research/diligence guy at Enron. There were more than a hundred VP’s and he was never a public company level officer. He wasn’t even on the pre-BK cash payout list published on SLATE.
Thank you but…
Please provide a link. There are several sources stating he was a VP
His point was that despite the fact he was _A_ VP doesn't mean he had much of a leadership role in the business, he was just 1/100th of it or so. Think of it this way, imagine if obama had 100 bidens...
I see his point. Enron was a huge criminal organization -- what is the probability that many/most of its 100 top executives knew about that?
Also, Elisabeth is not very smart -- did she enter, like many, Stanford via father's donation?
she know geo. schultz...
I know a kid, valedictorian, 36 ACT, great extra-currs., and mother was 2x national champ at Stanford, he didn't get in. Stanford, Ivy, Duke...doesn't mean much and will mean less going forward.
So I went to the Enron 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Report / 10k. Each lists Sr Management and Board Members on separate pages (it is a U Chicago link but the SEC still has them as well). He wasn’t listed in any. And all the VP’s were noted as Executive VP’s since that was the next title after Managing Director (following the McKinsey naming conventions). Below that was director/manager/senior analyst and analyst.
The guys I knew who hired in during my tenure as VP were always a little older, had a narrow but deep skill and were deal support. So they had a VP card to be seen as relevant.
And he missed the 5 year reunion (the sad one), the 10 year reunion (pretty even emotions) and the 20 year reunion (fuck we’re getting old but good to see the smiling faces). Oh and at the 20th last week nobody knew who he was but we all had a laugh.
I worked at Tenneco Energy and on the sale of that segment to El
Paso Energy. I was at Tenneco Corporate designated to Corp and Energy and went to El Paso Energy post close. Those were 75 person deal teams (1996 was less efficient on diligence/structure/finance) but he was nowhere on the Tenneco Energy side.
As an aside, among the funny things about working at Enron was there were always fresh young analysts rotating around (except for trading). 1999/2000 we were all working our butts off. New analyst would walk in (from water/broadband/international/?) and say, “it was fucked where I was” every time. We’d all laugh and go back to work fixing stuff, unfucking stuff, trying to orig new stuff. And in the end they were all correct. Pretty much. My diagnosis was Shitty Board, Shitty Auditor and Shitty top 5-10 leaders who were in a unique position to grasp the consolidated balance sheet, interaction with MTM accounting (when you are the market your auditor shouldn’t let you provide marker pricing for marks), and sloppy, sloppy, sloppy use of corporate guaranty’s to plug holes. Fastow/Skilling for certain. Their side deal/hustles were truly wrong. The next level of management was 50/50 (and some even survived there post BK) Below that you worked hard on your thing alone.
Btw, at the end of the day, if a counter party had an Enron North America agreement with Enron Corp. guaranty their recovery was high 90%.
Thanks for the kind pushback though. It’s what makes MT comment board better than most.
Natch.