Who's worse, Goodreads or its subreddit?

Calling someone a "fricking idjit" gets your comment deleted,with threat of banhammer and trying to post an update about it of

So calling someone a "frickng idjit" in a comment gets a possibly real-human response from Goodreads? (And a banhammer threat?) Conclusion: When you bitch about Goodreads deleting DMs, call them idjits too. (They're still not as Nazi as the people who run the Goodreads-focused subreddit.)

isn't allowed? (Eventually the update posted.)

Or is it the subreddit, which unlike Goodreads itself, will not allow The StoryGraph to be mentioned. Nor will it allow comments about the subreddit's problems to be mentioned, I guess.

This:

I'll bet other sides like T hE st ---- or-y graf von baron don't do that. I next await to see how fascistic moderators may be, since I've already had a post hauled down for mentioning the actual name EVEN THOUGH GOODREADS ITSELF ALLOWS ME TO DO THAT

Got this warning:

Hi, this subreddit is for discussion relating to the Goodreads website. Posts must be directly related to Goodreads.

I'm crushed. 

I responded:

And, we can't respond to mods, either? Nor can we comment about this subreddit here? The derpity is deep.

I'm getting closer to being banned I'm sure. (And, no, you can't respond to a mod there. I had to respond to a response to my initial comment.)

  

Julian Assange makes desperate bid for 15 more minutes of Internet fame

Via the Dissident, who — we'll just see where this goes on any personal comments by him — Julian Assange has launched a criminal complaint against the Nobel Foundation over its awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, or Nobel Piss Prize as I sometimes call it, to Venezuela's María Cortina Machado.

A week ago, the Dissident had a good roundup on her history. For the unknowing, this willing pawn of US Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ was already plotting against her own government when Hugo Chavez was still alive. 

So, she's not deserving.

And? 

As I said at the Dissident's piece, Hank the Knife/Le Duc Tho weren't deserving. Nor was Dear Leader, honored just because he wasn't Shrub Bush.

But, deserving or not? Assange claims it's criminal:

Nobel’s will of 27 November 1895 is binding under Swedish law. It clearly states that each year the peace prize monies shall go to the person who during the proceeding year “...conferred the greatest benefit to humankind...” by doing “...the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” 

Any disbursement contradicting this mandate constitutes misappropriation from the endowment. The pending transfer of 11 million SEK ($1.18 million USD) and existing 10 December 2025 handover of the prize medal to María Corina Machado, in violation of this disbursement restriction, appear to be acts of serious criminality.

OK, there's our bid for a Warholian 15 minutes of fame. 

As for the past history, beyond the above? A list of all winners from 1979 on (choosing that year on purpose) includes, beyond the above:

• Mother Teresa, exploiter of the poor she claimed to represent, per Hitchens' demolition
• Elie Wiesel, Zionist flak 
• Aung Sang Suu Kyi, an eventual sellout to the Burmese military junta 
• Muhammad Yunus/Grameen Bank, a big stretch to call this about peace, and microlending has been shown to be somewhat overrated.
• The European Union, with its becoming more and more the political arm of NATO.

A few detailed thoughts in a few cases?

• Kissinger? Used his prize to lever US adventuresomeness in the rest of Nixon's, and Ford's, presidencies and beyond.
• Dear Leader? Used his to drone-kill at least one American citizen and otherwise expand warmongering, in concert with NATO in Libya (see EU above)
• Wiesel? See Oct. 7, 2023 and events both before and after. 

So, yeah, this is posturing.

Beyond that, while not knowing the details of Norway's version of German, non-Napoleonic, European law, this has zero chance as a criminal complaint. So, why didn't he sue instead? Maybe he knows the criminal complaint is such a sure-fired loser he can spin conspiratorial claims, whereas a civil complaint would also be a sure-fired loser but not a slam dunk. Norway's civil law appears to be very much precedent-based, with little in the way of statutory rules.

As for the reality of Assange?

I've got the whole deal here, in one of my top 10 posts ever, about the reality of who Guccifer 2.0 / Forensicator was (definitely NOT Seth Rich), the shady dealings in trying to hide his identity, Patrick Lawrence's pseudo-journalism on the last piece he ever wrote (or has been allowed to write) at The Nation, how both RNC and DNC were hacked, Duncan Campbell's yeoman work and more. 

I also remind you that Assange is not a journalist. That's despite what Chris Hedges and Ken Klippenstein, among others, say. More here.

As for the Dissident's piece? He doesn't have as much a following as Seymour Hersh, but oy, did Sy bring the nutters out. 

On the deep, dark issue of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory? Even if Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency started it, Assange goosed it. And, his toady, Craig Murray, also lied. That said, when presented with evidence he couldn't deny, Assange said, in essence "THOSE emails were hacked but that's not my source."

So, to all the people talking about Assange's integrity? Fuck off.

Assange's object and focus has always been himself first. Daniel Domscheit-Berg attested this nearly 15 years ago. Wikileaks is probably running low on money and he needs some. Yet Assange give a formal apology to Seth Rich's family and I will sing a different tune.

Assange did good in the past. Chelsea Manning can attest. That said, his formal suborning of Manning's actions is part of why he's not a journalist.

But, he never supported Wikileaks-type projects against less than fully democratic countries, ie, Russia and China. In fact, in the former case, he deliberately turned down options to help. And, this is why I’m a skeptical leftist, for the umpeenth time, and stand outside of political — and other — twosiderism. On this issue, I can call out Western imperialism and its Russian and Chinese forms as well.

Texas Progressives talk political news and more

SocraticGadfly looked at Texas and national Democrats embracing Henry Cuellar and laughed.

Off the Kuff has not one but two roundups of Deadline Day activity.

Birding from prison is a real thing. 

The bathroom bill has already brought bathroom police, workarounds and more. (The bill itself has only civil not criminal penalties, and these target the entity owning the bathrooms in violation, not violators. It also targets only local governments, but I "await" the day the Lege tries to bar unisex bathrooms in private businesses.)

Why does Southwest need to expand by 2,000 employees in Austin when it's more generally shitting the bed?

A GOP political battle in Lubbock is getting both uglier and funnier with likely statewide legal consequences. 

The Observer mourns the Lina Hidalgo Harris County once had, without fully wrestling with the issue of how much of her decline was self-inflicted.  (I personally think she was more the technocrat even early on.)

Yes, Steve Stockman is trying a comeback. The Observer discusses. 

Will wingnut anti-DEI efforts backfire on men wanting to attempt college? 

Neil at Houston Democracy Project Blog reported Mayor Whitmire suggested people speaking at Houston City Council Public Comment Session should “swear” are telling truth. Who will judge that? Whitmire?

Anna Genna-Hiroi wants you to watch out for conflict minerals as you do your holiday shopping.

Law Dork documents the forthcoming Humphries Executor atrocity.

Steve Vladeck delves into Justice Kagan's dissent in the Texas redistricting case.

 In The Pink Texas finds the true meaning of Christmas badly misspins the story behind the Lukan nativity myth to present an interesting, and politically supportable story about the Trump administration and religions right wingnuts, and an interesting sidebar, with no follow-up, about American Catholic political issues. No wonder Kuff the presumed Methodist loves this. And, of course, I had to write about it.

Hot Wheels Jasmine Crockett is still at training wheels

First, good luck on finding those "Trump-Crockett voters" you insist are out there. Also interesting is how she mocked Black and Hispanic potential "Trump-Crockett voters" a year ago; that's Tapper at CNN bringing up this week her original Vanity Fair interview, complete with "slave mentality."

Also of note in that piece? Her claim that Kamala is a Zionist Cop ran a "flawless" campaign, in a story that doesn't mention Israel or Gaza.

She's a squish on Israel and Palestine issues in general, and yet another reflection that being a member of the Congressional Pergressuve Cucks (that's the name) doesn't mean anything. (Reminder that Greg Casar was elected UNopposed to head the Cucks a year ago.)

As far as the idea of recruiting rural White voters? Beto-Bob tried that and failed. It was a "noble" effort, but would have been better spent on exurban metro counties, or even main counties like Tarrant, where Beto coattails might have gotten a Dem county judge.

She's going to get roasted, IMO, against either Cornyn, Paxton or Wesley Hunt — assuming she beats Talarico, which is by no means guaranteed.

And, after her Tapper appearance, the Trib is asking is she good or bad for Democrats elsewhere on the statewide slate? 

That said, a poll claims Training Wheels leads White Bread Talarico. OTOH, it's based in part on big name recognition difference.

At the Monthly, Chris Hooks has a bromance for a Crockett-vs-Paxton general election. Hooks' piece is also a musing on the impotence of much of the US House in general, though it dodges the issues of why this is the case, which actually has several reasons. He adds that Crockett is in all likelihood the weaker Dem.

Also at the Monthly, Michael Hardy counters with an interview with Candidate Training Wheels. She basically doubles down on the idea of "Trump-Crockett voters," insisting she'll run her campaign differently without specifying "how."

And, in case you need to be reminded of controversy, Barbed Wire rounds up the best of "Crockett's Clapbacks." 

Vanity candidates, thy name is Texas governor wannabes

Seriously, look at the dog's breath, or dog's vomit, of candidates both duopoly parties have thrown up to challenge Strangeabbott.

• Greg Abbott (Republican; incumbent)
• Andrew White (Democrat)
• Angela “Tia Angie” Villescaz (Democrat)
• Arturo Espinosa (Republican)
• Bobby Cole (Democrat)
• Carlton Hart (Democrat)
• Charles Andrew Crouch (Republican)
• Chris Bell (Democrat)
• Evelyn Brooks (Republican)
• Faizan Syed (Democrat)
• Gina Hinojosa (Democrat)
• Jose Navarro Balbuena (Democrat)
• Kenneth Hyde (Republican)
• Mark V. Goloby (Republican)
• Nathaniel Welch (Republican)
• Patricia Abrego (Democrat)
• Pete “Doc” Chambers (Republican)
• R.F. "Bob" Achgill (Republican)
• Ronnie Tullos (Republican)
• Stephen Samuelson (Republican)
• Zach Vance (Democrat)

On the Democrap side, I've already mentioned White's dogwhistling. On Shitter, I said already, who knew Chris Bell was still a Democrat. Should I vote in the Dem primary, it's probably Hinojosa, though Bobby Cole also presents a good case.

The Rethuglican candidates? Brooks is on SBOE; not sure of her angle. The rest are white wingnuts who think Abbott is a RINO on taxes, the border or both. 

Not running for gov or any statewide office? Joaquin Castro, cuz the dog ate his paperwork.

Meanwhile, Greens say they have 11 total candidates in state races (which would be big) but don't list their names. That's still better than Texas Libertarians, which still have ZERO on candidates. 

Zei Squirrel dives in the conspiracy theory rabbit hole over Charlie Kirk

I thought he had his head glued on better. I know he follows deep but good information on Israel, on Russia and Ukraine and more.

But?

He just went too far diving into a shallow pool with his hints that Mossad pulled the trigger. So? 

On Substack and Shitter? It's time to say goodbye to the Squirrel. He is a Charlie Kirk conspiracy theorist, claiming, per this Shitter link in this Substack piece:

That's how the Mossad would kill Charlie Kirk. 

Now of course we don't know for certain if they actually did this, at least not yet.

Wrong. Even with the "we don't know HOW," you're still claiming THAT. Yes, it's true that Israel did poison Palestinian wells, and I've read that before you said it.

That said?  

The real issue is the deluded belief that Kirk, making some mild to moderate moves to question Israel's genocide around the edges, was going to flip, followed by the other real issue, the batshit-crazy belief that Tyler Robinson even MIGHT have been a Mossad cutout. 

This one might get its own post. In the thread that that posted Shitter link is part of, Squirrel then links to Max Blumenthal, who claims Kirk got an offer from Netanyahu for a massive infusion of money into TPUSA, turned it down and was deathly afraid afterward.

Tosh and tommyrot. First, natch, the friend is anonymous. Not mentioned is the "natch" next step that the friend is also afraid of Bibi. This is all refudiated by the fact that Max is running it, and remains alive three months later.

Next, without bothering to trace either every dollar or every statement, Kirk got zounds of non-Zionist money from the day he started Turning Point USA and spoke about many things other than supporting Zionism. That said, even Max calls what Squirrel hints at an "unsubstantiated theory." 

And, of course, anybody relying on The UNReal Candace Owens to have one shred of factual information on this is a fucking idiot. Here's her nuttery level on this.

Beyond that, this is the person who used to be a garden-variety librul, but, after a self-own that she blamed on libruls, plus possibly seeing an opportunity to grift, became a wingnut.

This is also the person who claims Brigitte Macron is a man.

Per the old cliché, if Owens said it was day outside, I wouldn't just pull open the curtains, I'd actually go outside in case she'd painted the sun on my windows. 

And, other wingnuts from Tim Cess Pool to Nick Fuentes also think Owens is full of shit. 

I'm just unfollowing you, not blocking you. Unless you invite a block. Or unless I see further information that leads me to up the unfollow to a block.

I suppose some nutters think Kirk's seed money big donor, Foster Friess, was Jewish when he wasn't. Bruce Rauner? Also not Jewish. Ed and the other Uihleins? Not Jewish. Plenty other of his early and mid-"career" donors, per this story? Not Jewish. Also, his Prove Me Wrong "speaking" fees etc.? 

Beyond the issue of whether conspiracy theories, even if they're anti-Zionist not antisemitic, contribute to antisemitism or not, there's simply the issue that they're conspiracy theories.

I don't do conspiracy theories, period.

Related to the subject matter at hand and unfollowing people, I don't do the conspiracy theory — that led me to drop Electronic Intifada from my follows — that Israel whacked Jack.

I also know the difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy.