#editorial corruption

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Charles Fain Lehman

Published: Apr 14, 2022

Frank James, the man arrested for Tuesday's New York City subway shooting, is a black nationalist and outspoken racist who railed against whites, Jews, and Hispanics. A careful reader of the New York Times could be forgiven for overlooking that. In a nearly 2,000-word article on the attack, James's race is not mentioned. The same is true for the coverage offered up by Reuters; the Washington Post only mentioned James's race in relation to his condemnation of training programs for "low-income Black youths."

Media critics on the right say that the conspicuous omission of James's race from these news reports illustrates a trend among prestige papers, which deemphasize or omit the race of non-white criminals while playing up the race of white offenders. But is it a real pattern?

Yes. A Washington Free Beacon review of hundreds of articles published by major papers over a span of two years finds that papers downplay the race of non-white offenders, mentioning their race much later in articles than they do for white offenders. These papers are also three to four times more likely to mention an offender's race at all if he is white, a disparity that grew in the wake of George Floyd's death in 2020 and the protests that followed.

The Free Beacon collected data on nearly 1,100 articles about homicides from six major papers, all written between 2019 and 2021. Those papers included the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, and Minneapolis's Star-Tribune—representatives of each paper did not return requests for comment for this article. For each article, we collected the offender's and victim's name and race, and noted where in the article the offender's race was mentioned, if at all.

The data suggest an alarming editorial trend in which major papers routinely omit information from news reports, presenting readers with a skewed picture of who does and doesn't commit crime. These editorial choices are part and parcel with the "racial reckoning" that swept newsrooms in the wake of Floyd's murder, which saw journalists dramatically overhauling crime coverage to emphasize the view that the criminal justice system is racist at the root—perhaps at the expense of honesty about individual offenders' crimes.

The chart above indicates that papers are far quicker to mention the race of white murderers than black. (Those two races account for 92 percent of mentions in the data, so others are not shown.) Half of articles about a white offender mention his race within the first 15 percent of the article. In articles about black offenders, by contrast, mentions come overwhelmingly toward the end of the piece. Half of the articles that mention a black offender's race do not do so until at least 60 percent of the way through, and more than 20 percent save it until the last fifth of the article.

Of course, journalists choose not only where in a piece to mention an offender's race, but also whether to mention it at all, and omissions can skew a reader's perspective.

To measure these choices, we identified the race of the offender in roughly 900 stories where his name, but not his race, was mentioned, first by looking at the race of people with the same name in Census data, and then hand-confirming race based on mug shots or other images published in local news stories.

Doing so permits an estimate of how often journalists highlight an offender's race—or don't. Again, the skew is startling: White offenders' race was mentioned in roughly 1 out of every 4 articles, compared with 1 in 17 articles about a black offender and 1 in 33 articles about a Hispanic offender.

This effect is driven in part by a handful of major news stories involving white perpetrators, though the attention paid to these stories is also an editorial choice. But even after omitting reports about white offenders Kyle Rittenhouse, Derek Chauvin, and the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, the race of white offenders is mentioned in 16 percent of cases, two to three times the rate at which the race of black offenders is mentioned. (Middle Eastern offenders were labeled as Asian in this analysis, but labeling them as white results in only a small change to the race mention rate.)

This disparity widened following George Floyd's murder. Before May of 2020, papers were roughly twice as likely to mention the race of a white (13 percent of stories) versus a black perpetrator (7 percent). After May of 2020, the numbers were 28 percent and 4 percent, a ratio of seven to one. Even omitting the above-mentioned stories, papers still mentioned race in 23 percent of stories about white killers post-Floyd, a six-to-one ratio.

It could be that there were more stories in which a white offender's race was relevant after Floyd's death than before. But it is also easy to see how the increased attention to white murderers represents a change in what reporters and editors thought it was, and was not, important for their readers to hear about, particularly after they publicly committed to revamping their crime reporting following Floyd's death.

Newspapers across the country—including the Inquirer—stopped publishing mugshot galleries in part because, two Florida newspapers wrote, they "may have reinforced negative stereotypes." Others committed to overhauling their language, substituting phrases like "formerly incarcerated person" for "felon" to respond to what the Poynter Institute described as an "inextricabl[e]" link between reporting on crime and "race and racism." And the Associated Press amended its style guide to discourage the use of the word "riot," which allegedly has racist connotations.

At the same time, major newsrooms have prioritized "racial justice" coverage, part of a push for what the journalist-cum-activist Wesley Lowery called "moral clarity" over "objectivity": writing news reports that take the sides on contested issues with the goal of advancing a political objective.

Such "moral clarity" may mean downplaying black crime and emphasizing white crime. In the case of offenders like James, it means leaving readers in the dark about an important element of the story—journalistic malfeasance that is, of course, in service of the greater good.

==

You don't hate legacy media enough.

[canadianabroadvery]

[aunti-christ-ine]

[contemplatingoutlander]

House Republicans censuring Adam Schiff says more about them than him

The Editorial Board of The Washington Post rightly calls out the House Republicans for weaponizing the House to punish one of Trump's enemies, after Trump threatened to primary the 20 Republicans who initially voted against censuring him.

Here are some excerpts from the editorial:

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) became on Wednesday just the third member of Congress to be censured in the past 40 years. The party-line vote reflected worse on the House Republicans who pushed it through than it did on Mr. Schiff. The resolution accuses the former House Intelligence Committee chairman of falsely claiming that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with the Russian government. Mr. Schiff responded that Paul Manafort, as chairman of Mr. Trump’s campaign, provided internal campaign polling data to a Russian intelligence operative amid widespread Kremlin efforts to assist Mr. Trump. Experts can debate whether that technically constitutes collusion. But this semantic question is hardly the basis for a censure motion. Contrary to what many Trump supporters claim, the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III never exonerated Mr. Trump. Indeed, the special counsel’s report laid out significant evidence of obstruction of justice. It’s indisputable that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on Mr. Trump’s behalf. [...] After 20 Republicans voted last week with Democrats to table the censure resolution, Mr. Trump wrote on social media that he’d support primary challengers against them. (Mr. Schiff had spearheaded Mr. Trump’s first impeachment and played a leading role on the select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.) When the resolution came up again Wednesday, this time without a threat to fine Mr. Schiff $16 million, most of those Republicans capitulated. In so doing, they weakened the power of congressional censure as an official rebuke reserved for egregious conduct — and, in the process, made themselves appear to be the wrongdoers. [color emphasis added]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

With Donald Trump’s victories on Tuesday, he has moved to the cusp of securing the 1,215 delegates necessary to win the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. The rest is a formality. The party has become a vessel for the fulfillment of Mr. Trump’s ambitions, and he will almost certainly be its standard-bearer for a third time.

This is a tragedy for the Republican Party and for the country it purports to serve.

In a healthy democracy, political parties are organizations devoted to electing politicians who share a set of values and policy goals. They operate part of the machinery of politics, working with elected officials and civil servants to make elections happen. Members air their differences within the party to strengthen and sharpen its positions. In America’s two-party democracy, Republicans and Democrats have regularly traded places in the White House and shared power in Congress in a system that has been stable for more than a century.

The Republican Party is forsaking all of those responsibilities and instead has become an organization whose goal is the election of one person at the expense of anything else, including integrity, principle, policy and patriotism. As an individual, Mr. Trump has demonstrated a contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law that makes him unfit to hold office. But when an entire political party, particularly one of the two main parties in a country as powerful as the United States, turns into an instrument of that person and his most dangerous ideas, the damage affects everyone.

Mr. Trump’s ability to solidify control of the Republican Party and to quickly defeat his challengers for the nomination owes partly to the fervor of a bedrock of supporters who have delivered substantial victories for him in nearly every primary contest so far. Perhaps his most important advantage, however, is that there are few remaining leaders in the Republican Party who seem willing to stand up for an alternative vision of the party’s future. Those who continue to openly oppose him are, overwhelmingly, those who have left office. Some have said they feared speaking out because they faced threats of violence and retribution.

In a traditional presidential primary contest, victory signals a democratic mandate, in which the winner enjoys popular legitimacy, conferred by the party’s voters, but also accepts that defeated rivals and their competing views have a place within the party. Mr. Trump no longer does, having used the primary contest as a tool for purging the party of dissent. The Republican candidates who have dropped out of the race have had to either demonstrate their devotion to him or risk being shunned. His last rival, Nikki Haley, is a Republican leader with a conservative track record going back decades who served in Mr. Trump’s cabinet in his first term. He has now cast her out. “She’s essentially a Democrat,” the former president said the day before her loss in South Carolina. “I think she should probably switch parties.”

Without a sufficient number of Republicans holding positions of power who have shown that they will serve the Constitution and the American people before the president, the country takes an enormous risk. Some of the Republicans who are no longer welcome — such as Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney — tried to hold their party’s leader accountable to his basic duty to uphold the law. Without such leaders, the Republican Party also loses the capacity to avoid decisions that can hurt its supporters. John McCain, for example, voted to save Obamacare because his party had not come up with an alternative and millions of people otherwise would have lost their health coverage.

A party without dissent or internal debate, one that exists only to serve the will of one man, is also one that is unable to govern.

Republicans in Congress have already shown their willingness to set aside their own priorities as lawmakers at Mr. Trump’s direction. The country witnessed a stark display of this devotion recently during the clashes over negotiations for a spending bill. Republicans have long pushed for tougher border security measures, and Mr. Trump put this at the top of the party’s agenda. With a narrow majority in the House and bipartisan agreement on a compromise in the Senate, Republicans could have achieved this goal. But once Mr. Trump insisted that he needed immigration as a campaign issue, his loyalists in the House ensured that the party would lose a chance to give their voters what they had promised. Even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who pushed for the bill for months, ultimately abandoned it and voted against it. He is now considering endorsing Mr. Trump, a man whom he has not spoken to in over three years, according to reporting by Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman and Shane Goldmacher of The Times. And last week, Mr. McConnell announced that he would step down from his leadership post.

Similarly, the party appears ready to ditch its promises to support Ukraine and its longstanding commitment to the security of our NATO allies in Europe. When Mr. Trump ranted about getting NATO countries to “pay up” or face his threats to encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to them, many Republican leaders said nothing.

The Republican Party has long included leaders with widely different visions of America’s place in the world, and many Republican voters may agree with Mr. Trump’s view that the United States should not be involved in foreign conflicts or even that NATO is unimportant. But once competing views are no longer welcome, the party loses its ability to consider how ideas are put into practice and what the consequences may be.

During Mr. Trump’s first term, for example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo persuaded him not to abruptly withdraw from NATO. If Mr. Trump were to try in a second term, Congress could, in theory, restrain him; in December lawmakers passed a measure requiring congressional approval for any president to leave NATO. But as Peter Feaver pointed out recently in Foreign Affairs, such constraints mean little to a party that has submitted to the “ideological mastery” of its leader. Marco Rubio, one of the authors of that legislation, now insists that he has “zero concern” about Mr. Trump’s comments.

It may be tempting for Americans to dismiss these capitulations as politicians doing whatever it takes to get elected or to ignore Mr. Trump’s bullying of other Republicans and tune out until Election Day. In one recent poll, two-thirds of Americans said they were “tired of seeing the same candidates in presidential elections and want someone new.”

But tuning out is a luxury that no American, regardless of party, can afford. Mr. Trump in 2024 would be the nominee of a very different Republican Party — one that has lost whatever power it once had to hold him in check.

This subservience was not inevitable. After Mr. Trump incited the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, some party leaders, especially in Congress, suggested that they were ready to break with him. The Republican Party’s disappointing results in the 2022 midterm elections appeared to further undermine Mr. Trump’s support, adding doubts about his political potency to the longstanding concerns about his commitment to democracy.

But after Mr. Trump announced his candidacy and it became clear that the multiple indictments against him only strengthened his support, that resistance faded away. He is now using these cases for his own political purposes, campaigning to raise money for his legal defense, and has turned his appearances in court into opportunities to cast doubt on the integrity of the legal system.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal Jan. 6 trial, imposed a gag order on him to prevent him from intimidating witnesses. She noted that Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers did not contradict testimony “that when defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed.” The leadership of the Republican Party has been silent.

With loyalists now in control of the Republican National Committee and his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, in line to become its co-chair, the party may soon bend to Mr. Trump’s insistence that the party pay his legal bills. His campaign spent roughly $50 million on lawyers last year, and those expenses are mounting as the trial dates approach. One prominent Republican, Henry Barbour, has sponsored resolutions barring the committee from doing so, but he conceded that the effort can do little more than just make a point.

Mr. Trump has also taken over the party’s state-level machinery. This has allowed him to rewrite the rules of the Republican primary process and add winner-take-all contests, which work in his favor. That is the kind of advantage that political parties normally give incumbents. But in the process, he has divided some state parties into factions, some of which no longer speak to each other. Democrats may see the dysfunction and bickering among Republicans as an advantage. But it also means that for Democrats, even state and local races turn into ones against Mr. Trump. Rather than competing on the merits of policy or ideology, they find themselves running against candidates without coherent positions other than their loyalty to Trumpism.

Republican voters may soon no longer have a choice about their nominee; their only choice is whether to support someone who would do to the country what he has already done to his party.

[scrambler]

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“PENITENTIARY INVESTIGATION,” Kingston Daily Standard. October 26, 1920. Page 4. ----

The Kingston Standard insists that the Portsmouth Penitentiary needs a thorough housecleaning. It asserts that officials of the institution "played in" with the prisoners who were contemplating a general jail delivery. If this statement be true, it is high time that the Government gave it a look over. - Hamilton Times.

Surely the Times is aware of the fact that the Government has not only given but still is giving the Penitentiary a very careful and searching "look over." For some weeks now Government investigators have been at work, one immediate and direct result of this investigation is the present upheaval in the Penitentiary, with much important and startling evidence in the hands of the investigators and the end not yet in sight. It certainly will not be the fault of the Government if the institution is not cleaned up-and this in despite, of the efforts seeking to discredit the work of the officials and investigators and to hold them rather than the real offenders responsible for the present chaotic conditions.

[llewelynpritch]

https://lnkd.in/eK3GzKcv https://unitedforclimate.blogspot.com/  https://labradorleadstheworld.blogspot.com/ https://landprotectorshumanrightsmovement.blogspot.com/ https://muskratfallscivilrightsmovement.blogspot.com/ amplification DONALD TRUMP DESERVES TO FACE THE FULL FORCE OF JUSTICE The United States was founded on the rule of law. It must not now flinch from upholding it. 

"In the tumultuous, multifaceted case of Donald J Trump versus the people of the United States, the biggest question is why this former president, political con artist and serial offender is not already in jail. Trump will be charged this week in Manhattan over alleged “hush money” payments to a former porn star. This action, both welcome and overdue, makes him the first US president to be criminally indicted. Yet twice-impeached Trump stands accused of a string of infinitely more serious, well-documented crimes, including a violent attempt to overthrow the government. The continuing mystery is why justice is so long in coming.

The full Trump charge sheet reads like a horror novel in which democracy is murdered. In the weeks following his clear-cut defeat by Joe Biden in November 2020, Trump did everything he could to subvert the result, legally and illegally, by making baseless accusations of fraud. This is not in dispute. Not disputed, either, is a taped telephone conversation on 2 January 2021 between Trump and Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, in which the then president pressed the latter “to find 11,780 votes” – sufficient to cancel Biden’s victory in the key swing state.

Why has Trump not been criminally charged in what appears to be an open-and-shut case of shameless election interference? A special grand jury in Atlanta has recommended the prosecution of all involved in the illegal lobbying of Raffensperger. Perhaps the courage shown by Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin Bragg, in indicting Trump will inspire his Fulton County counterpart, Fani Willis – and other state and federal prosecutors – to follow suit without further delays. If this case had been conducted in a timely manner, Trump might be behind bars now.

It is more than two years since Trump incited his supporters to attack the Capitol in order to halt Congress’s ratification of Biden’s victory. The ensuing riot on 6 January 2021 led to deaths and injuries. Yet Trump did nothing to call off the mob until it was far too late. He has since hailed the rioters as heroes. Again, much of this is on the record. Congress has conducted exhaustive investigations. Why has Merrick Garland, the US attorney general, failed to act against the chief instigator as well as the perpetrators of the coup attempt? Only in November did Garland finally appoint a special counsel – which amounts, in effect, to another delay.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that reluctance to energetically pursue these and other crimes, such as Trump’s apparent theft of secret documents found at his Florida home, stems from political timidity at the top. As he showed again last week, Trump is ready and able to use his mafia-like grip on the Republican party and rightwing media to intimidate the entire US body politic. He plays the victim, turns the tables and claims Biden and the Democrats are the lawbreakers. Trump says political enemies have singled him out. Yet the only special treatment he has received is to have been allowed to avoid prosecution for so long.

Diffidence over confronting Trump full-on stems in part from an understandable desire to avoid feeding national divisions. The entire Trump saga, akin to tawdry, never-ending reality TV show, is a distraction from pressing issues such as post-pandemic economic revival, the climate emergency and war in Europe. The US should focus on these challenges rather than endlessly indulge the antic ravings of a narcissistic, foul-mouthed, misogynistic crook.

Biden would surely wish it so. At the start of his term, he plainly hoped that, by ignoring him, Trump would eventually go away. Yet sadly, here he is again, hogging the limelight. Trump will have his day in court amid blanket media coverage and feared street violence. He will repeat his usual inflammatory lies and slanders, proceedings will be adjourned, probably for months, and meanwhile, this arch-enemy of democracy, decency and justice will try to exploit his “victimhood” to secure the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. In a sense, Trump-ism is eternal. It cares for nothing and no one but itself.

The Trump case poses potentially historic challenges for an American republic founded on the rule of law. The idea, peddled by Republicans, that a current or former president enjoys de facto immunity from prosecution is at odds with modern-day concepts of justice. The fact that it appears such a person may stand again for the White House while under criminal investigation, or even following a criminal conviction, points to dangerous flaws in America’s constitutional arrangements. No person, however famous, big-headed or threatening, should be above the law.

The aggressive reaction to the indictment of many leading Republicans, and especially Ron DeSantis, Trump’s closest competitor, is dismaying. By parroting Trump’s line about “weaponisation” of the courts, the Florida governor shows himself to be no better or wiser than his egotistic rival. The party as a whole continues to place its interests ahead of the principles for which America stands. Democrats, meanwhile, should avoid talk that exacerbates national polarisation. “Lock him up!” is a tempting slogan, given how Trump used it against Hillary Clinton. But calm, restraint and patience are required. If there’s any justice, Trump’s time in court will ultimately be followed by time served.

The manner in which this unprecedented legal drama is handled, and its outcome, could decide America’s immediate political future. It may also have a significant, lasting impact on US influence and moral authority in the global struggle to uphold a democratic, law-based international order. The world is watching – and that, regrettably, is what Trump likes."

Observer Editorial 2 April 2023

[professorcalculusstanaccount]

I decided to redraw one of my earliest Tintin fancomics! I've been drawing Tintin fanart for a bit before I started posting online.

I can imagine Tintin having a tumultuous relationship with his editor, hardly ever being in the office and having a very low rate of writing articles. Tintin's increasingly liberal politics also clash with the newspaper's conservative values. Tintin and his editor frequently argue over this but Tintin almost always wins out, as he is aware that it is his articles that sell the paper. His editor is reluctant to let go of his golden goose.

More headcanon under the Read More! It's background stuff and things about his editor.

Tintin started his journalism career at just 14, and seeing the dangerous situations he is sent into in his early stories suggests to me that whoever hired him didn't have his best interests at heart. I can imagine his editor taking advantage of Tintin's ambition and naivety, while styling himself as a sort of father figure to the newspaper he runs. I based him off of the editor we see at the very start of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets!

His editor hires him after Tintin demonstrates remarkable skills in investigative journalism, uncovering local corruption for his school paper. He takes advantage of Tintin's naivety, sending him off to various countries to write conservative propaganda pieces for the paper. He hopes Tintin will be easy to groom into a conservative pundit, but after witnessing atrocities and coming into contact with people from different walks of life, Tintin finds himself unlearning a lot of harmful beliefs he was raised with. After he earns global recognition in Tintin in America, Tintin leverages his star power to ensure less editorial interference with his work. His journey away from conservatism is kickstarted upon befriending Chang, who directly challenges a lot of his preconceptions.

Tintin stays with the paper under the misguided belief that he can steer the publication in a better direction with his influence. Deep down he also feels he owes his editor, as it was him who gave Tintin a platform and an oppurtunity to escape his situation, being raised in an orphanage and being deeply unhappy in school. His editor also frequently points out that other papers will not be as lenient with his low turnover rate of articles, and that he's lucky he's still with them.

After Tintin gets Chang a job there as his photographer, Chang ends up befriending a lot of the staff. He's one of the few non white staff members there, which causes quite the stir. While Chang is grateful for the job, he becomes increasingly uncomfortable with working for them the more he learns about the paper. He tells Tintin that by staying there, he's only legitimising the publication.

Tensions at the paper start rising as political tension rises in Europe. Tintin, Chang, and a lot of staff notice their editor acting erratically and making strange demands...

[hannieehaee]

18+ / mdi

content: loser!wonwoo, nerdy!wonwoo, sub!wonwoo, subdom!reader, mentions of sfw pics being taken behind your back, corruption, wonwoo's first time, dry humping, handjob, penetrative sex, etc.

part 1, part 2

wc: 2599

a/n: thank u to anon who inspired this ur a real one

masterlist

in this day and age, you knew that a mere college degree would likely not be enough for you to find a job within your field.

you were a creative, hoping to one day work as a photographer or maybe get into the creative design field upon graduating. however, you'd heard the horror stories of fellow graduates entering the terrifying world that came after college, with many unable to land a solid gig after graduating.

that's how you landed yourself a spot in the yearbook committee, becoming both a photographer and editor throughout these past few months.

that was also how you came to meet jeon wonwoo, the enigmatic boy who had become your partner any time you'd be assigned to photograph at school events.

despite spending quite a bit of time with wonwoo, attending every school event with him, you were yet to really get to know him. wonwoo was likely the shyest guy you'd met in all the years you'd spent at college so far. it was extremely hard to get to know him, as he would be only mumble and shy away any time you tried to make conversation with him. so far, all you knew about him was that he was a photography major (an extremely talented one at that), he was part of the gaming club (information you got from your friend vernon), and that he was generally very into stereotypically nerdy stuff.

none of this information was too groundbreaking, which only made you even more curious about wonwoo. it seemed like he'd specifically go out of his way to avoid you, stuttering like crazy when you'd try and make conversation and attempting to work separately any time you were assigned to photograph at the same locations.

all this only made your current situation all the more interesting, as you now found yourself at wonwoo's door, pondering on whether to knock on the door or not.

for some backstory, it was finally the end of your junior year of college, meaning that most of the work necessary for the production of the yearbook had been completed. all that needed to be done now solely consisted of editorial stuff as you finessed the final product.

this meant that you'd have to meet up with wonwoo to collaborate on the overlay of the yearbook, with the two of you being assigned the duty due to having worked together for most of the past two semesters.

you had jumped at this opportunity, entirely too interested in the shy, glass-clad boy. as embarrassed as you were to admit it, you had developed a bit of a crush on wonwoo. his constant stuttering and nerves around you gave you a strange thrill you had never experienced before. maybe you had a thing for losers, who knew.

and so you decided that now that you had this opportunity to visit wonwoo, being able to get him alone, you'd have a little fun.

yeah, maybe you had put on the tiniest clothes you could get away with wearing out in public. and yes, maybe you had worn that lipgloss you had once seen wonwoo eyeing on you. but could you be blamed? the thought of breaking him excited you too badly, completely sure but now that he must've held a bit of a crush on you (at least based on his constant nerves around you).

finally knocking on the door, you waited a few moments before a messy-haired wonwoo opened the door, giving you a sheepish smile as he welcomed you in.

his apartment was clean, but you could still tell that this had been a rushed effort, being able to spot some clothing misplaced and a few bowls scattered on some pieces of furniture. other than that, it seemed like wonwoo was likely cleaner than the average male college student.

after quietly looking around, you finally turned to wonwoo, who had been watching you quietly as his hands anxiously played with the oversized sleeves of the cardigan he was wearing.

"do you wanna work in your room or on the couch?", you asked.

somehow, you had caught him off guard, making him stumble over his words before muttering that his bed would be better, as it was bigger.

entering his room, you couldn't help a silent giggle at how predictable it looked, filled with star wars and marvel posters on the wall, along with some figurines. the room also included a clearly expensive pc and a few gaming consoles, obviously accompanied by a gaming chair.

liberally taking a seat in the middle of his bed, you allowed your skirt to flow highly enough for your legs to become exposed. you grinned to yourself when wonwoo took a seat beside you, gulping at the sight before opening his macbook on his lap.

once again, without any invitation, you scoot closer to him to get a better view, enjoying the intake of breath you heard from the boy.

after that, you actually worked together for a while, quietly discussing what content you'd leave in and what you'd take out. it was quite enjoyable, actually. you had known wonwoo to have a great creative eye, having seen his photography before, but it surprised you that he was just as good at graphic design.

you voiced this praise to him, making him chuckle awkwardly as he shook his head in denial.

"no, i'm serious, wonwoo. you're so good at this," you repeated.

"ah, n-no, it's just- i'm not that good," he muttered, lowering his head a bit and keeping his eyes on the screen to avoid looking at you.

no, this just wouldn't do.

going on a leap, you scoot even closer, now with your side completely pressed up against his own. bringing your hand up to his chin, you made him face you, smiling at the clear panic in his face.

"wonwoo ... why can't you take my compliment? hmm? you don't believe me?", you murmured, keeping your distance far too small as you awaited his answer.

"i-it's not that, it's just that-"

cutting off his muttering, you continued, "want me to show you? show you that i mean it?", your eyes lowered to his lips before going back to his eyes, hoping that that was enough of a hint for him to know what you meant.

gulping again, his eyes looked to your lips too, looking back up before parting his lips, attempting to make some sort of sound but failing, simply whimpering pathetically.

his whimper was enough to ruin you, making you close the gap between you with a soft kiss.

pathetically, he whined against you as you did all the work, leaving soft kisses against his lips up until your tongue made use of the small gap of his lips, sneaking in and encouraging him to follow along in your movements.

you sighed softly against his lips, wanting nothing more than to encourage his kisses. when he finally began kissing back, you repositioned yourself on the bed, pushing off the laptop and kneeling in front of him without ever breaking the kiss. like a good boy, he followed you in your movements, allowing you to lay him down on the bed as you climbed over him.

pulling away, you chuckled against his lips as he pathetically followed your lips with a whine, hands uncharacteristically holding onto your hips as he held you against him.

"wonwoo," you breathed out against his lips, "is it okay if i take off my clothes, baby?"

"y-yes, fuck. please. i- i mean, you don't have to, but, fuck, i-"

"shhh. it's okay, baby. i'll take them off, yeah? then it's your turn," you reassured, throwing off your skimpy summer dress before snapping off your bra and struggling your way out of your panties before sitting back on him.

the sight of the nerdy boy under you as he salivated over every new inch of skin you exposed to as laughable. his eyebrows were furrowed in the a manner that made it look like he was in pain. his breathy gasps at the revelation of your breasts had given you a huge ego boost, making you play with them for a bit for his viewing satisfaction. after that you leaned down again, going back to what had first started all this.

"you're so pretty, wonwoo ... so talented and nice and pretty. my pretty nonu," you breathed into his lips, giving him no chance to respond.

he still did his best, shaking his head, insisting that you were the pretty one. that you were the prettiest girl he had ever seen.

"n-no, you ... you're so pretty fuck, i- i've always wanted you ... fuck, is that, is that okay? always thought you were the prettiest girl ... get so nervous around you," he confessed, sighing when your arms went under his shirt, toying at his nipples before helping him remove his cardigan and shirt.

now shirtless, you practically salivated over his body, feeling him up like you were entirely depraved of touch. he was far more buff and delicious than you had ever imagined. wonwoo seemed to enjoy it just as much, letting out desperate breaths as you felt him up. before long, his sounds became even higher and whinier, as your hands made their way to his pants, pushing them down as best as you could before getting a hold of his already hardened cock.

"a-ah, t-that's ... fuck, a-are you sure?", gasped wonwoo, squirming under you like the pretty little nerd you'd been wanting for so long.

"yes, nonu. is it okay? is it okay when i play with your pretty cock like this?", your hand wrapped tighter around him, bringing his member out of his boxers and jerking him faster as he nodded desperately in approval.

"it's so good, fuck ... feels so ... so nice. please ..."

he was already such a whimpering mess and you hadn't even started working on his pleasure. unknowingly, wonwoo was slowly corrupting your mind, making you feel a monstrous need to do every nasty thing imaginable to the pretty boy moaning under you.

with a groan, you repositioned yourself, leaning back a little so you could drag your pussy against his cock. the thought alone made your eyes roll back. and the execution? the execution had you whimpering at the sudden stimulation, falling in love with the hardness of wonwoo's cock.

in the meantime wonwoo had lost all ability to produce any sort of sound, letting out breathless whimpers at the feeling of your cunt dragging against him, glasses fogged up and hands digging into your hips to unknowingly try and guide you against his dick.

"y/n ... oh, fuck ... p-please ... need- need more, oh, please ..."

dry humping could only go so long, but you wanted to drag it as much as you could. the sight and sound of wonwoo begging for you had you on cloud nine. he was so handsome and well built that you couldn't help but become hypnotized to the sight under you as you humped him with no shame.

the pretty mess under you continued to beg, strong arms even coming to stop your movements when the pleasure got too much, pleading at you to please let him have your cunt.

"g-give it to me. please. need to feel it, i- i've never had it before. need t-to know. need it to be you, fuck, please ..."

oh? was the pretty boy a virgin? were you about to deflower the mess under you?

wonwoo should've never let you in on this information, as it immediately drove you crazy with desire. you needed to claim him, mark him as yours and keep him all to yourself forever.

without hesitating any longer, you lowered yourself on him, groaning out at the stretch while wonwoo let out the prettiest high-pitched moan you had ever heard. it was pathetic how his deep voice fell to mere whimpers at the simple touch of a woman. yet it made you tighten around him all the tighter.

your hips bounced on his thin thighs, hand dipping in so you could play with your clit. maybe one day you'd teach him how to give you pleasure in such a way, but for now you just wanted to ruin him.

"gonna cum ... i- fuck, im gonna cum. c-can i? please?", he pleaded, eyes shut closed in pleasure.

it took you a few moments to answer, not wanting to leave him waiting for too long during his first time, but needing to get yourself to the edge in order to cum with him. within a few seconds he repeated his pleas, this time even more pathetically than before. this was what broke you, making you nod and whimper in affirmation as your own orgasm took over.

"such a g-good boy for me, nonu," you leaned down to kiss him, wanting to give him as much intimacy as you could for his first time.

kissing you back, he wrapped his arms around you, consistently crying praises against your lips. he let you know how badly he loved your cunt, how much he'd fantasized about this. the rest got muddled in the endless whimpers he let out.

after riding your high, you laid against his him, ear against his chest as you caught your breaths. his skin was clammy and his heartbeat fast. you loved being the cause of both things.

"does ... does this mean you like me back?" he murmured.

nodding against his chest, you left a few kisses against the skin, "yes, wonwoo. i've liked you for a while."

he exhaled in relief, "fuck, thank god."

your let yourself roll over from on top of him and lay on his side, finding a more comfortable position to cuddle with him.

then you suddenly remembered.

"shit, we gotta finish the yearbook."

it was his turn to chuckle, "let's nap for a while first. i'll wake up and get the final details later. promise."

you took his promise in the form of the union of pinkies, taking his advice of taking a nap as the surprisingly buff boy held you in his arms, falling into slumber quickly after.

~

ironically, you woke up before he did, approximately two hours after having fallen asleep in his arms. spotting the laptop on the floor, you decided to do him the favor of doing the final touches yourself, deciding that this would somehow be some form of aftercare as he regained his energy by sleeping.

shockingly enough, having the initiative to work on the unfinished yearbook spread as wonwoo continued to sleep next to you proved quite interesting as you finally got hold of the computer.

you hadn't meant to snoop, but a folder hidden on the corner immediately caught your attention. you hadn't noticed it earlier, as wonwoo had the computer on his own lap the entire time, but its title consisted of your initials, making you entirely too curious about it.

opening it, you had to hold in your gasp upon finding about twenty pictures of you out and about at each of the events you'd attended with wonwoo to photograph for the yearbook. for candids, they were quite beautiful.

in any other situation, you wouldve been rightfully freaked out. but the thought of shy little wonwoo fantasizing about you as he took pictures of you to look at later only made you want to claim him even more.

looking to the pretty boy softly snoring next to you, you were already planning all the ways in which you'd mock and berate him over it, all while you ruined him under you yet again.

[merelygifted]

I think "Fallen asleep on," would be more accurate.

[canadianabroadvery]

[aunti-christ-ine]

[mostlysignssomeportents]

There’s no such thing as “shareholder supremacy”

On SEPTEMBER 24th, I'll be speaking IN PERSON at the BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY!

Here's a cheap trick: claim that your opponents' goals are so squishy and qualitative that no one will ever be able to say whether they've been succeeded or failed, and then declare that your goals can be evaluated using crisp, objective criteria.

This is the whole project of "economism," the idea that politics, with its emphasis on "fairness" and other intangibles, should be replaced with a mathematical form of economics, where every policy question can be reduced to an equation…and then "solved":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/28/imagine-a-horse/#perfectly-spherical-cows-of-uniform-density-on-a-frictionless-plane

Before the rise of economism, it was common to speak of its subjects as "political economy" or even "moral philosophy" (Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, considered himself a "moral philosopher"). "Political economy" implicitly recognizes that every policy has squishy, subjective, qualitative dimensions that don't readily boil down to math.

For example, if you're asking about whether people should have the "freedom" to enter into contracts, it might be useful to ask yourself how desperate your "free" subject might be, and whether the entity on the other side of that contract is very powerful. Otherwise you'll get "free contracts" like "I'll sell you my kidneys if you promise to evacuate my kid from the path of this wildfire."

The problem is that power is hard to represent faithfully in quantitative models. This may seem like a good reason to you to be skeptical of modeling, but for economism, it's a reason to pretend that the qualitative doesn't exist. The method is to incinerate those qualitative factors to produce a dubious quantitative residue and do math on that:

https://locusmag.com/2021/05/cory-doctorow-qualia/

Hence the famous Ely Devons quote: "If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’"

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

The neoliberal revolution was a triumph for economism. Neoliberal theorists like Milton Friedman replaced "political economy" with "law and economics," the idea that we should turn every one of our complicated, nuanced, contingent qualitative goals into a crispy defined "objective" criteria. Friedman and his merry band of Chicago School economists replaced traditional antitrust (which sought to curtail the corrupting power of large corporations) with a theory called "consumer welfare" that used mathematics to decide which monopolies were "efficient" and therefore good (spoiler: monopolists who paid Friedman's pals to do this mathematical analysis always turned out to be running "efficient" monopolies):

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/20/we-should-not-endure-a-king/

One of Friedman's signal achievements was the theory of "shareholder supremacy." In 1970, the New York Times published Friedman's editorial "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits":

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html

In it, Friedman argued that corporate managers had exactly one job: to increase profits for shareholders. All other considerations – improving the community, making workers' lives better, donating to worthy causes or sponsoring a little league team – were out of bounds. Managers who wanted to improve the world should fund their causes out of their paychecks, not the corporate treasury.

Friedman cloaked his hymn to sociopathic greed in the mantle of objectivism. For capitalism to work, corporations have to solve the "principal-agent" problem, the notoriously thorny dilemma created when one person (the principal) asks another person (the agent) to act on their behalf, given the fact that the agent might find a way to line their own pockets at the principal's expense (for example, a restaurant server might get a bigger tip by offering to discount diners' meals).

Any company that is owned by stockholders and managed by a CEO and other top brass has a huge principal-agent problem, and yet, the limited liability, joint-stock company had produced untold riches, and was considered the ideal organization for "capital formation" by Friedman et al. In true economismist form, Friedman treated all the qualitative questions about the duty of a company as noise and edited them out of the equation, leaving behind a single, elegant formulation: "a manager is doing their job if they are trying to make as much money as possible for their shareholders."

Friedman's formulation was a hit. The business community ran wild with it. Investors mistook an editorial in the New York Times for an SEC rulemaking and sued corporate managers on the theory that they had a "fiduciary duty" to "maximize shareholder value" – and what's more, the courts bought it. Slowly and piecemeal at first, but bit by bit, the idea that rapacious greed was a legal obligation turned into an edifice of legal precedent. Business schools taught it, movies were made about it, and even critics absorbed the message, insisting that we needed to "repeal the law" that said that corporations had to elevate profit over all other consideration (not realizing that no such law existed).

It's easy to see why shareholder supremacy was so attractive for investors and their C-suite Renfields: it created a kind of moral crumple-zone. Whenever people got angry at you for being a greedy asshole, you could shrug and say, "My hands are tied: the law requires me to run the business this way – if you don't believe me, just ask my critics, who insist that we must get rid of this law!"

In a long feature for The American Prospect, Adam M Lowenstein tells the story of how shareholder supremacy eventually came into such wide disrepute that the business lobby felt that it had to do something about it:

https://prospect.org/power/2024-09-17-ponzi-scheme-of-promises/

It starts in 2018, when Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett decried the short-term, quarterly thinking in corporate management as bad for business's long-term health. When Washington Post columnist Steve Pearlstein wrote a column agreeing with them and arguing that even moreso, businesses should think about equities other than shareholder returns, Jamie Dimon lost his shit and called Pearlstein to call it "the stupidest fucking column I’ve ever read":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/07/will-ending-quarterly-earnings-guidance-free-ceos-to-think-long-term/

But the dam had broken. In the months and years that followed, the Business Roundtable would adopt a series of statements that repudiated shareholder supremacy, though of course they didn't admit it. Rather, they insisted that they were clarifying that they'd always thought that sometimes not being a greedy asshole could be good for business, too. Though these statements were nonbinding, and though the CEOs who signed them did so in their personal capacity and not on behalf of their companies, capitalism's most rabid stans treated this as an existential crisis.

Lowenstein identifies this as the forerunner to today's panic over "woke corporations" and "DEI," and – just as with "woke capitalism" – the whole thing amounted to a a PR exercise. Lowenstein links to several studies that found that the CEOs who signed onto statements endorsing "stakeholder capitalism" were "more likely to lay off employees during COVID-19, were less inclined to contribute to pandemic relief efforts, had 'higher rates of environmental and labor-related compliance violations,”' emitted more carbon into the atmosphere, and spent more money on dividends and buybacks."

One researcher concluded that "signing this statement had zero positive effect":

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/companies-stand-solidarity-are-licensing-themselves-discriminate/614947

So shareholder supremacy isn't a legal obligation, and statements repudiating shareholder supremacy don't make companies act any better.

But there's an even more fundamental flaw in the argument for the shareholder supremacy rule: it's impossible to know if the rule has been broken.

The shareholder supremacy rule is an unfalsifiable proposition. A CEO can cut wages and lay off workers and claim that it's good for profits because the retained earnings can be paid as a dividend. A CEO can raise wages and hire more people and claim it's good for profits because it will stop important employees from defecting and attract the talent needed to win market share and spin up new products.

A CEO can spend less on marketing and claim it's a cost-savings. A CEO can spend more on marketing and claim it's an investment. A CEO can eliminate products and call it a savings. A CEO can add products and claim they're expansions into new segments. A CEO can settle a lawsuit and claim they're saving money on court fees. A CEO can fight a lawsuit through to the final appeal and claim that they're doing it to scare vexatious litigants away by demonstrating their mettle.

CEOs can use cheaper, inferior materials and claim it's a savings. They can use premium materials and claim it's a competitive advantage that will produce new profits. Everything a company does can be colorably claimed as an attempt to save or make money, from sponsoring the local little league softball team to treating effluent to handing ownership of corporate landholdings to perpetual trusts that designate them as wildlife sanctuaries.

Bribes, campaign contributions, onshoring, offshoring, criminal conspiracies and conference sponsorships – there's a business case for all of these being in line with shareholder supremacy.

Take Boeing: when the company smashed its unions and relocated key production to scab plants in red states, when it forced out whistleblowers and senior engineers who cared about quality, when it outsourced design and production to shops around the world, it realized a savings. Today, between strikes, fines, lawsuits, and a mountain of self-inflicted reputational harm, the company is on the brink of ruin. Was Boeing good to its shareholders? Well, sure – the shareholders who cashed out before all the shit hit the fan made out well. Shareholders with a buy-and-hold posture (like the index funds that can't sell their Boeing holdings so long as the company is in the S&P500) got screwed.

Right wing economists criticize the left for caring too much about "how big a slice of the pie they're getting" rather than focusing on "growing the pie." But that's exactly what Boeing management did – while claiming to be slaves to Friedman's shareholder supremacy. They focused on getting a bigger slice of the pie, screwing their workers, suppliers and customers in the process, and, in so doing, they made the pie so much smaller that it's in danger of disappearing altogether.

Here's the principal-agent problem in action: Boeing management earned bonuses by engaging in corporate autophagia, devouring the company from within. Now, long-term shareholders are paying the price. Far from solving the principal-agent problem with a clean, bright-line rule about how managers should behave, shareholder supremacy is a charter for doing whatever the fuck a CEO feels like doing. It's the squishiest rule imaginable: if someone calls you cruel, you can blame the rule and say you had no choice. If someone calls you feckless, you can blame the rule and say you had no choice. It's an excuse for every season.

The idea that you can reduce complex political questions – like whether workers should get a raise or whether shareholders should get a dividend – to a mathematical rule is a cheap sleight of hand. The trick is an obvious one: the stuff I want to do is empirically justified, while the things you want are based in impossible-to-pin-down appeals to emotion and its handmaiden, ethics. Facts don't care about your feelings, man.

But it's feelings all the way down. Milton Friedman's idol-worshiping cult of shareholder supremacy was never about empiricism and objectivity. It's merely a gimmick to make greed seem scientifically optimal.

The paperback edition of The Lost Cause, my nationally bestselling, hopeful solarpunk novel is out this month!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/18/falsifiability/#figleaves-not-rubrics/a>

[izooks]

From: Occupied Democrats

BREAKING: Indicted 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is hit with devastating news as the biggest and most influential newspaper in the entire state of Texas endorses President Biden and tears Donald Trump to pieces.

But it gets even WORSE for Donald Trump…

The editorial board of The Houston Chronicle not only ripped into the MAGA cult leader, they laid out in plain black and white exactly why every American should vote for Joe Biden.

They write that Biden will "make life better" for the American people, has made our economy "healthier," and will crucially prevent the "chaos, corruption and danger to the nation" that would so clearly come from Trump getting a second term in the White House.

They state that the Biden administration has "performed remarkably well, despite the rancor and divisiveness that have afflicted this nation for nearly a decade."

The board concedes that Biden "has his shortcomings" like every other president, but says that he has a historic number of achievements that serve as a "potent reminder to his fellow Democrats, to independents and to those Republicans who have somehow resisted Trump's cultish appeal that the nation has a viable alternative."

In addition to his massive economic victories, they praise Biden's effort to curtail gun violence, his introduction of a price cap on insulin, and his astonishing success at uniting the world against Putin's "brutish" invasion of Ukraine.

When mentioning the situation along the southern border, the board writes that "blame primarily belongs to caviling and cynical MAGA Republicans in the House.

"In servility to Trump, they torpedoed a bipartisan border-security plan painstakingly crafted in the Senate. Biden can't solve the crisis by executive order; he needs Congress to act," the board writes.

At another point in the piece, the board easily dispatches the bad faith attacks on Biden's age, saying that he has "forgotten more than his presumed Republican rival will ever know. That's not saying much, and at the same time, it says it all."

Predictably, prominent MAGA figures are completely melting down over the editorial — because they know precisely how influential this newspaper is in Texas. Clearly, The Houston Chronicle has struck a nerve.

[mariacallous]

lol philadelphia inquirer bodying nyt

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/first-presidential-debate-joe-biden-donald-trump-withdraw-20240629.html

President Joe Biden’s debate performance was a disaster. His disjointed responses and dazed look sparked calls for him to drop out of the presidential race.

But lost in the hand wringing was Donald Trump’s usual bombastic litany of lies, hyperbole, bigotry, ignorance, and fear mongering. His performance demonstrated once again that he is a danger to democracy and unfit for office.

In fact, the debate about the debate is misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump.

Trump, 78, has been on the political stage for eight years marked by chaos, corruption, and incivility. Why go back to that?

To build himself up, Trump constantly tears the country down. There is no shining city on the hill. It’s just mourning in America.

Throughout the debate, Trump repeatedly said we are a “failing” country. He called the United States a “third world nation.” He said, “we’re living in hell” and “very close to World War III.”

“People are dying all over the place,” Trump said, later adding “we’re literally an uncivilized country now.”

Trump told more than 30 lies during the debate to go with the more than 30,000 mistruths told during his four years as president. He dodged the CNN moderators’ questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world.

Trump’s response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection he fueled was farcical. He said a “relatively small number of people” went to the Capitol and many were “ushered in by the police.”

After scheming to overturn the 2020 election, Trump refused to say if he would accept the results of the 2024 election. Unless, of course, he wins.

The debate served as a reminder of what another four years of Trump would look like. More lies, grievance, narcissism, and hate. Supporters say they like Trump because he says whatever he thinks. But he mainly spews raw sewage.

Trump attacks the military. He denigrates the Justice Department and judges. He belittles the FBI and the CIA. He picks fights with allies and cozies up to dictators.

Trump is an unserious carnival barker running for the most serious job in the world. During his last term, Trump served himself and not the American people.

Trump spent chunks of time watching TV, tweeting, and hanging out at his country clubs. Over his four-year term, Trump played roughly 261 rounds of golf.

As president, Trump didn’t read the daily intelligence briefs. He continued to use his personal cell phone, allowing Chinese spies to listen to his calls. During one Oval Office meeting, Trump shared highly classified intelligence with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.

Trump’s term did plenty of damage and had few accomplishments. The much-hyped wall didn’t get built. Infrastructure week was a recurring joke. Giant tax cuts made the rich richer, while fueling massive deficits for others to pay for years. His support for coal, oil drilling and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement worsened the growing impact of climate change.

Trump stacked the judiciary with extreme judges consisting mainly of white males, including a number who the American Bar Association rated as not qualified. A record number of cabinet officials were fired or left the office. The West Wing was in constant chaos and infighting.

Many Trump appointees exited under a cloud of corruption, grifting and ethical scandals. Trump’s children made millions off the White House. His dilettante son-in-law got $2 billion from the Saudi government for his fledgling investment firm even though he never managed money before.

Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic resulted in tens of thousands of needless deaths. He boasts about stacking the Supreme Court with extreme right-wingers who are stripping away individual rights, upending legal precedents, and making the country less safe. If elected, Trump may add to the court’s conservative majority.

Of course, there were the unprecedented two impeachments. Now, Trump is a convicted felon who is staring at three more criminal indictments. He is running for president to stay out of prison.

If anything, Trump doesn’t deserve to be on the presidential debate stage. Why even give him a platform?

Trump allegedly stole classified information and tried to overturn an election. His plans for a second term are worse than the last one. We cannot be serious about letting such a crooked clown back in the White House.

Yes, Biden had a horrible night. He’s 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best.

Biden must show that he is up to the job. This much is clear: He has a substantive record of real accomplishments, fighting the pandemic, combating climate change, investing in infrastructure, and supporting working families and the most vulnerable.

Biden has surrounded himself with experienced people who take public service seriously. He has passed major bipartisan legislation despite a dysfunctional Republican House majority.

Biden believes in the best of America. He has rebuilt relationships with allies around the world and stood up to foes like Russia and China.

There was only one person at the debate who does not deserve to be running for president. The sooner Trump exits the stage, the better off the country will be.