#sheldon kennedy

[annieqattheperipheral]

THIS is the response where i know for certain bowman has learned nothing and jeff does not give a shit

HE DOES NOT THINK THE SECOND VICTIM CONCERNS HIM.

HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE REPERCUSSIONS OF HIS ACTIONS BEYOND KYLE BEACH

this criminal gets to walk into a 7-figure salary job with the oilers while John Doe 2 struggles to pay for health insurance for therapy for addiction, anxiety and ptsd a decade after the assault on him.

fuck both of you, fuck the oilers, I'm done with them.

The very next question was to jeff on who in the org was consulted on this hire. He said NO PLAYERS WERE CONSULTED just like when kris knobloch was hired.

If mcdavid and draisaitl just go along with this hire bc that's how they think they'll get a cup absolutely go fuck yourselves you two. Be a fucking human being

I also read sheldon kennedy's statement endorsing stan bowman-- the dude all the hockeymen keep hiding behind to defend this hiring. kennedy in fact insisted on being there for this press conference bc he wanted to support him. Absolutely nothing in either his own interview or statement convinced me of the fact that bowman is ready to be back in hockey leadership. If anything, he should be continuing this work with sheldon. There was a part in the press conference where bowman could explain the work he's done and he totally fumbled the bag, said absolutely nothing of value.

Oh btw sheldon "full-time volunteer hours" is only what ppl who have $ can do y'know like stan bowman after years of privilege in the league. I've screenshot sheldon's statement for you bc pls do not spend any of your energy on this buffoonery like i have today

Lastly... real rich posting this on your youtube comments section oilers pr gtfo

[offsidenewsco]

"Personal and professional improvement and a redemption arc well-served do not make you entitled to hold one of the most prestigious positions in professional hockey."

With Leon Draisaitl extending in Edmonton, read our op-ed on the Oilers' new general manager here.

[ezvkll]

̼𝐢̼𝐧̼𝐭̼𝐫̼𝐨̼𝐝̼𝐮̼𝐜̼𝐭̼𝐢̼𝐨̼𝐧̼ ❤︎₊ ⊹

Hii quick introduction

I'm 20 year old woman who is just enjoying her obsessions with a few of her friends here. .・゜゜・・゜゜・．.・゜゜・・゜゜・．.・゜゜・

What movies do i like ?

Corpse bride, edward scissorhands, scream, mean girls, friends, young sheldon, baby.

What are my favorite games ?

Resident Evil, silent hill, tomb raider, tlou, pokemon, until dawn, final fantasy

My favorite music artist's ?

Lana del rey, G-Eazy, A$AP Rocky, the weeknd

⋆ ★˚ · • . ° .˚ · • . ° .˚ · • . ° .˚ · • . ° .˚ · • . ° .

[lily-s-world]

Thinking about Jupiter’s Legacy again, and how it could have been way better than what Netflix delivered. Picture a mini-series following close the plot of the comics, which is a short and interesting plot. The budget they used for that first season could have been enough.

Then we have a movie or another mini-series, that works as a prequel and shows how the “Union of Justice” was formed. Basically, all the flashbacks of the first season, but with more development.

It could have been an interesting project with a satisfying ending. Instead, Netflix tried to copycat The Boys and left us with a mid-show and a cliffhanger. And no answer to what the hell was going on between Walter and George?!!

Yes, this post was inspired by me thinking of Brainwave and Skyfox, again.  

[raynbowclown]

My Dream is Yours

My Dream is Yours

My Dream is Yours (1949) starring Doris Day, Jack Carson, Lee Bowman, Eve Arden In My Dream is Yours, an agent discovers a talented singer who’s also a single mom. He tries to make her a radio star, not expecting to fall in love with her. (more…)

[titleknown]

So, while we're all trying to fight one of the other terrible "think of the children" bills trying to ram its way through Congress, KOSA, we should also be talking about The EARN IT Act.

Long story short, it's basically yet another surveilance bill using a "protect the children" bill, as a hideous meat-suit, putting restrictions on sites that'll make them even more vicious towards NSFW content, creating a climate where using a VPN might be a crime, and they'll be creating a federal committee to decide how best to spy on us!

Long story long, well, the Linktree is right here.

Beyond the stuff in the Linktree, I urge you to directly contact your congresspeoples and tell them to kill this bill, especially if they're on the Judiciary Committee, which is currently marking up this bill.

The members of the committee are:

Dick Durbin, Illinois, Chairman

Dianne Feinstein, California

Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota

Chris Coons, Delaware

Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii

Cory Booker, New Jersey

Alex Padilla, California

Jon Ossoff, Georgia

Peter Welch, Vermont

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, Ranking Member (Ugh)

Chuck Grassley, Iowa

John Cornyn, Texas

Mike Lee, Utah

Ted Cruz, Texas (Double-ugh)

Josh Hawley, Missouri

Tom Cotton, Arkansas

John Kennedy, Louisiana

Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee (she cosponsored the bill, so probably not)

So yeah, do what you can, even if it's just boosting this terrible, terrible danger we need to thwart.

And, I will add, as with my previous KOSA poster, this poster is officially, for the sake of spreading it, under a CC0 license.

Feel free to spread it, remix it, add links to the bottom, edit it to be about the other bad internet bills they’re pushing, use it as a meme format, do what you will but for gods’ sake get the word out!

...And yes, for the record I was thinking of the Judas Priest song when I came up with the tagline for this one.

[zvaigzdelasas]

On october 16, 1962, John F. Kennedy and his advisers were stunned to learn that the Soviet Union was, without provocation, installing nuclear-armed medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba. With these offensive weapons, which represented a new and existential threat to America, Moscow significantly raised the ante in the nuclear rivalry between the superpowers—a gambit that forced the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear Armageddon. On October 22, the president, with no other recourse, proclaimed in a televised address that his administration knew of the illegal missiles, and delivered an ultimatum insisting on their removal, announcing an American “quarantine” of Cuba to force compliance with his demands. While carefully avoiding provocative action and coolly calibrating each Soviet countermeasure, Kennedy and his lieutenants brooked no compromise; they held firm, despite Moscow’s efforts to link a resolution to extrinsic issues and despite predictable Soviet blustering about American aggression and violation of international law. In the tense 13‑day crisis, the Americans and Soviets went eyeball-to-eyeball. Thanks to the Kennedy administration’s placid resolve and prudent crisis management—thanks to what Kennedy’s special assistant Arthur Schlesinger Jr. characterized as the president’s “combination of toughness and restraint, of will, nerve, and wisdom, so brilliantly controlled, so matchlessly calibrated, that [it] dazzled the world”—the Soviet leadership blinked: Moscow dismantled the missiles, and a cataclysm was averted.

Every sentence in the above paragraph describing the Cuban missile crisis is misleading or erroneous. But this was the rendition of events that the Kennedy administration fed to a credulous press; this was the history that the participants in Washington promulgated in their memoirs; and this is the story that has insinuated itself into the national memory—as the pundits’ commentaries and media coverage marking the 50th anniversary of the crisis attested.

Scholars, however, have long known a very different story: since 1997, they have had access to recordings that Kennedy secretly made of meetings with his top advisers, the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (the “ExComm”). Sheldon M. Stern—who was the historian at the John F. Kennedy Library for 23 years and the first scholar to evaluate the ExComm tapes—is among the numerous historians who have tried to set the record straight. His new book marshals irrefutable evidence to succinctly demolish the mythic version of the crisis. Although there’s little reason to believe his effort will be to any avail, it should nevertheless be applauded.

Reached through sober analysis, Stern’s conclusion that “John F. Kennedy and his administration, without question, bore a substantial share of the responsibility for the onset of the Cuban missile crisis” would have shocked the American people in 1962, for the simple reason that Kennedy’s administration had misled them about the military imbalance between the superpowers and had concealed its campaign of threats, assassination plots, and sabotage designed to overthrow the government in Cuba—an effort well known to Soviet and Cuban officials.

In the 1960 presidential election, Kennedy had cynically attacked Richard Nixon from the right, claiming that the Eisenhower-Nixon administration had allowed a dangerous “missile gap” to grow in the U.S.S.R.’s favor. But in fact, just as Eisenhower and Nixon had suggested—and just as the classified briefings that Kennedy received as a presidential candidate indicated—the missile gap, and the nuclear balance generally, was overwhelmingly to America’s advantage. At the time of the missile crisis, the Soviets had 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), 138 long-range bombers with 392 nuclear warheads, and 72 submarine-launched ballistic-missile warheads (SLBMs). These forces were arrayed against a vastly more powerful U.S. nuclear arsenal of 203 ICBMs, 1,306 long-range bombers with 3,104 nuclear warheads, and 144 SLBMs—all told, about nine times as many nuclear weapons as the U.S.S.R. Nikita Khrushchev was acutely aware of America’s huge advantage not just in the number of weapons but in their quality and deployment as well.

Kennedy and his civilian advisers understood that the missiles in Cuba did not alter the strategic nuclear balance.

Moreover, despite America’s overwhelming nuclear preponderance, JFK, in keeping with his avowed aim to pursue a foreign policy characterized by “vigor,” had ordered the largest peacetime expansion of America’s military power, and specifically the colossal growth of its strategic nuclear forces. This included deploying, beginning in 1961, intermediate-range “Jupiter” nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey—adjacent to the Soviet Union. From there, the missiles could reach all of the western U.S.S.R., including Moscow and Leningrad (and that doesn’t count the nuclear-armed “Thor” missiles that the U.S. already had aimed at the Soviet Union from bases in Britain).

The Jupiter missiles were an exceptionally vexing component of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Because they sat aboveground, were immobile, and required a long time to prepare for launch, they were extremely vulnerable. Of no value as a deterrent, they appeared to be weapons meant for a disarming first strike—and thus greatly undermined deterrence, because they encouraged a preemptive Soviet strike against them. The Jupiters’ destabilizing effect was widely recognized among defense experts within and outside the U.S. government and even by congressional leaders. For instance, Senator Albert Gore Sr., an ally of the administration, told Secretary of State Dean Rusk that they were a “provocation” in a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 1961 (more than a year and a half before the missile crisis), adding, “I wonder what our attitude would be” if the Soviets deployed nuclear-armed missiles to Cuba. Senator Claiborne Pell raised an identical argument in a memo passed on to Kennedy in May 1961.

Given America’s powerful nuclear superiority, as well as the deployment of the Jupiter missiles, Moscow suspected that Washington viewed a nuclear first strike as an attractive option. They were right to be suspicious. The archives reveal that in fact the Kennedy administration had strongly considered this option during the Berlin crisis in 1961.

It’s little wonder, then, that, as Stern asserts—drawing on a plethora of scholarship including, most convincingly, the historian Philip Nash’s elegant 1997 study, The Other Missiles of October—Kennedy’s deployment of the Jupiter missiles “was a key reason for Khrushchev’s decision to send nuclear missiles to Cuba.” Khrushchev reportedly made that decision in May 1962, declaring to a confidant that the Americans “have surrounded us with bases on all sides” and that missiles in Cuba would help to counter an “intolerable provocation.” Keeping the deployment secret in order to present the U.S. with a fait accompli, Khrushchev may very well have assumed America’s response would be similar to his reaction to the Jupiter missiles—rhetorical denouncement but no threat or action to thwart the deployment with a military attack, nuclear or otherwise. (In retirement, Khrushchev explained his reasoning to the American journalist Strobe Talbott: Americans “would learn just what it feels like to have enemy missiles pointing at you; we’d be doing nothing more than giving them a little of their own medicine.”)

Khrushchev was also motivated by his entirely justifiable belief that the Kennedy administration wanted to destroy the Castro regime. After all, the administration had launched an invasion of Cuba; had followed that with sabotage, paramilitary assaults, and assassination attempts—the largest clandestine operation in the history of the CIA—and had organized large-scale military exercises in the Caribbean clearly meant to rattle the Soviets and their Cuban client. Those actions, as Stern and other scholars have demonstrated, helped compel the Soviets to install the missiles so as to deter “covert or overt US attacks”—in much the same way that the United States had shielded its allies under a nuclear umbrella to deter Soviet subversion or aggression against them.

Khrushchev was also motivated by his entirely justifiable belief that the Kennedy administration wanted to destroy the Castro regime. After all, the administration had launched an invasion of Cuba; had followed that with sabotage, paramilitary assaults, and assassination attempts—the largest clandestine operation in the history of the CIA—and had organized large-scale military exercises in the Caribbean clearly meant to rattle the Soviets and their Cuban client. Those actions, as Stern and other scholars have demonstrated, helped compel the Soviets to install the missiles so as to deter “covert or overt US attacks”—in much the same way that the United States had shielded its allies under a nuclear umbrella to deter Soviet subversion or aggression against them. [...]

The Soviets were entirely justified in their belief that Kennedy wanted to destroy the Castro regime.

Kennedy and his civilian advisers understood that the missiles in Cuba did not alter the strategic nuclear balance. Although Kennedy asserted in his October 22 televised address that the missiles were “an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas,” he in fact appreciated, as he told the ExComm on the first day of the crisis, that “it doesn’t make any difference if you get blown up by an ICBM flying from the Soviet Union or one that was 90 miles away. Geography doesn’t mean that much.” America’s European allies, Kennedy continued, “will argue that taken at its worst the presence of these missiles really doesn’t change” the nuclear balance. [...]

Moreover, unlike Soviet ICBMs, the missiles in Cuba required several hours to be prepared for launch. Given the effectiveness of America’s aerial and satellite reconnaissance (amply demonstrated by the images of missiles in the U.S.S.R. and Cuba that they yielded), the U.S. almost certainly would have had far more time to detect and respond to an imminent Soviet missile strike from Cuba than to attacks from Soviet bombers, ICBMs, or SLBMs. [...]

On that first day of the ExComm meetings, Bundy asked directly, “What is the strategic impact on the position of the United States of MRBMs in Cuba? How gravely does this change the strategic balance?” McNamara answered, “Not at all”—a verdict that Bundy then said he fully supported. The following day, Special Counsel Theodore Sorensen summarized the views of the ExComm in a memorandum to Kennedy. “It is generally agreed,” he noted, “that these missiles, even when fully operational, do not significantly alter the balance of power—i.e., they do not significantly increase the potential megatonnage capable of being unleashed on American soil, even after a surprise American nuclear strike.”

Sorensen’s comment about a surprise attack reminds us that while the missiles in Cuba did not add appreciably to the nuclear menace, they could have somewhat complicated America’s planning for a successful first strike—which may well have been part of Khrushchev’s rationale for deploying them. If so, the missiles paradoxically could have enhanced deterrence between the superpowers, and thereby reduced the risk of nuclear war.

Yet, although the missiles’ military significance was negligible, the Kennedy administration advanced on a perilous course to force their removal. The president issued an ultimatum to a nuclear power—an astonishingly provocative move, which immediately created a crisis that could have led to catastrophe. He ordered a blockade on Cuba, an act of war that we now know brought the superpowers within a hair’s breadth of nuclear confrontation. The beleaguered Cubans willingly accepted their ally’s weapons, so the Soviet’s deployment of the missiles was fully in accord with international law. But the blockade, even if the administration euphemistically called it a “quarantine,” was, the ExComm members acknowledged, illegal. As the State Department’s legal adviser recalled, “Our legal problem was that their action wasn’t illegal.” Kennedy and his lieutenants intently contemplated an invasion of Cuba and an aerial assault on the Soviet missiles there—acts extremely likely to have provoked a nuclear war. In light of the extreme measures they executed or earnestly entertained to resolve a crisis they had largely created, the American reaction to the missiles requires, in retrospect, as much explanation as the Soviet decision to deploy them—or more.

The Soviets suspected that the U.S. viewed a nuclear first strike as an attractive option. They were right to be suspicious. [...]

What largely made the missiles politically unacceptable was Kennedy’s conspicuous and fervent hostility toward the Castro regime—a stance, Kennedy admitted at an ExComm meeting, that America’s European allies thought was “a fixation” and “slightly demented.”

In his presidential bid, Kennedy had red-baited the Eisenhower-Nixon administration, charging that its policies had “helped make Communism’s first Caribbean base.” Given that he had defined a tough stance toward Cuba as an important election issue, and given the humiliation he had suffered with the Bay of Pigs debacle, the missiles posed a great [electoral] hazard to Kennedy. [...]

But even weightier than the domestic political catastrophe likely to befall the administration if it appeared to be soft on Cuba was what Assistant Secretary of State Edwin Martin called “the psychological factor” that we “sat back and let ’em do it to us.” He asserted that this was “more important than the direct threat,” and Kennedy and his other advisers energetically concurred. Even as Sorensen, in his memorandum to the president, noted the ExComm’s consensus that the Cuban missiles didn’t alter the nuclear balance, he also observed that the ExComm nevertheless believed that “the United States cannot tolerate the known presence” of missiles in Cuba “if our courage and commitments are ever to be believed by either allies or adversaries” (emphasis added). [...]

The risks of such a cave-in, Kennedy and his advisers held, were distinct but related. The first was that America’s foes would see Washington as pusillanimous; the known presence of the missiles, Kennedy said, “makes them look like they’re coequal with us and that”—here Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon interrupted: “We’re scared of the Cubans.” The second risk was that America’s friends would suddenly doubt that a country given to appeasement could be relied on to fulfill its obligations.

In fact, America’s allies, as Bundy acknowledged, were aghast that the U.S. was threatening nuclear war over a strategically insignificant condition—the presence of intermediate-range missiles in a neighboring country—that those allies (and, for that matter, the Soviets) had been living with for years. In the tense days of October 1962, being allied with the United States potentially amounted to, as Charles de Gaulle had warned, “annihilation without representation.” It seems never to have occurred to Kennedy and the ExComm that whatever Washington gained by demonstrating the steadfastness of its commitments, it lost in an erosion of confidence in its judgment.

This approach to foreign policy was guided—and remains guided—by an elaborate theorizing rooted in a school-playground view of world politics rather than the cool appraisal of strategic realities. It put—and still puts—America in the curious position of having to go to war to uphold the very credibility that is supposed to obviate war in the first place.

If the administration’s domestic political priorities alone dictated the removal of the Cuban missiles, a solution to Kennedy’s problem would have seemed pretty obvious: instead of a public ultimatum demanding that the Soviets withdraw their missiles from Cuba, a private agreement between the superpowers to remove both Moscow’s missiles in Cuba and Washington’s missiles in Turkey. (Recall that the Kennedy administration discovered the missiles on October 16, but only announced its discovery to the American public and the Soviets and issued its ultimatum on the 22nd.)

The administration, however, did not make such an overture to the Soviets. Instead, by publicly demanding a unilateral Soviet withdrawal and imposing a blockade on Cuba, it precipitated what remains to this day the most dangerous nuclear crisis in history. In the midst of that crisis, the sanest and most sensible observers—among them diplomats at the United Nations and in Europe, the editorial writers for the Manchester Guardian, Walter Lippmann, and Adlai Stevenson—saw a missile trade as a fairly simple solution. In an effort to resolve the impasse, Khrushchev himself openly made this proposal on October 27. According to the version of events propagated by the Kennedy administration (and long accepted as historical fact), Washington unequivocally rebuffed Moscow’s offer and instead, thanks to Kennedy’s resolve, forced a unilateral Soviet withdrawal.

Beginning in the late 1980s, however, the opening of previously classified archives and the decision by a number of participants to finally tell the truth revealed that the crisis was indeed resolved by an explicit but concealed deal to remove both the Jupiter and the Cuban missiles. Kennedy in fact threatened to abrogate if the Soviets disclosed it. He did so for the same reasons that had largely engendered the crisis in the first place—domestic politics and the maintenance of America’s image as the indispensable nation. A declassified Soviet cable reveals that Robert Kennedy—whom the president assigned to work out the secret swap with the U.S.S.R.’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin—insisted on returning to Dobrynin the formal Soviet letter affirming the agreement, explaining that the letter “could cause irreparable harm to my political career in the future.”

Only a handful of administration officials knew about the trade; most members of the ExComm, including Vice President Lyndon Johnson, did not. And in their effort to maintain the cover-up, a number of those who did, including McNamara and Rusk, lied to Congress. JFK and others tacitly encouraged the character assassination of Stevenson, allowing him to be portrayed as an appeaser who “wanted a Munich” for suggesting the trade—a deal that they vociferously maintained the administration would never have permitted.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. “repeatedly manipulated and obscured the facts.”

The patient spadework of Stern and other scholars has since led to further revelations. Stern demonstrates that Robert Kennedy hardly inhabited the conciliatory and statesmanlike role during the crisis that his allies described in their hagiographic chronicles and memoirs and that he himself advanced in his posthumously published book, Thirteen Days. In fact, he was among the most consistently and recklessly hawkish of the president’s advisers, pushing not for a blockade or even air strikes against Cuba but for a full-scale invasion as “the last chance we will have to destroy Castro.” Stern authoritatively concludes that “if RFK had been president, and the views he expressed during the ExComm meetings had prevailed, nuclear war would have been the nearly certain outcome.” He justifiably excoriates the sycophantic courtier Schlesinger, whose histories “repeatedly manipulated and obscured the facts” and whose accounts—“profoundly misleading if not out-and-out deceptive”—were written to serve not scholarship but the Kennedys.

Although Stern and other scholars have upended the panegyrical version of events advanced by Schlesinger and other Kennedy acolytes, the revised chronicle shows that JFK’s actions in resolving the crisis—again, a crisis he had largely created—were reasonable, responsible, and courageous. Plainly shaken by the apocalyptic potentialities of the situation, Kennedy advocated, in the face of the bellicose and near-unanimous opposition of his pseudo-tough-guy advisers, accepting the missile swap that Khrushchev had proposed. “To any man at the United Nations, or any other rational man, it will look like a very fair trade,” he levelheadedly told the ExComm. “Most people think that if you’re allowed an even trade you ought to take advantage of it.” He clearly understood that history and world opinion would condemn him and his country for going to war—a war almost certain to escalate to a nuclear exchange—after the U.S.S.R. had publicly offered such a reasonable quid pro quo. Khrushchev’s proposal, the historian Ronald Steel has noted, “filled the White House advisors with consternation—not least of all because it appeared perfectly fair.” [...]

By successfully hiding the deal from the vice president, from a generation of foreign-policy makers and strategists, and from the American public, Kennedy and his team reinforced the dangerous notion that firmness in the face of what the United States construes as aggression, and the graduated escalation of military threats and action in countering that aggression, makes for a successful national-security strategy—really, all but defines it.

The president and his advisers also reinforced the concomitant view that America should define a threat not merely as circumstances and forces that directly jeopardize the safety of the country, but as circumstances and forces that might indirectly compel potential allies or enemies to question America’s resolve.[...]

This notion that standing up to aggression (however loosely and broadly defined) will deter future aggression (however loosely and broadly defined) fails to weather historical scrutiny. [...]

Moreover, the idea that a foreign power’s effort to counter the overwhelming strategic supremacy of the United States—a country that spends nearly as much on defense as does the rest of the world combined—ipso facto imperils America’s security is profoundly misguided. Just as Kennedy and his advisers perceived a threat in Soviet efforts to offset what was in fact a destabilizing U.S. nuclear hegemony, so today, both liberals and conservatives oxymoronically assert that the safety of the United States demands that the country must “balance” China by maintaining its strategically dominant position in East Asia and the western Pacific—that is, in China’s backyard. This means that Washington views as a hazard Beijing’s attempts to remedy the weakness of its own position, even though policy makers acknowledge that the U.S. has a crushing superiority right up to the edge of the Asian mainland. America’s posture, however, reveals more about its own ambitions than it does about China’s. Imagine that the situation were reversed, and China’s air and naval forces were a dominant and potentially menacing presence on the coastal shelf of North America. Surely the U.S. would want to counteract that preponderance. In a vast part of the globe, stretching from the Canadian Arctic to Tierra del Fuego and from Greenland to Guam, the U.S. will not tolerate another great power’s interference. Certainly America’s security wouldn’t be jeopardized if other great powers enjoy their own (and for that matter, smaller) spheres of influence.

This esoteric strategizing—this misplaced obsession with credibility, this dangerously expansive concept of what constitutes security—which has afflicted both Democratic and Republican administrations, and both liberals and conservatives, is the antithesis of statecraft, which requires discernment based on power, interest, and circumstance. It is a stance toward the world that can easily doom the United States to military commitments and interventions in strategically insignificant places over intrinsically trivial issues. It is a stance that can engender a foreign policy approximating paranoia in an obdurately chaotic world abounding in states, personalities, and ideologies that are unsavory and uncongenial—but not necessarily mortally hazardous.

2013

[abardnamedreginald]

im a wolf-demon-salamander-grey treefrog-katydid-cricket-luna moth-klingon-trad vampire-cat-romulan-harry potter wizard-gnome-drow-orc-wood elf-high elf-werewolf-twilight vampire-chihuahua-android-bard-druid-sorcerer-d&d wizard-lotr wizard-mind flayer-kraken-owlbear-genetically modified human-andes mint-harry potter merperson-h20 mermaid-great white shark-raven named nevermore-amontillado-sewer clown-animatronic-ink person-reality bender-ringwraith-chicken-fairy-telescreen-multibear-manic pixie dream girl-d class-horcrux-dragon-unicorn-pegasus-among us crewmate-among us imposter-game master-sharpie king size marker-dwarf-dragonborn-toothbrush-rock-paper-scissors-lizard-vulcan-politician-god-phone guy-icebreakers ice cubes pineapple-a doctor not a miracle worker-troll-ent-poodle-rabbit-Bear.-orange zombie-purple zombie-green zombie-professor plum-col. mustard-in the library-with a knife-hoola dancer-fish-villager-pelecan-defense against the dark arts professer-mafia boss-peep rabbit-peep chicken-gymnast-hairbrush-philosopher-music freak-school teacher-kidnapper-police lieutenant-farmer-trash can-dumpster out back-turtle-tribble-my little pony-kratt brother-high diver-pearl diver, dive, dive, deeper-chef-fire-earth-water-wind-wasp-bee-hornet-yellowjacket-mud dabber-grasshopper-rattlesnake-armadillo-cowboy-flashlight-starfleet science officer-harlet-elephant-gater-muppet-emo-goth-preppy-teabag-loser-sucker-mouse-rat-a puppet-a pauper-a pirate-a poet-a pawn-and a king-father albert-the pope-a nun-pastor jeff-gambler-metalhead-death rocker-the grim reaper-angel-lighthouse-paw patrol dog-hobbit-starfish-sponge-crab-squid-shrimp-jellyfish-chipmunk-hammerhead shark-nurse shark-humpback whale-blue whale-orca-sexual harrassment panda-south park character-jakoffasaurus-scrabble board-ouija board-pillow-toilet paper-period pad-tampon-baby diaper-elderly diaper-martian-touch tone telephone-starfleet operations-starfleet command-kirk-spock-bones-sulu-chekov-uhura-scotty-yeoman rand-KHAN!!!-mudd-the uss enterprise-the uss reliant-botany bay-v'ger-valeris-saavik-sybok-surak-sarek-the abbreviation 'idk'-sheldon-leonard-penny-howard-raj-amy-bernadette-mary cooper-george sr-george jr-missy cooper-meemaw-tam-dr sturgis-dr linkletter-dr jack bright-dr clef-dr gears-dr kondraki-dr mann-dr iceberg-dr crow-dr rights-dr sherman-scp 049-scp 3008-scp 4231-scp 166-scp 682-scp 2521-scp 590-O5 6-bill cipher-stanley pines-stanford pines-dipper-mabel-wendy-soos-schmebulok-gideon-mcgucket-dipper goes to taco bell-sheriff blubs-deputy durland-tad strange-andy taylor-william afton-michael afton-elizabeth afton-crying child-henry emily-charlotte emily-dave miller-jack kennedy-dee kennedy-peter kennedy-steven stevenson-aragorn-sam-frodo-merry-pippin-boromir-legolas-gimli-gandalf-faramir-denethor-sauron-elrond-thranduil-harry-hermione-ron-voldemort-pettigrew.-moony-padfoot-prongs-snape-edward-bella-alice!!-carlisle-charlie-cthulhu-greg heffley-pennywise-bendy-sammy-norman-jack-alice (susie)-allison-henry stien-joey drew-bruenor battlehammer-raskolnikov-heather-heather-heather-veronica-jd-kurt-ram-martha-kurt cobain-david bowie-freddie mercury-hozier-mitski-lemon demon-jack stauber-tally hall-hamilton-burr-jefferson-madison-washington-phillip-angelica-eliza-peggy-king george iii-king henry viii-ben franklin-catherine of aragon-anne boleyn-jane seymour-anne of cleves-katherine howard-catherine parr-dracula-𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓴𝔂-evan hansen-conner murphey-john adams-raymond barron-fred randall-jane doe-ocean-noel-mischa-constance-ricky-karnak-vergil-alternate-thatcher davis-ruth-dave-cesar-mark-adam-sarah-jonah-evelyn-gabriel-trump-biden-sunny-basil-kel-aubrey-hero-mari-vanessa (the mean girl that kinda likes u)-tux the linux penguin-perry the platypus hybrid princess...dont fw me

[sunshine-gumdrop]

Just want to share the Email Response I Received After Emailing Info@Edmontonoilers.com, I don't think there is anything to say or do after this as Kyle Beach himself endorsed Stan Bowman and the second victim is not known...

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your feedback. We understand and appreciate your input.

The decision to hire Stan Bowman as the Oilers General Manager was made after extensive due diligence into the 2010 Kyle Beach case and the subsequent work by Stan over the years to make amends and support Kyle—while also working with Sheldon Kennedy’s Respect Group to help make positive change. In regards to the Kyle Beach incident in 2010, Stan has acknowledged that trusting his superior to handle the situation as promised was not acceptable. Stan has taken full responsibility for his inadequate response.

Stan has since built a relationship with Kyle Beach and has worked with the Trinity Western male and female players, where Kyle now coaches, to build the team’s curriculum on creating a safe hockey culture—leveraging Stan’s work with the Respect Group. Both Kyle Beach and Sheldon Kennedy support the Oilers hiring of Stan Bowman, and Stan’s experiences since 2010 have him well-positioned to be a leader at OEG and an advocate within the NHL community.

The independent report is available here if you would like to learn more about the incident in 2010, and Sheldon Kennedy’s endorsement of Stan Bowman can be found here

Thanks again for your feedback

Jessy

[blusical]

okay but seriously though. Is there a possibility that bowman has actually done work to make up for his mistakes? yeah. there is always that possibility. Does that mean he should be immediately hired? no. now don't get me wrong, i am all for giving people second chances. we all fuck up at some points. many of our favorites do. however, i will admit, when it comes to situations like sexual assault and abuse (or in this case covering up abuse), it's a bit more complicated (especially as a survivor myself). Now. I will give credit where credit is due; both Bowman and Jackson have been in contact with Beach (With Beach allegedly approving of the hiring) which is good to see. Also worth noting, Sheldon Kennedy, who was abused himself by Graham James, supports Bowman's return.

However, I do think this is something we should hear from Beach himself. Although considering the stress he probably dealt with during the scandal and speaking out, combined with how ruthless some hockey fans can get (especially online), I personally wouldn't blame him for not making a public statement.

Now with that out of the way, none of that changes the fact that Bowman did what he did. It's not going to make what he did okay. Also, keep in mind that there's still another lawsuit Chicago is facing as well, and possibly many more victims out there too, and who knows how they might be feeling right now.

I know people are bringing up the fact that he was also just... really bad as a GM (Which was definitely true, Hawks fans can vouch for this one). But that's not the fucking point here. That's not the problem. The problem is that he ruined a person's life all for the sake of a cup. In terms of forgiveness, that's up to Beach and the other victims, not us. However, we cannot deny that this was a bad decision, especially in the midst of another lawsuit against Chicago, and especially when the OILERS PLAYERS WEREN'T EVEN NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS. Again, I'm all for second chances. And if Beach is okay with this hiring, then great! But even then, we cannot deny the harm he's caused. Just because Beach and Kennedy are okay with the hiring doesn't mean other survivors will feel the same way. And honestly, I feel like in a situation like this, this is something you should give your players a heads up about.

Now, I'm not entirely confident the Oilers will drop Bowman (Keep in mind they still have Evander Kane). However, with the amount of backlash they've gotten, I see no reason why they shouldn't reverse this decision, and there's a slim chance with enough of our rage, we can make them reconsider. (Remember, Boston dropped Miller after both fans and players criticized the signing!). Should Bowman stick around though, we should make sure what he's done is not swept under the rug and forgotten. Nothing will make this okay.

[rjzimmerman]

Watch Senator Kennedy from Louisiana make an ass of himself as he questions one of the witnesses before the congressional heating described in the Grist story below.

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

A congressional hearing on the fossil fuel industry’s “evolving efforts to avoid accountability for climate change” turned into a spectacle on Wednesday morning as lawmakers in Washington, D.C., grilled a panel of experts on wide-ranging — and often irrelevant — topics. The thousands of internal oil company documents released before the hearing, however, contained some bombshell findings.

One of the biggest revelations is that BP executives understood that natural gas, which the company promoted as a “bridge” or “destination” fuel to a cleaner future as coal declined, was incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015. “[O]nce built, gas locks in future emissions above a level consistent with 2 degrees,” at least without widespread carbon capture technology, according to a comment on a draft outline for a speech by BP’s CEO in 2017.

“This is the first evidence I’ve seen of them acknowledging internally, at the highest levels, that they know this — natural gas is a climate disaster — and yet, they still promote it,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental advocacy organization.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, invited expert witnesses to talk about the industry’s attempts to shape media coverage and academic research and allegations that they misled the public through deceptive advertising. But Republican lawmakers went off-script, asking questions about boreal forest fires and alleging that reducing fossil fuel production would result in Americans “having to sell blood in order to pay their electricity bill.” At one point, Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana read a list of old Twitter posts in an attempt to discredit Geoffrey Supran, a climate researcher who testified at the event, apparently without realizing that the posts were not written by Supran, although he did retweet one of them.

The hearing was the outcome of a three-year congressional investigation that sought to uncover new information about fossil fuel companies’ history of spreading disinformation about climate change. The first hearing, in October 2021, focused on an early chapter of that history, the 1970s, and drew testimony from executives of BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Shell, as well as two industry lobbying groups — the American Petroleum Institute and the Chamber of Commerce.

Now, lawmakers have turned their attention to recent history. Ahead of the hearing, they released some 4,500 subpoenaed documents dating back to 2015 that show how oil companies’ internal discussions about the Paris Agreement, methane emissions, and investigations into their own climate denial have diverged from their public statements. The new evidence, summarized in a 60-page report, could be critical for lawsuits alleging that oil companies lied to the public about climate change, since they provide evidence of ongoing deception.

[loanebarnes]

⋆ ˚｡⋆୨୧˚ about me and my account!🍒

🎀masterlist<3

-my name is loane and i’m 18!! i’m french, i’m sorry for any mistakes :( and my fav color is pink!!<3

• my favorites movies/shows:

- the walking dead

- young sheldon

- marvel

- conjuring

-saw

• my favorites artists:

- kanye west

- tyler the creator

- frank ocean

- drake

- billie eilish

• my favorites videos games:

- the last of us

- resident evil

- dead by daylight

- until dawn

• for who i will write:

twd:

- negan smith

- rick grimes

- daryl dixon

marvel:

-bucky barnes

-loki laufeyson

the boys:

-victoria neuman

-billy butcher

saw:

-mark hoffman

the last of us:

-abby anderson

resident evil:

-carlos oliveira

-leon s. kennedy

i will also post mood board!!💕

—————

HELP PALESTINE 🇵🇸 :

[deerabigailhobbs]

Youre stuck on a deserted island with your 5 favorite people and your 5 least favorite people. What goes down? Whos dying first? What order are you cannibalizing them in? /hj

Oh boy, what a question to get on a quiet Thursday evening! I think realistically, I'd be the first to go. I'm terrible at survival situations and plus, have an abhorrent resistance to hot weather. Anything above 15°c (59F) and I melt. So yeah, I'll be on the Barbie first.

But let's say that the powers that be grant me extra strength and heat resistance in these trying times...

I'm not sure whether you meant real or fictional people, but let's do a mix of both shall we?

Most favourite:

Abigail Hobbs (for reasons which are obvious)

My best friend (hi I know you're reading this)

Adam Stanheight (I love a man who looks pathetic)

My mum (love my mum <3)

Ashley Graham (the previous fictional woman I was obsessed with)

Least favourite:

Hannibal Lecter (for reasons which are obvious)

Rishi Sunak (fuck the tories)

Young Sheldon (it's a long story)

Next door neighbour (too loud)

The twat that humiliated me during sports day training (he was a twat)

Introductions out of the way, here's how it goes down:

Rishi Sunak dies first due to being unable to fuck over the British people, and therefore having no purpose in life. Also having to mingle with commneners? Yeah no, he exits the situation himself. We don't dare eat him, he may have been infected by absolute wanker-itis, which can be deadly.

This is followed closely by Young Sheldon, who is adamant he can find a way off this island. He creates a small makeshift boat (which is quite impressive) and sails out to sea. Unfortunately, the idiot forgot he doesn't know how to sail, so aimlessly drifts off, s shakey "Bazinga" the last thing to leave his lips.

Next up is Ashley Graham, who without Leon Kennedy to help her, dies from getting her foot stuck in a bear trap. What's a bear trap doing on a deserted island, I hear you ask? My answer; uhhhh, island bears. She is our first meal.

Alas, Abigail dies next because Hannibal just cannot help himself in making sure this poor girl is murdered. This is quickly followed by me killing him painfully and slowly with my two bare hands <3. I eat Abigail, because I won't let her go to waste unlike some people.

Best friend is next up on the chopping block. He realises that he missed the Hades 2 full launch, which causes him to go into a deep depressive state and die from sadness. Rip bestie, I made sure you were cooked with extra seasoning.

The twat that humiliated me dies from mysterious reasons. Wow, who knows what could have caused his death... We eat him and he's delicious.

My neighbour decides they haven't been shouting at the top of their lungs in a while, and does so during the middle of the night when the rest of the us survivors are asleep. Unfortunately the island isn't like back home, and their massive gob catches the sight of a massive eagle, which snatches them up by their shoulders and flies them away into the night sky.

Adam decides to explore the island deeper, and finds a cave which could be a great use of shelter. Unfortunately, he didn't move the massive boulder far enough away from the entrance, and it moves, sealing him away forever. He is left to starve in darkness.

I choke on a peanut.

My mum wins as she deserves to, found and taken away to a huge mansion where she lives the rest of her life in peace <3

[prophilefive]

intro 4 owner 1 (🌌🦭)

name: kennedy

pronouns: she/her/they/them, gender:female

fandoms: homesuck,killing stalking,boyfriend to death,the price of flesh, funny pets,poppie the performer,young Sheldon,SpongeBob,pizza tower,mitski, 4lung, renard lapfox,yokai watch,crk,Pop’n music.

interest:music,drawing,sleeping,and listening to music.

(Dm 4 disc)

BANDETTO- nova fire

1:04 ───ㅇ───── 2:51

↺ ᴿᴱᴾᴱᴬᵀ ‖ ᴾᴬᵁˢᴱ ≫ ᴺᴱˣᵀ ˢᴼᴺᴳ

[yessadirichards]

What to stream this week: 'Young Sheldon,' Amy Schumer, 'Oppenheimer' and lots and lots of JLo

Christopher Nolan's “Oppenheimer” arriving on Peacock and a documentary and album from Jennifer Lopez are some of the new television, movies, music and games headed to a device near you.

Also among the streaming offerings worth your time as selected by The Associated Press’ entertainment journalists: “Young Sheldon” returning for its seventh and final season, Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. exploring the power of gospel in a two-part PBS documentary and Ubisoft’s Skull and Bones pirate-themed video game.

— If you were holding out for “Oppenheimer” on streaming, now’s your chance to catch up before the Oscars (March 10), where it’s up for 13 awards including best picture, best director for Christopher Nolan and best actor for Cillian Murphy. The film arrives on Peacock on Friday, Feb. 16. Nolan and Emma Thomas, his producer and wife, are passionate advocates of the big screen experience, but they also know that most people will watch their films in the home — sometimes even as their first time. It’s how both discovered some of their favorites as well, they’ve said. In an interview with The Associated Press, Thomas added, “The nice thing about Chris’ films is because they are so very rich and reward multiple viewings, I think that they’re perfectly pitched for home viewings.”

— Jennifer Lopez has a new movie coming to Prime Video on Feb. 16. She co-wrote “This is Me…Now: A Love Story,” a movie musical about finding love which she called “the most personal thing I’ve ever done.” It is a star-studded endeavor, with appearances from her husband, Ben Affleck, Keke Palmer, Sofia Vergara, Post Malone and more, and ties in with her first studio album in a decade (see below). Also coming to Prime Video is Emma Seligman’s “gay high school fight club” comedy “Bottoms,” starring Rachel Sennott and Ayo Edebiri as a few misfits who start a fight club to flirt with the hot cheerleaders (Kaia Gerber and Havana Rose Liu). In his review, AP Film Writer Jake Coyle wrote that, “The rites and rituals of the raunchy high-school comedy can be as prescribed as a class syllabus. But what makes Emma Seligman’s “Bottoms” such an anarchic thrill is how much it couldn’t care less.”

— And finally, Taika Waititi’s “Next Goal Wins” arrives on Hulu on Thursday. It’s based on the real story of the American Samoa men’s soccer team quest to qualify for the FIFA World Cup after an historic loss (31-nill) against Australia. Michael Fassbender plays the coach who tries to help. In his AP review, Mark Kennedy wrote that “’Next Goal Wins’ is most winning in the way it handles the team’s star player, Jaiyah Saelua, who became the first nonbinary player to compete in a men’s FIFA qualifier. Played with real tenderness and joy by nonbinary actor Kaimana, the way the team and coach relate to Saelua is genuine and touching."

— AP Film Writer Lindsey Bahr

— Get ready for a second dose of J.Lo. On Friday, Feb. 16, she drops the Amazon original film “This is Me… Now: A Love Story” (see above) as well as her “This Is Me… Now” album. The 13-track set’s song titles include “To Be Yours,” “Mad in Love,” “Greatest Love Story Never Told” and “Dear Ben Pt. II,” a seeming sequel to a track on her 2002 album “This Is Me … Then.” The video for one new pop single, “Can’t Get Enough,” has as much JLo strutting as all of Paris Fashion Week. Lopez’s last album, “A.K.A.,” came out in 2014 and reached No. 8 on the Billboard 200.

— Blackberry Smoke — a Georgia-based band that has been together for 24 years and seven studio albums — makes a strong return with “Be Right Here,” blending blues, Southern rock and Americana. The album contains the arena country “Hammer and the Nail,” the rocking “Little Bit Crazy” and the driving, bluesy “Dig a Hole.” The band goes more acoustic with the wistful “Azalea,” about a loved one making a wrong decision, with the lyrics “Coming back don’t mean you're leaving here was wrong/Sorry ain’t the same as moving on.”

— AP Entertainment Writer Mark Kennedy

— In a new docuseries for PBS, Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. examines how sermon and song have long been a source of strength and wisdom in America, particularly among Black Americans. “Gospel,” a four-part series told over two nights has interviews with Dionne Warwick, U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock and more. “Gospel” airs Monday Tuesday on PBS.

— Ben Mendelsohn and Juliette Binoche play Christian Dior and Coco Chanel in a new historical drama “The New Look” for Apple TV+. The 10-episode series is set against the backdrop of Paris reemerging from Nazi occupation in WWII. Dior’s designs helped to lift an oppressed France and its culture with a stylish, modern glow up. As Dior rose to prominence, a rivalry developed between other established designers, including Chanel. “The New Look” also stars Maisie Williams, John Malkovich, Emily Mortimer and Glenn Close. The first three episodes of “The New Look” drop Wednesday on the streamer.

— Before Sheldon Cooper met Leonard, Penny or Amy he was a child prodigy growing up in east Texas. Iain Armitage plays the coming-of-age version of the character in the CBS comedy “Young Sheldon.” Emmy winner Jim Parsons who played Sheldon on “Big Bang” for 12 seasons, narrates. “Young Sheldon” returns for its seventh and final season on Thursday.

— Amy Schumer’s Hulu dramedy “Life & Beth” charmed viewers when it debuted in 2022 and the series returns for a second season on Friday, Feb. 16. Schumer writes, directs and stars as Beth opposite Michael Cera, who plays John, a farmer. The two fell in love in season one despite their differences and personal baggage. Now, the couple is planning to marry. Schumer has said the story is semi-autobiographical, inspired by her real-life marriage to chef Chris Fischer. All 10 episodes of season two will be available on the premiere date.

— Alicia Rancilio

— Batten down the hatches: Ubisoft’s Skull and Bones is finally ready to launch after more than a decade of development and delays. You are the captain of a pirate vessel in the Indian Ocean in the 18th century. You have a decent ship to start with, but if you want to make it really deadly you need to start collecting booty. That means pillaging merchant ships, battling rival scalawags, dodging the authorities and even surviving the occasional sea monster on your way to becoming the Pirate Kingpin. You can team up with friends or fight against them in epic naval warfare — something Ubisoft has shown a flair for in some of its Assassin’s Creed games. Set sail Friday, Feb. 16, on PlayStation 5, Xbox X/S or PC.

— Focus Entertainment’s Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden travels to the New World in the 17th century. The protagonists are a couple of paranormal investigators, Red and Antea, who are trying to clear the tormented wraiths out of a haunted settlement. They can help the lost souls ascend or banish them to eternal misery, and those choices have consequences down the line. It all gets more complicated when Antea gets killed — but fortunately she can use her supernatural powers to help Red finish the job. Banishers comes from the French studio Don’t Nod, best known for story-heavy cult favorites like Vampyr and Life Is Strange. You can take possession Tuesday on PlayStation 5, Xbox X/S or PC.

— Lou Kesten

[titleknown]

Do you think Section 230 is pretty much going to be passed? I've been thinking about leaving the internet completely over this.

...Well, like many things, the answer is "It's Complicated,"

Firstly, for the most part, efforts to screw up Section 230 aren't direct repealing all of it so much as carve-outs that majorly weaken it, in ways that could still deeply screw up free speech.

The recent Kids Online Safety Act/EARN IT Act is being pushed for, and while it's not in committee, given the former was sent to the Commerce Committee last time and the latter to the Judiciary Committee, they're probably gonna send it next time, and you're probably going to want to call your senators if they're in said committee to tell them to kill those bills.

The membership of the Commerce Committee:

Maria Cantwell, Washington, Chair

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota

Brian Schatz, Hawaii

Ed Markey, Massachusetts

Gary Peters, Michigan

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin

Tammy Duckworth, Illinois

Jon Tester, Montana

Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona[a]

Jacky Rosen, Nevada

Ben Ray Luján, New Mexico

John Hickenlooper, Colorado

Raphael Warnock, Georgia

Peter Welch, Vermont

Ted Cruz, Texas, Ranking Member

John Thune, South Dakota

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Deb Fischer, Nebraska

Jerry Moran, Kansas

Dan Sullivan, Alaska

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

Todd Young, Indiana

Ted Budd, North Carolina

Eric Schmitt, Missouri

J.D. Vance, Ohio

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia

Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming

The membership of the Judiciary Committee:

Dick Durbin, Illinois, Chairman

Dianne Feinstein, California

Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota

Chris Coons, Delaware

Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii

Cory Booker, New Jersey

Alex Padilla, California

Jon Ossoff, Georgia

Peter Welch, Vermont

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, Ranking Member

Chuck Grassley, Iowa

John Cornyn, Texas

Mike Lee, Utah

Ted Cruz, Texas

Josh Hawley, Missouri

Tom Cotton, Arkansas

John Kennedy, Louisiana

Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

So yeah.

I may as well add, If you've got the misfortune to be calling a Republican, be sure to bring up how KOSA will be used as a way for Big Government to spy on people via mandated age verification, and how EARN IT will be used to censor conservative speech.

That'll get the bastards attention. And no matter what you do, don't shut up about it, because silence means the fuckers win, just look at FOSTA/SESTA...

...Tho, in better news, the questioning in those Supreme Court suits tackling Section 230 seem to show that the justices are at least reluctant to try and do much to 230, very specifically because of how much it could fuck up.

Which begs the question, if even these fucking demons know why fucking with Section 230 is a godawful idea, what excuse do these senators have?

Point is, the efforts to undermine it aren't all at once so much as gradual and insidious. Call your senators folks, and stay vigilant.