We will return with new material in December!!!
We will return with new material in December!!!
Business Insider reported that Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is reneging on promises to even marginally address the perilous finances of the United States.
If you can’t take the heat, give the big-government filth everything they demand and crawl home without your testicles.
While Mulvaney had previously promised he would demand spending cuts in exchange for “raising the debt ceiling” (a near-annual occurrence in which the Feds stare down our unprecedented $20,000,000,000,000 national debt, shrug, and pretend we’re solvent by simply increasing the amount of cheddar the Feds themselves may borrow–backed by taxpayers–without any significant reform in spending to even dent the $250 billion we pay in annual interest), he now advocates a “clean” increase. This just means we’ll keep spending beyond our means, but with a bipartisan consensus that our children should inherit at least one year of our GDP in financial obligations.
It’s all quite confusing, because:
The debt limit, the level of outstanding debt the federal government is allowed to carry, was technically hit in March. Since then, the Treasury Department has been using “extraordinary measures” to prevent a breach of the limit. The department has said Congress must pass a bill to increase the limit by the end of September to avoid a breach.
While Trump threw a transient bone to the fiscal conservative crowd shortly after his election by imposing a federal “hiring freeze,” that minuscule measure towards fiscal sanity was abandoned not even three months later. By…Mulvaney:
Even more willing to live beyond our means is Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who made news for all the wrong reasons on August 21 by reportedly using a government jet to travel to Kentucky for front row seats in viewing the SOLAR ECLIPSE.
Mnuchin was delivering a scheduled speech alongside Senate Majority
Leader Sellout Mitch McConnell (who actually hails from Kentucky and might be able to justify billing his citizens for a ticket out of D.C.)
Mnuchin might have gotten away with the alleged waste of taxpayer dollars, too, except his wife, Louise Linton, got on the Instagram to brag about the brands she was wearing on the excursion. Her selfie captured the jet in the background:
Linton responded to the haters, who were justifiably wondering why a luxurious lap in a federal jet was necessary for a famous actress estimated to be worth $300 million to view a three-minute natural phenomenon, with:
“Pretty sure the amount we sacrifice per year is a lot more than you’d be willing to sacrifice if the choice was yours. You’re adorably out of touch.”
Although she later apologized for her behavior, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (who for some reason acronymed themselves as “CREW”) have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for any records of Mnuchin’s government-funded travel up to and including the eclipse excursion since he took office.
In related news, USA Today noted in February that fiscal year 2016 was a boon for taxpayer-funded government travel. Congressional records estimate they spent at least $14.7 million from the little people, which would be 27% more than in f.y. 2015.
Mnuchin’s own Treasury, however, estimated it was actually nearly $20 million. Treasury got their data from the State Department, and both outfits refused to explain the increase.
Using the $20 million figure, f.y. 2016 represents the highest government travel amount ever recorded, and includes 557 trips by Congress and their staffers that cost at least $10,000 per person.
Thanks to our sources:
The Hill learned that recently-dismissed FBI Director James Comey sprinkled some classified details into “private memos” he transcribed after meeting with his former boss, President Donald Trump. How many of these so-called “personal recollections” contained classified information? More than half, per unnamed sources.
That Comey’s office pursued a criminal investigation into Trump’s chief rival for the presidency last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for a similar practice–an angle many Democrats (and Hillary herself) continue to credit for the failure of her elitist campaign amidst a sordid history of political thuggery and personal enrichment–was not lost on The Hill.
As we have extensively covered, the eleventh-hour “reopening” of the Hillary email investigation in the campaign’s final weeks was widely cited by Hillary and her allies (along with Russian hacking, sexism, racism and “fake news”) as tipping the November 2016 election to President Trump.
Comey testified [in June] he considered the memos to be personal documents and that he shared at least one of them with a Columbia University lawyer friend. He asked that lawyer to leak information from one memo to the news media in hopes of increasing pressure to get a special prosecutor named in the Russia case after Comey was fired as FBI director.
The “Russia case” refers to the FBI probe into possible collusion between Trump and Russia, who reportedly attempted to hack the 2016 U.S. national elections. Comey’s leadership of the case coincided with highly-publicized testimony to Congress prior to his firing.
The Russia investigation continues under former FBI head Robert Mueller.
Thanks to our source:
Last year’s Independence Day festivities were rivaled.
Emily Lance (below), of Pennsylvania, reportedly urinated on an American flag and filmed it for Facebook.
(Although this picture seems also to be captured in a bathroom, it is dated July 6, and Lance appears to be wearing different clothes. It is likely from a separate photo shoot.)
BBC reported the Facebook page was down (according to our research, it’s back up; see below), but the caption on the original video reportedly read: “F*** your nationalism. F*** your country. F*** your stupid f****** flag”.
We obtained video of the incident via “YouTube” (from a Diana Printz):
BBC notes Lance pulls off the standing
ovation urination “with the aid of a device that allows women to do so standing up.”
Lance later implored haters to stop threatening her father and his business over “my shenanigans” and noted her family disapproved of the Independence Day statement.
“What don’t you people understand? You’re celebrating freedom while damning me for doing the same. You can’t have it both ways.”
Despite the threats, Ms. Lance has an action shot on her Facebook page:
The caption reads “Fuck you nazis! lol”
Thanks to our source:
University of Florida recently started accepting applications for its “Living Learning Communities” (LLCs), not to be confused with limited liability corporations (LLCs). (The $1.46 billion-endowed Swamp is exempt from government taxes, so it can accept unlimited amounts of money from anyone anxious to lessen their own tax burden with a cool write-off.)
Apparently, these are special dorm situations at UF for students to rack up debt with an exclusive group of roommates who think more like them. College is for limiting your world view, after all.
In a Buzzfeed propaganda piece, UF lauded the LLCs’ Exclusive Networking Opportunities (“an ‘in’ to special seminars and programs hosted throughout the year”), Unreal Amenities (“3D printing”), and support of Wellness and Self-Care. Because Americans are now children until their 26th birthday, that final brochure bullet includes: “Walk and Talks” with UF faculty and staff, yoga classes, mindfulness workshops, and healthy cooking demos, as well as community amenities like dedicated lounges and study spaces, and coloring books and pencils in each LLC, UF LLCs recognize that taking care of YOU is wildly important!
Daniel Weldon, a Gator linebacker and Young America’s Foundation campus chapter founder, took exception.
We were unable to obtain the annual rent figures from the university site for the various LLCs and how they compare to the price of dorms for the commoners.
The university, like so many former strongholds of free speech across our self-castrated country of coddled adult-children, additionally regulated student group events by requiring an assessment of “emotional risk” for all activities.
Young America’s Foundation again gave us the dirty details. We ripped the following images from their site, reportedly reproduced from the UF office of Student Activities and Involvement:
Would anyone wager that a speaker like Charles Murray or Ann Coulter will necessitate SAI “staff presence,” and confiscatory fees from minority-opinion groups in the Gainesville gaggle?
Thanks to our sources:
Washington Post first picked up on a graduating high school senior in North Carolina who was denied his diploma for refusing to read the school’s prepared commencement address instead of his own composition.
Marvin Wright, 18, was senior class president and slated to deliver the graduation address for Southwest Edgecombe High last June.
After reportedly working for weeks on his speech, Wright was told the morning of graduation he would read the following instead:
I would like to thank all of our friends and family for being here tonight. I would also like to address my fellow graduates one last time before we leave this gym. Although we may all never be in the same room at the same time again, we will always share the memories that we created within these walls. And no matter what we all do after graduation, never forget that this is one place that we all have in common, this place is home. Congratulations graduates, we did it!
“I felt robbed of a chance to say my own words.” –Marvin Wright
[I]nstead of delivering [the school speech], [Wright] took out his cellphone and read a copy of his original speech, with his friends in the audience nodding to him in encouragement.
Sitting behind Marvin, the principal, Craig Harris, immediately turned to another staff member, whispering with a look of disapproval, video footage shows.
After the applause and final procession, all of the students lined up to receive their official diplomas. But one folder in the stack was missing: Marvin’s. His senior adviser informed him the principal had removed the diploma because Marvin had read the wrong speech.
“All my friends were outside with their big yellow folders taking pictures and I was still inside, trying to get my diploma,” Marvin said. “I was really hurt and embarrassed, basically humiliated.”
The teenager and his mother, Jokita Wright, accused the school of not only censoring a student’s words but then retaliating against him by withholding his diploma. The mother complained to the principal, who explained to her that her son had missed a deadline to submit the speech to the school. Marvin says he never knew about it.
What is this, UC Irvine???
Wright apparently had left his speech on his principal’s desk that morning, and was obliged to seek out teachers for advice on writing the speech, as no guidance was provided.
Marvin did not receive his diploma for another two days, when the principal dropped it off at his home at the request of the superintendent. The principal handed him the diploma, saying only, “If your mom has any questions just give me a call.” Then he left.
Superintendent John Farrelly noted:
“There is an expectation that is communicated to all graduation speakers that the prepared and practiced speech is the speech to be delivered during the ceremony. That was made extremely clear to the speakers. The student did not follow those expectations.”
This is interesting, because according to our sources, the “prepared and practiced” speech was in fact the one Mr. Wright read from his phone.
The school might have picked a more controversial or underachieving student to publicly castigate. Mr. Wright begins his service in the U.S. Navy in October. Miami Herald notes he eventually plans to be a pediatric surgeon.
The school seems fine with flaunting the graduates they collectively silenced, featuring them parading the halls of local elementary schools, in costume, on the Southwest Edgecombe website.
At least SEHS didn’t follow the Chicago way, in which thug mayor Rahm Emanuel requires documentation of a young adult’s post-graduation plans before surrendering a high school diploma.
Thanks to our source:
We got an update on the technological “exploits” that were lifted from the NSA, the Federal Government spy agency that tracks your online behavior and phone records.
Brad Smith, President of Microsoft, warned governments like the United State’s federal behemoth are exposing their citizens by “stockpiling vulnerabilities”, hindering technology companies’ responses to cyberattacks because, well, the Federal agencies that suck up personal information on their
subjects citizens are usually terrible at securing that data. This necessitated the additional 560-million dollar data collection facility in Fort Meade, MD to complement the NSA’s initial $2 billion Utah warehouse for tracking the little people.
[As a reminder, when confronted with the 2013 Edward Snowden leaks of NSA’s seizure of citizen phone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act--in some cases by warrant, such as when telecommunications giant Verizon refused to bend over for the Feds–Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the existence of the privacy-eroding program.
Mr. Clapper later alternately claimed that he “forgot” about the blatantly unconstitutional program; that he confused it with another data collection program, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; and (according to his taxpayer-funded lawyer, Robert Litt) that Clapper was unprepared for the query, despite receiving the Senate panel’s planned questions 24 hours in advance. Although we are paying it, we are unable to find Mr. Clapper’s salary amount online.]
On May 12, the WannaCry attack software held data of British National Health Service and other Windows users’ data hostage for a Bitcoin ransom, reportedly with a screen like the following:
Smith, labeling the attack as “WannaCrypt” [sic?], reported the vulnerabilities that enabled it were stolen from NSA in April (at least, that’s when the Feds reportedly admitted the theft). Although Microsoft had released a security patch to Windows Defender one month previously to counter just such a threat, about 300,000 consumers were still reportedly affected. Microsoft did what the Federal Government would never consider, and took personal responsibility for the disruption–even though it was the sloppy Feds who were actually plundered, and Federal Government hubris that concealed the potential weaknesses from citizens.
The most consequential part of Smith’s post:
Finally, this attack provides yet another example of why the stockpiling of vulnerabilities by governments is such a problem. This is an emerging pattern in 2017. We have seen vulnerabilities stored by the CIA show up on WikiLeaks, and now this vulnerability stolen from the NSA has affected customers around the world. Repeatedly, exploits in the hands of governments have leaked into the public domain and caused widespread damage. [T]his most recent attack represents a completely unintended but disconcerting link between the two most serious forms of cybersecurity threats in the world today – nation-state action and organized criminal action.
[It is unclear if “nation-state action” here refers to well-meaning but incompetent central government vulnerability to having…the vulnerabilities they refuse to share with technology companies stolen; or malicious governments acting as the organized criminals, such as when Russia single-handedly elected President Trump.]
The security community claims to be making strides towards transparency. They are cracking down on whistleblowers and systematically ignoring Congressional restrictions on civilian spying. Wait…
George Ellard (above) was removed in December 2016 from his powerful perch as [“what the fuck” alert:] Inspector General of the NSA when he was found guilty of whistle blower retaliation.
Recall the IG is the watchdog for a Federal Government agency who polices the government “workers” and reports their transgressions to taxpayers. Or in this case, quashes dissent. It’s like internal affairs covering for a dirty cop!
Ellard was not only NSA’s Inspector General, but an outspoken critic of Edward Snowden, the former contract employee who leaked hundreds of thousands of classified emails to publicly expose the agency’s domestic surveillance program. Snowden claimed, among other things, that his concerns about NSA’s domestic eavesdropping were ignored by the agency, and that he feared retaliation. Ellard publicly argued in 2014 that Snowden could have safely reported the allegations of NSA’s domestic surveillance directly to him.
[A] high-level Intelligence Community panel found that Ellard himself had previously retaliated against an NSA whistleblower, sources tell the Project On Government Oversight. Informed of that finding, NSA’s Director, Admiral Michael Rogers, promptly issued Ellard a notice of proposed termination, although Ellard apparently remains an agency employee while on administrative leave, pending a possible response to his appeal from Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.
Obama reportedly tried to strengthen whistleblower protections in the wake of Snowden’s revelations with Presidential Policy Directive 19. (Mr. Obama had referred to Snowden as a “29-year-old hacker” and–like Ellard–chastised the Federal contractor for not pursuing existing whistleblowing channels to expose the U.S.’s highly controversial metadata collection programs. Which Snowden had, only to find that such protections did not apply to contractors.)
The PPD-19 established an External Review Panel, comprising IGs for Justice, Treasury and CIA. ERP disagreed with the Defense Department IG, and found Ellard indeed had retaliated against an NSA whistleblower.
“Snowden could have come to me,” Ellard declared [in 2014], arguing that the leaker, now a fugitive in Russia, would have received the same protections as other NSA employees, who file some one thousand reports annually to the agency’s hotline. “We have surprising success in resolving the complaints that are brought to us,” Ellard said, adding, “Perhaps it’s the case that we could have shown, we could have explained to Mr. Snowden his misperceptions, his lack of understanding of what we do.”
Snowden’s related contention is that in his own case, he did, in fact, report his concerns in emails to NSA superiors at the time, a contention which NBC has said it verified.
Government Executive had more on Ellard:
Ellard himself became the subject of a complaint from an NSA employee who had contacted the Defense Department IG’s hotline with allegations of NSA overspending at a conference in Nashville, Tennessee. In 2013, the whistleblower’s identity was shared with Ellard, who then, according to the charges, denied the employee an assignment at the NSA IG’s Office of Investigations.
The Intelligence Community IG provided a sketch of how the PPD-19 external review process works in procedures issued in July 2013. If an aspiring whistleblower exhausts the agency review process without success, he or she can contact the IC watchdog’s office. The office has 45 days to complete a memo to the IG, who then has the authority to appoint an external panel. It collects evidence and has 180 days to make a decision. If the panel recommends action, the agency has another 90 days to respond. If no action is taken by then, the issue goes to the White House and, most likely, Congress.
Former assistant DOD IG John Crane told Government Executive he did the initial intake for the NSA whistleblower complaint about overspending at the conference. He said officials in the Pentagon IG office then revealed the whistleblower’s identity to Ellard, which he characterized as a violation of the Inspector General Act. Crane spent 25 years in government before he was fired in 2013 after accusing the Pentagon watchdog office of whistleblower retaliation.
It is unclear whether Ellard remains on paid leave, as he was placed last December while appealing his removal, or if the termination has been finalized. Cato Institute had a lengthy update last week.
argument justification unconstitutional practice assumed without debate or public knowledge for data-mining civilians is ridiculous, not least of all because all this super-secure data keeps getting leaked by their own employees.
Reality Leigh Winner (yes that is her actual name) was arrested in June for violating the Espionage Act.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.
Ms. Winner apparently leaked a classified document on Russian interference with the November 2016 elections to The Intercept.
And back in August, Harold Martin was nabbed for Espionage Act charges after allegedly swiping 50 terabytes of data from NSA. Martin’s defense attorney felt compelled to tell the press Martin is “no Edward Snowden.” Both men worked for Federal defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, an outfit especially proficient at vetting employees. Martin has reportedly held a security clearance since he joined the Navy. Thirty years ago.
Don’t hold your breath for restoration of your Constitutionally-demanded freedoms anytime soon. On May 2, Reuters reported that the NSA collected more than 151 million records of Americans’ phone calls last year, even after Congress limited its ability to collect bulk phone records, according to an annual report issued on Tuesday by the top U.S. intelligence officer.
Officials on Tuesday argued that the 151 million records collected last year were tiny compared with the number collected under procedures that were stopped after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the surveillance program in 2013.
See, that makes it ok!
Because the 151 million would include multiple calls made to or from the same phone numbers, the number of people whose records were collected also would be much smaller, the officials said. They said they had no breakdown of how many individuals’ phone records were among those collected.
There are a few bright spots in security news.
A hot topic this summer was Susan Rice and her demands of potentially illegal (certainly outside protocol of her office) “unmasking” of Trump associates who were transitioning to the new presidential administration.
The rate of “unmasking” average citizens (presumably to the chagrin of the filthy government thugs who spy on their citizens–and employers–because terrorism) marginally declined last year:
In all, according to the report, U.S. officials unmasked the names of fewer Americans in NSA eavesdropping reports in 2016 than they did the previous year, the top U.S. intelligence officer reported on Tuesday.
The report said the names of 1,934 “U.S. persons” were “unmasked” last year in response to specific requests, compared with 2,232 in 2015, but it did not identify who requested the names or on what grounds.
And back on April 28:
The National Security Agency said it will now limit [signals intelligence] collection to internet communications sent directly to or from a foreign target. It won’t permit intelligence officials to collect emails, texts and other communications between two people who mention a target by name, but are not themselves targets of surveillance.
The changes, first reported by The New York Times, are designed to reduce the chances of sweeping up communications of U.S. citizens or others in a way that some critics charged was overly broad.
On May 31, Shadow Brokers, the apparent perpetrators of the WannaCry attack, announced they would sell the stolen code for interested hackers at $22,000 per copy. By late June, they had raised the price, up to $131,000 for “VIP access,” in which a customer reportedly receives access to particular vulnerabilities.
Back in January, NSA Director Mike Rogers (below), encouraged by Clapper, introduced a measure to offer current NSA operatives raises to stop them from fleeing Big Brother for the private sector.
Interestingly, in November of last year, Clapper and then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter reportedly recommended outgoing President Obama remove Rogers as head of NSA.
Thanks to our sources:
Harvard University announced its draconian late fees ($0.50/day!!) for library books would be eliminated beginning April 1, 2017.
Fox News caught the story in May from The Harvard Crimson.
“We have witnessed first-hand the stress that overdue fines can cause for students,” Harvard administrator Steven Beardsley explained, even going so far as to declare that “Eliminating standard overdue fines…should help students focus on their scholarship, rather than worrying about renewing library books every 28 days in order to avoid fines.”
Harvard exceptionalism, ladies and gentlemen.
Additionally, Harvard performed some specialized graduation ceremonies this year. The inclusiveness of their progressive programs reportedly offers young adults the opportunity to graduate grouped by race.
International Business Times chose to decorate this story with a picture of Kylie Jenner handing a police officer a can of Pepsi.
For example, the Black Commencement event boasted hundreds of students and their guests:
The organisers [sic] say that the event is a celebration of “fellowship” rather than “segregation” and highlights the unique achievements of black students at an institution that has grappled with its historic ties to slavery.
Michael Huggins, a student who will receive a master’s degree in public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School in Massachusetts at the end of this month, told The Root that the ceremony is “an opportunity to celebrate Harvard’s black excellence and black brilliance.”
He stressed that the event is not about segregation but about “building a community.”
“This is a chance to reaffirm for each other that we enter the work world with a network of supporters standing with us. We are all partners,” he said.
All graduates will receive a shawl made of kente cloth, a representation of their African heritage, which they will wear over their graduation robes.
The third annual ceremony specifically for students of Latin American descent is slated for the same day.
It is unclear if these measures aimed to address recent accusations of Harvard discriminating against Asian Americans in its admissions process.
Harvard’s commencement speaker this year was everyone’s favorite billionaire hypocrite, Mark Zuckerberg, creator of the leading social media platform Facebook. It was not apparent from the IBTarticle whether Zucks was scheduled to address the black-students-only graduation, the Latino-students-only graduation, or the other people ceremony.
In any case, he recently filmed himself conferring with fellow disdainful billionaire progressive and Harvard dropout Bill Gates to build hype for the commencement appearance:
In a video posted on his Facebook page, Zuckerberg jokes with Microsoft co-founder and fellow famous Harvard dropout Bill Gates discussing his upcoming speech at the Ivy-League institution and asking him for “advice”.
“They know we didn’t actually graduate, right?” Zuckerberg tells Gates in the video.
Social media was not the best outlet for several incoming Harvard freshman, who will no longer have the privilege of joining Malia Obama as she wraps her ambitious “gap year.”
[Obama, 19, recently “lost her iPhone” at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago, which directly led to her seemingly incoherent body literally being carted from the dance area.]
Motherboard reported that at least ten Cambridge-bound high school graduates had their acceptance letters yanked for spreading “R-rated memes” on the Harvard College Class of ’21 Facebook group page.
The Crimson reports that the memes in the splinter group made fun of “sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children.” One joked about lynching a Mexican child, calling it “pinata time.”
From The Tab.
Searching for the actual memes, we stumbled upon The Tab, which reports these images got the students booted:
We have not searched for the actual Facebook group, presuming it was deactivated and unwilling to have that on our file in Zuckerberg’s database.
This article’s title has been changed. The graduations were “separated,” not “segregated.”
Thanks to our sources:
Another break is upon us!
We will return with our August Agony!
Disclosure: The authors’ viewership of Bill Nye Saves the World consists only of the clips contained in this article.
Climate change awareness propagandist Bill Nye the Science Guy has really [SETTLED SCIENCE ALERT] evolved from the days of his 1990s eponymous, taxpayer-propped series (used to fulfill the Children’s Television Act requirements of TV stations that air children’s programming, levied by the Federal Communications Commission).
His new gig on Netflix, Bill Nye Saves the World, is rated “TV-14.” It is not difficult to see why.
Mother Jones brought us a couple excerpts:
According to the episode list on Wikipedia, Bill starts by exploring (relatively) innocuous and arguably essential public awareness topics such as climate change and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The series then addresses the “sexual spectrum” and “Earth’s people problem.”
Conservative National Review reports the latter episode involves Nye and his guests contemplat[ing] a thorny “scientific” question: How can the state stop people from having “extra kids”?
New York Post had more on that controversial exchange:
[Nye]: “Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?”
Travis Rieder, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University, said he believed it was a good idea.
“I do think that we should at least consider it,” he told Nye.
“Well, ‘at least consider it’ is like ‘Do it,’” Nye said.
Rieder replied, “One of the things that we could do that’s kind of least policy-ish is we could encourage our culture and our norms to change, right?”
Presumably this is all in pursuit of conserving resources:
Before Nye posed the controversial question, Rieder had claimed that children in developed countries such as the United States typically used 160 times more resources than those elsewhere.
Gender identity is not necessarily relevant to the sexual spectrum episode from the clip we viewed, but can also be a divisive issue politically. Divisive, like telophase of the chromosomes! Nye went back in time to do some editing of his past belief in chromosomes determining a person’s gender.
[YouTube bowed to political pressure and struck the damning video from its streaming servers. The Guardian has what appears to be the entire original episode that includes the chromosome conundrum at 9:07:
On May 3, Washington Free Beacon reported:
A segment saying that chromosomes determine one’s gender on an episode of the educational children’s show “Bill Nye the Science guy,” is cut out on the Netflix version.
Netflix did not edit Bill Nye The Science Guy. The series was delivered that way by Buena Vista TV, according to a Netflix spokesperson.
[I]n the version of the episode uploaded to Netflix, the segment [asserting genetics determine gender] has been cut entirely. While noncontroversial at the time, the 1996 segment appears to contradict Netflix’s new series “Bill Nye Saves the World.”
The new show endorses a socially liberal understanding of gender, under which gender is defined by self-identification rather than genetics and there are more than just the two traditional genders.
Update May 5, 2017 9:28 a.m.: This post has been updated to reflect comment from Netflix, which says it did not have a role in cutting the segment from the episode.
Left-wing Vox notes the intended target audience is “skeptics”: Bill Nye Saves the World’s agenda is explicitly skeptical — that is, it’s geared toward debunking false assumptions about science, bad pseudoscience, medical quackery, and harmful non-scientific beliefs.
A longstanding criticism of the skeptics community is that its members often profess mocking or condescending attitudes toward anyone who believes in things skeptics are opposed to — primarily religion, the paranormal, and pseudoscience.
This attitude is prevalent on Nye’s show, which frequently takes a scathing and dismissive tone toward non-scientific belief systems.
At one point during a demonstration of Earth’s origins, Nye banishes from his diorama of early life on the planet a small model of Noah’s ark, declaring, “there’s no freaking Noah’s ark, I’m sorry,” as he tosses it aside.
Vox further exposes Nye’s hypocrisy on GMOs: the D.C. dandy hosts a Monsanto cheerleader in his series:
Nye recently reversed his entire stance on GMOs following a visit to Monsanto, and it quickly becomes evident that [Monsanto chief technical officer Robert] Fraley is there not just to defend GMOs, but Monsanto itself.
[Keep those Federal farm subsidies coming, they’re definitely lifelines for struggling small farmers and not benefiting Big Agriculture and gene-splicing plant technology giants like Monsanto. Hundreds of millions of dollars in farm subsidies are claimed annually by people that have never set foot on a farm according to Environmental Working Group. Oops. Bill the taxpayers.]
Even more to their credit, Vox reports:
[Nye] does briefly bring up that Monsanto produced Agent Orange, but fails to explain what it was: a chemical defoliant used strategically during the Vietnam War that decimated the environment, exposed millions of US soldiers to cancer-causing toxins, and caused hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese children to be born with birth defects. Instead, he lobs a softball question at Fraley in which they both treat Monsanto’s production of Agent Orange as an unfortunate accident from a bygone historical moment — when in fact, Agent Orange continues to impact both the country and Vietnam veterans to this day. Nye also sort-of brings up Roundup’s role in decimating the Monarch butterfly population, yet neglects to mention that Monsanto is the company that makes Roundup.
All emphasis is ours.
Thanks to our sources: