Newsflash: Counterfeit Goods are Cheap!

Either I am being dense, or the BBC is:

The man who sparked outrage last year by hiking the price of a life-saving drug may have met his match in some Australian schoolboys.

US executive Martin Shkreli became a symbol of greed when he raised the price of a tablet of Daraprim from $13.50 (£11) to $750.

Now, Sydney school students have recreated the drug’s key ingredient for just $20.

The Sydney Grammar boys, all 17, synthesised the active ingredient, pyrimethamine, in their school science laboratory.

“It wasn’t terribly hard but that’s really the point, I think, because we’re high school students,” one boy, Charles Jameson, told the BBC.

The students produced 3.7 grams of pyrimethamine for $20. In the US, the same quantity would cost up to $110,000.

The issue was never how expensive it is to make the drug, it was who held the license to make it and sell it in the US.

Mr Shkreli, also known as “Pharma Bro”, was chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals when it acquired exclusive rights to Daraprim.

Clearly some people don’t realise this:

Dr Alice Williamson, a University of Sydney research chemist, supported the boys’ project through online platform Open Source Malaria.

“They’ve transformed starter material that’s worth pennies into something that has a real monetary value in the States,” she told the BBC.

No, their product has no monetary value in the States.  Let them try to sell it over there and see what happens.

“If you can obtain it cheaply in schools, then there’s no excuse for charging that much money for a drug. Especially from people that really need it and probably can’t afford to pay for it.”

Dr Williamson called the pricing in the US “ludicrous”.

We have a chemist working in research at a university who thinks the price of drugs is driven by the cost of the ingredients, and shit turned out in a school lab is the same as that certified for distribution in the US by the FDA.

Next up from the BBC: Chinese students make a Louis Vuitton bag for $10, undercutting the flagship store on the Champs-Élysées by $490.  Praise all ’round.

Praising Pinochet

Following the death of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, many people have looked at how various world leaders and media outlets reported this event and contrasted it with how they reacted to the death of former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet in 2006.

This article takes the New York Times to task over the matter:

The New York Times described Fidel Castro as a “fiery apostle of the revolution” and Cuba’s “maximum leader” in its Saturday obituary for the infamous and brutal dictator.

Here’s how The Times opened the article:

Fidel Castro, the fiery apostle of revolution who brought the Cold War to the Western Hemisphere in 1959 and then defied the United States for nearly half a century as Cuba’s maximum leader, bedeviling 11 American presidents and briefly pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war, died on Friday. He was 90.

The Daily Caller’s Jaime Weinstein brought attention to how differently the news outlet opened its obituary for Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet in 2006:

Gen. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, the brutal dictator who repressed and reshaped Chile for nearly two decades and became a notorious symbol of human rights abuse and corruption, died yesterday at the Military Hospital of Santiago. He was 91.

This is wholly unsurprising: large numbers of western academics, politicians, journalists and their fellow travellers have for decades excused or ignored everything from repressions to mass-murder provided the perpetrators were socialist and/or anti-American, and I believe the proper response is to call them out on it whenever it appears.  Highlighting how they treat Castro’s death in contrast to that of Pinochet is one way of doing this.  However, where I part company from some people is in praising Pinochet in any way.  The criticism of the NYT above ought to be that they are painting Castro in a positive light, not that they are too harsh on Pinochet.

I don’t believe for one minute that had Salvador Allende continued in power Chile would have become anything other than a run-of-the-mill socialist basket-case complete with customary repressions and murder, and nor do I subscribe to the myth that the CIA were involved in the coup that deposed him.  And if I’m honest, I don’t think Pinochet’s greatest crime was kicking out an elected President who was taking the country in the wrong direction: I don’t support military coups, but I’m not going to shed too many tears over that one.

What I object to is the police state, repressions, disappearances, and murders that followed.  I don’t care whether Pinochet “saved” Chile from communism and ran a half-decent economy (even assuming they are true): it is possible to do these things without torturing and raping students and chucking them out of aircraft over the ocean.  We get pissed off when people overlook Castro’s thuggery when praising Cuba’s literacy rate, we shouldn’t do the same thing for Pinochet.  Yes, I get the realpolitik of the Cold War and the importance of defeating Communism, but that was a long time ago and we don’t need to make excuses for the thugs who were on our side any longer.

Appalling Treatment

Trump isn’t being fair to the media:

He eschewed precedent and barred the pool from flying with him on his plane when he went to Washington to meet with President Obama, and left our nation’s capital without alerting the press to his movements.

I can sympathise.  Last time I believed that, as a blogger, I was entitled to join a multi-millionaire on his private plane I got told to fuck off as well.

Something must be done.

(H/T Tim Worstall, who has more.)

Economics at The Independent

The Independent has put out an article on how much employees of various multinationals are “worth”:

Tech companies are famous for the high salaries and bonuses potential candidates get when they join their firm. But the true value of the employee is actually much more, according to new research.

Focusing on the top 100 companies in the world by revenue and the number of employees they have, analysts at Expert Market have worked how much each employee is worth.

Expert Market worked out how much each employee was worth by dividing the revenue of a company by the number of employees and found the following:

Oh dear.  Expert Market don’t appear to have much expertise if this is what they’ve gone and done, and nor do journalists from The Independent.  Revenue divided by number of employees doesn’t tell you much: the company might be making catastrophic losses for all we know, meaning all those employees aren’t adding much value at all.

It is profit, not revenue, that is the measure of a company’s added value and therefore to work out what each employee is worth on average you’d need to divide profits by the employee headcount.  Here’s what they’ve done with Shell:

Shell: £2,681,470.00 per employee

Revenue: £252,058,180,010

Number of employee: 94,000

No, just no.  Look here instead:

Shell 2015

Financial Year Revenue(bn) Profit(bn) No. of Employees Profit per Employee
2015 $265.0 $1.94 93,000 $20,860
2014 $421.1 $14.9 94,000 $158.510
2013 $451.2 $16.4 92,000 $178,260
2012 $467.2 $26.7 87,000 $306,896

Bit of difference, isn’t it?


Alex K. makes some valid points in the comments, and Tim Worstall sets me straight on a similar point here.  I’m learnin’.

Front Page News

It’s not difficult to see why people’s interest in the mainstream media is collapsing.  Here’s the BBC dealing with today’s major issues on its front page:

Melania Trump’s White House snub: Appalling or good parenting?

The revelation that Melania and Barron Trump would not be joining Donald in the White House in January has raised eyebrows in some quarters, and garnered praise in others.

The president-elect has said Mrs Trump and Barron will move to Washington “very soon, after he’s finished with school”, but has not put an actual date on the move.

A family choosing not to move with the father’s new job because of schooling is a “snub” according to the BBC.

William Seale, a White House Historical Association historian and author of The President’s House, said President Grover Cleveland’s wife, Frances Folsom Cleveland, only lived in the White House during social season.

“The concern of children staying back to finish school – that’s more typical than not,” Mr Seale said.

“It seems not very unusual to me that she would want the child to finish this year of school. I don’t find it very surprising.”

The BBC had to consult an author and historian specialising in American Presidential families in order to learn that this is a non-story.  But first they took heed of, erm, a random Twitter user:

“First Family resides in White House as a symbol of our country to us and and the world,” wrote one Twitter user, Pamela Benbow. “Melania Trump’s decision is appalling.”

This is what the BBC would call “balance”.

[I]t is not out of character for Mrs Trump, who has repeatedly stressed that Barron, 10, is her focus – staying at home during the campaign to care for him in Trump Towers.

What a bitch, eh?  Get this on the front page, quick!

Donald Trump According to a Political Scientist

According to N. Turkuler Isiksel, an Assistant Professor of the Core Curriculum at the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, Trump is going to instigate regime change in the USA.

Those of us who witnessed illiberal populist movements take hold in Turkey, Russia, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, and elsewhere are watching the election of Donald Trump with a particularly acute sense of foreboding.

But as we’ll find out in due course, your fears are largely based on assumptions that would only make sense in the corridors of Ivy League Political Science departments.

Trump has a wide variety of tried and tested techniques on which to draw; already, he has vowed to take pages out of Putin’s playbook.

Such as winning elections.

Don’t look for ways to soothe your sense of alarm, or assume that a Trump presidency might turn out less harmful than he has so far indicated. Autocrats almost always turn out worse than they seem before coming to power.

Donald Trump – who has never held political office and has yet to assume one – is already branded an autocrat.  Presumably those clever people in Ivy League Political Science departments just know this, in the same way they all knew Hillary would win the election.

A presidential candidate who has uncontrollable fits of rage over perceived slights from a former beauty queen is likely to use every resource available to him to hound his enemies.

Begging the question there, aren’t we?  Or are we to believe a Twitter spat is an “uncontrollable fit of rage”?

In the United States, those powers are formidable indeed, ranging from a nuclear arsenal to the boundless surveillance powers of the NSA.

And just like that we move from Twitter spats to nuclear weapons.  Political analysis at its finest.

Don’t expect the Republican establishment to rein him in, as few Republicans were courageous enough to disavow his candidacy even when he appeared to be losing the election.

Oh, how times have changed since October 9th when the NYT was generating timelines telling us why and when no less than 160 senior Republicans refused to endorse Trump.  Presumably our Assistant Professor at Columbia doesn’t have access to Google.

Don’t count on the elaborate system of checks and balances instituted by the founders. James Madison’s ingenious machine was designed to withstand the mundane incompetence, greed, and short-sightedness of politicians, but it cannot weather the onslaught of an aspiring tyrant hell-bent on destroying it.

I’ll not bother to provide evidence that Trump is an aspiring tyrant hell-bent on destroying the constitutional foundations of the United States, but let’s just assume he is, okay?  Otherwise my article would look a bit silly.

Consider that the separation of powers, the primary mechanism Madison envisaged for holding tyranny at bay,

Why yes, let’s consider this.  Now why wasn’t this a problem when Obama was issuing Executive Orders and saying “I have a pen and a phone”?  See, the problem with turning a blind eye when your guy runs roughshod over checks and balances is that one day somebody you don’t like might be in charge.

is all but irrelevant while Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the presidency—particularly once they get their hands on key federal judicial appointments.

How dare they get voted in by the citizenry!

All autocrats set about dismantling countervailing power structures, but with the inauspicious ideological alignment of all three branches of government, Trump won’t even have to try.

So Trump probably won’t behave like an autocrat, or carry out any of the things normally associated with autocrats, but he is still an autocrat, because I say so.  Got it.

If you trust in freedom of expression to expose the autocratic machinations of a Trump administration, think again.

And of course, the last eight years of Democrat rule have not witnessed an erosion of the right to freedom of expression, oh no!  Christian bakers may beg to differ.

It is no coincidence that Erdoğan and Trump are both litigious in the extreme, regularly using personal lawsuits to bludgeon their critics into quiescence.

Trump – a property developer – has sued people.  So has Erdogan, who is President of Turkey.  Therefore Trump is just like Erdogan.  I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced!

Autocrats understand that freedom of expression is fragile, and seek to stifle it by hook or by crook.

This at a time when Ben Shapiro is being banned from speaking at De Paul university – on the topic of Campus Intolerance no less.  Presumably Trump’s henchmen have already infiltrated universities and are clamping down on free speech.  That’s quick work.

The American free speech tradition is stronger than Russia’s or Turkey’s, but a hyper-sensitive, bullying White House press office could easily cow the media into favorable reporting.

That ship sailed a long time ago, I’m afraid.  But it didn’t leave the harbour under a Republican flag.

Conservative “news” outlets already enjoy overwhelming dominance in the United States, and Trump’s singular genius is for manipulating the media.

Sorry, what?  I mean seriously, this article is about what you’d expect from somebody who inhabits the echo chamber of Columbia’s Political Science department, but does she really believe this?  Did she not follow the media’s election coverage?  Pretty much every single major organ opposed Trump, catastrophically so.  Where was Trump’s manipulative genius there?  The author is either spectacularly ignorant or lying.  I have no idea which.

That, after all, is how he fueled the birther movement that in turn made him into a political force.

A political force that nobody saw coming and nobody took seriously until late last Tuesday evening, about eight years after his birther comments.

Finally, he can also be expected, like Berlusconi, to create his own private media empire to shape the “truth” to which a large part of the electorate is exposed.

More predictions, eh?  You’d have thought the American Left would have put these on hold for a while, wouldn’t you?  What’s Trump gonna do, buy a newspaper which has thrown its credibility down the toilet and is hemorrhaging money by the millions?  Uh-huh.

Progressives err in assuming that the worst danger of a Trump presidency is the reversal of Obama legacy, including the Affordable Care Act, the vindication of the constitutional rights of LGBTQ people, the Iran deal, and progress on climate change. There will surely be an all-out assault on these achievements.

Funny, because both the Iran deal and the Paris agreement were pushed through without Congressional approval as Obama didn’t think them necessary.  And the gay marriage decision was ram-rodded through the Judicial branch because there was no way it would pass through the Legislature.  What were you saying earlier about checks and balances on Executive power? Ah, but Obama did it so they are “achievements”.  Whereas Trump – who, we must remind ourselves, has not yet taken office – will be a tyrant because the wholly elected Legislative branch might agree with him.

And Obamacare?  Yes, that scraped through the House but nobody bothered to read it.  Which might be why it is now collapsing into an unworkable mess and people are facing enormous premium hikes which drove them into the voting booths by the million to vote for Trump.

It is a struggle between those who believe in preserving the imperfect but serviceable constitutional system of the republic, and those who will try to undermine it.

Oh yes, because nobody personifies the preservation of and respect for constitutional systems like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

For all his abhorrent policy positions, a President Cruz could have been counted on to observe the strictures of constitutional democracy, such as the peaceful alternation of power through free and fair elections. Trump gives us every reason to suspect that he will not.

Alas, readers who were expecting those reasons to be listed will be disappointed.

If the tactics of Putin, Orbán, Erdoğan, and other populists are any guide, we can expect Trump to do everything he has either threatened to do or baselessly accused the Democrats of doing: fomenting violence and voter intimidation, rigging elections, spying on, prosecuting, and imprisoning his opponents, silencing the press, and more.

It’s almost as if the author wants this to happen, out of pure spite for Hillary’s loss.  Tell me, oh wise one: where is the violence coming from now?

Like other illiberal populists, Trump is capable of inflicting irreparable damage to this country’s institutions within a relatively short space of time.

Like deploying the IRS against political opponents?  Appointing compliant lackeys to the DoJ?  Applying political pressure on the FBI?  Persecuting the head of the CIA for an extra-marital affair?  Calling police forces nationwide racist?  Thank goodness none of this happened under the careful stewardship of Barack Obama, eh?

What we therefore have to prepare to resist is not policy change; it is regime change.

There’s nothing Lefty academics like more than fighting imaginary wars from their comfortable offices on hefty salaries.

This is why it is essential to protest early and often. Citizens of consolidated democracies have absorbed a genteel lesson: if our side loses, we wait our turn until the next election. Under normal circumstances, the internalization of that lesson is essential to democracy’s stability. When those in power are poised to destroy constitutional safeguards, however, hanging on in quiet desperation until the next election can be fatal to democracy.

Instead, Americans must tap into their rich and proud tradition of civic resistance, whose highlights are the twentieth-century civil rights movement and protests against the Vietnam War. Civic action needs to begin now. We must claim public squares before Trump takes office, marching in droves and communicating a clear message that his brand of autocracy shall not pass.

Translation: my side lost the election fair and square and in my demented state I have invented a scenario where America is about to slide into unchecked tyranny.  Therefore we should protest the results of this election and refuse to let the new President do his job.

This in an article bemoaming the lack of respect afforded to the democratic process by Erdogan and Putin respectively.

This civic resistance must bring together not just progressives of all stripes—including Black Lives Matter activists, unions, and the climate justice movement—but also immigrants, LGBTQ people, conservatives, libertarians, religious groups, veterans, teachers, students, people of all faiths, races, and ethnicities;

The usual hotch-potch of the professionally aggrieved, in other words.  What’s the common cause here, again?

in short, all those who believe that political disagreements should only be resolved within the framework of constitutional democracy.

By holding a free and fair election, for example?  Now there’s an idea.

You couldn’t make it up.  But an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University plainly could.

Pitiful stuff.

Crying Wolf over Gay Rights

Apropos of my previous post, this Huffington Post article appeared on my Facebook feed this morning under the heading:

The Mike Pence (Donald Trump) Assault On LGBTQ Equality Is Already Underway

It starts as follows:

I’m not going to sugar-coat this at all. We are in for a full-blown assault on LGBTQ rights the likes of which many, particularly younger LGBTQ people, have not seen. Progress will most certainly be halted completely, likely rolled back. And it’s already underway.

So are we in for an assault, or is it underway?  The opening paragraph contradicts the headline.  We then have an an entire article on how Mike Pence, Trump’s VP, is a homophobic bigot.  We are told we should “forget any of your thinking that Donald Trump is from New York City, probably has gay friends, sent Elton John a congratulatory note on his civil union in 2005” because that wouldn’t fit the narrative of Trump launching an assault on gay rights, before the author turns on Newt Gingrich for these comments:

“I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion.”

Which is as succinct an description of much of the LGBTQ movement as I can think of, and this:

The people ought to recognize, if you’re a young faculty member in a lot of places if you’re a young member of a news department and you have the wrong views, meaning conservative, you have no career. This is just the most open, blatant example of the new fascism, which says if you don’t agree with us 100 percent we have the right to punish you. Unless you’re like Hillary and like Barack Obama and you recant.

Again, what’s the issue here?  Nobody is supposed to raise concern that those who disagree with gay marriage are hounded from their jobs?  That makes them homophobic and their appointments in future administrations equate to an “assault” on gay rights before they’ve even taken office?  This is infantile nonsense.

The article concludes as follows:

If Trump is thus as hands-off on LGBTQ issues as president as he was at the RNC, letting people like Pence ― again, possibly the most powerful vice president ever ― get his way, along with people like Carson, Blackwell, Gingrich and likely many others, you can bet that the assault on LGBTQ rights is already underway. It’s only a matter of time before we know the full magnitude.

In other words, there is less of an assault on LGBTQ underway as a few people – some with views which are perfectly consistent with the principles of individual freedom and liberty that gays used to champion – being lined up to serve under the Presidency of Donald Trump who has thus far to utter a single homophobic remark and, in order that the article doesn’t collapse into complete nonsense, whose gay-friendly past we’re asked to forget.

In other words, we’re getting more childish hysteria of the same sort that cost Liberals the election.  The entire article is crying wolf, something the SJWs have been doing for so long that few people take them seriously any more.  What is going to happen if and when gays really need the political support of moderate conservatives and civil libertarians?  By demonising anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% and hitching their wagon to the transgender movement – which has far narrower support than the gay rights movement does, particularly if it involves the locker rooms of teenage girls – they have alienated a considerable number of “live and let live” natural supporters, in whose numbers I could be counted.  I don’t think this election had anything to do with gay rights per se, but clearly the result shows that those who think they are a priority are in the minority.  This could pose some problems in the future.

I have said this before, but I think white gay men are going to be thrown under a bus before too long.  Generational changes in attitudes have meant gays are accepted almost everywhere now and news of a colleague coming out gets met with little more than a raised eyebrow and a shrug to the point you forget who is gay and who isn’t.  And that will be their downfall: they are so mainstream they won’t be able to maintain this minority, victim status for much longer (something I’m sure most of them didn’t want anyway), and it is a matter of time before they come into conflict with the feminists and transgender lobbyists in the victimhood stakes.  Give it a few years and we’ll see gay men being discriminated against and passed over in favour of other designated victim groups simply for being men – gay or not.

And to whom are they going to turn to defend their individual freedoms and liberties then?

The Media Keeps Digging

Having utterly disgraced themselves over the course of the US Presidential Election campaigns, one would have hoped the world’s media would now be engaging in some humble self-examination to understand where they went so catastrophically wrong and how they might improve their reporting in future and thus save their entire industry from oblivion.

But then again these are media types, and they are pathologically incapable of any such action.  Consider this from the BBC:

Despite their cordiality, Mr Trump has vowed to dismantle much of President Obama’s legacy. That includes Obamacare, the act extending medical insurance to more Americans than ever before.

Evil Trump, eh?  Undoing The Messiah’s generosity of providing more medical insurance than ever before!  But why not mention that Obamacare is fast shaping up to be an unworkable disaster and people have been hit with skyrocketting premiums – something which almost certainly would have helped persuade them to vote for Trump?  Ah, because that would detract from the narrative, the same shameless narrative that has been playing since Trump announced his intention to run.

This excerpt was taken from a report on the anti-Trump protests, which the media are falling over themselves to cover.  They are working overtime to generative the narrative that Trump is deeply unpopular and his policies are forcing people to come out in protest, even though their numbers are miniscule and they represent the lunatic fringe of the American Left.  I expect the media will keep this up and before Trump even takes office he will be described as “the most unpopular President in history”, “embattled”, and “under fire”; his policies will be called “controversial” if a single student at Berkeley complains; and headlines will read “Is Trump’s Presidency failing?”

I have every confidence that the American people will turn away from their media in disgust, as they did during the campaign, leaving them to face the economic consequences.  Trump and his administration should automatically disregard any criticism of his policies or Presidency based on polling data or media mouthpieces, and should remind them at every opportunity how they utterly failed the American people by the coverage of the election.

And back home, Theresa May should end the BBC’s charter immediately and let them figure out how to make money selling this garbage instead of forcing people to pay for it.

Those Pollsters

They fucked up pretty badly, didn’t they?

(Source: NYT)

My guess would be the kind of people who work in polling organisations are cut from the same cloth as the media, academic, and other establishment figures they are supposed to be getting opinions about.  As such they probably don’t even know where to start looking for contradicting opinions, unaware they even exist.  You can imagine it, can’t you?

“Well, I’ve done the tour of Columbia University, Google, Tesla, and Goldman Sachs and I couldn’t find anyone who is going to vote for Trump.  Hillary’s a shoo-in.”

These organisations need a better understanding of their country, who lives in it, and where.  As Trump bothered to do, in fact.

You used to ride on a chrome horse

I’m glad about this:

Rolling Stone magazine and a journalist have been found guilty of defamation over a false article about a gang rape at the University of Virginia.

The $7.5m (£6m) lawsuit was brought by Nicole Eramo, an associate dean from the university, who said the article had cast her as the “chief villain”.

The 2014 article, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, included the rape claim of an unidentified female student.

The magazine retracted the article in April 2015, citing inconsistencies.

The 9,000-word article, entitled A Rape on Campus, centred on the testimony of a student, referred to as “Jackie”, who claimed to have been gang raped at a party held at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity’s house in 2012.

An investigation by the Charlottesville Police Department had found no evidence that “Jackie” had been gang raped.

As soon as that story was published it got torn apart on the internet.  Crucially, those tearing it apart were not just the red pill/manosphere/PUA sites either.  Plenty of moderate, mainstream sites cast serious doubts on the story and I read a few of them.

Common sense would have told you there was something seriously amiss.  From memory, “Jackie” recounts being thrown onto a glass-topped coffee table so hard that it shattered beneath her and then raped where she lay.  You don’t need to be a practicing rapist to know that any guy who did that would be risking serious injury to himself: there are arguments over the involuntary circumcision of males, but I don’t think they cover rapists going about their business in lakes of shattered glass.  She would also have sustained major damage had she been subject to those levels of violence: lacerations, fractures, bruising which she could have shown to the police and would have needed hospital treatment.

It was bullshit, but that wasn’t what made people angry.  Lots of stories in the media are bullshit and nobody cares.  So what made this one different?  It was because those who supposedly supported “Jackie’s” version of events and abused those who questioned it wanted it to be true.  For them, it was a better outcome that she had really been raped than for the story to have been fabricated.

There are feminists and other liberals (in the American political sense) who want to portray American campuses as being hotbeds of rape and sexual assault which gets overlooked by college administrators and law enforcement officers alike because they are in thrall of the Patriarchy.  Anyone sensible knows this is bullshit: women on American college campuses are not raped and sexual assaulted at a rate only ever seen by women in African war zones, and hundreds of thousands of bright, middle-class women would not borrow so heavily to live in them if this were the case.  But third-wave feminists and their supporters know this, of course.  They just hope that by spinning this narrative often enough they can usher in oppressive regulations and laws with which they can control people who harbour thoughts they don’t like.

The feminists thought they’d gotten their Reichstag Fire with the Duke’s lacrosse case, where three white sportsmen allegedly raped a black girl.  Only the whole case collapsed in a pile of lies and corruption, a process which began when people started spotting inconsisitencies in the victim’s story.  Anyone with any journalistic integrity would have taken note of this case and ensured any similar stories emerging from college campuses would be subject to proper scrutiny, but Rolling Stone, Sabrina Rubin Erdely who wrote the article, and the nutjob feminists were so were so desperate to get this “rape culture” narrative established in American minds that they glossed over obvious inconsistencies and fabrications in “Jackie’s” story.

So have they learned their lesson?  It would appear not:

In a statement, the magazine added: “It is our deep hope that our failings do not deflect from the pervasive issues discussed in the piece, and that reporting on sexual assault cases ultimately results in campus policies that better protect our students.”

Those “pervasive issues” being complete fabrications which exist only in the minds of a handful of mentally disturbed students who were cynically exploited by some of the worst people ever to infest academia and journalism anywhere.

I hope the lawsuits keep coming and they are sued out of existence.