Puerto Rico's Stealth Bankruptcy: Today's News for May 4th

New York Times:

Puerto Rico Declares a Form of Bankruptcy

With its creditors at its heels and its coffers depleted, Puerto Rico sought what is essentially bankruptcy relief in federal court on Wednesday, the first time in history that an American state or territory had taken the extraordinary measure.

The action sent Puerto Rico, whose approximately $123 billion in debt and pension obligations far exceeds the $18 billion bankruptcy filed by Detroit in 2013, to uncharted ground.

While the court proceedings could eventually make the island solvent for the first time in decades, the more immediate repercussions will likely be grim: Government workers will forgo pension money, public health and infrastructure projects will go wanting, and the “brain drain” the island has been suffering as professionals move to the mainland could intensify.

...Puerto Rico’s case will be the first ever heard under a federal law for insolvent territories, called Promesa, which was enacted last summer; the Obama administration had warned that a “humanitarian crisis” would ensue if Puerto Rico were not given extraordinary powers to abrogate debt. There is no existing body of court precedent for Promesa, but the island’s creditors — who range from hedge fund managers to mom-and-pop investors — are bracing for a titanic battle.

There are plenty of ways for both the Right and Left to spin this story. The Left can call this an Obama victory, because without Promesa this would have ended up an ugly default. On the other hand, the Right can say this is an example of where uncontrolled spending leads.

Instead, we get a collective cricket chirping from both sides: Fox and CNN ignored this story. Not just buried, but ignored. Or maybe they just missed it completely?

Instead, this is what they were busy covering. First, to Fox:

Fox News:

North Korea threat: Pyongyang directly criticizes China in rare move

North Korean state media criticized China directly Wednesday, saying its “reckless remarks” on the North’s nuclear program was testing its patience and could trigger unspecified “grave” consequences.

A commentary released by the state-run Korean Central News Agency said that "a string of absurd and reckless remarks are now heard from China everyday only to render the present bad situation tenser."

The article cited commentaries by Chinese state media that it said shifted the blame for deteriorating bilateral relations onto the North and raised "lame excuses for the base acts of dancing to the tune of the U.S."

"China should no longer try to test the limits of the DPRK's patience," the North Korean commentary said. "China had better ponder over the grave consequences to be entailed by its reckless act of chopping down the pillar of the DPRK-China relations."

The commentary was responding to an article in China’s state-backed Global Times that warned the North’s actions threatened a 1961 treaty of non-aggression between the two countries. It called on the regime to end its nuclear tests.

"China will not allow its northeastern region to be contaminated by North Korea's nuclear activities," the Global Times declared.

In recent days, the paper also warned that China was able to strike back "at any side that crosses the red line" and would impose an oil embargo against the North in response to any more tests. The North Korean commentary said it's China that crossed "the red line."

Certainly, this qualifies as news. However, CNN seems to have missed this story completely too.

Instead, CNN's lede story is one which Fox News covered yesterday:

CNN:

Health care win could be shot in arm that Trump, GOP need

It's not the beginning of the end for the GOP's bid to repeal Obamacare -- but it might just be the end of the beginning.

If House Speaker Paul Ryan manages to finally muscle through the GOP health bill on Thursday, he will temper a damaging period of false starts, soul-searching and splits in his party that tarnished the start of Donald Trump's presidency.

House Republicans will finally be able to go home to their districts for next week's recess and tell their frustrated base they have at least made a down payment on their repeated campaign vows to kill the Affordable Care Act.

While this is certainly a story, the bill still needs to pass a House vote, which is probable. But then it needs to pass a Senate vote, which is a bigger long shot:

There's no certainty that the hard won compromises on preserving coverage for pre-existing conditions will actually work, or even survive the overhaul the Senate is expected to perform when it picks up the legislation. 

CNN seems to be reaching for this as their lede story, especially on a day where a U.S. territory files a $123 billion bankruptcy and North Korea figuratively flips the bird to China.

In CNN's defense, they did manage to beat Fox to this story:

CNN:

Prince Philip, husband of UK's Queen Elizabeth II, to retire from public life

Prince Philip, 95-year-old husband of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, is to step down from public life, Buckingham Palace has said.

The prince will stop accepting public engagements from September, the palace said. The Queen, who is 91 and has gradually scaled back her public appearances in recent years, will continue to carry out her duties supported by other members of the royal [family].

One has to be a hard core anglophile to care about this.

When Laughter Is a Crime

Obviously, there are some situations where laughter can get you in trouble with authorities. Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz has learned the hard way that one of those times is during a Senate confirmation hearing. From Vox:

It is hard to believe this is happening, but it’s real: The US Department of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at now–Attorney General Jeff Sessions during his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year.

Admittedly, this is an oversimplification of the situation, but it can certainly be inferred from the circumstances.

Continuing:

According to Ryan Reilly at HuffPost, Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz was arrested in January after she laughed at a claim from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) that Sessions’s history of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented.”

Sessions, in fact, has a long history of opposing the equal treatment of all Americans under the law.  

This "editorial dressed as news" goes on to talk about Sessions' anti-equality history. Let us review this piece by piece.

First:

He has repeatedly criticized the historic Voting Rights Act.

The linked article from The Guardian states:

He did, however, also admit that he had called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation", a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings. To this day, he argues that Section five – a protective measure that concerns a handful of (mostly southern) states with appalling race histories – of the Voting Rights Act should be struck down.

It should be noted the Supreme Court struck down that part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Does that make the Supreme Court racist too? At the very least, it does call into question parts of the Voting Rights Act, which does not state the entire act is bad. Legislation is rarely so perfect that it can be considered above reproach. Neither Sessions nor the Supreme Court ever suggested tossing out the entire VRA.

On to the second point about Sessions:

He voted against hate crime legislation that protected LGBTQ people, arguing, “Today, I'm not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.”

There is a good reason to be against hate crime legislation: Thoughtcrime should never be a part of any legal code.

Sadly, Sessions went for the "I'm living in a bubble and don't see the problem" answer. If you want to accuse Sessions of living a sheltered life, that seems to be what his comment indicates, and not any kind of angst against equality.

Finally:

And his nomination for a position as a federal judge was rejected in the 1980s after he was accused of making racist remarks, including a supposed joke that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “was okay until I found out they smoked pot.”

The comments in the linked New York Times article were certainly indicative of racism, However, the one the writer chose is actually a fairly good joke, not to mention it is about the KKK and not against any race specifically.

Even the New York Times article picks a better example with which to lead:

In 1981, a Justice Department prosecutor from Washington stopped by to see Jeff Sessions, the United States attorney in Mobile, Ala., at the time. The prosecutor, J. Gerald Hebert, said he had heard a shocking story: A federal judge had called a prominent white lawyer “a disgrace to his race” for representing black clients.

“Well,” Mr. Sessions replied, according to Mr. Hebert, “maybe he is.”

But the problem is that all of the accusations about racist remarks are from over 30 years ago. Even a racist can open their mind. A charge of racism isn't a scarlet letter that can never be removed. If you treat racists that way, you discourage them from opening their minds. Why should they since they have already been branded as a racist?

Then we get to the point of the article:

According to Ryan Reilly at HuffPost, Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz was arrested in January after she laughed at a claim from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) that Sessions’s history of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented.” 

...Given this history, Fairooz laughed at Shelby’s claim.

But federal prosecutors have pushed forward with the case against Fairooz. As Reilly reported, prosecutors argue that “the laugh amounted to willful ‘disorderly and disruptive conduct’ intended to ‘impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct’ of congressional proceedings.” In court, they have tried to emphasize that the laugh was extraordinarily disruptive, with a US Capitol Police officer claiming that Fairooz laughed “very loudly” and people in the hearings turned around when they heard it.

Fairooz’s defense, meanwhile, has argued that her laughter was a reflex and not meant to disrupt the hearings. Fairooz was also in the back of the room, and her laughter had no noticeable impact, based on video of the hearings, on Shelby’s introductory speech for Sessions. 

In spite of the fact that Fairooz was a narrow-minded Leftist, she still shouldn't be prosecuted for this. This is a clear case of malicious prosecution, and the case should be dropped immediately. Since there was no harm from her actions, the old "no harm no foul" rule applies.

Anyway, preventing laughter during Senate hearings seems like an uphill battle, considering the absurdity of most of our politics.

Talking Past Each Other: Today's News for May 3rd

Today is another day when the Left and Right are singing from different hymnals. For example, Fox News leads off with a story about May Day protests:

Fox News:

May Day protests: Rioters throw full cans of Pepsi at Oregon police

Portland Police said that they were pelted with full Pepsi cans during violent May Day protests where 25 were arrested.

Before violence broke out in Portland, one protester offered the police a can of Pepsi in a nod to the controversial Kendall Jenner advertisement in which she transformed from a starlet to an activist and used the soda to bring protesters and police together, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The ad drew outrage and Pepsi eventually pulled the plug on the spot before it made it to television after it was accused of appropriating Black Lives Matter protests to sell soda.

Portland police said the protesters turned violent as businesses were being [damaged]. Police said at least one medic was hit by a full Pepsi can, but was not injured in the incident.

Personally, I suspect the protesters were using Pepsi because they were saving their Coke to drink later.

Seriously, the article fails to make clear the purpose of the protests, which was a celebration of International Workers' Day, which Wikipedia describes as:

International Workers' Day, also known as Labour Day in some countries, and often referred to as May Day, is a celebration of labourers and the working classes that is promoted by the international labour movement which occurs every year on May Day (1 May), an ancient European spring festival.

The date was chosen by a pan-national organization of socialist and communist political parties to commemorate the Haymarket affair, which occurred in Chicago on 4 May 1886. The 1904 Sixth Conference of the Second International, called on "all Social Democratic Party organisations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on the First of May for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace."

Basically, these protests were a celebration of socialism and communism, dressed up as some kind of celebration of workers. This is why May Day was a big deal in the old Soviet Union:

(hat tip to American Elephants for the pic)

Having said all that, CNN didn't even cover this story, undoubtedly because violent May Day protests make the Left look bad. Instead, CNN dug up an old story:

CNN:

They hate Obamacare, but Republicans can't bear to kill all of it

As Republicans scramble to tamp down fears that their health care bill would gut protections for sick people, they're running into a chorus of opposition -- from fellow Republicans.

With direct orders from President Donald Trump to fulfill the GOP's years-long promise to repeal Obamacare, House Republican leaders are trying yet again to get the 216 votes they need to pass a bill this week. Thus far, they're failing.

The biggest problem: The legislation would let insurers charge people with pre-existing conditions more for their health care if those people let their insurance lapse at any point.

It is amazing this is even being discussed. If this were fire insurance, this would be the equivalent of discussing whether insurance companies should be required to cover house property damage after the house has already burned down, even if there was no coverage during the actual fire event. Only in politics can you even get a discussion this stupid.

To the Republicans and Democrats supporting this part of the Obamacare stupidity, you get the shark for this:

Finally, in other news...

Rush Limbaugh:

Vice President Calls the Show to Defend the Budget Deal

Every now and then, politicians will let the curtain slip and unveil the TRUTH. Vice President Mike Pence might have done this during an interview with radio personality Rush Limbaugh:

Rush, let me be real clear. The number one priority of President Trump is to rebuild our military, to restore the arsenal of democracy. And I gotta tell you, to get Democrats in Washington, D.C., to agree to a $21 billion increase in a short-term budget bill — and, you know, the president’s calling for the largest increase in military spending since the Reagan administration in the upcoming budget, I think is no small — it’s no small accomplishment. 

Let me repeat that: "The number one priority of President Trump is to rebuild our military, to restore the arsenal of democracy." Before the wall, before tax reform, before repealing Obamacare, they will rebuild the military (not that it was ever actually left to rot). To what end? President Trump has said before that his number one priority was "ISIS". So President Trump's administration will be all about killing Muslims. At least we are clear on that now.

Then again, Trump said on the campaign trail, "My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran." Maybe that fell to number two?

Somewhere, there is some hyperbole in all this "number one priority" talk.

The Lessons of Woodward and Bernstein

In journalism, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's work on the Watergate scandal stands as a Mount Rushmore to how good journalism is done. So their comments at Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner should be heeded both journalists and editors everywhere for the wisdom inherent in them. 

Overall, their comments were spot-on. but there were a few things that need further comment.

First, from Carl Bernstein:

During our coverage of Watergate and since, Bob and I have learned a lot from one another about the business of being reporters.

Let me list here a few of the primary elements of Bernstein’s [reportorial] education from Woodward: one, almost inevitably, unreasonable government secrecy is the enemy, and usually the giveaway about what the real story might be. And when lying is combined with secrecy, there is usually a pretty good roadmap in front of us.

Yes, follow the money, but follow, also, the lies. 

The problem here is we live in a country where the best liars get elected. Following the lies can lead to a lot of wild goose chases. During the last election and ever since then, the mainstream media (MSM) has wasted a lot of breath and print on Trump's lies, as if they meant anything. There is a joke about politicians: If their lips are moving, they're lying. Following political lies is an exercise in futility.

The key is to know what is an important lie. When a politician is in front of the camera or otherwise speaking publicly, things they say are usually unimportant. Donald Trump's ascendancy to the White House has proven that.

The TRUTH is WE THE PEOPLE are so used to being lied to, WE THE PEOPLE no longer even listen. Politics is nothing more than a ping pong match between D's and R's, as WE THE PEOPLE just keep going back and forth until we get what we want from them.

"Follow the money" is the key, not the lies.

And finally, from Bob Woodward:

Any president and his administration in Washington is clearly entitled to the most serious reporting efforts possible. We need to understand, to listen, to dig. Obviously, our reporting needs to get both facts and tone right. The press, especially the so-called mainstream media, comes under regular attack, particularly during presidential campaigns like this one, and its aftermath.

Like politicians and presidents, sometimes, perhaps too frequently, we make mistakes and go too far. When that happens, we should own up to it. But the effort today to get this best obtainable version of the truth is largely made in good faith.

Mr. President, the media is not fake news.

Let’s take that off the table as we proceed.

Mr. Woodward is forgetting something important: The mainstream media is owned by Wall Street, which is in bed with Washington. The TRUTH about that relationship is only hinted by the MSM, and usually only when a Republican is involved.

True journalism today needs to be untouched by both Wall Street and Washington. You only have to look at the last election to see the most important journalism was done by Wikileaks, a website funded by charitable donations which is very much outside the MSM. We might question their ethics, but their TRUTH is unquestionable.

Getting to the TRUTH is the ultimate goal of any journalist. Woodward and Bernstein were the masters.

Where's Fox? Today's News for May 2nd

Today's top news story wasn't even covered by Fox News' website, although it is understandable since CNN broke the story:

CNN:

The FBI translator who went rogue and married an ISIS terrorist

An FBI translator with a top-secret security clearance traveled to Syria in 2014 and married a key ISIS operative she had been assigned to investigate, CNN has learned.

The rogue employee, Daniela Greene, lied to the FBI about where she was going and warned her new husband he was under investigation, according to federal court records.

Greene's saga, which has never been publicized, exposes an embarrassing breach of national security at the FBI—an agency that has made its mission rooting out ISIS sympathizers across the country.

It also raises questions about whether Greene received favorable treatment from Justice Department prosecutors who charged her with a relatively minor offense, then asked a judge to give her a reduced sentence in exchange for her cooperation, the details of which remain shrouded in court-ordered secrecy.

Consider this as a not-so-gentle reminder: The bigger the government gets, the more human it gets. And we even get crap like this.

But it gets worse:

Within weeks of marrying Cuspert, Greene, 38, seemed to realize she had made a terrible mistake. She fled back to the US, where she was immediately arrested and agreed to cooperate with authorities. She pleaded guilty to making false statements involving international terrorism and was sentenced to two years in federal prison. She was released last summer.

So she betrays the United States and gets 2 years in prison? Let's hope the info she gave us was worth it.

Regardless, the entire article is a pretty impressive piece of journalism. Kudos to CNN for their work on this one.

In other news...

Salon:

Donald Trump doesn’t like the “archaic” Constitution: “It’s really a bad thing for the country”

During an interview with Fox News to discuss his first 100 days as president, [President] Trump denounced the constitutional system of checks and balances as “archaic.”

“It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system,” Trump said. “It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

Meanwhile, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told ABC on Sunday that the president is thinking about amending or even abolishing the First Amendment to stifle what they consider to be unfair media criticism. When asked by Jonathan Karl whether they had considered a constitutional amendment so that the president can sue his critics, Priebus responded: “I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.”

Trump hasn't figured out how the Democrats would have shut down his Twitter feed without the First Amendment.

Sorry Donald, you get the shark for that comment:

Speaking of stupidity...

Washington Post:

Democrats confident they can block Trump’s agenda after spending-bill win

Democrats think they have set the stage to block President Trump’s legislative priorities for years to come by winning major concessions in a spending bill to keep the government open.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) secured nearly $5 billion in new domestic spending by exploiting disagreements between Trump and GOP lawmakers over spending priorities.

Democrats’ lopsided victory on the five-month deal, which is likely to be approved this week, means it will be very difficult — if not impossible — for the GOP to exert its will in future budget negotiations, including when it comes to Trump’s 2018 budget blueprint.

That’s because Republicans are hopelessly divided over how much to spend on government programs, with a small but vocal minority unwilling to support such measures at all. That has forced Republicans to work with Democrats to avoid politically damaging government shutdowns.

And that means Democrats are in the driver’s seat when it comes to budget battles, even with Trump in the White House.

It is understandable why Democrats might feel this way. But if Trump ends up getting his legislative priorities funded within the next few years, we will have to call this a classic feint maneuver.

On the other hand, it is also possible that Trump is ideologically closer to Democrats than Republicans. Because Trump lies frequently, it is difficult to get a grasp on what he truly believes, if anything. 

Don't be surprised if Trump's wall gets funded before 2020, possibly with Democratic Party support.

Science and Money

Every now and then, I run across an older news story that I missed because it was never reported in the usual sources. Such an article was in NPR back in September of last year: "50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat".

The story:

In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to "refute" concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.

The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.

Read the entire article, which makes a solid case against food industry influence on dietary research.

This is just another example of science being exploited by groups of people for their own purposes. If you need to understand the money motive for other science scams, just look at Al Gore's green investments. From the Washington Post in 2012:

The man who was within sight of the presidency 12 years ago has transformed himself, becoming perhaps the world’s most renowned crusader on climate change and a highly successful green-tech investor.

Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million. 

One can argue that Gore simply invested in what he believed. But to go out and promote a scientific theory which would improve his investment results, without disclosing said investments, is at least disingenuous, if not fraudulent.  

The problem here is science has become beholden to moneyed interests. Even government money comes with strings: If science can prove there is a problem which requires government funding, that influences the scientific results towards proving the problem, regardless of whether it actually exists.

Science is no longer about the lone scientist sitting in his lab and running tests to simply prove or disprove a hypothesis, all according to the scientific method. Nowadays, some scientists are no different than prostitutes, offering whatever the highest bidder wants for a quick buck. It is sad to see how far science has sunk.

Kicking the Can: Today's News for May 1st

In an effort to promote objective news reporting here at TRUTH, I plan to show multiple news sources on the biggest news story of the day, regardless of whether they conflict. This should help to filter out subtle biases from the news writers and editors. Of course, it is up to you, the reader, to be responsible for the final determination.

Without further ado, our lede story today is about the new budget deal reached by Congress:

CNN:

Congressional negotiators reach deal on government funding through September

Bipartisan congressional negotiators reached a critical agreement late Sunday on a massive spending bill that if approved by the House and Senate would fund the government through the end of September, senior aides from both parties told CNN.

The plan would add billions for the Pentagon and border security but would not provide any money for President Donald Trump's promised border wall with Mexico,

Votes in both chambers are expected by the end of the week.  

That doesn't seem too biased, until you look at the Fox News story:

Fox News:

Spending bill language omits border wall funding, sanctuary cities crackdown

Republican and Democratic lawmakers forged a $1.07 trillion spending package that would fund the government through the end of September, but does not include some of President Trump’s cornerstone promises including funding for a border wall or funding cuts to sanctuary cities.

The proposed legislation has no funding for Trump’s oft-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but does set aside $1.5 billion for border security measures such as additional detention beds. It does give Trump a $12.5 billion down payment on his request to strengthen the military, a figure which could rise to $15 billion should Trump present Congress with a plan for fighting the Islamic State terror group. The proposed $15 billion amounts to half of Trump's original $30 billion request. 

In summary, for Left-leaning CNN, the big news story is the government is funded until the end of September. For Right-leaning Fox, the big news story is the rejection of President Trump's priorities.

Even more revealing: Each story's first quote is from Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, yet both use different quotes.

CNN:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a statement Sunday evening saying the agreement is consistent with his party's principles.

"This agreement is a good agreement for the American people, and takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table," the New York Democrat said in a statement.

Fox:

With language about the border wall omitted, Democratic leaders praised the effort.

"The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren't used to fund an ineffective border wall, excludes poison pill riders, and increases investments in programs that the middle class relies on, like medical research, education and infrastructure,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

In summary, the priority for the Left is the government won't be shut down, since the existence and functioning of government is the most important thing, regardless of who is in charge. The priority for the Right is their president won't be getting his priorities funded.

In other news...

CNN:

NYT subscribers dropping paper over climate column

A new columnist at The New York Times and his views on climate change have prompted some readers to cancel their subscriptions in protest.

In his first column for the Times, Bret Stephens said advocates for climate policy can take a lesson from Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign and her reliance on data to predict the election.

"We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris," Stephens wrote. "Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong."

The narrow-minded Left-leaning New York Times readers proceeded to prove Stephens' point:

New York Post:

Times columnist blasted by ‘nasty left’ for climate change piece

As a noted “never Trumper” and climate skeptic, he has seen his fair share of hate mail and Twitter trolls over the past year-and-a-half — but nothing like what he’s endured since his article was posted, he says.

“After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters, I’m reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse,” Stephens tweeted Friday afternoon, as the hateful messages kept rolling in.

“Go eat dog d—s,” fumed one Twitter user.

“When is the Times going to get rid of you?” another asked.

Stephens even managed to tick off fellow journalists.

“You’re a s–thead. a crybaby lil f–kin weenie. a massive twat too,” tweeted Libby Watson, staff writer at Gizmodo.

“I’m gonna lose my mind,” seethed Eve Peyser, politics writer at Vice.

“The ideas ppl like @BretStephensNYT espouse are violently hateful & should not be given a platform by @NYTimes,” she said.

In the column, Stephens never states that he believes climate change is a farce. He simply asserts that people should look at claims from both supporters and deniers, in the attempt to get all the facts.

“Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities,” he writes.

Actually, the cause of the warming is very much in dispute, since the Earth has warmed by far greater amounts long before humans ever existed. It just isn't in dispute inside the Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Change. It is amazing that science can look at an ecosystem the size of the Earth and narrow down the cause of climate change to one species living there, when there are at least trillions of inputs affecting the temperature of the planet, most of which have nothing to do with that species, and not the least of which is one big hot star which "settled science" does agree actually warms the planet.

All that said, cancelling a subscription because you don't agree with an opinion piece in a newspaper is a time-honored means of protest. But is it also a means by which people try to avoid ideas they don't like, regardless of the TRUTH?