¿Has Newsweek always been shit? I happened to stumble ’pon an article that seemed fine by itself, just reporting news o’ a Republican calling for lynching a black secretary o’ state — you know, typical Republican fascist stuff, nothing new — but then saw to my right a bar full o’ news items that were a feast for stupidity, accompanied by goofy-looking faces that I refuse to believe belong to real human beings. ¿Is this where The Onion gets their main inspiration for their weird “American Voices” section with those same faces o’ the woman with the pursed lips & the drunk man?

Since I know all you hip Zoomers, Moomers, & no-longer-hip Xoomers like tier-lists, we’re going to be placing these on tiers.

1st we have “The State Should Never Have the Power to Kill People”, said next to a face that is giving an honest-to-god Dreamworks smirk, as all the serious pundits give. It’s a nice sentiment, but 1 that the state is unlikely to take him up on ’cause as it turns out they care mo’ ’bout power than being good — shocking, I know.

This article, as it turns out, is a high-school level debate essay ’bout the death penalty. It includes such wacky irrelevant hedging points, like that this doesn’t apply if Hitler’s ghost is coming @ you with a gun. In that case, then I guess killing is OK. Nowhere in these 2 short paragraphs does he mention any statistics or note that Europe has done ’way with the death penalty decades ago & has far less crime than the US, nor does he bring up the fact that a huge proportion o’ death penalty victims are black people charged under questionable evidence, many cases o’ which have been o’erturned after the exonerated has already been toasted. ¡Whoopsie! I should probably provide links to back up those bold statements I just made; but this guy didn’t e’en provide any statistics, e’en made up 1s, so this wacky blog still somehow has higher standards than Newsweek, & middle school debate classes have higher standards than both o’ us. That’s why you need to stay in school, kids not reading this ’cause only ol’ people read blogs anymo’: otherwise you’ll be some junky writing blogs like this or @ Newsweek.

Tier: D

But for balance, under this we have smiling sitcom dad saying that, no, “The Death Penalty Is Appropriate for Proven Killers”, &, holy fucking shit, it makes the previous article look like ’twas written by James Baldwin.

For 1, he doesn’t seem so strong on his opinion, mo’ that it’s a question whether killing suspected criminals necessarily prevents murder, ’cause “you would need apples and apples”, & we only have apples, not both apples & apples. ¡That’s too many apples! You would also need to “hop into a time tunnel” & see if removing the death penalty in this alternate reality would reduce the murder rate — or just not increase it, since, by definition, ending the death penalty would decrease the murder rate if all else is equal, since, you know, it involves murdering people. ’Course, you could also just try removing the death penalty in the reality we currently exist in & see if that increases the murder rate or just compare to Europe; — a strange land that neither op-ed writer seems to know exists — but I think this op-ed writer is just very excited by the potential o’ jumping in time tunnels, ¿& who am I to dampen their dreams?

The next paragraph sputters on that nobody knows what’s good or not, but that it’s definitely true that in some unknown circumstances, killing is permissible. Perhaps we need to create a save state in real life, kill someone, record the results, & then load state, & then compare the results to see whether or not said killing was permissible. What this op-ed writer does know, howe’er, is that blanket statements like “thou shalt not kill” — a phrase only ol’ cranks would use, since the vast majority o’ Christians use modern Bibles that are written in contemporary English & don’t mix up Easter & Passo’er like that filthy English monarch, James’s, Bible, no matter how low the dumb apostles’ who forgot how Jesus magically created fish from nothing after they already saw him do it’s standards were — doesn’t count, ’cause there exists “biblical” killing, so whate’er vague moral reason one has for being gainst the death penalty, it can’t be “biblical”. What this “biblical” killing is is vague. The Ol’ Testament certainly has plenty o’ places wherein God tells Jews to throw rocks @ people who have sex outside o’ marriage & God himself has no problem killing people ’cause they made him shitty fire, but I was under the understanding that Jesus amended that rule & said that only people who ne’er sin can throw rocks @ people. ¡But he didn’t say anything ’bout lethal injection! ¡It’s not uncommandmental!

Tier: F

Next we have some nerd who can’t e’en comb his fucking hair before he took his picture, tho he did have his photographer crop his hair so that it looks like a spaghetti monster, declare, “Hungarian Election Results Defy Easy Narratives”. That’s startling news: it’s almost as if Hungarians are complex human beings & not stereotypical robots.

But the other articles I’ve read have lowered my standards so much that this turns out to be the least bad o’ them so far. Perhaps I should praise him for pointing out something perhaps obvious to well-educated people, but not to Newsweek readers.

Tier: B

Anyway, we need to move onto something much dumber, “Why Is Biden Waging War on Charter Schools That Benefit His Base?”. I had no idea Biden’s base were religious nuts who are ’fraid o’ their children being possessed by the Satanic dinosaur bones o’ the theory o’ natural selection & the spectre haunting America, CRT, or “Communist Reality Tanning”.

No, apparently that base is poor people & minorities, who are badly taught by underfunded public schools, so it makes sense to take funding ’way from public schools so charter schools can teach minorities how slavery was awesome. This writer does, a’least, post evidence ’hind their claim that charter schools have mo’ black teachers & principals. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t actually claim that charter schools have mo’ black teachers, only that black students are mo’ likely to have black teachers, & the writer doesn’t mention that these statistics come from a right-wing think tank, not a genuine, peer-reviewed study. In fact, all the references this writer uses are blatantly anti-Democrat think tanks, such as this study propaganda article that starts with evil quotes from Democrats, including Biden himself, who he should apparently be gainst — I mean, he’s a Democrat, so we can assume he hates himself. So apparently Biden’s base are Republicans. That’s probably true; but unfortunately, they will ne’er vote for Biden e’en if he lets McDonalds run everyone’s schools & mandates morning prayers to Jesus in all schools. Howe’er bad public schools may be, I can’t help but notice that the 1 I went to in high school would have standards too high for this writer’s caliber so far, as they would surely grade this down for such sloppy sourcing.

As for the deductive points he makes, well…

But competition helps everyone.

Um, ’cept for the people, who, you know, lose said competition, genius ( which is always poor people ).

In fact, the market is terrible for education, since in the market the customer is always right, whereas in education, by definition, the customer is wrong; if they were right, there would be nothing for them to learn, since being “right” means you know everything. This is why market solutions to education, rather than correcting people’s misconceptions, merely back up their biases — just like how newspapers like Newsweek fail to challenge their middle-class readers’ sheltered political delusions, but, rather, repeat them back. If those being educated don’t like certain “facts” being taught to them they can take their money to a source that gives them “facts” they do like; & since, by definition, since they need schooling, these are uneducated, & thus ignorant, people, they don’t e’en know if they’re shooting themselves in the foot, since they’re too uneducated to tell reality from bullshit.

Or do they just think that they can do what they want because they believe that we’re all stupid?

They can do whate’er they want, which means they’ll probably renege on their attacks on charter schools if said charter schools kick up money to them, & you are stupid, so I don’t know why you’re criticizing them for having an accurate reflection o’ reality.

I love how this writer talks ’bout obvious trickery & believing their audience is stupid when this writer tries to claim that capitalist markets lead to equitable outcomes. I guess that’s why the US has such economic equality, unlike Finland with their stupid high level o’ general happiness & well-being & their 100% public schools.

Still, he is right ’bout American public schools failing Americans: this is the only explanation for why so many Americans would believe in such a stupid solution like charter schools. What he fails to realize, ’cause he’s an American, & therefore stupid, is that American public schools aren’t failing ’cause o’ socialism, they’re failing ’cause they’re run by Americans: much as you can’t have inmates run the asylum, you can’t have idiots educate idiots. There’s an obvious solution, but 1 that’s politically impossible ( given that Americans are too stupid to realize they’re stupid & too prideful to accept such a solution ): the US should hire teachers & education administration only from highly-educated countries like Finland or Japan to completely control the US public education system ( for a good price, ’course, since Finlandians & Japanese are too smart to babysit Americans for free ) so that some o’ their education spreads to us, & then, once we’ve become mo’ educated, we’ll be able to try public schools run by Americans themselves ’gain.

On 1 hand, this writer’s logical arguments are simplistic & laughably counterintuitive; on the other, they were a’least savvy ’nough to make their lies look convincing with deceptive statistics that are likely to trick the average Newsweek reader. While a teacher — who we can ignore, anyway, since they work @ filthy socialist public schools, & thus are pro sending your black children to the gulag — would grade this essay down for neglecting to bring up relevant controversies, such as the lack o’ standards leading to natural-selection-denialism wackiness ending up in charter schools; but that’s only applicable if we were judging this as informational, which it clearly isn’t, since this essay delivers no information. It is clearly a work o’ propaganda, & in such circumstance, not mentioning such debilitating problems — as it turns out, education only works well if it’s based on, you know, reality — wherein the writer definitely has no good defenses is the best solution, given the target audience, who are too uneducated to realize these omissions, being poorly-educated Americans & all.

So, o’erall, 1 o’ the better essays. I hope this writer received a good check from whate’er think tank hired him for his efforts.

Tier: C

Next we have the world’s most generic face next to the article, “With a Russian Veto, the U.N. Security Council is Not Fit for Purpose”, an article which demonstrates its writer’s sweet-summer-child ignorance that Russia is the only country on the UN Security Council that has e’er invaded ’nother country. In truth, the UN Security Council has only e’er been a frivolous joke, so whether or not Russia is part o’ it is irrelevant. Somehow I doubt if Russia were to be kicked out it’d magically make Russia’s army slink back to Russia like a shrinking erection; but it will make the delusional adult children that are American “centrists” feel good to know ’nother useless puppet organization is representing their tilted, inconsistent perspective on good & bad.

Grotesque and vile, these were the two words that came to mind when I was watching a recent U.N. Security Council meeting on Ukraine.

In your defense, considering all the terrible things happening in Ukraine right now, I think you can be forgiven for having grotesque & vile words come into your mind. Shit, I have grotesque & vile words come into my mind every time I wake up with a sore throat. I’m just curious to know what these juicy 2 words were — clearly too grotesque & vile to print.

The problem is, even allowing Russia to make such claims on one of the most important global platforms in the world, is an embarrassing complicity in their actions. It gives Russia, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky astutely pointed out to the entire council, the right to vote in favor of killing Ukrainians.

bUt tHaT’s cAnCeLCulTurE

In Ukraine’s defense, a’least they got a vote. Iraq didn’t get shit.

In the council meeting, the American ambassador, supported by the U.K., stated that she would like to see Russia removed from the U.N. Human Rights Council. This has thankfully now happened, but neither country is brave enough to state plainly that Russia should not have a veto, let alone that it should not have a seat at one of the most important decision-making tables in the world.

The US president basically said he wanted Putin to be found with 2 self-inflicted gunshots to the back o’ his head, but, sure, the US is totes too scared to say mean things ’bout Russia, their bestest bud.

Intermission:

Halfway thru this riveting article I encountered this video titled, “Everyone Who Believes In God Should Watch This. It Will Blow Your Mind”. Luckily, I don’t believe in God, so I don’t need to watch this video. In fact, showing me Nancy Pelosi’s mummy face just before melting after looking @ the Ark while ol’ turtle man has a laughing seizure ’hind her is the least likely thing in the world to make me believe in God.

Anyway, back to the article:

When Hannah Arendt coined the term “banality of evil,” she was referring to the way in which bureaucrats, who dutifully obey orders, are perpetuating the evil system that they occupy.

That was referring to Germans, not, say, the League of Nations, which are a better comparison. The UN Security Council aren’t perpetuating Russias evils, since they have no input on what Russia does, anyway, whether they let Russia into their li’l clubhouse or put up a “No Russians” sign ( “¿But what ’bout Navalny?” “We said ‘No Russians’” ).

It was almost Kafkaesque —

By allowing Russia to continue being a veto member of the U.N. Security Council, we risk playing into this very system.

If you want to prove you’re not a part o’ your system, you just need to throw Russia on the ground, just like in that Lonely Island song. Problem solved. ¿Why aren’t you paying me ’stead o’ these high-school dropouts? ( Just kidding: there’s no way these interns are being paid jack shit ).

This essay was nothing but a clustering o’ clichés. It didn’t deliver any informational content, nor did it succeed in making me hate Russia mo’. In fact, it made me almost feel a li’l bad ’bout hating the Russian government since it makes me, in some way, similar to this writer, which is a terrible thing to acknowledge.

Paul Grod is president of the Ukrainian World Congress.

I hope that’s just a frivolous organization Ukraine set up to make Paul Grod feel good ’bout himself. If not, then I don’t have high hopes for Ukraine winning their war… Well, ’less the Russian World Congress essay on Newsweek is e’en worse.

Tier: E

Next we have “Why Africa Doesn’t Jump Into the Fray on Ukraine”, wherein we get an answer to the stupidest question in the world. I think “why doesn’t a continent that has nothing to do with Eastern Europe & has had a negative history with Europe” is the last question that was on my mind during this war.

Africans have learned the hard way that, as one of their proverbs puts it, “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” Now that the East and the West are clashing again, many outside the continent fail to understand why Africa—an important part of “the rest” of the world—is reluctant to join the fray.

I somehow think Africans don’t have such low self-respect to describe themselves as mere grass compared to the west & east.

Other than that, tho, he does bring up way mo’ facts & logical arguments than necessary for an admittedly easy, tho absurd, prompt. He e’en has the awareness to realize that Africans are mo’ likely to be skeptical o’ the same US that claimed Iraq had WMDs & France who apparently were still doing some good ol’ fashioned imperialism as late as 2011, which is rare in US media, where everything is from the US or the general west’s narcissistic perspective wherein they imagine themselves to be the center o’ the world, when they’re, in fact, the west, duh.

Tier: A

I’m skipping “Russia-Ukraine War Makes Georgia’s Security Imperative” ’cause it’s the 1 article whose title doesn’t promise stupidity, &, indeed, as expected it’s just a perfectly competent news item. The guy’s face isn’t e’en funny to make fun o’.

Tier: B

Ah, now we’re back to dogshit with “The Great Sovereignty Reclamation Movement”, by a man, who, fittingly, looks like he’s drunk. This article is a jumble o’ incoherent comparisons o’ various elections & historical events, recent & rather distant, as well as to irrelevant issues like trans rights, & “what criteria we should look for in prospective immigrants”, which seems to be based on the delusion that immigrants are hired by countries after an interview process, rather than that they sneak in when their US-backed dictator hasn’t worked as well as the US advertised — truth in advertising, as they say.

But some of our other most politically urgent and galvanizing disputes revolve less around substantive questions, such as the nature of justice, than they do around one of the oldest procedural questions in the history of political science: “Who decides?”

A look around the world at this present juncture suggests an emerging consensus: We the people, through our own internal deliberations and our own political processes, should decide the fate of our own nation-states.

This is such a laughably longwinded way to say what is obvious: that a country’s decisions are made by, well, that country. In fact, that doesn’t answer anything, since that question usually revolves round which people in that country, since it’s taken for granted that the entire country isn’t a borg &, in fact, have differing opinions, &, given different political systems & circumstances, different opinions have different levels o’ power.

Thruout this article the writer keeps talking ’bout the “liberal imperium”, which sounds like tinfoil-hat shit; &, indeed, doing a cursory Google search gave me such juicy finds, such as a news article ’bout “Rothschild, FDR, & the Liberal Imperium”.

Finally, in Israel this week, member of Knesset Idit Silman formally left Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s ragtag governing coalition, which had been comprised of a bare 61-59 parliamentary majority. Silman’s departure means the Knesset is now split evenly 60-60, and the coalition will require at least one vote from the Likud/Benjamin Netanyahu-led opposition to advance any legislation. Bennett’s coalition, which consists of everyone from purported right-wing Zionists (such as Bennett himself) to Muslim Brotherhood-aligned anti-Zionists such as Mansour Abbas, was always extraordinarily fragile. Crucially, due to the coalition’s presence of Abbas’ Ra’am party, the erstwhile national conservative Bennett permitted anti-Zionists to thwart the Israeli national interest on core issues, such as the Iranian nuclear threat and the territorial dispute over Judea and Samaria.

The key lesson from Israel: A proud, self-governing people will only tolerate for so long a parliamentary (or congressional) coalition in which subversive fifth column actors, perhaps in cahoots with external NGOs, wield veto power.

This is a particularly interesting point: a “self-governing people”, which is not what Israel is, since it’s a republic, not a direct democracy, will only tolerate a parliamentary system ( said republic ) so long as it’s not infiltrated by “subversive fifth column actors”. But nowhere in this 1st paragraph is there any evidence o’ anyone in “cahoots with external NGOs”, ’cept that some hold “anti-Zionist” ( read: anti-theocratic ) views. It couldn’t be that Israelis have become better educated & decide they no longer care which made-up god rules o’er them ( it doesn’t matter: Jews & Muslims worship the same made-up god ). Either way, they better start caring ’bout that made-up god, or else I’d hate to see what happens to that mighty fine parliamentary system they have there.

For Americans who seek forward-looking inspiration, the lesson is simple: The nation-state, and the tangible flourishing of the nation-state’s people, must always come first. There is no more important lesson for a decadent, late-stage republic to imbibe.

Fun political language lesson: when someone uses the terms “decadent” & “late-stage” when describing western countries, they’re either Marxists or fascists; if they talk a lot ’bout the importance o’ “nation-states”, then we can narrow it down to fascist.

Tier: 🤪

“What Makes for A Qualified Supreme Court Nominee?”.

Trick question: the Supreme Court is an inherently undemocratic institution & thus there is no legitimate nominee, since the whole institution is a tyrannical sham.

But gone are the days of assessing potential justices on the basis of book smarts, pedigree and days spent on the job. The obvious defining factor today is judicial philosophy, which is why Republicans not named Romney, Collins or Murkowski voted not to confirm Jackson.

This is wrong & this writer must lack a basic understanding o’ high-school-level US history to think this. The Supreme Court has been partisan since the very beginning, when John Adams packed the court with Federalist judges as a last-ditch effort to keep the waning Federalist party in power ( basically the same thing Republicans are doing now ). These judges later in the frivolous case o’ Marbury v. Madison contrived for themselves power o’ judicial review, which went unchallenged ’cause they deliberately voted in the opposition president, Jefferson’s, favor so Jefferson couldn’t disobey the Supreme Court’s ruling, & thereby delegitimize it.

There are also many other cases wherein the Supreme Court has made partisan & disastrous decisions thruout history, such as the infamous Dred Scott case, which was heavily influenced by then president James Buchanan, also known as the worst president in US history.

As it turns out, when you have judges appointed by partisans, those judges will be partisan, too. The only difference is that since they’re appointed ’stead o’ elected, the public will give them less scrutiny; & this & lifetime appointments give Supreme Court justices the ample position to be as corrupt & arbitrary as they wish, which is why Clarence Thomas is able to vote on issues, such as withholding Trump’s documents from the 1/6 panel, despite conflict o’ interests with his wife’s political involvement, since he knows there’s no chance anyone will be able to enforce any laws on him. The fact is that the Supreme Court is effectively ’bove the law.

But, anyway, please continue with your sloppy analysis:

Overwhelming Democratic opposition to Republican nominees is fueled by the same instinct. No one can argue that the three Trump nominees—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett—or the George W. Bush ones—Roberts and Alito—lacked the background to be considered worthy.

This is false, & it’s striking that this writer doesn’t mention Biden being gainst Clarence Thomas’s appointment, which was ( before the aforementioned conflicts o’ interests ) similar to Democrats’ complaints gainst Kavanaugh, but without the qualification concerns. Many, in fact, did dispute Barrett’s qualifications, noting her meager judicial experience.

The writer than spews out reams o’ historical revisionism, wherein he essentially claims that Democrats started it, which is on the same level o’ honesty as saying Democrats supported slavery, as it ignores the fact that Democrats, both conservative & liberal, dominated the legislative branches for most o’ the 20th Century, including during both o’ Bill Clinton’s appointments, in 1993 & 1994. For instance, while he brings up Ted Kennedy’s “incendiary rhetoric” gainst the same Robert Bork ’hind Nixon’s corrupt “Saturday Midnight Massacre” to try covering up the Watergate scandal, he fails to bring up that Republicans attacked Thurgood Marshall as a “judicial activist”, which came long before his examples.

But despite his attempt @ “both-sidesing”, like all fake centrists, this writer reveals their bias @ the end:

But let the difference be understood: while Republicans oppose Democrats’ picks because they waver from the Constitution, Democrats oppose Republicans’ picks because they adhere to it.

Mo’ accurately: the difference is that Republicans oppose Democrats’ picks ’cause their interpretation o’ the Constitution wavers from the fantasy theocratic version that exists in Republicans’ heads ( or perhaps just their propaganda, since considering all the Constitutional violations Republicans have made thruout their tenures, it’s doubtful they truly believe in it @ all ).

Sloppy, lazy logic & a lack o’ references, with many o’ the “facts” brought up mangled or outright wrong. Still, he made an attempt @ a convincing case, & to uneducated readers ( anyone reading Newsweek unironically ), it probably will convince them. Luckily it won’t matter, since nobody votes on senators or representatives based on whether or not they’ll vote gainst opposition Supreme Court candidates, & if they did, they’d base it on getting their favored partisans in the Supreme Court.

Tier: D

Finally we have “Vladimir Putin Must be Tried for War Crimes”, written by a pair that includes a US Lieutenant General, so it’s almost certainly hypocritical, since the US military commits war crimes all the time. But o’erall it’s stupid, since Putin is ne’er going to be tried for war crimes any mo’ than any US president e’er will, so long as Russia still has nukes. Anyone with a shred o’ political savvy knows this. The fact that a US Lieutenant General is this stupid shows how low the US military’s standards are for intelligence.

Clearly, the world will have to go after Vladimir Putin for his war crimes in Ukraine.

They won’t ’cause he has nukes, stupid.

If he isn’t brought to justice, the whole concept of tribunals on behalf of those who have suffered war crimes becomes a farce.

It already is a farce.

And it will confirm the common belief that the world’s most powerful nations can simply have it their way.

It has already been confirmed many times o’er. If this clown had any knowledge o’ US law he’d know that the US outright passed a law allowing them to invade the Hague if they e’er dared to try an American for war crimes, under the W. Bush administration, since they knew they would be committing war crimes in the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.

Regardless of how long it takes, or how much energy is expended, it is essential that the international community get this one right.

Sure. The international community will just add that to the slush pile & get back to you ne’er ¡real soon!

He violates international laws, and in doing so he defiles the moral foundations of many nations.

That would require nations to have any moral foundations in the 1st place, which is a false postulate, so we don’t need to worry ’bout that problem.

This beat Mr. Apples & Apples as worst article o’ them all. A’least that 1 was funny & was debatably right in how the death penalty could be either-or morally. This article is painfully boring & stupid, specially from a Lieutenant General, who should have a better grasp o’ realpolitik than a 5-year-ol’.

Tier: F

Thankfully, that was the last o’ them. Here’s our complete tier list you can hang on your fridge or wall so when anyone else sees it they can ask, <¿Who the hell are these assholes?>.

( Note: as it turns out, the “apples & apples proves we don’t know anything ’bout death penalty” guy is the same as the Supreme Court revisionism guy, so I represented the latter with his face & the former with a picture o’ 2 apples ).