What is the outrage around Bud Light’s collaboration with a trans influencer

What is the outrage around Bud Light’s collaboration with a trans influencer

“From time to time, we produce unique commemorative cans for fans and for brand influencers, like Dylan Mulvaney,” the statement read. “This commemorative can was a gift to celebrate a personal milestone and is not for sale to the general public.”

All of these snowflakes boycotting Bud Light for one single can that’s not even available for sale to the public?! I just laugh! It’s all about marketing and sales! It’s not “wokeness”, it’s the “free market”! That’s capitalism! Besides, didn’t have a problem drinking Bud Light, before, and Bud Light was marketing to the LGBTQ+ community long before “wokeness” became a thing!

[2019] Order From Chaos: What does a Pride parade have to do with NATO? More than you might think.

Editor’s Note: The degree of respect for LGBTQ people has increasingly become a measure of democratic health in former Soviet states. If Russia were a place where Pride parades were allowed, its quarrels with the United States, and ours with it, would possibly diminish, writes James Kirchick. This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.

What does a Pride parade have to do with NATO? More than you might think.

Related:

Meet the true journalists: James Kirchick and Lawrence O’Donnell

*Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Ms. Cat’s Chronicles.

UN lies about US military occupation of Syria + Exclusive Interview

US troops have illegally occupied Syria’s oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official, Farhan Haq, falsely claimed “there’s no US armed forces inside of Syria”. Chinese reporter Edward Xu called out the UN’s hypocrisy on Ukraine.

UN lies about US military occupation of Syria, reporter calls out Ukraine hypocrisy

Related:

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with the journalist who exposed UN Spokesperson’s embarrassing mistake via Syriana Analysis

Dear Moms, Think of Your Own Children!

The following is an unhinged rant with a hint of sarcasm (forgive me as I’m not a talented writer):

Just listened to the stupidest press conference with Moms Against Liberty (Moms For Liberty, rebranded as Moms Against TikTok), Libs of TikTok, Heritage Foundation, and select members of Congress. Feigning concern about liberty, and children’s rights, they’re calling for a ban on TikTok!

Rep. Troy Nehls called for the creation of an app, called “AmeriTok”, that advocates for gun ownership, limited government, responsible cigar smoking, freedom, individual rights, and liberty (the irony of advocating for freedom and liberty while calling for censorship)! He seems quite jealous that China puts time limits on children being on social media! Why not advocate for a similar law, considering kids could spend just as much time on Facebook or Instagram (or maybe leave parenting to the parents)?!

The astroturfed Moms Against Liberty campaign has been calling for book bans the last few years! Tell me how you can claim to advocate for freedom and liberty, when you are calling for censorship?! Besides, what will Libs of TikTok do if TikTok is officially banned, besides inciting others to violence?! Banning TikTok sets a dangerous precedent! I doubt that these people are true to their beliefs on children’s rights, though, or else they’d be advocating for a ban on Facebook and Instagram, as well! Of course, this has nothing to do with TikTok, except that Facebook can’t compete!

These radical conservatives are just as bad as those on the ‘radical left’ that they rail against! Their hypocrisy about social media privacy is astounding (trying to figure out how cigar smoking is safer for kids than TikTok)!

Journalistic Malpractice on Trial: What the Dominion Voting System Tells Us About How the Media Sacrificed their Credibility to Partisan Falsehoods

Journalistic Malpractice on Trial: What the Dominion Voting System Tells Us About How the Media Sacrificed their Credibility to Partisan Falsehoods

While the courts are unlikely to deliver solace from political party propaganda disguised as journalism, they have provided some wisdom. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson of MSNBC and Fox News Channel respectively, have been brought to court for spreading false information and were exonerated because the judges concluded that no reasonable person would believe either of them were telling the truth. That is good advice, and viewers would be wise to remember it every time they consider watching cable news.