Ed "Big Bones" Costanza
LightNews LightNews
banner
gojira65.bsky.social
Ed "Big Bones" Costanza
@gojira65.bsky.social
1.5K followers 1.6K following 12K posts
Brooklyn-born transplant to San Francisco. Not clever enough to be a shitposter, not smart enough to be an expert on anything, not funny enough to be a comedian. Basically mid. Pro-Bay Area sportsball. Anti-GOP, Trump, Nazis. No DMs. Slava Ukraini!
Posts Replies Media Videos
gojira65.bsky.social
Share someone who looks stylish wearing a turtleneck.
Steve McQueen wearing a turtleneck
November 10, 2025 at 11:29 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
That last sentence is peak Chair. It has pretensions to insightful analysis, but means absolutely nothing.
The problem that extreme candidates tend to face is that, though they may mobilize supporters, they also mobilize voters against them. And what matters in politics is not how many votes you get, but how many more you get than your opponent. You may recall Trump insisting that he must have won the 2020 election because he pulled in more votes than any candidate in history—except for Joe Biden, who won more. Mamdani’s victory says less about how the party can beat Republicans than about how a democratic socialist can beat mainstream Democrats in deep-blue areas.
November 9, 2025 at 3:50 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
This reads like something out of an online dating site for neo-Nazis.

"Lana was born of Russian American ancestry. She is passionate about European identity politics, ancestral traditions and health."

She likes long walks on the beach and trips to former concentration camps, to pick up souvenirs.
LANA HOSTESS RADIO FOURTEEN Lana was born of Russian American ancestry. She is the host of Radio Fourteen and contributes political/social commentary in the form of articles and videos. Additionally, she offers her view on current news & entertainment in Red Ice TV's livestream show on Saturdays. Lana also owns her own organic clothing line called Lana's Llama. She is passionate about European identity politics, ancestral traditions and health. She lives with her husband in Sweden and part time in America
November 8, 2025 at 9:14 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Candy also left out a few things from what Al said about Christ and Christianity.
Goldstein was an atheist, referring to himself as such in an interview in the Winter 1997 issue of Davka, an avant-garde Jewish cultural magazine.[40] In his 2004 book XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without a Shul, Luke Ford wrote about a conversation with Goldstein, in which Ford asked Goldstein why Jews were dramatically overrepresented in the porn industry. He answered, "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged." Ford then asked, "What does it mean to you to be a Jew?" To which Goldstein responded, "It doesn't mean anything. It means that I'm called a kike." Ford also asked, "Do you believe in God?" Goldstein said, "I believe in me. I'm God. Screw God. God is your need to believe in some super being. I am the super being. I am your God, admit it. We're random. We're the flea on the butt of the dog."[41]
November 8, 2025 at 9:08 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
I was actually shocked to see that there were TWO No Kings rallies there. The article in the Villages newspaper is surprisingly positive. "Both rallies are golf cart accessible."
www.villages-news.com/2025/10/16/n...
In June, the No Kings movement began when millions of Americans peacefully participated in nationwide demonstrations, opposing the authoritarian consolidation of power in our democracy. No Kings 2.0 builds on this nonviolent protest movement, reiterating that power in a democracy belongs to the people, not to any single leader, according to organizers.
November 8, 2025 at 7:29 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Imagine if "Black People" was there instead.

The headline was later changed to "Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?" which is almost worse. Men like Douthat will never get over the fact that white men no longer get to run their workplaces like little fiefdoms, without any pushback.
Screenshot from Ross Douthat's podcast "Interesting Times" with the headline: "Did Women Ruin the Workplace?"
November 7, 2025 at 1:05 AM
gojira65.bsky.social
This is from 2024 and a lot has changed since then, so maybe they've gotten better.
www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14...
7. Conclusions The findings of this study offer valuable insights with significant implications for policymakers and AI practitioners alike. The consistently positive sentiments observed in WIRED magazine and the broader media landscape, juxtaposed with the typically negative sentiments expressed by the general public in other studies, underscore the pressing need for transparent and responsible communication, AI development, and deployment. As public sentiments shift, understanding these trends becomes crucial for informing policymakers about potential areas of public concern and the highly polarized opinions often expressed by the media, enabling them to proactively implement measures that address these issues. Moreover, the term frequency analysis sheds light on the media’s tendency to latch onto various topics in AI discussions. A considerable number of articles seem unrelated to the topic of artificial intelligence, possibly aiming to attract attention by leveraging a contemporary and controversial subject. These recurring themes can guide AI educators, practitioners, and policymakers in addressing public concerns, curating educational content, and framing policies that resonate with prevailing public sentiment. In conclusion, as AI continues to permeate various facets of today’s society, understanding the narrative surrounding it becomes paramount. The study presented here serves as a timely reminder of the power of media in shaping this narrative and the need for informed, balanced, and transparent discussions on AI’s future role in the lives of human beings.
November 6, 2025 at 6:42 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Bonus: Speaking of primaries, this is what Golden said after a lefty challenger declared in October: 'Golden says he is the only viable candidate to defeat LePage...“If Matt Dunlap thinks this district will choose him over Paul LePage, he’s got another thing coming,” Golden said in a statement.'
Golden says he is the only viable candidate to defeat LePage, and his allies are already highlighting Dunlap’s long record as a state representative. “If Matt Dunlap thinks this district will choose him over Paul LePage, he’s got another thing coming,” Golden said in a statement. “A 30-year party crony like Matt Dunlap won’t cut it — the last time Matt held elected office he was a pro-life Democrat at a time when that unfortunately wasn’t unusual. Watching Dunlap try to recreate himself as a progressive would be amusing if it were not so cynical.” Dunlap is adamant he is pro-choice, and his allies were quick to refute Golden’s claim. “Matt Dunlap is pro-choice and has a 30 year record of pro-choice votes and advocacy,” Maine state Rep. Michele Meyer said in a statement.
November 5, 2025 at 9:09 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
LOL "Adams dominated the general election but only narrowly edged out his Democratic rivals — former Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia, former top de Blasio aide Maya Wiley and entrepreneur Andrew Yang — in a crowded primary election..."
New York Post front page from Nov. 3, 2021, with headline "SAVING GRACIE - Eric Adams elected 110th mayor of NYC" Next to a photo of former mayor Bill DeBlasio: "...and good riddance to this guy" At bottom of page: a photo of Virginia governor-elect Glenn Youngkin, with headline "GOP TAKES VIRGINIA IN BIDEN REBUKE"
November 5, 2025 at 8:04 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
It's always this: "Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."
That was the other legacy of Dick Cheney: fiasco. The wars he wanted did not showcase American power. They put on display American weakness, avarice, futility, and manic resource extraction. The economic agenda of unrestrained capital accumulation that Cheney championed led to the 2008 financial disaster that nearly wiped out the global economy. The pain and bitterness emerging from both conditions would be exploited by Trump, who empowered the nativist political currents galvanized by the War on Terror but, during Cheney’s time, did not enjoy respectability. They also enabled Trump to dismiss the respectable architects of the War on Terror, like Cheney, as sybaritic, incompetent elites, even as Trump builds upon their legacy of violence and deceit. For all his claims to foresight, Cheney never expected to be displaced by what he empowered. He surely did not expect to die on a day when New Yorkers are poised to elect a Muslim socialist mayor in a repudiation of his legacy. Trump and Cheney were more characterologically alike than either man would prefer to admit. While Trump is charismatic and Cheney was anything but, they both ruled through fear, cruelty, and domination. Not even Trump has gotten his own friend to apologize after shooting him in the face. The impunity Trump enjoys is another aftereffect of Obama’s decision to forgo accountability for the War on Terror and its many institutional crimes. (All it earned the Democrats was an endorsement from Cheney of Kamala Harris that she seemed not to understand was grotesque and self-discrediting.) As Trump prepares an assault on a South American field of resource extraction and deploys federal forces to terrorize American cities, Cheney can eternally look up from his well-earned spot in the afterlife at the fruits of his labor.
November 5, 2025 at 4:44 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Cheney and his minions made what Trump is doing now possible. Let there be absolutely no doubt about that. Don't cry for our democracy, Liz Cheney: your dad made its destruction possible.
Cheney did all of this because his deepest conviction was that the presidency was an elected monarchy. Misconstruing an argument of Alexander Hamilton’s from Federalist No. 70, Cheney pursued what became known as the unitary executive theory. It was predicated on the idea of an unencumbered presidency empowered to control every aspect of the executive branch, regardless of any affected office or agency’s intended independence from political decisions. Cheney had understood the post-Watergate reforms from Nixon’s criminal presidency as a congressional usurpation, and he intended to roll them all back. Excluding Congress from wresting any transparency from his secret Energy Task Force was, to Cheney, part of the point. After 9/11, Yoo contended that during wartime—a circumstance conceivably permanent in a War on Terror—presidential authority is all but plenary. He likes his argument a lot less now that Trump uses it to murder fishermen in the Caribbean, but, like his Bush administration colleagues, takes no responsibility for authoring the authoritarian usurpations of power that he now bemoans. Under Cheney, the consolidation of power within the presidency turned out to also be a consolidation of power within the vice presidency. Many understood Cheney, particularly after 9/11, to be effectively a copresident, dominating the unprepared and incurious Bush. Cheney was never one content to let events unfold on their own terms. As chairman of Bush’s vice-presidential search committee, he nominated himself, and pushed Bush to litigate the disputed 2000 election until five right-wing Supreme Court justices put them in office. To create the public conditions for invading Iraq, Cheney strong-armed the CIA into delivering baseless analytical assessments usefully inflating the danger from Saddam Hussein, who turned out to be helpless. In his public remarks, Cheney outdid even the manipulated CIA product, lying profligately about invented connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. After Cheney got the war he wanted, he continued to lie that the bloody insurgency it provoked was on its “last throes” years before it reached its nadir.
November 5, 2025 at 4:38 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
The Imperial Presidency was a Dick Cheney creation, now codified into law by a SCOTUS that consists of 6 Republican apparatchiks, who will agree with whatever GOP policies they are confronted with, often through the shadow docket, so that their naked partisanship will be hidden. Heckuva job, Dick.
Cheney, 84, picked an appropriate time to die. His decades-long struggle to consolidate the unparalleled might of US warmaking within the White House has succeeded. “In Cheney’s view,” wrote his biographer Barton Gellman, “the president’s authority was close to absolute within his rightful sphere.” Cheney defined that sphere expansively and fought for his definitions aggressively. When Patrick Leahy accused the former Halliburton CEO of rigging gigantic no-bid contracts for the company in Iraq, Cheney responded, “Fuck yourself.” He later called the exchange “the best thing I ever did.” The successor presidencies of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden decried the power grabs Cheney pursued but mostly pocketed his gains for their own purposes. (In his case for unrestricted bombing in the Caribbean and Pacific, Gaiser cited Obama’s own marginalization of Congress to bomb Libya in 2011.) Trump now walks a red carpet of lawlessness, plutocracy, and bloodshed woven by Cheney. An uncharismatic Nixon functionary—someone who might never have risen to power had Texas Senator John Tower not drunk himself out of a Pentagon appointment that instead went to Cheney—decisively shaped the destruction of constitutional governance in 21st-century America. No hell is hot enough or eternal enough for Dick Cheney. Any discussion of his works must begin with the 2021 assessment of Brown University’s Costs of War Project that found, conservatively, that the War on Terror killed between 897,000 and 929,000 people across five of its battlefields. Codirector Neda Crawford called that assessment “a vast undercount,” since it doesn’t take into account the downstream casualties caused by the epidemiological effects of destroying the infrastructure of the countries Cheney helped bomb, invade, and occupy. Cheney shares the blame for what is surely the deaths of more than a million people with many others, especially George W. Bush, the president he served. But while Bush was the self-styled “decider,” Cheney was the most crucial architect the War on Terror had, shaping the decisions Bush made.
November 5, 2025 at 4:31 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
"Unsafe at Any Speed" was an important book (if somewhat overblown, based on subsequent testing), but he is more responsible for the last 25 years of conservative fuckery than anyone alive. (Yes, exaggerated for emphasis, the way NAder did many things himself.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_...
The U.S. Department of Transportation issued a press release dated August 12, 1972, setting out the findings of 1971 NHTSA testing—after the Corvair had been out of production for more than three years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had conducted a series of comparative tests in 1971 studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair and four contemporary cars, a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, Renault Dauphine—along with a second generation Corvair with revised suspension design. The subsequent 143-page report (PB 211-015, available from NTIS) reviewed a series of actual handling tests designed to evaluate the handling and stability under extreme conditions; a review of national accident data compiled by insurance companies and traffic authorities for the cars in the test—and a review of related General Motors/Chevrolet internal letters, memos, tests, reports, etc. regarding the Corvair's handling.[15] NHTSA went on to contract a three-person advisory panel of independent professional engineers to review the scope and competency of their tests. This review panel then issued its own 24-page report (PB 211-014, available from NTIS), which concluded that "the 1960–63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests ... the handling and stability performance of the 1960–63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."
November 4, 2025 at 9:21 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Sorry, Rachel, but nobody calls it that. MS has a very specific meaning, and it has nothing to do with TV. Second screengrab is the first thing that comes up when I google "MS."
MS NOW went unmentioned at the event. The acronym stands for “My Source for News, Opinion and the World.” Crucially, it maintains the “MS,” a nickname for the network that originated from its founding in 1996 as a joint venture with Microsoft. (Microsoft fully withdrew in 2012.) As Ms. Maddow noted: “A lot of people just call us ‘MS’ anyway.” ms-treatment-info.com https://www.ms-treatment-info.com Multiple Sclerosis Information - Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms Explore Two Different Treatment Options For Treating Multiple Sclerosis. Sign Up For Information And Resources On An MS Treatment Option. Living With MS · Treatment Experience · Prescribing Information Types: Safety And Side Effects, Dosing Frequency MS Treatment Options Choose An MS Treatment Option That Is Right For You. Safety & Side Effects View Possible Infusion Reactions For An MS Treatment Option. Medication Guide Read Medication Information On A MS Treatment Option. Infusion Checklist Download A Patient Checklist To Help Prepare For Your Infusion.
November 4, 2025 at 7:25 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Baker is the kind of "right-wing curmudgeon" that could have been created created in a lab by a perverted Jon Chait:
On 5 June 2018, the Journal announced that Baker would step down as editor-in-chief and step into the role of editor at large, effective 11 July 2018. Matt Murray succeeded Baker as editor in chief.[2] As editor at large, Baker's regular column remained part of the news division. In May 2020, a column written by Baker in the wake of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery,[21] which argued that the news media failed to report crimes committed by black people against whites, was criticized in a letter sent by the Independent Association of Publishers' Employees, the union representing Journal reporters, for violating rules that apply to the news division. The letter stated Baker's column "posits the highly controversial argument that black people commit more hate crimes than white people" and to "'prove' that he uses only his own single weighted statistical calculation, with no attribution or context from experts either to support the idea or provide contrary views." Baker was subsequently reassigned to the opinion division where staff have more flexibility.[22] Baker describes himself as a "right-wing curmudgeon";[4] writer and media critic David Carr described Baker in 2009 as "a neoconservative columnist of acute political views."[11] Baker holds Eurosceptic views, arguing against closer European integration.[23][24] Ryan Chittum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, criticised Baker in the Columbia Journalism Review as "an Iraq War-cheerleading neocon, goofball Obama ridiculer, and author of some of the wrongest commentary of the financial crisis".[25] Chittum highlighted several of Baker's previous writings, including a column in the Financial Times in 2003 in which Baker mocked French opposition to the Iraq War, and a column in The Times in 2006 in which Baker argued that "we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran."[25] On 25 January 2021, five days after the inauguration of Joe Biden, Baker wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in which he insinuated that under the Biden presidency, Trump supporters would be forced to enter Democratic "re-education programs".[26] In a separate article, The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof referred to the column as right-wing fearmongering.[27]
November 4, 2025 at 4:29 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
"perverted social science" makes me think of this Matt Bors classic:
Matt Bors comic showing a medievl farmer saying "We should improve society somewhat" and s smiling man popping out of a well saying "Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent."
November 4, 2025 at 4:14 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Imagine watching him come
Kash Patel’s O face, probably
November 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Goose meme: Top text "WHICH IDEAS ARE EXTREME?" Bottom text "WHICH IDEAS, MOTHERFUCKER?'
November 1, 2025 at 8:06 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Blocked her long ago. "I think many of our most extreme ideas are bad." LMFAO.
GOOSE MEME: Top text: "WHICH IDEAS ARE EXTREME?" Bottom text: "WHICH IDEAS, MOTHERFUCKER?"
November 1, 2025 at 8:05 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
Schmuck.

"Rodgers' latest pitch was made to new Packers defensive end Micah Parsons, who was traded from the Dallas Cowboys shortly before the season. And it came at an unusual time -- after Rodgers scrambled to avoid a Parsons sack during Sunday's game in Pittsburgh."
www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/...
Headline: Aaron Rodgers trying to get Packers to buy Green Bay house
October 31, 2025 at 12:16 AM
gojira65.bsky.social
Obligations of Individuals Under Indictment General Rule Individuals under indictment are not legally required to answer questions from journalists. They have the right to remain silent, similar to any citizen. This right is protected under the Fifth Amendment, which allows individuals to avoid self-incrimination. Media Interactions Voluntary Responses: While they can choose to speak to the media, they are not obligated to do so. Legal Advice: Often, individuals under indictment will consult with legal counsel before engaging with journalists to avoid any potential legal repercussions. Implications of Speaking Potential Risks: Answering questions can lead to complications in their legal case. Statements made to the media could be used against them in court. Public Perception: Engaging with the media may influence public opinion and the legal process. In summary, individuals under indictment have the right to refuse to answer journalists' questions, and it is generally advisable for them to do so to protect their legal interests.
October 31, 2025 at 12:07 AM
gojira65.bsky.social
You asked this question already. You do know that she can't comment on any pending litigation, right? Also:
Obligations of Individuals Under Indictment General Rule Individuals under indictment are not legally required to answer questions from journalists. They have the right to remain silent, similar to any citizen. This right is protected under the Fifth Amendment, which allows individuals to avoid self-incrimination. Media Interactions Voluntary Responses: While they can choose to speak to the media, they are not obligated to do so. Legal Advice: Often, individuals under indictment will consult with legal counsel before engaging with journalists to avoid any potential legal repercussions. Implications of Speaking Potential Risks: Answering questions can lead to complications in their legal case. Statements made to the media could be used against them in court. Public Perception: Engaging with the media may influence public opinion and the legal process. In summary, individuals under indictment have the right to refuse to answer journalists' questions, and it is generally advisable for them to do so to protect their legal interests.
October 31, 2025 at 12:02 AM
gojira65.bsky.social
When the government is lying, and it's revealed that they are, the people are under no obligation to support it.
Official USDA post lying about Democrats being responsible for food stamps not being funded. Headline: "USDA Quietly Deletes Its Contingency Plan fir Funding SNAP" "The 55-page "lapse of funding" document for USDA is no longer available online." Photo of building with a banner reading "USDA" and a phot of Donald Trump below it. Caption: "A banner with an image of President Donald Trump hangs outside Department of Agriculture headquarters in Washington D.C. (Francis Chung/Politico via AP Images)"
October 30, 2025 at 10:44 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
You're not very bright, are you?
Obligations of Individuals Under Indictment General Rule Individuals under indictment are not legally required to answer questions from journalists. They have the right to remain silent, similar to any citizen. This right is protected under the Fifth Amendment, which allows individuals to avoid self-incrimination. Media Interactions Voluntary Responses: While they can choose to speak to the media, they are not obligated to do so. Legal Advice: Often, individuals under indictment will consult with legal counsel before engaging with journalists to avoid any potential legal repercussions. Implications of Speaking Potential Risks: Answering questions can lead to complications in their legal case. Statements made to the media could be used against them in court. Public Perception: Engaging with the media may influence public opinion and the legal process. In summary, individuals under indictment have the right to refuse to answer journalists' questions, and it is generally advisable for them to do so to protect their legal interests.
October 30, 2025 at 10:00 PM
gojira65.bsky.social
'Sup, Pete?
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/...
Prosecutors tried to establish that Peter Stinson’s Feb. 18 post on Bluesky—"Take the shot” and “We’ll deal with the fallout"—along with dozens of other anti-Trump posts going back several years amounted to evidence that he was inducing others to commit violence. But his defense lawyers argued that Stinson’s comments were protected by the First Amendment and that he never took actual steps to carry out an assassination. Stinson is a former Coast Guard officer, according to prosecutors. The government pointed to Stinson’s history of incendiary posts on X, formerly Twitter, and Bluesky, including his reaction to the attempted assassination of Trump on the campaign trail in Butler, Pa., last year. One of them read, “Three inches to the right, and the shot woulda gone through the eyeball. Practice. Practice. Practice.” But the primary expert witness for the defense, a psychologist specializing in online radicalization and social media violence, argued that prosecutors targeted Stinson, without charging the countless people who post similar sentiments about the president without ever acting on them. “That’s just incredible to me that anyone in good faith would say that the fact he posted a bunch of times he wished the president were dead is a solicitation of murder,” the witness, University of Maryland professor Jen Goldbeck, said in a subsequent interview. DOJ representatives didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
October 30, 2025 at 9:50 PM