Valsuelm

Um.... please think about it. Really. Forget about everything you've read or consumed in the media, remove the personalities, and think. Objectively. Think about the motives people have for prosecuting, think about the ramifications of doing so. If it doesn't come to you, step back and take an objective look at what's been happening with Trump, Assange, Bundy, various 'January 6th' defendants, along with the 'canceling' of various other peoples. Again, remove the personalities, and objectively look at what is being done. If it still doesn't come to you, go and read the US Constitution and then read up on why the President has the immunity to begin with, and why the impeachment process exists. It's discussed a bit in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (as pretty much everything in the US Constitution sans later amendments is). Note: I'm hoping you already realize two things. A) That a great many prosecutions are political in nature. From the lowest crimes to the most egregious, justice often takes a back seat to some prosecutor's political ambitions. Corruption exists within the 'justice system', and always has to some degree. B) That Trump isn't remotely the first US President to have been alleged to have broken many laws, nor egregious ones at that. If you don't already realize the 'A' and 'B', then I don't think there's anything I could say here to enlighten you.

The SCOTUS has made many horrific unconstitutional decisions over the years. However, the decision to hear Trump's case in regards to his claim of immunity from prosecutions is not one of them. It likely won't be, but the decision should ultimately effectively be 9-0 that he does have immunity. It's very clear in the US Constitution that he does. A decision to the contrary will set a precedent that will do more damage to the USA than any decision since at least Wickard v. Filburn. Really, possibly any decision ever, and that's saying something, because there is no shortage of constitutional shredding decisions out of the SCOTUS in the last ~100 years. The people campaigning that the SCOTUS is doing something wrong here are either incredibly naive, incredibly brainwashed, or incredibly evil. The owners of the media who are pushing this issue, and those who are behind the prosecutions are absolutely the latter.

Realistically, can anyone point to a self immolation that was truly politically effective? There's some famous ones for sure. The most famous of all being Thích Quảng Đức, but even that wasn't all that effective in the long run, even with the tidal wave of press it received. Frankly, what effect it did have was only due to western pressure that capitalized on the shocking photo taken. There are FAR better ways to be politically effective than lighting yourself on fire. I daresay, that quite a lot of humans figured out long ago that lighting one's political enemy on fire is quite a bit more politically effective. While not possible, it would certainly be interesting to talk to Thích at length, and discuss his reasoning. I'd wager it's a bit different than many would think.

Is it common elsewhere? I was always under the impression it was a pretty rare thing all over. I think most humans can think of more productive things to do with their time, and if inclined to immolate something find more a productive target. A sad waste this was... I'll put $100 on the guy being on psychotropics.

I was introduced to Phish in late summer 1995. A kid from Burlington popped his new CD into his portable stereo and played it in the lounge where I was living. By the end of Bouncing off of 'A Live One' I was asking 'Who the #@)" is THIS?!'. Long story short, after listening to the rest of that album I was a big time fan in short order. Not long after this I learned of Gamehendge, like anyone who takes real interest in this band does. At the time Phish was playing a Gamehendge set every once in a great while. The last one was just year earlier in 1994. So I began hoping I would see a Gamehendge set. It was one of my Phish wishes if you would, if not my #1 Phish concert wish, right from the beginning. Well.... years went by. The band took a hiatus in 2000. No Gamehendge. They came back from hiatus and then broke up in 2004, for what pretty much everyone thought was forever. No Gamehendge ever played. That was it.. last show was 1994. Phish phans would cherish it, and the ones that came before. To a great many people's overwhelming delight Phish got back together in 2009. I myself didn't hop back on the train until 2016, when long story short.. on whim I went to 12/30/16. The second song in, I thought to myself 'What the hell have I been doing all this time?!?!?'. 12/31/16 was amazing.... I've seen 70+ shows since (Baker's Dozen, ****, YEMSGs, and more). Made many friends. Had more phenomenal times than many if not most adults in the modern era can even imagine to have. Anon. Like most any concert goer we all have some songs we want to hear when we go to a show. With most bands it's easy, as they just play a 'Greatest Hits' show, and the same set almost every night. To be clear this is not a knock of those bands. I love a lot of such bands, and have greatly enjoyed many of their live shows. However, you generally only see such a show a time or three tops, because it doesn't change from show to show, city to city, other than maybe one or two songs at most. Phish always plays a unique show, start to finish. It's extremely rare that you can predict what they will play. About the only 'shoe in' is Auld Lang Syne at midnight every NYE show. Other than that, good luck guessing what they're going to play before they play it. I've had the privilege of seeing this band the better part of 100 times since the mid 90s. And when anyone asked me what I wanted to hear at my next Phish show, I would immediately think 'Gamehendge', though rarely say it, as it was like wishing to win the PowerBall or MegaMillions. It just wasn't going to happen. So I gave my realistic hopes as an answer, and rarely even discussed Gamehendge, usually only doing so when filling in new phans as to the story and to it's significance. On 12/31/22 Phish rang in the new year at MSG with a gag that celebrated them turning 40 and had a taste of all of the previous New Year's gags rolled into one as well referenced various people and events that had occurred over the decades (Phish does something unique every New Years Eve show, a special set with a special gag). The gags range in quality from 'damn bleeping cool' to 'mind blowingly awesome'. Well, 12/31/22 was in my opinion the best NYE show musically since the 90s, and best gag they ever did. Was there, super fun time! I mention this because going into 2023, I had an inkling that Phish would do something special. It was their 40th anniversary year (first show being played in early December of 1983), so to me it was a no brainer, though many if not most in the Phish fan world thought that 12/31/22 was the 40th anniversary celebration. I had a few thoughts as to what they might do (with Phish you truly almost never know). They did for their 10th, 20th, and 30th anniversary years (something different each year). Well... they did nothing that I thought they might do, except for that one thing that I didn't even think was really a possibility. No festival, no anniversary show or tour, going into the NYE run at Madison Square Garden in New York. By this time, pretty much everyone thought that the anniversary already had been celebrated on 12/31/22. I was even beginning to think this too, because even though I dared to think that if Phish *might* play Gamehendge sometime in 2023, again I dared to think it like some of us think about what we might do with all that money if we won the lottery. It just wasn't going to happen, so best not spend much time thinking about it. I had only made it to one show last year going into the run, and I didn't even have tickets for the run. Some life events conspired to keep me away from shows. At the last minute I snagged some tickets for 12/30-12/31/23, was able to meet up with some of my favorite people on planet earth, and went to the Garden. There were rumors that Phish might do Gamehendge, but there are always these rumors every year, for decades now. People trolling, and everyone dismisses them. Going into 12/31/23, Phish hadn't yet played any core Gamehendge songs during the run (12/28-12/30), so the rumor got a tinsy bit more traction as the days went on, but really not much, because them not playing any core Gamehendge songs over 3 shows isn't that unusual. I expressed my hope to my closest Phish friends in hotel room, but again, thought about it like I thought about winning the lottery. Really.. any long time Phish fan learned long ago to not even really try to seriously predict what the band might do. You just go with the flow... surrender to it, really. On the night of 12/31 I went to dinner with some friends at a great seafood place near SOHO, and then entered MSG with no real expectations for the show other than knowing it was more than likely to be awesome, whatever it was (I'd seen 5 Phish New Years shows previously; awesome was the norm, hence me going back for more). My mind was blank on what to expect. The first set began with a modern favorite, then kept going. Solid music. The third song was a debut earlier this year and my first time hearing it, I loved it.. .and then came Reba (with whistling). I'd heard Reba many many times in concert. It's a great song. An old Phish classic. One of my first favorite Phish songs back in the day. But.. there was something about this particular Reba.. something in the way it was played that brought me back to a specific memory from the 90s very vividly.. and I began to have some thoughts, an experience if you will (and no... no mind candy was had, only a couple glasses of wine hours earlier was had, I was effectively sober). Skipping the details of that personal experience, I'll just say that I got an inkling that I was supposed to be where I was, in the right place at the right time, and Gamehendge might indeed be coming, but... even with that.. I thought I was more than likely just imagining things. The set went on, as did the experience, as some themes were woven into the music, a message being conveyed. Musically it was a very solid first set. Beautiful. Then after the standard ~30 minute set break, came the second set, starting out with a Down With Disease, on the 30th anniversary of it's debut . As the set began I was actually still out in the concourse talking to some friends I rarely see (and wasn't sitting with that night) for the first minutes of this song. After we heard the song pick up some heat my friends and I parted ways until after the show, and rushed to our seats. The second set was underway (the average Phish show has 2 sets + an encore, with NYE having 3 sets, with the 3rd set always being the special one with the gag). DWD was great as always but before expected the song came to an end.. and then a moment later... Harpua. Now, Harpua is a strange song. Not Phish's best song by any means, but when it's played you are about guaranteed to be in for something extra special. It's quite rare, going into this show having only been played 3 times in the last 10 years . I was lucky enough to be at 2 of them. Harpua is a story song, and each Harpua ever played has a unique twist on the story. Keep in mind, this is the second song of the second set. The special NYE gag doesn't usually happen until set 3, yet Phish is telling us with those 'Oom papa Oom papas', that something special is about to happen. As this Harpua went on, the story unfolded. The band members each sang and said their parts, and then Mike (the bassist) uttered the words 'Colonel Forbin' (my eyes went wide) and moment later 'Helping Friendly Book' in the same sentence and I instantly knew. So I'm sure did almost everyone in that crowd. But we were mostly silent, collectively holding our breathes. Like when a lottery jackpot winner first sees those winning numbers, they must stop breathing for a moment and think 'this can't be real... I need to check this again' and not dare yet truly believe they really won until they can verify it officially somehow. A few moments later that verification came when Trey began playing the opening notes 'The Man Who Stepped Into Yesterday'... and beloved actress Annie Golden made it crystal clear what everyone was about to see. Gamehendge.... I don't know how many thousand of people had huge smiles on their face and tears in their eyes, but I sure did and I know I wasn't alone in this, not by a long shot. Something I never thought I'd see, something that I barely considered possible, was happening before me. A Rhombus rose up from the floor to encompass the band... and then Trey began the narration.. .and Colonel Forbin rose onto the stage. Gemehendge was underway... complete with actors, dancers, backup singers, guest singers, puppeteers, props, a Flying Mockingbird.... a whole theatrical production. I'm sure in the history of the world as many or more tears of joy have been shed by as many people gathered in one place, but I couldn't tell you when or where that was. Nor do I think could most others. The crowd lost it. Happy happy joy joy multiplied by itself again and again. As many music lovers who attend concerts has experienced (and even some at home)... sometimes there are songs that you get lost in. Special musical moments that are so good you are taken away to somewhere else. At your average Phish show this happens to me maybe a few times for some moments. The best Phish shows it happens for a large chunk of a set ('Is this still Lawn Boy?'). On 12/31/23, I was taken to that place for the next few hours. 12/31/23 is the greatest concert experience I've ever had, and I've seen I don't even know how many shows and bands over the years (well over 1000 at least (I used to work in the industry)). I've been lucky enough to see some truly amazing moments in live music. But this one.... this one is in a league of it's own, like very few others are. I've no doubt that at least most of those in attendance that evening agree. .......... and then a little more than a week after the show.... Phish, a band that truly appreciates it's fans more than most others, released an official video of the entire production, on YouTube, for free... so that all of those phans who couldn't make it to the Garden, all those fans who had this Phish wish for so many years... so they could experience it too. As well the other phans who never really understood why Gamehendge was so special to many of us. After 12/31/23 I think a lot more of them probably understand and appreciate it now. Somewhere along the way in the future, some people who don't yet know about Phish or Gamehendge will have this gem available to them to see. Anyways.... this went on a lot longer than I initially intended, and believe it or not, I left a bunch out. So much more could be said about everything mentioned above. It's hard to explain what all of this means to someone who isn't a fan, or isn't familiar with Phish's music. Improvisational music isn't for everyone, I get it. Even for most that appreciate it, it's an acquired taste. Jazz is the most advanced of the musical genres in my estimation, and in many ways the members of Phish are maestros of improv. Once upon a time, I didn't get it either. Fortunately for me I'd gotten deep into Genesis, Pink Floyd, Talking Heads, and others of their depth and caliber, as well as even a little classic jazz prior to being introduced to Phish. So I took to Phish like a fish does to water the first time I heard them. If music is the air my soul breathes, Phish is some of the purest oxygen in that air. But even if you do like improv, you still might not dig Phish's flavor of it, I get it. There's also Phish's antics, sense of humor, hard to explain intangibles, and the innumerable inside jokes that someone who isn't a Phish fan won't get until they've been a fan for awhile, and a long while at that for many of them. i.e. The 12/22/23 gag was probably a really great thing to see for any new fan, but the more you know this band the more you'll appreciate what is on stage before you. Seeing this band live is in one way an inverse experience to seeing most other bands live. The more you see them, the more you tend to appreciate them, and the more you want to see them. That opposite tends to be true for all the bands that play the same songs almost every night, and in almost the same way every time. That gets old, where the improvisational musical adventures of maestros is just about always at the edge of a potentially fantastic new frontier. I post this largely for the few here who are familiar (it's shared elsewhere as well). I know there are least used to be a few phans here, though I've been away a long while, so am not sure if that's still the case. The music thread on this forum was always one of my favorite threads on all the interwebs, as I always appreciate getting reminded of great music, or introduced to great music I hadn't yet discovered. I've had both experiences many times here over the years, and I thank everyone who has contributed. To anyone who isn't a Phish fan who made it this far (if anyone did ). I say thank you for the read and I hope you picked up something that betters your day, even if the music isn't for you. Though I think that if you made it this far, and you give it a shot, you just might like it. Or if you've got a friend that takes you to a show (there's no better way to learn how to appreciate Phish than to go to a show). Really, if it's even remotely on your mind to maybe go to a show, do it, you'll more than likely be happy you did. For those that do know, or are curious.... if you haven't yet seen this.... take the time to put this on the big screen, turn up those speakers, and enjoy the journey. The trick was to surrender to the flow....

I'm well aware of who Fareed is, and he's paid by CNN. Here's the thing Bruce... A very large part of the reason why you and so many others are misinformed is that you allow others to do your thinking for you. Rather than watch Tucker's ~3 minute video discussing Russian subways and the like, you watch Fareed's ~6 minute video. A video that goes off on a tangent that Tucker wasn't really discussing. Now, it can be an interesting tangent to talk about, but it largely ignores the point that Tucker was making. You almost never go to the primary source, whatever it is. You and most others allow CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Hollywood, IHeartRadio, NPR, The Guardian, and other billionaire/foreign owned media to filter your worldview for you. Sure, you can say it's Fareed you're listening to, but he's just an employee who serves the owners of the company he works for. By and large he's going to dish out information in a way that pleases them, else he'll be fired (like Tucker was). Don't make the mistake in thinking I'm pro Tucker here, because he's really not the point here. He was once a gatekeeper too, and to a degree still is. The point here is that Tucker's video is the primary source material that you did not watch. You watched someone else's interpretation of it, and from experience reading your views on things, that's just about all you ever do. You are getting second hand information (at best), when you could be getting the actual information. Now, primary source material is indeed sometimes hard to find, but it is more often than not available, and really isn't too hard to find a lot of the time (like in this case). I strongly suggest you start to make a habit of seeking out that primary source material, and view/listen/watch/etc it. Be warned, that if you do, you will soon find that you are being lied to by most of the media, and your worldview will no doubt change in time. It might even be painful for a bit to come to terms with what you discover (I was once asleep too). The good news, is you will start living in reality, as ugly as it might be, it's still more beautiful than the paradigm that the mainstream media is selling you. It's also a lot safer, as you'll be better aware of the real dangers out there, and not caught up in the boogie men that the billionaire/foreign/oligarch owned media wants you to fear.

Respectfully, I'm not really interested in a debate here either. i was just curious if you'd caught up to reality yet. The media you consume lies to you. As I stated, Russia already effectively won the war, in the summer of 2022, and that's not going to change. How you or I feel about Ukraine or Russia is somewhat irrelevant. I am curious though, if you reject Russian nationalism, why do you embrace Ukrainian nationalism? What is your criteria for accepting one nation's nationalism but rejecting another's? I'm especially curious about this in the context of one nation having been around for the better part of 1000 years (a great many generations) in one form or another, and the other only having a history of about 30 years (only one generation). Aside from Russia, are there any other nations' nationalism that you reject?

Also curious... Did you actually watch or listen to the entirety of Tucker's presentation that is referenced here? Or did you just watch CNN's take on it?

@BruceVC Hi Bruce... it's been awhile. Hope you've been well. The above is from October 2022. First, Wow.. time flies... doesn't seem that long ago that I was last here. I didn't mean to disappear, and I've been thinking about popping back in for awhile, but life has been quite busy. Second, and more importantly. I'm curious... have you realized that Russia has effectively won in Ukraine yet? And that the media that told you that Ukraine ever had a snowball's chance in hell of winning was lying to you? I'm genuinely curious.

Shining a spotlight on their nonsense cause was likely their main goal, and they actually did a very good job of doing so. Presumably damaging world famous art (but not really doing so), and then attempting to glue yourself next to it was a pretty ingenious attention getting ploy. Hopefully they eventually apply their thinking skills (if it was even them that thought of this, and they weren't pawns) to further exploring and researching the issue they that they are championing. Of course the billionaire/foreign owned media helped them get the word out, but that's to be expected, as the cause these girls are ultimately championing is the greater empowerment of the billionaire/trillionaire class.

Pretty much everything Musk ever does in view of the public is part of a dog and pony show. Make no mistake, he's on Team Evil. Or in other words, the people you unwittingly usually cheer for Bruce. Like Trump, Musk does an excellent job of talking the talk, but generally not walking the walk. Like Trump, he's a pied piper, controlled opposition. Both are entertaining. Both are billionaires. Both talk out of their ass a lot. Neither are sincere in much of what they say to the public, though they both do touch on some truths that most of the mainstream won't, hence many are fooled that they are fighting the good fight. And both have what amounts to a cult following. Trumps lies and nonsense are a bit more objectively easy to prove, but that's because he made a lot more promises. Musk lies, a lot. You don't become a billionaire by being honest (the lone potential exception is if you're born into it).

A number of possibilities come to mind.... a) Staged propaganda b) Training c) Durability and/or mine efficacy testing, that's later taken out of context d) Legit video.... You can't really see well when you're in these things. It's not like driving a car. Your field of vision is limited. At best you have some cameras. What you see through cameras does not equate to what you'd see with human eyes through a car windshield. Something to note: many people (soldiers included) think it can't happen to them. So much so that even when faced with a threat that would be obvious to someone else, they'll think.. "eh.. that's not really that dangerous thing I think it might be". Decoys are not an uncommon thing. Get used to rolling over fake mines enough, and you just might start throwing caution to the wind and roll over a real one. .... and I'm sure I didn't think of all of the possibilities. Please note: a huge amount of stuff that you find on Twitter and the like are bogus. One should be especially suspicious of short videos, that are likely missing context. Twitter is a propaganda machine and a lot of people are bamboozled by it, especially those with short attention spans (which it was designed from day one to cater to and foster).

Don't think he's forgetting, I think you have an extreme bias against Russia & Russians, and at least a moderate bias against reality. Even if what you said is true (for the sake of argument), money disappearing doesn't necessarily translate into inefficiency. Not all thieves are bureaucrats, and many of those that aren't are often still proficient at their jobs. That said, the fact remains that Russia built this bridge in a relatively short amount of time for such a large project. This fact, like all others, doesn't care about your prejudices or misperceptions. Insofar as build times in the USA v Russia, I could write a short essay, but it is indeed apples and apples. Corruption and inefficiency sadly dominates much of the United States at this point.

One of the very few people in Congress in recent times with some integrity has finally left the communist party. Better late than never!!

The President of the United States and the executive branch has zero power to do this. The 'scheduling' of drugs was created by an act of congress. It will take an act of congress to reschedule or de-schedule any drug. So yea... Biden just making noise to make those who don't know any better think he's doing something. All that said, I don't disagree at all that it should be lowered. It's just not something the POTUS has legitimate authority to do.

Not tinfoil hat. What you say has a lot of truth to it and Taiwan being annexed by the CCCP is a very highly likely scenario before this decade is done. The entire thing is being floated in the billionaire/foreign owned media again and again to get the plebs used to the idea, so it's more accepted by them when it happens.

Don't get too excited BruceVC. This move by Biden is 99%+ just theatrics, aimed to get the gullible to think he's doing something on their behalf. Similar to his student loan forgiveness decree (though pardons are actually within his legal powers, where forgiving student loans in the manner he is attempting to, is not). The reality is that no one has been in Federal prison for 'simple marijuana possession' in many decades (if ever even). One would be hard pressed to find a single person in jail nationwide solely for marijuana possession in the modern era. Even in states where it remains a criminal offense, in practice it's an offense that is either completely overlooked or results in a small fine. This has been true throughout most of the USA for decades. Generally speaking, when it comes to any drug, if the Federal government is involved in the prosecution you've exceeded a statutory threshold which gives them jurisdiction. Example: In the 1990s you could grow 49 marijuana plants in your house without running afoul of the DEA. You certainly might run afoul of your local or state police department, but 50 was the magic number to get you indicted on Federal charges (it might still be the magic #, I haven't kept up on it since the early 00s). The legality/illegality of drugs is all sorts of wonked throughout most of the world, but Biden isn't the marijuana users friend, and many of them realize it. One of my biggest stoner friends who despised the Orange Man and voted for Biden blew up my phone the other day bitching about this, because he at first thought it was great thing like you, and then he realized it was yet another manufactured lie.

I live on planet earth, and so do you. So if you know nothing about the world I live in.... well.. you're in the majority. And because this majority exists, evil people are able to flourish. Says someone who either can't be bothered to use a search engine or doesn't know how to... Don't worry, I won't do your homework for you again.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4848?r=1&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/1205 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8568?r=13&s=1 These bills are generally just floating around. They probably won't be voted on, at least not without a massive escalation from what we've already seen. There's fortunately not the political will for this nonsense, and the tide is moving in other direction (more and more people are beginning to catch up with reality). Generally you can just search the web for the name of bill X, and you'll get information on it. Congress.gov a great place to see just who the Evils and incompetents are. Tip: Most anything Lindsey Graham ever champions is evil, especially when we're talking about international politics. This treasonous lackey for the banking cartel has a penthouse reserved for him on one of the deeper planes of hell, likely down the hall from McCain and Bush Sr.. Like a broken clock he's right sometimes, but usually even then he's just pretending.

Relative to most 'leaders' on planet earth in the modern era, Putin is a great leader. But the bar is very low considering no small number of 'leaders' in the world have been actively selling their nations out for many decades now. Putin is many things, but he's not treasonous. He generally represents Russia and Russian interests very well at the international level. Would I support Putin if I lived in Russia? In his actions at the international level of politics, generally yes. In his domestic policies, I would certainly part with him on at least a few major issues. I am not Russian, nor do I live there, nor do I have enough good solid information regarding the internal politics of Russia to be able to say with any certainty if there's anyone there that I would support at all. In my own nation, the politics of which I am very familiar with, there is almost no one in politics at the national level that I support even a little, let alone fully (as it's almost invariably nothing but corrupt, evil, incompetent, and/or naive people in that game at this point, unfortunately). Ugly truth: the Russian media is generally at least as 'free and independent' as most of the media in the west is. Putin isn't really responsible for eroding any freedoms there, as there wasn't too much freedom to begin with. I'm frankly a bit more concerned with the censorship and lies in the western media than I am with such things in Russia. I don't support such things anywhere, but I'm not going to concern myself too much with what goes on in someone else's backyard when the **** is piled high in my own backyard.. To add to my previous post, here is a decent conversation that touches on some of the inherent problems with 'embedded journalists' (long story short, they are generally very untrustworthy sources of information).

The idea that Ukranians aren't afraid is nonsense. Everyone I ever communicate with in both Ukraine and Russia is afraid, whether they're for the war or against it, for Russia or against it. About the only people who aren't afraid at this point are the armchair quarterbacks mindlessly cheering for the war to escalate. Anyone thinking that a few dozen missiles being lobbed their way for the first time in a significant manner by a nation that has many thousands of them on hand is evidence that they're winning is a special kind of delusional. Stop getting caught up in the day to day propaganda, and go look at a map. Ukraine already lost....

The conflict in Ukraine predates Russia moving troops in earlier this year, by many years. I don't know of a single politician that is a head of state of a nation that isn't a liar, though Putin is objectively a lot more honest and competent than most, at least when commenting on anything at the international level. This has been true for well over a decade. Insofar as where I get my information. Primary sources whenever possible. Example: I don't take CNN's word for what Putin or whomever says, I actually take the effort to find the speech/interview and read/watch/listen to it myself. (warning: if you do this, you'll discover that most of the western media lies, all the time, about everything) I also check a large variety of sources, including some which I'm sure you read. However when I check such publications as the WaPo, CNN, NYTimes, et al I'm more interested in what lies they're telling the gullible serfs than using them as reliable sources of information. A very important question to ask yourself whenever you're consuming any media is 'Why am I seeing this?', 'Why is this being shown to people?', or 'Cui Bono?'. Few seem capable of asking this question objectively, and instead take almost everything they see and read at face value (if they bother to learn anything at all). An incomplete list of information sources (on a variety of topics) that I've used within the last week or so (in no particular order):

Untrue. Nations with large militaries are very capable of waging offensive military actions of a relatively small size without the support (or even knowledge of) most of the populace. The US and UK especially have done this innumerable times over the last ~120 and ~300 years respectively. Moreover, those who control the levers of power on/in a nation can even wage large offensive wars in that nation's name without the legitimate support of a majority of it's populace. A good case in point is the US and World War 1 (If a nation has the legitimate support of a majority of it's populace for war, conscription is not needed). In the case of Russia v. Ukraine, it's fairly safe to say that most Russians who support the war do not look at it as a war of aggression, but a war of liberation. This aspect being largely ignored and obfuscated in most of the dishonest western media outlets. The more astute realize this war is much larger than Russia v Ukraine, and has been going on for much longer than since February 2022.

You''re offering nothing objective here. It's a picture of a destroyed building, with zero context. There's no proof of what this building is, no proof of who destroyed it, not even any proof this building is in the vicinity of Ukraine.

Incorrect. Those working hard to dehumanize Russians, are the same people who dehumanized Iraqis, said there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, who tell you that Ukraine is winning a war they already effectively lost, and have told you innumerable other lies over the decades. These folks seek to dehumanize a large group of people in order to promote greater war.' These people are evil. A truth about the vast majority of people the world over: Most people (whether they're Russian, Ukrainian, Iraqi, American, Libyan, Iranian, German, or whatever) just want to live their lives. They don't want war, they don't advocate for war, they don't support atrocity X in war. And when war happens, they generally do not cheer at the deaths of others, and certainly don't advocate or see such things as rape, purposeful killing of civilians, or targeting children in any way as tolerable or ok. Most people would like to see peace come sooner than later. The exceptions are generally either the pure evil folks who own/control the media or the gullible people who fall for the lies of the media. If you've allowed the media to dehumanize any peoples on the planet in your eyes, especially such a large number as the ~150 million Russians in the world, and especially any culture which has deep roots in Christianity (which generally holds a higher value on human life than most (but not all) other cultures on the planet) you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed, and yourself to lose some of your humanity in the process. Please endeavor to not do that.