Category Archives: culture

Ignorance of Opinionators

Posted on by
Reply

In the excerpt of her opinion piece in the New Yorker that is quoted in The Wall Street Journal‘s Notable and Quotable section last Sunday, Susan Glasser decried the relative quiescence in DC compared to other nation’s capitals regarding President Donald Trump’s (R) foreign policy moves.

There were no major protests in the quiescent capital…. These acts were a far cry from the popular uprisings that presumably would have convulsed Paris or any other European city if the President of the republic suddenly and unilaterally reoriented the nation’s geopolitical strategy, turned on its major trading partners, and allowed the world’s richest man to cut hundreds of thousands of federal workers and billions of dollars in government services.

Unilaterally reoriented? Never mind the petty cultural differences between the United States and European nations. Those nations’ governments do not have their legislatures and Executives as separate, coequal branches of government. Instead, those nations blur the lines between the two, with many explicitly subordinating the Executive function to the legislative.

The United States is the only nation that separates the Legislative, Executive—and the Judicial (see Great Britain for a subordinated judicial function)—into their separate and equal authority branches. In our Executive in particular, those functions with foreign policy input—State, Defense, Commerce, and some others—are explicitly subordinate to, not equal functions with, the Chief Executive of that Branch, the President of the United States.

And yet she bleated, how dare the chief of foreign policy in our system of governance be the one making foreign policy decisions instead of surrendering that responsibility to a subordinate or to a committee of subordinates?

Glasser’s ignorance of the hierarchical nature and structure of the American Executive Branch is astounding.

Don’t Care? Or Don’t Care?

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald Baker, in his Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed, worried that no one cares about news writers and news opinionators “harrumphing” about the doings of the Trump administration. His subheadline:

Journalists harrumph at Trump’s actions, but no one cares anymore. I say that with no satisfaction.

He then listed some horribles committed by those news writers and opinionators:

Moral affront that a president who has already answered more questions from reporters than his predecessor did in four years should choose which subgroup of White House journalists gets even closer to him. Panicked warnings about access to national-security information when the new team at the Pentagon moves some of the most entitled titles out of their privileged real estate in the building. Bilious incomprehension when a newspaper owner who has kept them in jobs for the last decade has the temerity to say he has a right to determine what editorial stance the paper should take.

Baker then lamented:

The ability of the traditional media to influence events is attenuated to the point of near extinction….
No one cares anymore.

That’s only the latest beginning, though. This crop of writers and opinionators have too often lied to us, whether by commission or omission:

• lying about Trump’s collusion with Russia over the 2016 election, when it was the Clinton campaign doing the colluding
• spiking the Hunter Biden laptop story
• lying about which “good people on both sides of the question” in a Trump Charlottesville speech, claiming he was talking about rioters when he was talking about the debates over which statues to take down, if any statures were to be
• lying about Trump’s claim that the Wuhan Virus was a hoax when he had plainly said that Democrat hyping of the virus was the hoax
• LATimes announcing that it would no longer print letters to the editor disputing, much less refuting, the idea that the climate crisis was overblown
• NYTimes announcing early in the 2016 campaign season that there could be no objectivity in news reporting; journalists had to pick sides in their reporting
• a major broadcast news speaker announcing that there were not two sides to every story, only one, the news speaker’s
• a major cable news opinionator smearing Tea Partiers as tea baggers
• spiked stories regarding ex-President Joe Biden’s (D) mental decline

That list goes on and on.

This remark of Baker’s, though, is central to his own egregious bias and why we don’t trust his “media:”

Holding powerful people accountable by reporting things they don’t want reported was always the most important role news played.

The most important role of honest journalists—a vanishingly small group—is most assuredly not holding powerful people accountable by reporting things they don’t want reported, and it never has been. Their role, their job, is—always and everywhere—to report the news objectively and completely, to provide their opinionating on separate pages from their reporting and to keep their opinionating solely informed by balanced facts and logic. Holding powerful people accountable will fall out of that naturally, and it is we consumers of news and opinion—actual, honestly presented news and opinion—who will do the accountability holding, not arrogant, self-important news writers and opinionators.

It’s not that no one cares about the harrumphing, however justified or not that harrumphing might be. It’s that no one cares about anything news writers and opinionators spill pixels and ink over—they’ve shown themselves as a group to be wholly and intrinsically dishonest.

No one believes what news writers or opinionators say or write or post. Baker closed his piece with this:

Can we get back to a healthy, trusted objectivity in journalism, so that it again becomes a vehicle for accountability?

He then proceeded to claim that AI could help today’s writers and opinionators achieve this. He’s wrong on both accounts. The current crop of news writers and opinionators have shown themselves too dishonest to ever be trustworthy again. A healthy, trusted objectivity in journalism cannot be achieved so long as these remain on our pages and televisions. They must be replaced en masse by an entirely new population of journalists, schooled in objectivity, factual and complete reporting, logical and factually informed opinion writing, and the ethical necessity of both.

This new crop, on taking their office, must do one thing immediately. Since journalists have long since walked away from their editorial requirement of at least two on-the-record sources to corroborate anonymously sourced claims, the new crop must state in clear, concrete, and measurable terms what new standard of journalistic integrity they will follow and that us news and opinion consumers can follow and assess their performance.

That the current crop is incapable of satisfying Baker’s question or of satisfying the standards requirement is further illustrated by Baker’s repetition of his basic thesis in that last clause of his question. I repeat, then: it is not the job of journalism to hold anyone accountable; that’s the job of us consumers of news and opinion. It is the job of journalists to report and separately to offer opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Defeated?

Posted on by
Reply

Transgender track and field athlete Sadie Schreiner likely thinks he’s a big deal for having finished first in some USA Track and Field Open Masters Championships running events. Lots of girls chose to sit out those events, considering it a waste of their time to run against a boy.

I have some…quibbles…about the news writer’s characterization of those events’ outcomes. In the 200 meter dash,

Schreiner defeated 14-year-old runner-up Zwange Edwards, 16-year-old third-place finisher Zariah Hargrove, 15-year-old Leah Walker, and 18-year-old Ainsley Rausch.

Defeated? Nah. He finished ahead of those girls because he ran faster than they did.

Nor were Edwards, Hargrove, Walker, or Rausch runner-up, third-place finisher, or lower down. Among the girls who were competing in that race, they were first, runner-up, third-place, and fourth-place respectively.

“Defeating” requires there to have been a contest in the first place. There was none of that here, and there nearly universally is no contest in which a boy competes against girls.

Progressive-Democratic Party Version of Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

A Conservative legislator in Maine spoke against boys competing in girls’ sports, and she posted the image of the State’s Class B girls high school pole vault champion—a boy competing against girls and who as a boy competing against boys the prior year who could do no better than fifth.

Maine’s Progressive-Democratic Party legislators promptly voted 75-70 to censure the Conservative, Congresswoman Laurel Libby (R, 90th District). Nor does Maine do an ordinary censure: under the Maine constitution, by censuring Libby, they have denied her any right to speak on the Maine House of Representatives floor, or even to vote on any legislation before the Maine House. As the WSJ editors noted, that also denies her constituents any representation, disenfranchising them.

Of course, Party knows that, too. Party politicians claim that speaking and voting would be restored to Libby were she to apologize. But for what would she apologize? Having done nothing wrong, apologizing would both be dishonest intrinsically, and it would be cowardly appeasement.

Libby is made of sterner stuff, and she has said she will not apologize.

Those WSJ editors also posited a warning:

Democrats should be considering whether they really want to go down the road of regulating posts on social media.

But that’s what the Progressive-Democrats have been doing for some years already—see Twitter and Facebook during the first Trump administration and throughout the Biden administration.

This is the censorship which we can expect to be inflicted nation-wide if Party ever regains control over our nation. Speech is free when Party permits it.

That’s OK

Posted on by
1

What sort of officer does our military establishment really need?

If President Trump and Elon Musk are serious about efficiency at the Pentagon, they might start by reforming SkillBridge. The program began as a well-intentioned effort to reduce veteran unemployment but now pays promising officers to leave the military for careers in investment banking and consulting.

The article’s authors expanded on this:

Junior officers are most likely to separate from the military after five or 10 years, after they have fulfilled their service requirements but before they feel the pull of a generous pension that begins vesting after 20 years. By providing an off-ramp into high-paying corporate jobs during this critical window, SkillBridge gives motivated officers an incentive to leave when they might otherwise have stayed.

The authors’ concerns are, for the most part, valid: the junior officers involved in operations and operations support—loggies and transporters—are the ones on the line, in contact or near contact with the enemy forces, and they’re the ones making the real-time tactical decisions necessary to execute their units’ larger orders regarding that battle and the environment surrounding that battle. These are the ones our military most needs in this context.

The authors concerns, though, are overbroad. While our military branches need some money manager officers, they don’t necessarily need “consultant” officers. What they do need, far more and in sufficient numbers, is what they can least afford to lose: those warfighting and direct warfighting support officers.