Tag Archives: responsibilities

Dishonesty?

Posted on by
Reply

Or Cowardice?

Recall The New York Times‘ reporter, Katie Benner, who tweeted out the following, regarding 10s of millions of Americans:

Her tweets read, in case the image proves unreadable,

Today’s #January6thSelectCommittee underscores the America’s current, essential natsec dilemma: Work to combat legitimate national security threats now entails calling a politician’s supporters enemies of the state. /1
As Americans, we believe that state power should not be used to work against a political figure or a political party. But what happens if a politician seems to threaten the state? If the politician continues to do so out of office and his entire party supports that threat? /2
This dilemma was unresolved by the Russia probe and 2 impeachments. With many Republicans denying the reality of the Jan. 6 attack, I doubt the #January6thCommittee will resolve it either. That leaves it up to voters, making even more essential free, fair access to the polls. /3

This time, I’m less interested in this…journalist’s…slur than I am in what she did about it. Amid the backsplash against her despicable smear of all of us average Americans so impudent as to disagree with her august self, Benner deleted those tweets. She claimed her tweets were unclearly worded.

Hogwash. If Benner truly were concerned about clarity, she would have left her tweets up, cited them in a quoting tweet or series of tweets, said they were “unclearly worded,” and then said in clear, concrete terms what she truly meant.

Benner chose not to. Instead, she chose to attempt to white wash her history—which is part of all our social history, part of the information database that all of us must use, for good or ill—to try to pretend her history didn’t actually exist.

Dishonesty or cowardice? You make the call. For me, it’s a tough call since there’s so much overlap: much of dishonesty is a form of cowardice.

“We stand for what is right across the world”

Posted on by
Reply

In a virtual Congressional hearing last Tuesday—Corporate Sponsorship of the 2022 Beijing Olympics—there was this exchange between Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) and Paul Lalli, Coca-Cola’s Global Vice President for Human Rights and corporate representative at the hearing:

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): So your company said at the time that we will continue to stand up for what is right in Georgia and across the United States. So are we to take from your statement at the time that Coca Cola will not stand up for what is right outside the United States? Because that’s what it sounds like this morning in this testimony.
PAUL LALLI, COCA-COLA’S GLOBAL VICE PRESIDENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: No, Senator, we stand up for what is right across the world. We apply the same human rights principles in the United States that we do across the world.
COTTON: Do you believe that the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against the Uyghur people?
LALLI: We’re aware of the reports of the State Department on this issue as well. There are other departments of the US government. We respect those reports. They continue to inform our program, as do reports from other from civil society.

Think about that deliberately vapid non-response. Coca Cola stands for what’s right across the world, and Coca Cola doesn’t object to the People’s Republic of China’s abuse, much less genocide, of the Uyghurs in the PRC’s Xinjiang province.

Nor was it just Cotton that the Coca-Cola rep refused to answer. Progressive-Democrat Tom Malinowski (D, NJ) pressed Lalli specifically on whether Coca-Cola would condemn any Chinese government abuses against Uyghurs. Lalli’s carefully empty response:

We respect all human rights.

It seems pretty clear: Coca Cola considers that abuse, that genocide, to be part of what’s right across the world. Because Uighurs, in Coca-Cola’s august consideration, don’t count as human or otherwise worthy of human rights.

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

Posted on by
Reply

The dishonesty of the journalism guild, that is.

Journalism professors at UNC Chapel Hill are protesting a “core values” statement that upholds objectivity as a key tenet of news reporting.

That statement says, in part,

The core values statement, installed two years ago, touts objectivity, impartiality, integrity and truth-seeking….

That business about objectivity and impartiality was scrapped after the journalist “professors” at the school objected. Because, journalists are naturally biased and opinionated (as are we all), and these worthies claim, it would be dishonest for journalists to disguise their biases as well as futile to try. Never mind that opinions could be written on the opinion pages, and even journalists are capable of being objective when they’re writing news articles, which are supposed to be factual.

They just don’t want to be objective or impartial in their…reporting. They want to take sides, they want to push their personal narratives, they want to represent those views as facts. What they insist on reporting are their biases, not the facts of events.

Sadly, though, this is simply an example of how far from Caesar’s wife are journalists and their guild.

“Hold the Floor”

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) is pretending he doesn’t want to get rid of the filibuster.

There’s no reason to protect it, other than you’re going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done. Nothing at all will get done. There’s a lot at stake. The most important one is the right to vote, that’s the single most important one.

So far, so good.

But. Because there’s always a but.

Biden referenced former Senator Strom Thurmond (D at the time) of South Carolina, who once conducted a 24-hour filibuster in a failed bid to halt passage of civil rights legislation in 1957.

And then he gave his game away with this:

The president reiterated his stance that lawmakers should be required to “hold the floor,” or deliver continued remarks in the Senate chamber, in order to maintain a filibuster.

What happened after Thurmond’s “hold the floor” filibuster? A straight party-line, strictly partisan vote on that bill. Just as would have been done were the filibuster abolished outright, only with a few hours’ delay.

The point of a cloture vote of 60 or more Senators agreeing to bring a bill to the floor for debate—even strictly partisan debate—is to force a measure of bipartisanship to legislation, even if it’s only a matter of some Senators from the minority party agreeing enough with the bill to debate it.

Requiring “holding the floor,” requiring Senators to speak to exhaustion, as the means of filibustering is no filibuster at all. It only delays the strictly partisan, party line, vote for some hours.

An honest Senate, a truly deliberative body, will keep the cloture vote filibuster.

“King’s X”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Progressive-Democrat-run cities are crying against the backdrop of the explosions in crime, including violent crime, that followed their loud and proud defunding of their police forces.

The article centers on Dallas, TX, but that center applies to the myriad other Progressive-Democrat-run cities that have moved to defenestrate their police.

I obviously don’t speak for others, but for my paycheck, I wouldn’t apply for, nor would I accept, a position as a police officer in any of those cities until there occurred a complete turnover of the men and women in those governments. The incumbents have shown themselves entirely untrustworthy, especially by cops.

Innocent people would continue to be hurt—the minority of voters who wanted different candidates elected but lost those elections? Perhaps. However, karma applies to those who sit on the sidelines, too, and the majority of those allegedly innocent minority of voters chose to continue as eligible voters and sit on the sidelines rather than bestir themselves to be voting voters.

Pericles, some years ago, said words to the effect of Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you. Those disinterested ones are experiencing the inevitable outcome right alongside those whose interest includes that defunding.