Category Archives: culture

“Journalists”

Posted on by
3

The NLMSM is getting their own tactics, on occasion, used against them.

And they’re squalling like stuck pigs.

Last week, a New York Times editor, Tom Wright-Piersanti, was demoted after 10-year-old tweets mocking Jews and American Indians resurfaced and were widely covered by conservative outlets.

But, but—no fair! [emphasis added]

“But using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for—or as a warning not to pursue—coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power,” wrote reporters Jeremy Peters and Kenneth Vogel.

Here, though, are a couple of examples of “news media scrutinizing people in positions of power” (I’m omitting the NLMSM’s conspiracy-peddling here):

[A] CNN crew showed up on an elderly woman’s lawn in Florida to publicly shame her for unknowingly sharing a “Russian-coordinated event” on her Facebook page. Consequently, the woman received waves of violent threats, abuse, and harassment online.

And

[T]he Daily Beast reporter Kevin Poulsen doxed a black forklift operator from New York who doctored a video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Naming the man would have been entirely legitimate.  Doxing, however, goes a bridge—a deliberate bridge—too far. Doxing someone publishes his address, his personal contact data, where he works, the names and place of work of his wife, and the names of his children—and it often includes where those children go to school.

But the screaming from pseudo-journalists is this: don’t you dare do to us what we do to you. You cannot hold us to our own standards. We’re special, and these are special tools.

Can there be any further question of the fundamental dishonesty of the press, or of the NYT in particular?

No, Mssrs Peters and Vogel. You’re not that special, and neither are the public’s tool of discourse and criticism.  You are that disgusting, though.  And Wright-Piersanti?  Look for him to be quietly repromoted in a bit.

 

h/t Grim’s Hall

A Hypocrisy in Texas

Posted on by
Reply

The Texas State government has passed a law making it illegal for government entities in the state of Texas to enter into a transaction with an abortion provider or an abortion provider’s affiliates.

Austin, the State’s capital, thinks it knows better and is working to get 150 stacks folded into its 2020 city budget to fund abortion services.  Here’s Austin city council member Greg Casar, making plain the hypocrisy:

In Austin, we believe and announce that everyone has a right to healthcare. We believe and announce that abortion is healthcare, and we refuse to back down on protecting our continuance basic rights.

Everyone but babies have a right to healthcare, that is.  The city is working hard to turn its collective back on a baby’s basic right to life.

Keep Austin Weird is the city’s unofficial motto.  With folks like Casar, and his supporters Mayor Pro Tempore Delia Garza and fellow council members Leslie Pool and Paige Ellis in the city’s government, the motto is closer to Keep Austin Bloody.

Gun “Control”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s student-written Future View column turned to gun control recently, and Rasmus Haure-Peterson, a philosophy and economics major at the University of Oxford, had a thought in his letter.  He wrote, in part,

Given the spree of mass shootings, some targeted gun-control measures are needed for the sake of a safer America, even if they curb some people’s rights on the margins. But gun-rights advocates won’t make that concession unless they know that giving an inch won’t cost them a mile.

Haure-Peterson was on the right track until he got to the first part of this. It’s wrong, morally and legally, to punish—especially under the insidious guise of “restrictions,” or during the hysteria of “mass shootings”—everyone for the crimes of a few. Go after the few.

He got back on track with the last. As long as the Left and their Progressive-Democratic Party flat refuse to say what their gun control limiting principle is, the only possible conclusion is that they’re after the natural limit: taking all of our weapons.

Standing Tall

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain has said that it will abide by British law regarding cross-border movement of persons. European Union law will no longer have applicability, with effect from 31 October, Great Britain’s departure date from the EU.  Unless the EU agrees, and begins concretely, to negotiate in good faith a serious departure régime.

Oh, the hoo-raw.  How dare those Brits follow through instead of kowtowing to their betters in Brussels?

Rebecca Staudenmaier, writing at the link, also mischaracterizes the move.

The move is a departure from UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, who had said the government would end free movement “as soon as possible” if the UK left the EU without a withdrawal deal, suggesting the rules could be phased out.

This is no departure from May. On the contrary, this is a solidification of her position: it clearly defines what “as soon as possible” means.  Phase out? That phasing has just begun, if Brussels will get serious about negotiating the departure.  Indeed, that transition period has been going on, tacitly, since Great Britain made clear its intention to go out from the EU.  Phasing merely has been formalized with this announcement.

Indeed, here’s what the British Home Office actually has said on this subject [bold face emphasis added]:

EU citizens and their families are welcome to stay and there are no changes to the deadline to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme.
This scheme covers all EU citizens and their families living in the UK by 31 October, and EU citizens have until at least 31 December 2020 to apply.
Here is a short explainer:
What is happening? Is freedom of movement ending on October 31?
We are leaving the EU on 31 October come what may. This will mean that freedom of movement as it currently stands will end on 31 October when the UK leaves the EU.

And

EU citizens will still be able to come to the UK on holiday and for short trips, but what will change is the arrangements for people coming to the UK for longer periods of time and for work and study.

Hmm….

Even though the transition period has begun, it will extend for 15 months after Great Britain leaves, and it’s quite a generous transition, to boot.  Much more so than Brussels’ departure demands and May’s meek acquiescence to.

Of course, there are problems with this.

In a phone call with the EU Settlement Scheme office helpline, activist and former Change UK candidate Nora Mulready said she was told that EU citizens would have difficulty reentering the UK if they hadn’t applied by the Brexit departure date.
Those who hadn’t applied “would no longer be entitled to [freedom of movement] rights to live and work and be in Britain,” she said the office told her.

That’s a very serious problem.  Mulready apparently thinks EU citizens are so grindingly stupid or otherwise incompetent that they can’t figure out that they need to make their applications—in the 71 days that they have.  That just isn’t enough time for an adult continental.  Wow.

Unnamed Liberal Democrats (here’s NLMSM policy again) claim this policy is reckless.

Not at all. What’s been reckless is the EU’s bad faith pretense of negotiation for a smooth exit, instead using the talks and outcome to punish the Brits for their effrontery and to serve as a warning to other nations contemplating the presumption of leaving.

Here’s hoping a Johnson government is good to its word.

Naivete and Hong Kong

Posted on by
Reply

Bill McGurn usually does better than this.  He suggested

If the governments in Beijing and Hong Kong would show an ounce of that humility, the protests might be over tomorrow.

Presumably that would include an apology by Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam, per his piece’s headline.

It’s hard to believe, though, that McGurn would be this naive. Lam’s apology, and PRC and Hong Kong government “humility” would be nothing more than empty, unbelievable words. Lam needs to fully withdraw and cancel, as though it had never existed, the extradition bill that her PRC masters instructed her to put forward, not merely HIA it.

Then she and her deputies and cabinet need to resign and repair to the mainland.

Then Xi needs to withdraw his PLA units from the city’s front porch.

All of that would still leave the PRC government wholly untrustworthy and its Hong Kong branch mostly so, but at least the threat would be pushed back a little bit.

Never forget: the Hong Kong people are in the streets because they can trust neither the PRC’s government nor its Hong Kong branch.