Charlie Gard and the British Government

Or, Charlie Gard and sovereignty.

Charlie Gard is the baby with a rare genetic disease that has damaged his brain, probably fatally and soon.  The baby’s parents want to be able to try alternative treatments, or in the alternative, be allowed to bring him home to die there with his parents who love him rather than encumbered by the state’s bureaucrats and representatives, his parents also by-the-way present, in an emptily sterile hospital room.

The British government has chosen to not allow any of this: the baby must die in the hospital.  The EU’s Court of Human Rights, in a breathtaking repudiation of its mission, has sided with the British government.  Understand: that the Brit government and the EU in their ruling have sided with the hospital in which Charlie is being held is neither here nor there.  Both the Brit government and the EU Court could have sided with the baby’s parents, and each chose not to.

Which, as The Wall Street Journal put it in their op-ed at the link, raises a question:

Whose baby is Charlie, anyway—his parents’ or the state’s? In this delicate case, Britain’s national care system has elevated technical expertise over parental love.

In this, the WSJ has misunderstood.  It’s the Brit government that has decided, not the bureaucrats of the NHS.  It is the government of the home of 1984 that has claimed this baby, poor Charlie Gard, as its ward.

With the British government’s ruling, it has made parents irrelevant and claimed all children to be wards of the state.  By extension, the British government has made all citizens of Great Britain, raised from early childhood as wards of the state, themselves wards of the state.

The citizens of Great Britain are not sovereign in their own nation.  Only Government is sovereign.

The Europe the Left Wants Us to be Like

Germany’s Bundestag has enacted legislation that not only attacks the concept of free speech (apparently an American concept, and not a human one), but also requires private enterprises to be the government’s enforcers of the new law.

Under the new legislation, social media companies have 24 hours to remove posts that obviously violate German law [hate speech, fake news, terror propaganda, and the like] and have been reported by other users. In cases that are more ambiguous, Facebook and other sites have seven days to deal with the offending post. If they don’t comply with the new legislation, the companies could face a fine of up to 50 million euros ($57.1 million).

And it’s government that will decide what constitutes hate speech, what news is fake, what is propaganda.  As if any of this should be proscribed by government.

The answer to unpopular speech, the answer to hurtful speech, is not silence but yet more speech.  Apparently, though, that’s another solely American concept and one that’s wholly missed in Europe.

Sadly, this is what our own Progressive-Democrat Left wants for us, too.  Oh, wait—they’ve already shown their attitude toward free speech.  At colleges and universities, at “protests” in DC, etc.

The Specialness of Snowflakes

The New York Times newsroom is going to walk out (as I write this) on Thursday because they don’t like the cutbacks in editors (an understandable concern, even if the newsroom denizens offered no alternative) and other personnel reductions the paper is being forced to make in an effort to reduce costs to a survivable level.  It’s their plaints, though, that drew my attention.  The copy editors group wrote a letter to Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Joseph Kahn in which they said in part,

You often speak about the importance of engaging readers, of valuing, investing, and giving a voice to readers. Dean and Joe: we are your readers, and you have turned your backs on us.

News flash, guys.  Baquet’s and Kahn’s readers, the NYT‘s readers, are the customers who pay around $325/yr for a subscription, or more than $500/yr for both print and online subscriptions.  You guys get paid to read your boss’ paper in order to make error corrections.

NYT reporters sent a letter to the same targets in solidarity with the copy editors.

Requiring them to dance for their supper sends a clear message to them, and to us, that the respect we have shown the Times will not be reciprocated.

Respect has to be earned, guys.  You have a legitimate beef regarding the lack of transparency in personnel moves your paper is making (another part of your letter), but respect has to be earned the same way any honest American earns it: through actual deeds.  You guys don’t get respect just because you think you’re special.  In particular, you utterly disrespect your readers—those paying customers—when you masquerade unsubstantiated rumors, which you amusingly attribute to “senior officials,” to sources who “are speaking anonymously because they’re not authorized to speak,” and the like, as fact.  And you do that while also carefully declining to corroborate those rumors with on-the-record remarks.

Question for you both—and for Baquet and Kahn—when y’all come back to work on Friday (today, as I post this): did anyone notice your absence?  Besides the janitors, I mean.  Folks like actual customers.

Fake News

During a recent White House press briefing, the White House press representative Sarah Huckabee Sanders was answering a question from another reporter, when Brian Karem, of the Prince Georges County Sentinel, interrupted her and his colleague (I suppose his words were more important than others’ so he was going to say them regardless of who actually was speaking) to whine about the NLMSM being called out by the Evil Administration for press’ penchant for publishing misleading rumors disguised as fact.

You’re inflaming everybody right now with those words[.]

Huckabee Sanders didn’t dignify his arrogant rudeness with a response.

Karem took his beef to MSNBC News and Chris Matthews’ show:

There are reporters who have given their lives to get news to the public and to be labeled as “dishonest” and “fake news” rankles me[.]

Indeed there have been reporters who’ve sacrificed their lives, sometimes via miserable and lingering deaths, to get news to the public.  The whining, worse, today’s inflaming pseudo-journalism and the dishonesty of reporters who print deliberately unsubstantiated rumors purveyed by carefully anonymous “sources” sullies and insults the memory of those reporters.

Guys like Karem rankle me.  But he has gotten his 15 minutes of fame with his rant.

Misleading NLMSM

Again.  On 22 Jun, CNN published, as part of its pseudo-journalism series on alleged ties between President Donald Trump and his associates and Russia, a claim that Anthony Scaramucci, an informal advisor to President Donald Trump, was tied to the Russian Direct Investment Fund, a sovereign fund of the Russian government and led by Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, with whom readers might have a passing familiarity.  The fund has been sanctioned by the US government (by the Obama administration; although it’s not under Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, then or now, another of CNN‘s false claims), hence the nefariousness of Scaramucci’s alleged association and the depth of CNN‘s smear against him.

After Breitbart, et al., exposed the misleading, anonymous, single-source rumor nature of CNN‘s hit piece, CNN further assaulted the public’s ability to know by deleting the piece from the Internet, rather than merely admitting it was false and retracting it.  CNN with this move has chosen to censor the news in addition to making it up.

But that’s not all.  CNNMoney Executive Editor Rich Barbieri sent a memo to CNN staff requiring that, henceforth,

No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason [VP of Premium Content Video Farkas] first.

There’s less to that, though, than meets the eye.  The editors now demanding pre-publication review are the same editors who allowed the carefully unsubstantiated story to be published in the first place.  These are the same editors who set that standard in the beginning. Too, given the volume of writing and the pace of publication, how carefully will that “review” be done on all those stories, even on a single subject? They’ll just get a lick and a CNN promise. And what about all the unsubstantiated rumors on other subjects these guys publish or repeat?

There’s more to it, too, than meets the eye.  CNN is adding some seeming scapegoats to its “corrections:”

CNN announced late Monday that Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris have left the network.
Frank wrote the story. Lichtblau edited the piece, and Haris oversaw the CNN department, which is a new investigative unit.

More importantly, there’s still no requirement for corroboration by on-the-record sources of those “anonymous” sources’ claims.

Nothing is changing at CNN.