Category Archives: ethics

News Bias

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Post has a problem, and it seems to stem from the paper’s (owner Jeff Bezos’) decision to not endorse a Presidential candidate this year or, so far, in any subsequent election cycle..

The wave of customer defections after the controversial decision…has further eroded an already shrunken base of Post subscribers and heightened feelings among some staff that the paper faces an existential crisis.

Amanda Morris, WaPo “disability reporter:”

Please don’t cancel your subscriptions. It won’t impact Bezos—it hurts journalists and makes another round of layoffs more likely[.]

In keeping with guild solidarity, players from The New York Times, The Atlantic, and others chimed in, with their precious #WhyISubscribe.

250,000 have become ex-subscribers since The Decision; that’s 10% of the paper’s subscriber base.

Since the editorial room had intended to endorse Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, it seems likely that the vast majority of those cancelations are by the paper’s strong Left readers.

This would seem to show how politically unbalanced the WaPo‘s readership is. That, in turn, seems a strong indication of how biased the paper’s news room has been.

That bias is executed by the news room writers’ and editors’ decisions of which facts to include and which to omit in their news writings, what and how much personal opinion to include or try to sub rosa embed in the pieces, what stories they choose to write and what stories they choose to downplay or outright spike.

Maybe if those writers and editors can learn to be objective and balanced in news pieces and carry out their opining on the opinion pages, or if Bezos can replace his current news room with a crew of writers and editors who will and who will back up their anonymous sources with at least two on-the-record sources (which used to be a journalistic standard of integrity), the paper can begin to start being a credible source of actual news.

A Tough Move to Make

Posted on by
Reply

The headline poses the question:

Harris Doesn’t Campaign on Her Gender. Is That a Sign of Progress?

Hillary Clinton did, overtly and zealously, when she ran for President on the Progressive-Democratic Party ticket in 2016. That didn’t run out well for her, but her failure was far more a result of her being a lousy and openly arrogant candidate than it was a function of her running on her sex.

Harris’ decision to eschew running on her sex could have been a sign of progress as the headline alludes. She also isn’t campaigning on her race, for all that there was a brief back and forth with former-President and Republican Presidential campaign over her variously self-identifying as black [via Jamaica] or Indian, and that could have been a sign of progress, also.

However.

Against the backdrop of Progressive-Democrat Joe Biden’s having selected her as his running mate explicitly because she was black and a woman—what many termed, for good or ill, a diversity hire—either of those would have been a tough sell to make independently of her origin as Vice President.

The touting would have been too likely to have been taken as sexist and racist—just as Biden was accused for his selection criteria.

Minerals and Net Zero

Posted on by
Reply

McKinsey & Company, the high pockets consulting company, has expressed concern regarding the Climate Funding Industry’s net zero by 2050 goal and the minerals available to achieve it. This particular concern is buried well down in the report.

Raw materials. Demand for critical minerals, like lithium, cobalt, and rare earths, is expected to surge, but current supply is only about 10 to 35 percent of what would be needed by 2050. This is a Level 2 challenge, where supply would need to be scaled, alongside managing demand for such minerals.

McKinsey defines a Level 2 challenge as one that

require[s] the deployment of known technologies to accelerate, and for associated infrastructure and inputs to be scaled.

One of the problem here, though, is that mining minerals like lithium, cobalt, and rare earths is an immensely toxic operation, both in producing and handling these raw minerals and in the collateral production and handling of the hugely toxic mining tailings that are inextricably associated with the mining process. Those tailings, too, while not precisely forever chemicals, do last a very long time and are subject to leaching out of whatever supposedly sealed off storage area they might be in, whether from long-term deterioration of the isolation materials or from human error (vis., EPA’s failure with the Gold King Mine near Silverton, CO).

Then there’s the end-of-life disposal of the materials and devices containing these minerals when those materials and devices have worn out or failed. The minerals are still in those devices, they’re still toxic, and we still don’t have the technologies needed adequately to handle that waste.

Then there are the intermediate steps of…assembling…those minerals into the finished net zero-supporting products. They’re toxic to handle there, too, for all that they’re much more easily handled safely than while digging them out of the ground and processing them into usable form.

And that bit about managing demand—that sounds akin to managing third world demand for fossil fuels, too—they shouldn’t have any; they should be consigned to poverty, or the rest of us consigned to poverty forking over the trillions of dollars it would take to prop them up.

Much of that mining, too, is done with child and other slave labor, but that’s really a side issue in this context. It would be straightforward enough to force an end to that, if only by mining elsewhere with legitimate labor forces and technologies. The switch needs only political will and actual sincerity, vice virtue signaling, on the part of the Climate Funding Industry members.

It seems we can’t get there from here (never minding that we really don’t need to).

Oops.

 

H/t Watt’s Up With That

Harris’ Immigration Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate, and Border Czar, Kamala Harris’ immigration policy has accomplished much. Lockland, OH, Mayor Mark Mason:

Our county officials estimate that we have around 3,000 of those [illegal aliens] that have come to a village of 3,420 residents. And our complaint is, if the federal government is going to have an open borders policy, with that they need to have a policy directing these immigrants to communities that can absorb that kind of population increase[.]

And

Village Administrator Doug Wehmeyer told Fox News Digital recently that it is leading to around $150,000 in losses for the village, as the illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and are displacing local residents who are moving out of those apartments.

Except that, with the Biden-Harris/Harris-Biden administration having created the problem, it isn’t really possible to count on that administration to fix the problem. Have a policy directing illegal aliens? The administration has one, and it’s executing on it. Nor Biden nor Harris care a fig about the communities they’re flooding with these illegal aliens.

Mason again:

If you’re going to let immigrants just come over freely, you’ve got to educate them on the cultural differences in how things operate here and make them understand that some of the things that maybe you’re used to in Mauritania [isn’t] necessarily acceptable here in the United States[.]

Assimilate newcomers, whether immigrants or illegal aliens, into American culture? That’s racist according to the Left.

This flooding of Lockland and the associated decision to not bother with assimilation efforts, is an example of the depth of the destruction Harris’ immigration policy has succeeded in accomplishing.

Wait—she was Vice President, not President. True enough, but as VP and as Border Czar, she had enormous influence over the Progressive-Democrat President’s decisions. She agreed with them rather than argued against them.

Fundamentally Transform America

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what ex-President Barack Obama (D) bragged was about to occur shortly before his 2008 election victory. He got a major step of that transformation when he nationalized roughly one-sixth of our economy with his nationalization of our health care coverage industry with his Obamacare.

Now the Progressive-Democratic Party is on the verge of finishing the transformation as they sit on the knife’s edge of a sweeping election victory next week. The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial headline lays it out:

[Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala] Harris has already endorsed President Biden’s plan to impose “ethics” rules on the Justices that would invite political harassment and compromise judicial independence. Now she won’t disavow packing the Court. She has called for Democrats, if they keep the Senate in November, to bypass the 60-vote filibuster rule, letting them enact such bills without even a modicum of compromise.

Those would be the final two straws in the destruction of our federated republican democracy form of government. It would be the institution of one-party rule, with the minority party not even a loyal opposition but merely irrelevant, and the conversion of our Supreme Court and of our Federal judiciary in general from its current status as an independent, coequal check on the power of the central government into a rubber stamp of Party decisions.

The WSJ editors aren’t given to hyperbole, and they’re not being hyperbolic in their closing paragraph.

Democrats are serious. They say Mr Trump is a threat to democracy and US institutions, while they’re pledging to restructure the judiciary wholesale. Do they notice the cognitive dissonance? Apparently not. But voters might.

That’s what’s at stake next week.