Tag Archives: responsibilities

Objectivity

Posted on by
Reply

Leonard Downie, late of The Washington Post, and writing in WaPo last Monday, decried the objective use of objectivity in today’s journalism while occupying quite a number of column inches offering “objective” techniques for maintaining credibility in the preferred lack of objectivity. The core of his objection is this:

They [reporters, editors, and media critics] believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change, and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences, and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.

This, though, is just one more way in which these wonders, abetted by folks like Downie, seek to control what us average Americans know about the world around us: they deliberately, consciously, and mendaciously conflate opinion writing with fact and event reporting.

Those concerns—race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change, etc—all are valid subjects about which to write, but they belong on the opinion pages instead of being dishonestly masqueraded as facts. If these…persons…maintained that separation, they truly would be pursuing truth.

Objectivity, after all, really is expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice—everywhere, that is, except in the Left’s Newspeak Dictionary.

“Society’s” Needs

Posted on by
Reply

Linn-Mar Community School Board (the district is on the outskirts of Cedar Rapids, IA) member Rachel Wall thinks she knows more about what “society’s needs” are and what should be taught “society’s” children than those children’s parents do. She posted—and she was deadly serious—on Facebook

The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community[.]

That got her enough public pushback, including calls for her resignation, that Wall added a post that she actually insisted was clarifying:

This post has garnered much ire and although I thought the sentiment was clear, it is obvious that’s not the case. Please allow me to clarify. This post doesn’t say that parents don’t matter or that students don’t matter. It doesn’t say that parents shouldn’t be involved or that students shouldn’t be our focus. What it says is that public education is an ecosystem.

Public education is an ecosystem. And she gets to define who the members of her ecosystem are. They plainly do not include the parents. Parents are not, in her exalted view, part of society. Notice, too, that while Wall doesn’t say that parents and students don’t matter, she also doesn’t say that they do matter.

She’ll hear politely what parents say, and then she’ll proceed without further regard. Children are not to be educated, they’re merely tools with which Wall and her cronies intend to mold their version of community. That status as mere tool, of course, makes the children her focus. Who uses a tool without focusing on it?

Please allow me to clarify. Parents are society. Their children are tomorrow’s society. No one is better suited to determine the needs of society today and tomorrow than society’s members: parents today and tomorrow and today’s children grown into tomorrow.

All teachers are qualified to teach is the mechanics of how to operate in society—STEM materials—how we got here—the facts of history—and how we’ll interact with each other—political history and current civics.

Sadly, dangerously, teachers of Wall’s ilk are unqualified even for that, and district managers like Wall are unqualified for anything related to our children.

Not Charismatic Enough

Posted on by
Reply

…to be President. That’s the Left’s journalism take on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R).

For instance:

Politico columnist Jonathan Martin quoted Republican donor Francis Rooney calling DeSantis “a little reserved and dry” compared to past presidents….

The horror.

CNN‘s John King:

One of the questions for Ron DeSantis is he’s not a backslapper. He is not a glad-handler [sic].

Oh, my.

And so it goes on the Left. They do like President Joe Biden’s (D) charisma, though. He’s possessed of sufficient charisma that he reads his answers to press questions, he stumbles over his teleprompter prompts, he smirks and refuses to answer questions from the press. And this:

President Biden said Thursday he has “no regrets” about his handling of classified documents that were discovered at his home and former Washington, DC, office.

Because it’s charismatic to deliberately mishandle classified documents.

That’s the Left’s charisma.

A Few Questions

Posted on by
1

Then-Vice President Joe Biden (D) retained an (unknown and still growing) number of classified documents, taking them with him when he vacated his Vice Presidency in January 2017. I have some questions. In no particular order,

  • he signed the documents out of their secure storage, or he had a staffer sign them out for him. Where are the sign-out logs showing what document(s) were signed out and who signed them out—including for whom if it wasn’t the actual user of the docs?
  • when were the documents signed out?
  • what is the level of classification of the documents?
  • What is the subject matter (in general terms) of the classified documents Biden had (and still has?) squirreled away?
  • what is the nature of the documents?
    • were they finished products?
    • drafts?
    • notes for a draft or taken during meetings that were then classified by the note-taker?
    • some combination of the three?
  • what was Biden using these classified documents for or intending to use them for when he took them with him as he left office?
  • where is the documentation that the National Archives receives that identifies Executive Branch classified documents as they’re created?
  • when did the National Archives receive that documentation?
  • when do National Archive logs indicate the National Archives received the classified documents themselves, as listed on that prior documentation?
  • from whom do those logs indicate the National Archives received the documents?
  • when did the National Archives start asking questions about the classified documents it knew had been created but had not yet received?
  • where are the certifications the National Archives receives that the classified documents it received are the only copies of those documents?
  • who signed those certifications?

In the end, it’s clear that Biden, despite his claims to the contrary, knew and knows full well that he had those documents and has kept them all this time. He’s the one who signed them out or had a staffer sign them out for him. He’s the one who didn’t return them and sign them in when he was through or had a staffer do so in his name. He’s the one who moved those classified documents, or authorized an assistant to move them, from his VP offices to…someplace…between the time he had them in his VP offices and the time the Penn Biden Center was created. He’s the one moved those classified documents, or authorized an assistant to move them, from their ad hoc location variously to the Penn Biden Center and to his residence-cum-classified storage facility.

Finally, as Vice President, he had no declassification authority whatsoever beyond the authority of anyone with a clearance to declassify the notes he took and classified at the time he took them.

One more Finally: Biden says (now through his Presidential staffers) that he has no visitor logs for the building he occupies in Delaware and in which he garages his Corvette because, he claims, that’s his residence. This is nonsense. As soon as Biden moved those classified documents into his garage and a room in that building adjacent to his garage, that building ceased being his residence and became a classified storage facility. Visitors are required to be logged in and out of classified storage facilities, regardless of who lives there, and any of those visitors or Biden himself who viewed or removed from storage for viewing those classified documents are required to log them out and back in. The lack of logs is illegal.

One last Finally: Biden claims he advised the National Archives promptly as soon as his uncleared personal lawyers noticed he still had them. Promptly? He’s known for the last six years that he had these documents. What took him so long to get around to “promptly?”

“violent extremist views”

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the cowardice and the bigotry of the Los Angeles Police Department management coterie. That crowd has banned the Thin Blue Line flag from being displayed in any of the department’s public areas. Never mind that that flag symbolizes support for the policemen and policewomen who are in the streets on their beats protecting the rest of us.

LAPD Chief Michel Moore defended the controversial move in an email sent to Fox News Digital, saying, “Yesterday, we received a community complaint of the presence of a Blue Line Flag” with “the view that it symbolized support for violent extremist views, such as those represented by the Proud Boys and others.”

Then Moore actually acknowledged the…bizarreness…of his move; although he doesn’t seem to recognize it.

It’s unfortunate that extremist groups have hijacked the use of the “Thin Blue Line flag” to symbolize their undemocratic, racist, and bigoted views.

But he banned the flag, anyway, instead of defending the meaning and rejecting the extremist groups‘ hijack.

The police union demurred from Moore’s move. The Los Angeles Police Protective League Board of Directors wrote in part,

It is difficult to express the level of utter disgust and disappointment with Chief Moore’s politically pandering directive to remove Thin Blue Line flags and memorials for fallen officers from all public areas within our police stations. This direction came as a result of complaints from anti-police, criminal apologists, and activists who hold too much sway over our city leaders and, unfortunately, our Chief[.]

Naked, bare-faced pandering, true enough. I think, though, it’s far worse than that: it’s cowardice and rank bigotry.

It’s cowardice because Moore and his management group caved promptly and cravenly to, in Moore’s own words, a collection of undemocratic, racist, and bigoted extremists.

It’s rank bigotry because Moore and his fellows in management carefully, consciously disregarded the violent extremism his flag ban inflicts on us average Americans who do respect the police and wish to show that respect with the Thin Blue Line flag, especially in police department public areas; it inflicts that same violent extremism on the police themselves by barring their own public display; and it favors the views of violent extremists like BLM, antifa, and other undemocratic, racist, and bigoted groups over the views of honest Americans and our cops.