A "journalist" explains why reporting "both sides is "dangerous" for democracy. Seriously.

Shame on you if you believe that journalists should report both sides of a political issue. That's because journalists are supposed to protect you from stuff you don't need or shouldn't know by not reporting the bad stuff.

That's the premise from the exulted heights of the Poynter Institute, a self-appointed guardian of truth and beauty. You'll find that's the highlighted opinion by its chief media critic, one Tom Jones under the headline: "CNN 'hewing toward the center' is not necessarily good for our democracy." He wrote:

"Pushing for fairness and completeness in journalism as well as fewer “hot takes” is never a bad idea. But that’s not the same as making sure you present both sides. Sometimes, the other side shouldn’t be given a voice, particularly if that side’s argument is based on lies or pushes harmful agendas." 

Jones wrote that as a tsk-tsk he awarded to for a Chicago Tribune editorial that boldly violated the wisdom currently infecting "journalism" as practiced by today's media: "CNN is hewing toward the center? That's good for our democracy."

Indeed it is. After echoing MSNBC's liberal bias for years, the new CNN boss thought it was a good idea just to present the news instead of slanting it. That leaves MSNBC and FoxNews to clearly represent the opposing ideologies. That's a reflection of 18th and 19th century American newspapers that were openly partisan. You'd read the paper that best represents your views and basically ignore the other side. Eventually the racket became a profession as it adopted the principle that you should report both side or, more realistically, all sides.

So, now we have returned to the old, discredited "journalism" of reporting only one side. When I broke into the field decades ago, it was acknowledged that there is a certain degree of subjectivity is selecting what should be included in the story. Especially if it was a short story of just a few hundreds words. The decision wasn't based on the reporter's biases, but on the idea that readers are justified to demand reading all sides. 

Now the "journalist's" decision is based only on what he believes is the "truth." (How odd, when a liberal principle has been there's no objective truth.) 

So, according to Jones' dictates, here's how I should report his view of journalism: Not at all.  It must be so, because I haver determine that he's passing out "misinformation" or "disinformation." You the reader must be protected from his erroneous beliefs. They must not see the light of day. They must not be allowed to show up on social media. 

He'll no doubt reply that his view is the truth and mine is not. Except in my perspective, my view is the truth and not his.  Here's a lesson:: So much of the reporting on the cause and effects of the Covid-19 pandemic were wrong. Does that mean that they shouldn't have been reported? Shouldn't the media have been more diligent in reporting the "truth" about shutting down classrooms instead of allowing themselves to be the voice of the "wrong" side? 

At best, this leads to a stand-off in which some readers are denied the entire story. Well, here's another truth: poorly informed citizens of the wide range of views among all Americans isn't good for democracy. Even if some of those views are harebrained. 

With all the woke/liberal/progressive/Democratic rhetoric about how democracy is in danger these days, perhaps they'd do us all a service and strengthen democracy by climbing down from their exulted throne and finally listen with a curious, patient and open mind to the rest of us. 

Where have all the hurricanes gone?

 

Wasn't this hurricane season supposed to be among the worst because of global warming, oops, I mean  (in accordance with woke high priests) climate change?

In Florida, we're still waiting. I've probably jinxed it; one might be arriving shortly. The first one now is hitting Puerto Rico. It was a category one, now category 3--much less destructive than the category 5 storms that cause the most damage.

Aside from this late arrival, this was supposed to be a continuation of the growing number of hurricanes, as predicted by, well, you know whom--the usual chicken littles. Here, for example is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an arm of the Commerce Department, which under the Biden administration is an arm of Susan Rice and other puppeteers:

Forecasters at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Weather Service, are predicting above-average hurricane activity this year — which would make it the seventh consecutive above-average hurricane season. NOAA’s outlook for the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, which extends from June 1 to November 30, predicts a 65% chance of an above-normal season, a 25% chance of a near-normal season and a 10% chance of a below-normal season. [Emphasis added.]

Guess we beat the odds. As even NPR--the taxpayer funded arm of climate change hysterics-- reported about the slow-starting hurricane season: "This is quite unusual and is the first time that has occurred since 1997, and is only the third time that has happened since 1950." 

But, oh dear, things still can get horrible,  NOAA still expects above normal Atlantic hurricane season.  (Updated today.) And every admission that somehow the hurricane season got off to a slow start comes with a warning that things could get a lot worse, Just one category 5 hurricane could make for a historic season, don't ya know. 

Maybe so. But I'm waiting to hear the "experts" tell us that climate change explains all this. If there's flooding, blame climate change, If there's a drought, blame climate change. Well, here's a flash: The climate's always changing from the first appearance of climate. We're in a warming cycle, but if were in a cooling cycle, the same experts would be warning that Chicago will get buried by a mile-high glacier, like it once was not too long ago in Earth age.

Yet, the media, notoriously ignorant about real science, keep suggesting that a single event is sure proof that man-made warming is real. (Never mind that the public health experts junked their expertise by inaccurately, whether by design or incompetence, giving dangerous and wrong advice about snuffing out the Covid-19 pandemic.)

As the New York Times reported about the storm surge in Alaska:

Brian Brettschneider, a climatologist based in Anchorage, said global warming had likely contributed to the severity of the storm. The explosive development of storms this far north is atypical, he said, because water temperatures are normally too cold to allow tropical cyclones to form.“There’s a strong argument to be made that climate change tipped the scales to favor this storm,” he said. [Emphasis added.]

Of course.  

NOAA continues to document how the climate is changing, how sea ice is melting and how carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, as it should. And I'm not going to be guilty of denying that the climate is changing because of a one-off event, as do so many media . 

But there's this; Can mankind really control the climate? Do you think that we can turn the climate stable, forever unchanged to suit our perceived needs? Is not it arrogant to argue that, at least at this point, that we can turn the climate into our handmaid, as if we had a thermostat that we can turn up or down? Can we be certain that every climate variable, known and yet to be known, is correct and accounted for in the climate models upon which so much of the predictions of disaster based?

There's no such thing as "settled science" as Al Gore and his doomsayer acolytes have said about climate change. Instead, climate change, just like the pandemic, has become politicized to serve the purpose of someone or something. 

So, let's truly "follow the scene" instead of corrupting it. 

 

Joe Biden is angry as hell and he won't take it anymore

Wow, that was some speech that President Joe Biden gave in which he compared "MAGA" Republicans to, well, just about anything despicable. After it was promised that this would be a unifying speech on the "battle for the soul of the nation."

Instead it was designed to give Democrats what they really wanted from Biden: Blood red meat passionately denouncing Republicans as threats to democracy and worthy of, I guess, knee capping. Hip hurray! That, along with abortion, should give  Democrats the power to stem the expected Red Tide and make a better showing in the mid-term elections. 

Well, I'm not taking it anymore either. I'll stamp my feet and give Biden my middle finger because he has accused, in a remarkable new way,  tens of millions of Republican voters of asasulting democracy by, gasp, having voted for Donald Trump. 

Attacking voters seems to be the new and goofy Democratic strategy for "bringing folks together." Take Charlie [Bend with the Wind] Crist, the one-tine Republican, one-time independent and now a Democrat running for Florida governor against Ron DeSantis. Cris told a reporter, "Those who support DeSantis should stay with him and vote for him. And. I. Don't. Want. Your. vote! If you have that hate in your heart, keep it there!"

Not that Trump also didn't hurl insults at his opponents. But I don't recall Trump or anyone else of either party telling people to vote for the other guy because he is so rotten to the core. Just like you are. Biden's and Cris' hatred for the opposition speaks volumes about their superior and insufferable self-regard. 

How the hell do either of the two know what's in the hearts of their political opposition. Painting the 74 million who voted for Trump with too-broad of a brush. It's ignorant and stupid.

There I'm speaking of those two and not all their supporters. I only wish that they would extend to Trump supporters the respect that every American citizen deserves. Instead some Democrats, like Hillary Clinton who called her opposition a "basket of deplorables" comprised of homophobes and other creeps. Ignorant shit-kickers who lack the sophistication and smarts of the elite progressives.

The saddest thing of all about Biden's speech is that he missed a monumental opportunity to enter the history books. Imagine if instead slandering his opponents, he actually lead Americans out of the swamp. Suppose he instead shocked the nation with these words:

In the spirit of working together, I will visit the southern border and see for myself the humanitarian crisis that our broken immigration laws have created. 

I will not ignore the plight of freedom-seeking people who drown trying to cross the Rio Grande. I'll talk to the unaccompanied children who face the terror of landing in a strange new land where people don't speak their languages. I'll check out the arrangements to temporarily house them. Little girls who are raped or sold as sex slaves will receive comfort and justice. I'll evaluate the steps that law enforcement is taking to stem the tide of fentanyl that is killing Americans.

 I'll meet with locals--Texans, mayors, property owners, churches, social services agencies--to see for myself the burdens and costs of trying to accommodate uninvited strangers. To see the strains on their resources. I'll try to get a handle on where these immigrants are heading and settling.

And I will recognize  that allowing millions of people to illegally sneak in a back door is terribly unfair to people who legally seek entry to America.

Everyone agrees that our immigration laws are broken. They are a confusing maze. I'll bet that only a handful of people watching my speech can accurately echo what the laws say in detail. They need to be simplified, based on the principle that America is indeed the open door to liberty.

My hope is that the visit will become a foundation for legislation that I will soon send to Congress to address the crisis on the border and to straighten out the hodgepodge of laws now on the books. It will contain items that both sides want, but not ones that fail to serve our national interest. We'll take another look at finishing The Wall and providing a path for those who have crossed illegally so they still can enjoy the fruits of our freedoms.

Some will say this is an impossible task. We will try because as hard as it will be, it is possible--if we acknowledge that there  people of good will on both sides. That we return to the principle that makes democracy work--the need for compromise, respect and mutual understanding.

My fellow Americans let us begin this work now.

If he had taken such a brave stand, he would be a statesman, a hero. He could have been a contender. Both sides will lose some of their base if Biden acts a true leader and others join the effort. But such  stunning might even be politically advantageous.It would prop up an unpopular president.  

Pie-in-the-Sky? Won't happen, ever? Especially before an election when both sides as digging with their unmoving demands. 

What we now know with unprecedented clarity that if we don't, democracy indeed will die. 

Donald Trump plunges deeper into lunacy

Even for ex-president Donald Trump, this was so extraordinary that no one probably even thought about doing it.

As a "remedy" for the "stolen" presidential election, he called for a reboot. He tweeted (the caps and the puzzling quotation marks, are his):

Now it comes out, conclusively, that the FBI BURIED THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY BEFORE THE ELECTION, knowing that if they didn't, "Trump would have easily won the 2020 Presidential election." This is massive FRAUD & ELECTION INTERFERENCE at a level never seen before in our Country. REMEDY: Declare the rightful winner [him, of course] or, and this would be the minimal solution, declare the 2020 Election irreparably compromised and have a new Election immediately.

Huh? What?!

Err...There's a small matter of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, that prescribes in detail how the election is run. Never mind that it says the president shall be elected for a term of four years, along with the vice president.

Certain questions immediately spring to mind:

How the hell is this supposed to work? Who has the power to declare the prior election to be null and void? Who has the power to order an immediate new election? President Joe Biden? Or maybe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who will stage a coup with a go-along military?

How do you get past the little something in the Constitution that is so clear and present that it can be altered, changed or overridden without the prescribed procedure for its amendment? Certainly there'd be a lawsuit that any federal judge, who hasn't lost his mind, would rule against the very idea at the immediate outset. Without even getting close to the Supreme Court hearing the case.

Can individual states--the Blue ones--opt out of a new election? Would it set off a civil war with the National Guards of Blue and Red states in combat? 

Would Mike Pence--the guy who Trump loathes because the vice president refused to illegally overturn the election on Jan. 6th--be allowed to share the ticket with Trump? Or would Trump get to pick a new vice presidential candidate? What idiot would want to run with such a crazy man?

Aside from the legal absurdity of such an idea, there are the logistics. Who establishes the rules for how to proceed with a new election and how would such a complex and costly process be carried out?

My God, the idea of an unconstitutional, unreal and illegal coup is so absurd and frightening that it could only spring from a disturbed mind. From an egomaniac who thinks that the entire country is so in love with him that they'd junk the Constitution. Mind you, Trump claims to represent the GOP, a party whose heart and soul is allegiance to the sanctity of the Constitution. 

Maybe Trump was joking. Maybe it was a "trial balloon" that has all the buoyancy of a led ballon. 

Whatever. This peek into the troubled mind of Trump should scare the hell out of anyone, I mean even those who can look beyond his personal faults or his successful policies and who think he should return to the Oval Office. 

Once again, Trump has irrefutably demonstrated that he should never again be allowed even close to the White House. 

Illegal immigrants arrive in Chicago; Mayor Lightfoot says bring them on.

As if Chicago, a city already circling the drain, could afford to feed, house, educate and care for them entirely on the taxpayer's dime. And Gov. Prtizker also threw out the welcome mat--no problem--because the state, flush with pandemic "emergency" cash can afford anything and everything.

A Lightfoot spokesman said the city "will respond with essential services while these individuals navigate the next steps of their journey and our community partners have been working diligently to provide a safety net.” Lightfoot added that it's a problem created by "the prior administration."

A Pritzker spokesperson promised  "health care screenings, the offer of COVID-19 vaccines and emergency housing, along with additional legal resettlement assistance.” 

Naturally, Chicago is a "sanctuary city" so to be consistent, Lightfoot had no choice but to be welcoming. Her response is distinctly different than mayors of Washington D.C and New York, who squealed about how unfair it was to drop this problem on their doorsteps.

A response:

1. The problem wasn't created by the "prior administration." Only someone so blinded by ideology or partisanship can fail to recognize the million-yes more than a million--illegal immigrants have "walked" across the southern border. The daily coverage of the hundreds and thousands of people wading across the Rio Grande River and walking into America is documented by Fox News. Of course, you can't believe anything Fox News reports. They've paid all those people every day to stage a walk on.

2. The burdens being imposed on northern, Democratic sanctuary cities is nothing compared to what border cities, states and towns must pay. No southern, red state escapes the arriving buses and charter flights arriving in the dark of night.

Of course, Lightfoot has nothing to say about the deadly Fentanyl from China being smuggled across the border by the Mexican drug cartels and the number of Chicagoans are killed. Not that the city is counting.

The hundreds, if not the thousands, of illegal immigrants have drowned, died of thirst in the desert, raped, sex trafficked and traumatized children have been the direct result of the Biden administration.Yet the administration claims that the border is "closed." 

President Joe Biden and his administration are stupid enough to believe that Americans are stupid enough to accept apolicy that ignores the onslaught on the southern border. 

Meanwhile, as the New York Times reported: "Nine migrants drown as dozens are set down Rio Grande: A large group attempting to cross into Texas was overcome by a fast-moving current, the authorities said."

The Democrats sell themselves as the party of compassion. How compassionate is it to stand by while your policies are killing people?