Case Study of How Facts Keep Getting in the Way of a Good Story: Tear-Gassing Protesters or Church Photo-Op

Remember how Trump tear-gassed protestors in order clear them out to take a photo-op in front of a church in Lafayette Park? Virtually every left-leaning media outlet reported this as an absolute certainty. The only problem is that this narrative is false.

Glenn Greenwald takes us, step by step, through the June 1, 2020 false narrative, up to the new story, where old-fashioned tools called facts establish the foundation for discussing what really happened. Here's an excerpt from Greenwald's analysis:

The IG's conclusion could not be clearer: the media narrative was false from start to finish. Namely, he said, “the evidence did not support a finding that the [U.S. Park Police] cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.” Instead — exactly as Hemingway's widely-mocked-by-liberal-outlets article reported — “the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31.” Crucially, “ the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day."

The detailed IG report elaborated on the timeline even more extensively. It was “on the morning of June 1” when “the Secret Service procured anti-scale fencing to establish a more secure perimeter around Lafayette Park that was to be delivered and installed that same day.” The agencies had “determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence.” Indeed, “we found that by approximately 10 a.m. on June 1, the USPP had already begun developing a plan to clear protesters from the area to enable the contractor to safely install the anti-scale fence” — many hours before Trump decided to go.

The clearing of the Park, said the IG Report, had nothing to do with Trump or his intended visit to the Church; in fact, those responsible for doing this did not have any knowledge of Trump's intentions

This story is not an outlier. U.S. media is constantly getting things starkly wrong. For example, See Glenn Greenwald's article on the worst ten media failures on the Trump-Russia story.

Continue ReadingCase Study of How Facts Keep Getting in the Way of a Good Story: Tear-Gassing Protesters or Church Photo-Op

Aaron Mate Responds to TYTs Hatchet Job by Citing Basic Principles of Real Journalism.

It's amazing what passes for journalism these days. Aaron Mate's frustration is also my frustration. Why is it that the "bad" guys like Aaron (and Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi) needs to keep giving Journalism 101 lectures to those who refuse to take the bottom-up (facts first) approach to presenting the "news." Here is an excerpt from Aaron's recent article, "McCarthyite meltdown shows how Russiagate, Syria propaganda captured 'left' mediaIn slandering me, The Young Turks demonstrated how Western chauvinism and careerism have been normalized in progressive media spaces."

If Kasparian and Uygur were really to be "quite honest with you" and with themselves, they'd come clean about my real crime, in their eyes: being a journalist who does my job. One of the tasks that entails is questioning official narratives put forth by the intelligence agencies and foreign-policy wonks that keep US empire running, and examining evidence on its merits, regardless of partisan or careerist utility. Apparently, TYT has made it a policy to perform neither of these tasks, and, far worse, to slander someone who does.

Continue ReadingAaron Mate Responds to TYTs Hatchet Job by Citing Basic Principles of Real Journalism.

Another Courageous Teacher Resigns from a K-12 School Drenched in “Anti-Racism.”

Teacher Dana Stangel-Plowe has resigned from Dwight-Englewood School as a matter of principle. It's becoming a recurring sad story. A dedicated teacher shouldn't have to give up her job of seven years (or potentially, career) to protect students from being steeped in poisonous ideology. Here is an excerpt from Stangel-Plowe's resignation note:

During a recent faculty meeting, teachers were segregated by skin color. Teachers who had light skin were placed into a “white caucus” group and asked to “remember” that we are “White” and “to take responsibility for [our] power and privilege.” D-E’s racial segregation of educators, aimed at leading us to rethink of ourselves as oppressors, was regressive and demeaning to us as individuals with our own moral compass and human agency. Will the school force racial segregation on our students next?

I reject D-E’s essentialist, racialist thinking about myself, my colleagues, and my students. As a humanist educator, I strive to create an inclusive classroom by embracing the dignity and unique personality of each and every student; I want to empower all students with the skills and habits of mind that they need to fulfill their potential as learners and human beings. Neither the color of my skin nor the“group identity” assigned to me by D-E dictates my humanist beliefs or my work as an educator. Being told that it does is offensive and wrong, and it violates my dignity as a human being. My conscience does not have a color.

D-E claims that we teach students how to think, not what to think. But sadly, that is just no longer true. I hope administrators and board members awaken in time to prevent this misguided and absolutist ideology from hollowing out D-E, as it has already hollowed out so many other institutions.

Stangel-Plowe has also offered this video explaining her concerns.

Continue ReadingAnother Courageous Teacher Resigns from a K-12 School Drenched in “Anti-Racism.”

West Coast State Laws Re Transgender Issues Surprise Parents of Troubled Teens Who Enter Youth Shelters

At City Journal, Abigail Shrier has written an article titled: "When the State Comes for Your Kids: Social workers, youth shelters, and the threat to parents’ rights." . She describes the journeys of several families, which are harrowing, given the state laws. What are those state laws? Shrier describes the laws of the state of Washington:

Here, for instance, are the powers granted to a 13-year-old child by the state of Washington. Minors age 13 and up are entitled to admit themselves for inpatientand outpatient mental health treatment without parental consent. Health insurers are forbidden from disclosing to the insured parents’ sensitive medical information of minor children—such as that regarding “gender dysphoria [and] gender affirming care.” Minors aged 13 to 18 can withhold mental health records from parents for “sensitive” conditions, which include both “gender dysphoria” and “gender-affirming care.” Insurers in Washington must cover a wide array of “gender-affirming treatments” from tracheal shaves to double mastectomies.

Put these together, and a seventh grader could be entitled to embark on “gender affirming care”—which may include anything from a provider using the child’s name and pronouns to the kid preparing to receive a course of hormones—without her parents’ permission, against her parents’ wishes, covered by her parents’ insurance, and with the parents kept in the dark by insurance companies and medical providers.

This is a detailed, well-researched article that will surprise and shock many families who thought that youth shelters only had relevant for children from broken homes.

Continue ReadingWest Coast State Laws Re Transgender Issues Surprise Parents of Troubled Teens Who Enter Youth Shelters