So close to Fathers Day I would be remiss in not remembering June 22, 1944, when President Roosevelt signed the ethical G.I. Bill, unprecedented legislation devised to compensate returning G.I.s for their gallantry, sacrifice, and service to their country in World War II. I owe my very existence to the law, as my father met the lovely Greek girl Eleanor Coulouris on the campus of the school that the G.I. Bill allowed him to attend. She was a secretary in the Office of the President of the College That Shall Not Be Named. Jack A. Marshall, Sr. would wave to her as he passed beneath her third floor window in Massachusetts Hall in “The Yard,” and she would smile and wave back. After several weeks, the retired Major gathered the courage to go up to meet her, and asked for a date. He proposed to her before their second one, and she said no. Things went better after that.
1. No weenies in Randolph, New Jersey! The Randolph Board of Education voted 8-1 Monday to restore its school calendar that showed all New Jersey state and federal holidays, including Columbus Day. In May, the board had voted wokely to change Columbus Day to Indigenious Peoples’ Day, and when Italian Americans, among others, objected, the body voted to remove all holidays from the calendar, which would only read “Day Off” in the interests of “diversity and inclusion.” Morons. Conservative media “pounced,” as the mainstream media likes to say to deflect the blame when its team gets caught doing something really stupid. About 400 citizens showed up at a public session to object. USA Today reported that “some” people accused the board of being influenced by “woke” beliefs and “cancel culture.” Gee, ya think? There were calls for the school board to resign. State Sen. Anthony Bucco, who represents Randolph in the NJ legislature, said eliminating Columbus Day “was bad enough,” but the board’s decision to go even further allowed their “pursuit of diversity to spiral into division.” “I woke up and found out that my town had turned into a nationwide embarrassment,” said John Sharples, a Randolph resident. Few supporters of the board’s brain-dead decision showed up.
So the board backed down. There is a lesson in this. [Pointer: Steve-O-in NJ]
2. Should I post this to Facebook? I’m really tempted to post this on Facebook...MSNBC’s smug and smirking host Rachel Maddow, whom many of my Facebook friends cite as their North Star for honest reporting, accused the conservative cable outlet One America News (OAN) of being a paid propaganda outlet for the Kremlin in 2019, announcing that “the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast, Inc. for defamation, alleging that it was demonstrably false that the network, in Maddow’s words, “literally is paid Russian propaganda.”
Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit in 2020 on the grounds that even Maddow’s own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda”).
In concluding that Maddow’s statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:
“On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions. Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.”
Funny—this damning opinion wasn’t reported in the mainstream news media at all. How strange! (Ow, my tongue just broke through my cheek…)
Maddow’s own viewers, ruled the court, expect and desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis. In sum, ruled the court, Rachel Maddow is among those “speakers whose statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as allegations of fact.”
Well I knew that, and maybe you knew that, but do you think that most MSNBC viewers know that—or my Trump Deranged Facebook friends? I don’t. [Source: Glenn Greenwald]
3. Speaking of MSNBC, Joy Reid makes Maddow look like Walter Cronkite in trustworthiness and professionalism. After a segment of her show in which she criticized in absentia Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo, who has emerged as the most vocal critic of using Critical Race Theory to indoctrinate students and employees, Rufo posted a clip from the interview and challenged Reid to debate him about CRT on her show. “She knows that I will crush her critical race theory apologetics any day of the week,” he tweeted. Reid tweeted in response, “Why not just contact my booking producers like a normal person, rather than going with the White Man Demands option?”
The public needs to push MSNBC to stop allowing its talking heads to engage in outright anti-white bigotry like that. Rufo’s race is irrelevant to the debate, or should be. This is the ultimate double standard: a white journalist who decried an African American taking the “Black Man Demands option” would be suspended pronto, on MSNBC, on Fox News, anywhere. And Rufo didn’t “demand” a debate, or anything. But I’m sure Joy’s viewers “expect and desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis….”
4. How desperate is conservative news to mock Jen Psaki? This desperate: here’s a headline today from Citizen Free Press: “Fly lands on Jen Psaki’s head…“
5. Kick her off the team. Transgender BMX freestyle rider Chelsea Wolfe, an alternate on the U.S. Olympic team, wrote in March 25, 2020 on Facebook, “My goal is to win the Olympics so I can burn a US flag on the podium. This is what they focus on during a pandemic. Hurting trans children.” Fox News dug up the post, raising the question why the U.S. should have an athlete competing in its name who has publicly announced an intent to embarrass her country. Oh, not any more, she says now!
She told Fox News that the now-deleted post was not intended to convey a disdain for America. Rather, it was an attempt to “take a stand against fascism”:
“Anyone who thinks that I don’t care about the United States is sorely mistaken. One of the reasons why I work so hard to represent the United States in international competition is to show the world that this country has morals and values, that it’s not all of the bad things that we’re known for. I take a stand against fascism because I care about this country and I’m not going to let it fall into the hands of fascists after so many people have fought and sacrificed to prevent fascism from taking hold abroad. As a citizen who wants to be proud of my home country, I’m sure as hell not going to let it take hold here.”
Anyone who thinks you don’t care about the United States, Chelsea, probably read your statement that your “goal is to win the Olympics so I can burn a US flag on the podium.”
That wasn’t some old tweet from the distant past, or when she was, well, he was back then, a middle school student. This was last year. A unequivocal statement, even one made in anger, evincing a desire to misbehave on the Olympic Games podium should be grounds for disqualification. And, of course, as a biological male, she shouldn’t be allowed to compete in a women’s event anyway.