How did censorship, airbrushing history and “it isn’t what it is” become hallmarks of progressivism? A discussion for another time…
For the nonce, consider Porsche, which airbrushed away the famous Portuguese statue of Jesus Christ that overlooks the capital of Lisbon in a promotional video celebrating 60 years of its iconic 911 model. For some reason, many people had a problem with that.
—-Al Sharpton, MSNBC host and history scholar.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining Al reading.
People actually listen to this guy and care what he thinks. Barack Obama listened to this guy. He is paid to inform MSNBC viewers. No really, he is!
Al takes “bias makes you stupid” to new vistas.
Added: Just in case you think this was an anomaly, here is Al mocking a GOP Congressman for pointing out that the United States is a republic, as if he’s the idiot:
The toxic wokism that oozes out of Harvard and the other educational institutions in the Bay State have finally infected Massachusetts to the point where the it is too deranged even for the long-time Democratic Party’s mouthpiece, the Boston Globe. The propaganda rag that hasn’t endorsed a Republican President since… hmmmm, never, actually, though it has occasionally endorsed Republicans for governor if they sounded and acted like Democrats…issued an editorial this week headlined, “Massachusetts can’t handle the influx of migrants on its own.” Good ol’ Globe: it can’t stop spinning for the Left even when its criticizing it. The issue is illegal immigrants, not “migrants.” And it’s not an influx: it’s a completely predictable occupation in response to persistent invitations.
Two days ago, the Legislature passed a bill granting in-state tuition at public colleges for all illegal immigrants who graduate from Massachusetts high schools, where they shouldn’t be allowed to attend in the first place. State Rep. Paul Frost, a Republican, rose to make the obvious critical observation about the measure, saying, “This is another incentive to encourage more illegal immigration to the Commonwealth, that the taxpayers and the residents of Massachusetts will have to subsidize.”
Humble Talent has provided a nicely provocative snapshot of the frustrating and weird state of the quest for fair college admissions. Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “I’m Sick Of Hearing These Arguments That College Admissions Favor The Wealthy And Privileged Because The Problem Is Easy To Fix. So Fix It.” (It also touches on the “disparate impact” scam, discussed here in another context.)
***
What I have trouble dealing with is how incoherent some of the positions some of the people are taking are.
Legacy admissions are a great example. We all know why they’re happening: Legacy admissions are a great way of enticing future philanthropy out of donor parents. While I’m sure there are some racists in admissions, that’s financially driven, not racially driven. But we pretend it’s a racial issue because of disparate impact.
In fact, we’re supposed to pretend that legacy admissions are a resource of white supremacy, despite the fact that legacy admissions are almost perfectly proportionate, at least for white applicants (hovering very close to 70%). I don’t know about you, but if I were designing a system that was supposed to privilege my race over others, I might devise a system where my race isn’t almost perfectly proportionately treated.
The only surprising aspect of Nate Silver’s latest substack essay is that he actually wrote it and had the courage to put it on the web. He is honest about mainstream media bias, and until he got kicked off his own creation, the 538 blog, Silver was a willing accomplice in this rot in the foundation of our democracy, making a lot of money in the process. Now—finally—he’s using his substantial critical thinking and research skills to expose the bad guys (his former pals before they rejected him : yes, I suspect there’s a measure of vengeance in this)who continue to successfully warp public knowledge and the process of an informed democracy by convincing sufficient number of ovine citizens that the concept of progressive media bias is a right-wing conspiracy theory. The focus of his traitorous analysis is how Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter has helped address the effects of the media’s partisan bias.
In “Twitter, Elon and the Indigo Blob,” Silver becomes one of the very few progressives of note to admit what has been going on under their cultural assault. Some others include Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Bari Weiss, but Silver is more scientific and detached than any of them, and as a result, his analysis is more persuasive and, I hope, more disruptive to the blue wall of silence the progressive Borg has erected around a throbbing, obvious, disgusting truth.
With great fanfare, NBA immortal LeBron James established the “I Promise charter school in 2018 to educate “at-risk” students. The I Promise School, which teaches children from 1st to 8th grade, promises:
With education as the driving force of change, the LeBron James Family Foundation is not only spreading that impact and improving lives of inner-city students and families, but also shifting the course of an entire community. Focusing on his hometown of Akron, the Foundation’s I PROMISE program provides year-round resources, access to opportunities, supportive skill development, constant encouragement and other wraparound supports to more than 1,300 Akron Public School students who have all been guaranteed college scholarships if they do their part. These efforts have culminated in the groundbreaking new public school – the I Promise School – that is taking an innovative approach to providing a challenging, supportive, and life-changing education, creating a new model for urban public education.
Soaring and inspiring words…it’s too bad that the Akron Beacon Journal reported this week that the 2023 “class of eighth graders at the I Promise School hasn’t had a single student pass the state’s basic math test since the group was in the third grade.” Moreover, “The state has also issued its first concern about the school: two of I Promise’s biggest subgroups of students, black students and those with disabilities, are now testing in the bottom 5% in the state, landing the school on the Ohio Department of Education’s list of those requiring targeted intervention.”
The response from those responsible? “Huminahuminahumina…” Stephanie Davis, the new principal of the school this year who was introduced as “the perfect person to lead the I Promise School and all of our families to the success we know they will achieve,” according to the school district, had no immediate explanation.
I have to thank Ann Althouse for tracking down The Guardian’s feature, “Want to quickly spot idiots? Here are five foolproof red flags” by Arwa Mahdawi. Like so many other junk pieces published these days, the article shouldn’t have been allowed past the desk of a minimally competent editor, but it does raise a valid question: What does qualify as evidence of signature significance proving someone is an idiot beyond a reasonable doubt?
Let’s forget the technical definition of idiot (someone whose IQ in in the 50-70 range), as that’s not how the word is commonly used today. We say someone is an idiot when we believe that they haven’t just said or done something stupid (because everybody does ), but have done or said something nobody who isn’t stupid would never do. I place the men who injure themselves in sensitive places using vacuum cleaners as erotic aids in that category, for example. those who hang out on “Chimpmania” and are proudly racist qualify: bias at that level really does make you stupid, or, in the alternative, you have to be stupid to be that biased. I have to fight down the urge to conclude that some religious zealots of my acquaintance are idiots, though I cannot imagine anything more idiotic than to say, with absolute certainty, even with condescension, that nobody should believe in dinosaurs because they couldn’t have fit on the Ark, and all the fossils were sneaky fakes planted on Earth by God to test our faith. An executive at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce actually told me this.
The President says so many ridiculous, garbled and alarming things that there is no justification for fabricating examples. In so doing, the conservative media simply duplicates the unethical treatment of Biden’s predecessor by the mainstream media, in which journalists and pundits attacked him for statements that they intentionally misconstrued though their intended meaning was clear and benign to anyone assessing them in good faith. That conduct by President Trump’s critics was dishonest and despicable. Yet here is the Right, doing the exact same thing.
Yecchh.
“HE’S FINE, HONEST: Biden claims ‘we ended cancer as we know it’ and says there’s ‘no difference’ between a broken arm and a mental breakdown.” was the entry by conservative pundit Stephen Greene in Instapundit. The link was to the Daily Mail, whose headline was similarly misleading: “We ended cancer as we know it’: Biden raises eyebrows with stunning claim during speech on mental health treatment where he said there’s ‘no difference’ between a broken arm and a mental breakdown.”
Biden was speaking during an event on Tuesday at the White House to promote insurers expanding access to mental health coverage. He did not say that there was “no difference” between a broken arm and a mental breakdown. He said that both maladies were serious health problems that should be be equally covered by health insurance. The President was not asserting that clinical depression or a psychotic break were the same as breaking a bone, but that mental and emotional illness have not been covered by insurance to the extent that physical injuries have, and there is no good reason for it.
He’s right. I worked on an NIH task force examining the inadequate treatment of depression, caused in part by the lack of sufficient medical insurance. Joe’s statement, as quoted by the Mail—-“And folks, you know, I don’t know what the difference between breaking your arm and having a mental breakdown is. It’s health – there’s no distinction ‘We must fulfill the promise of true mental health parity for all Americans now….”— is typically inarticulate, but one can only misinterpret his message if one is determined to, fairness and logic be damned.
I was so tempted to headline this post with the res ipsa loquitur tag, but didn’t at the last minute. The reason: I was convinced that as obvious as the scientific and logical nonsense her tweet represented should be, a lot of usually intelligent people wouldn’t allow themselves to see it, because, as Ethics Alarms notes repeatedly, “bias makes you stupid.” The post’s comments turned out to be a marvelous example of that.
One persistent defender of Omar insisted that it was crucial that I had checked the alleged authority for her gaffe before criticizing her. It happens that I did, but I didn’t need to. Nobody did: that’s the whole point. If the woman had the requisite number of brain cells to rub together to start a bonfire, she would have known what emerged from her keyboard when she typed that was hilariously silly with the application of basic critical thinking skills.
Recently, Major League Baseball teams broke the record for the most runs scored in all games on a single day. It was remarkable, because the record was more than a century old: the day occurred in the 19th century. All of the articles about this event specified the day. If, as Omar’s ignorant tweet claimed, the Earth had broken its previous record for “hottest day in 120,000 years,” there would be a day from 120,000 years ago that held the broken record. No source mentioned such a day, however, because there are no daily records of the Earth’s weather—daily temperature is weather, not climate—from 120,000 years ago or even a thousand years ago (though we know Pompeii got pretty damn hot when Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD.) Estimates of global climate in the periods before records were kept depend on “proxy data.” Here is a chart explaining what proxy data can tell scientist about distant climates:
Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk
Carjack an old lady at a red light
Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store
Ya think it’s cool, well, act a fool if ya like
Cuss out a cop, spit in his face
Stomp on the flag and light it up
Yeah, ya think you’re tough
Well, try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won’t take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don’t
Try that in a small town
Got a gun that my granddad gave me
They say one day they’re gonna round up
Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won’t take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don’t
Try that in a small town
Full of good ol’ boys, raised up right
If you’re looking for a fight
Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won’t take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don’t
Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town
Ooh-ooh
Try that in a small town…
Suddenly, a fairly standard issue Country Western anthem released in May by a singer I had never heard of is a battleground in the culture wars. I’ve listened to it several times now. Woke Central Command apparently put out a memo declaring that the song is an existential threat to democracy, or something, and the mainstream media has rallied to the cause. State Representative Justin Jones of Tennessee (Guess which party!) condemned the song on Twitter, describing it as a “heinous song calling for racist violence” that promoted “a shameful vision of gun extremism and vigilantism.” The Washington Post, incredibly, has published six op-eds attacking it in hysterical terms. The song is a call for lynchings! It’s advocating vigilantism! Major Tipton would like a word…
For heaven’s sake: the song is an unsubtle paean to traditional values, individual rights, respect for the law, and community harmony, while impugning the priorities and values of urban centers. That’s all. It’s hardly an unusual theme for a Country Western song. Far more significant than the song is the extreme reaction to it on the ideological Left. The song’s sentiments represent a threat to Woke World’s mandatory conformity with the progressive agenda, so the song itself must be censored, canceled, wiped out of public consciousness.
These people are getting desperate.
Ethics Alarms 