Profs Help Push Program That Claims Math Is ‘Racist’ Because It Requires A ‘Right Answer’

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

An Oregon Department of Education newsletter from February promoted an online course designed to “dismantle” instances of “white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom.”  One example of “white supremacy” highlighted by the course was “the concept of mathematics being purely objective,” an idea which the resource stated is “is unequivocally false.”

The program, known as “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction” describes itself as “an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students” that provides “opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice.”

The “feedback advisors” for a portion of the program include William Zahner, who is an associate professor at San Diego State University; Melissa Navarro Martell, who is an assistant professor at San Diego State University, and Elvira Armas, who is the Director of Programs and Partnerships for the Center for Equity for English Learners at Loyola Marymount University in California.

White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions,” the guide states. “Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.”

The newsletter pitched the program to educators “looking for a deeper dive into equity work,” offering to teach “key tools for engagement, develop strategies to improve equitable outcomes for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, and join communities of practice.”

The Oregon Department of Communications Director of Communications, Marc Siegel, told Campus Reform that math instruction should be built on an “equitable foundation.”

“Building math instruction on an equitable foundation can better ensure all our students have a pathway to success in math,” Siegel said.

[RELATED: Math education prof: 2+2 = 4 ‘trope’ ‘reeks of white supremacy patriarchy’]

Examples of “white supremacy culture” cited by the document include a focus on “getting the ‘right’ answer” and requiring students to show their work.

Glenn Ricketts, Public Affairs Director for the National Association of Scholars, told Campus Reform that the course illustrates that “no aspect of the educational process at any level is off-limits for the social justice indoctrination.”

“Mathematics was once considered immune: after all, doesn’t 2 + 2 = 4?” Ricketts said. “But as I have read recently, the problem that math and arithmetic insist on correct answers is actually a hidden form of ‘white supremacy,’ as everything else is as well.”

The authors of the program state that “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuates objectivity as well as fear of open conflict.”

The materials also instruct teachers to “Choose problems that have complex, competing, or multiple answers” so that students can come up with “at least two answers” in order to “challenge standardized test questions…”

[RELATED: Ivy League schools drop ‘culturally biased’ standardized test requirement]

“Often the emphasis is placed on learning math in the ‘real world,’” the toolkit asserts, “as if our classrooms are not a part of the real world. This reinforces notions of either/or thinking because math is only seen as useful when it is in a particular context. However, this can result in using mathematics to uphold capitalist and imperialist ways of being and understandings of the world.”

The course challenges teachers to “center ethnomathematics,” which includes recognizing how communities of color engage in mathematics and exposing students to “examples of people who have used math as resistance.”

“ODE stands behind the value that high-quality, rigorous mathematics instruction must be prioritized for every student in Oregon,” Siegal said. “These goals are shared by many of our professional education partners across the state. The training opportunity shared in the Math Educator Update reminds teachers what we know is true in teaching all students: that high expectations, high-quality content, and strong relationships with students and families lead to substantive increases in student achievement.”

According to the project glossary, the authors cite critical race theorists like Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo for definitions of terms like “Antiracist” and “Whiteness.” Throughout the document, teachers are encouraged to incorporate “antiracist” math education into their classrooms.

[RELATED: US colleges are telling students to read this book, so we found out why]

National Association of Scholars Director of Research David Randall also condemned the program, saying that “the teaching of such ideologies as Critical Race Theory or so-called Anti-Racism” is an intrusion of “totalitarian ideology into the classroom” and a “crippling waste of classroom time that will leave all students less knowledgeable.”

[RELATED: 2+2=5? Bill Gates funnels $1 MILLION to push ‘math is racist’ narrative]

None of these should be in any aspect of education, as they will produce a generation indoctrinated and ignorant,” Randall said. “The most dangerous aspects are requirements to teach such materials–K-12 requirements imposed by state education departments, departmental and university course requirements, and education school graduation requirements. But the voluntary choice of teachers to use such materials is nearly as damaging.”

Randall argued that the Oregon curriculum is only the most recent expression of a long-term trend.

“When NAS was founded back in 1987, the problem of politicized curricula was largely confined to college courses, and we thought that it was a serious problem then,” Randall explained. “But things have worsened considerably since those distant beginnings and, as a result of the relentless emphasis on ‘social justice’ many students now come to college already indoctrinated, with all of the ‘right’ answers.”

“As for preparation in the professions,” Randall added, “I think the only thing the kinds of courses we’ve been discussing here qualify one for is social activism and an inflated sense of his own importance. It certainly won’t prepare anyone for engineering, foreign language competence or systematic thinking.”

Siegel told Campus Reform that the materials are “an optional professional learning tool for educators looking to better engage students and improve outcomes for students of color and multilingual learners.”

“Cultural context is helpful for all of our students in learning. Not all tools provided by A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction may make sense for each individual school; the content is simply to generate new ideas for engagement and strategies for educators,” Siegel said.

*****

This article was published March 25, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from Campus Reform.

READ: The Gun Background Check Form Where Hunter Biden Claimed He Wasn’t Using Drugs

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Hunter Biden might have lied on the federal forms he filled out to buy the gun at the center of a bizarre new story, forms The Federalist has now obtained.

Hunter Biden was the subject of a strange missing firearm case in 2018 after Hallie Biden, the wife of his late brother and subsequently, Hunter’s girlfriend, tossed it into a trash can behind a grocery store near a high school, according to a strange new report from Politico. It appears Hunter, the son of President Joe Biden, might have lied on the federal forms he filled out to purchase the gun a few months prior, forms The Federalist has now obtained.

Hunter answered “no” to a question on the Firearms Transaction Record asking whether he was an “unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” See question 11.e on the form below:

Hunter Biden 4473 Form 2 Redacted by The Federalist on Scribd

The now-president’s scandal-ridden son was in numerous drug and alcohol rehab programs, including in 2003, 2010, and 2014, soon after being discharged from the military for using cocaine. According to the New Yorker, he also went on a cocaine binge in 2016. His infamous laptop he dropped off for repairs in 2019, a story which tech giants and the media aggressively tried to cover up during the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, included graphic photos and video of Hunter allegedly smoking crack cocaine while engaged in a sex act.

It’s unclear whether Hunter was using drugs around the time of his firearm purchase or what timeframe the question “are you a user of” illicit substances implies. Hunter was, however, suspected of smoking crack cocaine in a Washington, D.C., strip club in late 2018. He purchased the firearm the same year on Oct. 12.

The alleged incident occurred just blocks from the White House at Archibald’s Gentleman’s Club, where Hunter spent thousands of dollars on multiple visits. One security worker at the club said Hunter was a regular who would hole up in a VIP room, but the club’s managing partner James Ritter said one night in late 2018 included a “suspicion of drug use.”

“VIP employees suspected it was crack,” Ritter added.

While the club typically required patrons to pay with credit cards that matched official IDs, Ritter said “Hunter was a bit of an exception” and would pay “thousands and thousands of dollars in the Archibald’s VIP rooms” with “credit cards that didn’t have his name on it.”

Now newly uncovered text messages that appear to be from Hunter Biden not only corroborate Politico’s reporting that the Secret Service got involved in the missing gun incident, ostensibly to cover up the Biden family mess, an involvement both the Secret Service and the White House have denied, but they also include mention of drug use in connection with the gun fiasco.

“She stole the gun out of my truck lock box and threw it in a garbage can full to the top at Jansens. Then told me it was my problem to deal with. Then when the police the FBI the secret service came on the scene she said she took it from me because she was scared I would harm myself due to my drug and alcohol problem and our volatile relationship and that she was afraid for the kids,” the message reads.

 

While lying on the gun purchase form would have been considered a felony, Hunter was never investigated over his answer.

Meanwhile, President Biden is in the process of choosing a new director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), a confirmation that could be imperiled over the news of his son’s 2018 gun purchase and subsequent missing firearms case, a case that involved more problems than Hunter’s potential lying on background check forms.

The grocery store where Hallie Biden dumped the gun was across from a high school, which made the case particularly worrisome and prompted fears that the firearm could be used in a crime. While police were questioning Hunter, he also appeared to racially profile two Mexican grocery store employees, telling officers they were “prolly illegal.”

Shortly after police and the FBI — which was then looking into the Biden for potential tax crimes, an investigation that is still ongoing — arrived at the grocery store, two Secret Service agents with “badges and identification cards” reportedly visited the gun store where Hunter bought the firearm earlier that month and told the owner to turn over the Firearms Transaction Record, the document included above, from the purchase.

The store owner “suspected that the Secret Service officers wanted to hide Hunter’s ownership of the missing gun in case it were to be involved in a crime,” according to multiple people with a “firsthand knowledge of the episode.” So he held onto the paperwork until the ATF, the agency authorized to review the forms, could get to them.

Meanwhile, despite his own son’s irresponsibility with firearms, a recklessness most American gun owners don’t share, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris continue to pressure lawmakers to pass sweeping gun control legislation and have both threatened to take executive action if Congress doesn’t do their bidding.

As Biden prepares to nominate someone to head up the ATF, Republican senators will have plenty of important questions to ask during a confirmation hearing, such as whether the nominee will commit to using the ATF, which is a federal law enforcement organization, to investigate Hunter’s potential fraud on his Firearms Transaction Record — or whether, instead, like the reported incident with the Secret Service, the Biden nominee would continue to cover up Biden family scandals.

*****

This article was published March 26, 2012, and is reprinted with permission from The Federalist.

The Real Purpose of ‘Cancel Culture’

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

A culture is far deeper than politics. It’s a national identity encompassing history, education, arts and entertainment, science, health, relationships … everything constituting the core values of any country.

Individualism has traditionally been the common denominator anchoring all other aspects of America’s cultural distinctiveness. Valuing sovereignty of the individual makes American culture exceptional; therefore, “Cancel Culture” warrants attention.

It is understood that “cancelling” individuals, books, monuments, etc. is a form of banishment because they express something objectionable or offensive. Objectionable or offensive to whom follows, but let’s now focus on the “culture” part. In essence, cancelling someone or something means erasing behavior or beliefs which really means erasing ideas.

Remember Barack Obama’s 2008 Obama-Biden-ticket presidential campaign statement, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming [basically changing] the United States of America.”

Now, President Biden’s continuation of “transforming” America also includes “cancelling” ideas. So: America is “basically changing” into what, and who’s doing the transforming and cancelling? What seems to be a “re-imagination” of an idyllic Utopia, and the transforming-cancelling is effectuated by the socially agitated and politically aggressive “Woke.” *

Utopia has meant different idyllic “places” for different purposes. Sir Thomas Moore first coined the term (as a pun) by taking the Greek ou-topos — “no place” — and combining it with eu-topos — “a good place.” So, ironically, Utopia means that in reality a good place is nowhere.

Marx sold communism as a workers’ Utopia. Hitler sold fascism as Aryan Utopia. Today’s power-players are selling socialism as nondiscriminatory, non-merit-oriented, equity-for-all Utopia.

Of course, we know from the Bible’s Garden of Eden story that even Adam and Eve’s idyllic Utopia vanished once their real human nature (free will) was activated by exercising choice (eating the apple) and gaining knowledge (carnal sex and the existential world).

Communism, fascism, and socialism differ in name only. In practice they are identical because they all are collectivist social systems powered by an “elite” who control the economy, the means of production, and the cultural zeitgeist.

But since outright communism (Russia) and fascism (Germany) failed, the largest socialist organization in the United States — the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) — has to be more inventive in selling their brand of collectivism. The organization is a member of Socialists International which reveals global aspirations, but its name cleverly obscures the presently active but hidden agenda for America.

From the DSA’s official website (operative words in bold):

We [Democratic Socialists] are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

Translation: voters put us in power (democratic), but we share a vision to control globalized planning, execution of production, and distribution of goods; we define “meaningful”; we decide what is healthy and sustainable; we demand preferences for those we decide need “equality” (we define equality); and we decide who is oppressing whom.

Who now paves the way and keeps the socialists in power? The “Woke” and the implementation of “cancelling” America’s culture of individualism. Woke activists find or create what can be sold to an ignorant/apathetic/indoctrinated public as racial-social discrimination or injustices while encouraging certain fabricated-into-group-members to become victims and assuring that others of different fabricated-into-group-members are made to feel guilty about the victimization…..

Continue reading this article, published on March 22, 2021 at Newsmax.

*****

* Must-read companion books: George Orwell’s “1984” is a brilliant (and chilling) fictional tale of the future endgame for tyrants everywhere. Evan Sayet’s “The Woke Supremacy” is a brilliant (and chilling) examination of America’s current real-life fast-step march to reach the endgame of tyranny here and now.

A Qualifying Test for Experts on Race and Diversity

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Judging by what they say and write, reporters, commentators, academics, and directors of diversity and inclusion see themselves as experts on race and diversity.

Many of them see racism and inequalities everywhere, based on the official but contrived racial categories of African American, Hispanic, White, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American.

The following test will determine if they are indeed experts on race and qualified to be the arbiters of which groups should be beneficiaries of diversity initiatives.

The five-question test is based on the make-up of my and my wife’s extended families.

Question One: A relative of ours is a mix of Swedish and Scots-Irish descent. She has two children by an East Indian. What race are the children?

Question Two: Two other relatives, a husband, and wife, adopted an orphaned girl from China. The working-class parents, who are a mix of Swedish and Scots-Irish, already had an African American as a son-in-law. When their adopted daughter applies for college, should she get extra admission points for her race?

Before answering, you should know that the couple is Mormon—you know, the religion that sophisticates and intellectuals make fun of and see as white and racist.

Question Three: A close family member is engaged to a delightful woman who is part Filipino and part Italian. He’s a mix of Italian, Swedish, and Scots-Irish. When they have children, will the children be considered minorities?

Question Four: What race and color are Italians? Hint: The Italian peninsula has been crisscrossed over millennia by North Africans, Persians, Syrians, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards, Berbers, Normans, Franks, Gauls, and, over a hundred thousand years ago, by Neanderthals. Each group that tromped through mixed its chromosomes with the existing population.

Question Five: Since all Homo sapiens have a common African ancestor, doesn’t that mean that all humans are African?

My family, like most American families, doesn’t give a damn about the race of family members, or anyone else for that matter. After all, race is a social construct with no basis in genetics. We just care that children are raised to be moral and to be good neighbors and citizens.

But since reporters, commentators, academics, government apparatchiks, and directors of diversity and inclusion are fixated on the aforementioned six racial categories and see themselves as experts in history, sociology, anthropology, economics, ethnographies, and demographics, they no doubt know the answers to the test. Therefore, I respectfully ask them to please submit the answers so their expertise can be confirmed.

While they’re at it, maybe they can answer two bonus questions.

Bonus Question One: There are thousands of unique ethnic groups in the world, encompassing various nationalities, religions, socioeconomic classes, ideologies, skin shades, and histories of being victims and victimizers. All of the diverse ethnic groups in America are numerical minorities because none of them makes up more than 50% of the population.

Can you identify all of the distinct ethnocultural groups that fall under each of the official racial categories of African American, Hispanic, White, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American? If not, then just list one hundred of the ones that fall under the White category.

Bonus Question Two: Below is a list of the nationalities that rank in the top ten of household income in America. Explain how this proves that America is a racist, exclusionary society of white privilege.

1. East Indian Americans
2. Taiwanese Americans
3. Australian Americans
4. South African American
5. Filipino Americans
6. Austrian Americans
7. Chinese Americans
8. Japanese Americans
9. Nepalese Americans
10. Singaporean Americans

Thank you in advance for your answers. My apologies if your circuits have blown from being asked to think too deeply.

Why We Hate the Press

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Until I was 15 and moved to Southern California, I delivered newspapers for five years. Every day I came home with hands stained from printer’s ink. It is in my blood. I wore it with pride. I still receive the Wall Street Journal in print form and will until I die, or it dies. Most of my other news is delivered to my inbox every day. While reading something the other day, I looked at it and said to myself “I don’t believe a word you are saying.” Pseudo-journalists have greatly harmed our news sources. Let’s review why so many people think as I do.

Newspeople have enlisted many practices that have destroyed their credibility:

Experts – If they dislike the position taken by someone, be it a political or business leader, they bring out the “experts.” “Experts say that blah, blah, blah.” When did we get to this point? Nameless, faceless experts. When you read a column like that sourcing nameless people — people that are unwilling to go on the record — you know the writer is either lazy or lying. If the “expert” is worthy but unwilling to go on record to establish the virtue of their positions, then they are not credible. If you are reading a column and the writer asserts “Experts say,” stop and move on because the remainder is a waste of your time.

Akin to that is unnamed sources. The anonymous source is used regularly now with the justification that the source must be protected. Why? The perfect example is the story that broke recently that multiple news operations misquoted President Trump regarding a call he had with a Georgia election official. A recording of the call surfaced two months later and proved the inflammatory language was never used. Yet no one at any of these operations was demoted or fired. There was no declaration of a change of operational practice to avoid this ever happening again. In fact, after their correction the Washington Post unleashed their media critic, Eric Wemple, to acknowledge the correction, but viciously attack Trump.

Inflammatory language – “He blasted.” “She attacked.” Journalists extensively use these kinds of terms. Not so long ago, they refrained from using such incendiary language. You would just read “she stated.” They use words or phrases that just are meant to inflame – “sharp critic,” “lashed out,” “staunchly conservative.” You may notice they almost never state someone is a “radical Leftist.” A few other gems are “slams,” “GOP barrels toward,” Why Barrett “Dodged” or “he demands.” These are descriptive words and phrases better left to novels, not news articles. Which leads to the next area.

Inserting opinions in news articles You read some of these colored words and then look to confirm you are on the front page. The column is not labeled anything other than a “news” piece. You read something on the internet, and you think (or are misled) it is a news feature until the writer starts injecting words that make it an opinion column. News should be news and opinion should be an opinion. News should just report the facts and let us form our own opinion. That seems to have died in journalism schools.

Non–partisan – If a publication has a bent, they should not deceive us by stating they are non-partisan. A perfect example is Politico. I went on their website and they state they are non-partisan. Who are they kidding other than themselves? I like the publication and get many of their newsletters, but unless I missed the ones that are non-partisan everything I read is clearly to the left. Other publications label someone or a think tank non-partisan when they are clearly not. If you want a truly non-partisan operation, the only one I know is Real Clear Politics. They have managed to keep themselves clearly in the journalism lane.

Use of inappropriate language – Is it necessary for CNN’s Dana Bash to say (on-air) “We are on cable so I can say this, it is a Sh—Show.” Just because you can therefore you must? Anyone who knows me knows my favorite word begins with F. I am not being puritanical. There is public speech and there is private speech. We do not need public figures or journalists lowering our standards even more. Stick to appropriate language and you will garner greater respect.

Poor interviewers – Questions should be in the form of a question. One of the great sinners is Chris Wallace. “Don’t you think?” “Isn’t it so?” Ask a real question such as “What do think of President Biden’s border policy?” Then be quiet and wait for an answer. Another sin of which Mr. Wallace is guilty (which are many) is interrupting the interviewee to pose another question or insert a statement. This is extremely prevalent among TV journalists. Whether you like him or not, Tucker Carlson asks real questions and then lets the person answer while rarely interjecting with another question or comment. So often other people have someone on as a guest to just pontificate about their own thoughts instead of us learning from their guest.

Use of definitive terms – He “always” does that. She “never,” says that. There are many words like that, and the truth is people almost never always do something. When my columns are edited and a word like that is used, I react in horror to how that got through. I used the word never in a recent column and it was appropriate, but it was still a rare exception. People know what you just said is not true because it cannot be.

Wild speculation “He potentially exposed countless people at the WH, in Ohio, Minnesota, and New Jersey to the virus.” Really? You are supposed to be an educated person and you write that garbage. During our endless election period, how many times did you read “If this person (fill in the name) gets elected, this (fill in the travesty) will happen.” How about all the wild speculation during the Amy Coney Barrett hearings? We were told this mild-mannered mother of seven who adopted two black, foreign orphans were going to bring America to the edge of Armageddon. People read this and most are too smart to think anything other than the author and their editor are heretics.

The worst part is they are just bad, lazy journalists. They do not analyze; they just regurgitate. There are many examples, and it has been going on for so long it is impossible to track all of it. A recent case was a report from the revered IMHE (Institute for Metrics and Evaluation) which stated if Americans wear masks at an increased rate, 130,000 lives will be saved by the end of February 2021. The study was in the supposedly respected scientific journal Nature Medicine. It was then picked up by over 100 publications and just reiterated by them without questioning the findings. The study was based on an outdated analysis of how many people are wearing masks. They used a figure of 49% versus the current number at the time of around 80%.

The press did not scrutinize the findings because the findings fit the narrative of the publications. They wanted that to be the story. In this case, the publication would have not even had to analyze the study. All they would have needed to do is leave their protected havens and walk the communities they ignore. They would have noticed that 49% was a ridiculously low figure as almost everyone was wearing masks at the time – everywhere that people congregate. A little common sense would go a long way. Unfortunately, they appear to have little of such.

No wonder that 86% of Americans (according to Gallup) think the press has a built-in bias. Only 24% have faith in newspapers and 18% in TV news and even less in the internet news. The press has a special place in our country and needs to be fair, responsible, and unbiased except on the editorial page. They are sloppy, lazy, and poor guardians of our free press rights in their current version. It is an accepted truth that if you don’t protect your First Amendment rights they will diminish.

That the current crop of members of the press are such poor guardians of our rights is reason enough to hate them.

*****

This article first appeared in Flash Report on Sunday, March 21st, 2021 and is reproduced with the permission of the author.

 

Washington Post Accuses Trump Of A Crime Based On Fabricated Quotes

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

The Washington Post anonymously printed fabricated quotes, attributed them to a sitting president, and used those quotes as a basis to speculate the president committed a crime.

On Jan. 9, The Washington Post published a bombshell report about what President Trump reportedly said on a phone call to the Georgia elections investigator. The headline was “‘Find the fraud’: Trump pressured a Georgia elections investigator in a separate call legal experts say could amount to obstruction.”

A few days ago, on March 11, the Post quietly changed the headline and added this correction to the top of the story:

Correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to ‘find the fraud’ or say she would be ‘a national hero’ if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find ‘dishonesty’ there. He also told her that she had ‘the most important job in the country right now.’ A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.

Suffice to say, the original story was impactful. “The president’s attempts to intervene in an ongoing investigation could amount to obstruction of justice or other criminal violations, legal experts said, though they cautioned a case could be difficult to prove,” reported the Post story.

The conclusion a sitting president may have committed a crime is still in the corrected story, even though that conclusion was initially at least partly based on fabricated quotes. While they didn’t directly cite this Post story, Trump’s alleged pressuring of Georgia officials was eventually cited by House Democrats in the impeachment articles against Trump. A few weeks later, House Democrats would cite the article and its fabricated quotes on page 10 of their impeachment brief, as well as highlight the article and its fake quotes in oral arguments during the televised impeachment trial.

Even accurately reported, the story may have been newsworthy or unflattering to Trump, but there’s a huge difference in criminal intent between a frustrated and addled Trump asking an investigator to look into fraud he genuinely believes is real versus pressuring the investigator to invent it. For what it’s worth, now that the investigator on the phone call has been identified, she has told local news “she did not perceive any pressure from the president’s call.”

A correction two months after the fact, when the story has already played a significant role in shaping perceptions of political events, seems wholly inadequate. The headline on the Post’s follow-up story is given an anodyne headline: “Recording reveals details of Trump call to Georgia’s chief elections investigator.”

Originally, the fabricated quotes were sourced to “an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.” What has been revealed about how the story was reported makes the Post’s reporting look worse, not better:

The Washington Post reported on the substance of Trump’s Dec. 23 call in January, describing him saying that Watson should ‘find the fraud’ and that she would be a ‘national hero,’ based on an account from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, whom Watson briefed on his comments. In fact, he did not use those precise words. Rather, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize Fulton County, where she would find ‘dishonesty,’ he said. He also said, ‘whatever you can do, Frances, it would be — it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country. So important. You’ve no idea. So important. And I very much appreciate it.’

While both men are nominally Republicans, Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — Fuchs’ boss — were publicly at each others’ throats. In fact, the Post story acknowledged as much saying, “The president is furious with both Raffensperger and [Georgia Governor] Kemp, who have refused to echo his claims that the election was rigged.”

Revealing the source of the quotes shows the Post had cause for more scrutiny, not less. According to the chairman of the Georgia Republican party, “The Secretary of State’s office secretly recorded the conversation, mischaracterized its contents to The Washington Post and then attempted to delete the recording. It was recently discovered in a laptop ‘trash’ folder as part of an open records search.”

In fairness to Post reporter Amy Gardner, “The White House did not respond to requests for comment,” and if they had responded, perhaps they could have swatted down the story. The Post also took the inexplicably rare step of burning their anonymous source here so she could be held accountable. But in the end, neither of these things makes this Post story any less of a journalistic travesty.

In sum: The Washington Post anonymously printed fabricated quotes they knew were from a second-hand source in the office of a political enemy, couldn’t confirm the quotes with additional sourcing, still attributed them to the sitting president of the United States, used those quotes as a basis to speculate the president committed a crime, and the Democratic party would later repeatedly cite the bogus article when attempting to impeach Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But wait! It gets much worse. Several other major media outlets — including NBC, ABC, USA Today, PBS, and CNN — “confirmed” the fabricated quotes from the Post’s anonymous source by, get this, citing their own anonymous sources.

Granted, I got a journalism degree more than 20 years ago, when it was merely a suspect profession rather than total Calvinball. But had I floated this sequence of events as a hypothetical to one of my professors in an ethics class, this would have been considered the media screw-up of the century.

Alas, not only is this going to pass without any consequences, we are inured to this behavior from the media. The Post did this at the tail end of a Trump presidency defined by years of the media repeatedly being debased by sources who used credulously granted anonymity as a cloak to pass off dodgy information, enrich themselves, or, ironically enough, sow doubt about the results of the 2016 election. It’s not exactly puzzling why the Trump White House may have stopped returning reporters’ calls.

Whether or not the mistakes above were intentional, this kind of thing has become so commonplace and reckless that intent is almost functionally irrelevant. With near universality, all these damning media screw-ups run in one political direction. It’s a shame New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo didn’t try and kiss any of those grandmothers he killed, otherwise the media may have been obligated to cover his deadly policies.

Even setting aside the overwhelming partisanship of the media, just as a matter of power dynamics, this all prompts a disturbing question for readers: If these are the journalistic standards used to cover the president or, say, a Supreme Court justice — do you know what happens when ordinary citizens get unfairly accused of wrongdoing by the media and don’t have the resources to fight back? You end up unemployed and washing dishes to eke out a living.

Increasingly, elements of the right are arguing the media’s incentives are now aligned with information warfare, not mere “bias.” The media is too arrogant to understand what increasing hostility means for them and the country, never mind that the growing levels of misinformation breaking into the mainstream are a direct consequence of diminished trust in the corporate media. When you can’t trust the dominant media, people start looking for information elsewhere.

A whole school of liberals and Never Trump adherents think media criticism is some kind of cop-out or distraction from the problems of Trump or the right more generally. But for the left, the media itself is their “cop-out.” In the end, the key difference between the right’s conspiracies and the left’s conspiracies is that the latter get a lot more air time and column inches. “Q will install Trump as emperor” rightly gets mocked and pitied, but “Trump treasonously colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election” gets mythologized at worst, rationalized at best.

Trump’s shortcomings may be monumental, but the idea he is somehow responsible for the abandoning of basic ethical standards in the institutions that opposed him is absurd at this point, never mind that political opposition is not the media’s vocational responsibility. In that respect, it’s too awkward for the press to confront the truth that Trump’s rise was symptomatic of extant distrust in media; he was not the father of that distrust.

Regardless, Trump’s not president anymore. Thanks to a surfeit of gobsmacking media behavior these last four years, many on the right are still arguing about the role media dishonesty played in his defeat. (Or in the case of one Politico editor, taking credit for censoring accurate news of his opponent’s corruption.)

With Trump gone, we are still stuck with a media that regularly reports things that aren’t true, let alone wholly fabricated as part of some political operation, and this misinformation plays a major role in shaping political and world events. They will then claim they are accountable because two months after the fact, and long after perceptions were hardened, they ran a correction on an anonymously sourced report they never should have run in the first place.

As alarming as all this is, in a disinformation climate such as the one we are currently living in, what happened with the Post’s correction is a rarity. Think for a second about all of the anonymously sourced stories you’ve read in recent years. Now realize it’s the dishonesty and manipulation that doesn’t get exposed that should scare you.

*****

The article was published March 15, 2015 and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

Corporate Media Don’t Want To Talk About The Atlanta Gunman’s Real Motivation

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

If the Atlanta shootings aren’t about race but sexual pathology, it’s an indictment not of racism but prevailing sexual attitudes among our elite.

There’s something off about press coverage of the shooting rampage in Atlanta earlier this week. Nearly every corporate media outlet has framed the killings as a racially-motivated “hate crime” against Asian Americans, noting that six of the eight victims are Asian and the alleged shooter is white.

Yet race doesn’t appear to be a significant motivating factor here, at least not according to the accused gunman, 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long, who was arrested Tuesday evening after targeting three different massage parlors in the Atlanta area. Long denied that he chose his victims based on their race and told authorities that he had a “sexual addiction” and that he carried out the killings to eliminate his “temptation.” (Two of the dead, a man and a woman, were white, and a third victim, who was injured, was a Hispanic man.)

Another former roommate, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, said Long went twice to rehab for sexual addiction last year. The roommate reportedly lived with Long for several months in summer 2020 at a transition house for people exiting rehab, and called police after recognizing Long in a surveillance photo after the shootings Tuesday night.

There’s also evidence Long had other targets in mind that had nothing to do with race but much to do with sex. When police caught up with him Tuesday, he was headed to Florida, where he was planning to attack “some type of porn industry,” according to authorities. Another law enforcement source told CNN that Long was recently kicked out of his parents’ house because of his sexual addiction, which included frequently spending hours on end watching pornography online.

By contrast, there’s little evidence so far that Long was motivated by racial animus, which in turn suggests a much different scenario than what corporate media has almost unanimously presented as a racially-motivated killing spree. Corporate media, like nearly every other elite institution and industry in America today, can be expected to obsessively focus on race and see a race angle in every story. But in this case, perhaps the laser-like focus on race belies a reluctance to discuss the role of sex, and sexual pathology, in our hyper-sexualized culture.

Of course, that Long is a sex-addict makes him no less culpable for his alleged crimes, but it does shift the narrative frame into something our cultural elites are loath to confront because of their complicity in it. The media want to use this tragedy to indict supposedly racist attitudes in America, but it appears rather to indict prevailing attitudes about pornography and sex—attitudes that are especially prevalent among our cultural elite. Whether it’s casual sex, the proliferation of porn, online hook-up culture, the sexualization of children, or the normalization of gender dysphoria and transgenderism, we are told these things are okay, that they are normal, that we should accept them and not judge. We are never told that they are dangerous, or that there might be consequences—dire ones—for embracing these things as cultural norms.

Seen in this light, the Atlanta killings becomes a story that forces us to confront our priors not about race but about sex and sexuality. Maybe, just maybe, all of these prevailing attitudes about sex come with some pretty serious societal pathologies and some pretty heavy human costs. Maybe these “blessings of liberty,” as David French might call them, are in fact curses. Maybe we were wrong about all of this. Maybe unfettered sex and ubiquitous porn are not compatible with a healthy society. Maybe they are actually evil, and maybe we should start talking about how to push back and help unwell young men like Long before their lust turns to bloodlust and they go on murderous shooting sprees.

Our cultural and media elite don’t want to talk about any of that. So they’re making this a story about race, even though everyone knows what it’s really about.

*****

This article was published March 19, 2021 and reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

Starbucks Lost a Latte but Covers Up the Stain

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson dodged a question today from the National Center for Public Policy Research about the coffee giant’s financial losses due to protests and riots over the past year.

At the company’s annual shareholder meeting, held virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a representative of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) submitted this question to Johnson:

How much have been Starbucks’ losses as a result of the protests and riots that began in 2020 and that continue into 2021, particularly in Seattle and Portland?

Several months ago, FEP submitted a shareholder proposal for consideration in today’s meeting, but Starbucks successfully petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to block it.“Johnson’s failure to address our question is hardly a surprise, but his silence carries dark portents for shareholders, indicating anew that the company has placed politics far above good business practices,” said FEP Deputy Director Scott Shepard. “Careful investors must wonder if Starbucks remains a responsible business that can be trusted with their assets.”

“The company is contributing large sums to groups that actively participate in the protesting and rioting that has cost Starbucks so much, and that demand sweeping change in the economic and social structures that are required for economic growth and social harmony — and thus for Starbucks’ success,” Shepard continued. “But in response to FEP’s effort to place a question about Starbucks’ charitable giving on the ballot for this meeting, the company fought tooth and nail, even asserting to the Securities & Exchange Commission that shareholders like us, who dare to espouse policy positions different than the company’s, should be barred from submitting any shareholder proposals at all.”

Starbucks locations have been vandalized several times over the past year during riots triggered both by the death of George Floyd and by the inauguration of President Joe Biden.

“Johnson has turned a blind eye to the matter and has given in to the woke mob’s pressures to support such a movement, while simultaneously abandoning the company’s shareholder owners. As was apparent in the meeting today, Johnson still refuses to acknowledge the truth. He cares more about playing politics than helping to advance shareholder interests.”“In the wake of the violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests over the past year, I’ve found it increasingly odd that Starbucks gives large amounts of money to organizations that have contributed to the rioting and looting, including vandalism of Starbucks locations. With a quick Google search, shareholders can find videos of Starbucks shops being destroyed by ‘protesters,’” said FEP Associate Davis Soderberg, who attended the virtual meeting today.

Launched in 2007, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project focuses on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Over the past four years alone, FEP representatives have participated in over 100 shareholder meetings – advancing free-market ideals about health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and other important public policy issues. As the leading voice for conservative-minded investors, it annually files more than 90 percent of all right-of-center shareholder resolutions. Dozens of liberal organizations, however, annually file more than 95 percent of all policy-oriented shareholder resolutions and continue to exert undue influence over corporate America.

*****

This press release was published on March 17, 2021 and is reprinted with permission from the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Tucson Isn’t Diverse Enough to Attract Big, Rich Companies

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Tucson can’t win. Although the city is 43% Latino, it isn’t diverse enough to attract big, rich companies. It will have to accept its fate of having a poverty rate twice the national average, along with a corresponding high crime rate, substandard K-12 schools, and college graduates who leave for more prosperous cities with better opportunities—in spite of being home to a major research university, the University of Arizona.

That was the implication of a story in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal.

The story says that companies are moving their headquarters and major offices from locales that aren’t very diverse to those that are, such as Atlanta, so that they can hire and retain diverse employees. As used in the article, “diversity” is synonymous with “black.”

Sorry, my fellow Tucsonans, but Tucson has the wrong type of diversity.

I know the pluses and minuses of Atlanta very well, as I conducted a lot of business over my career in Atlanta and other parts of Georgia. In one case, I led an effort at a plant in Macon to teach literacy to black employees so they could retain their jobs as the plant converted to computer-controlled equipment. In another case, I fired a good ole boy who was a longtime HR manager at a plant in rural southern Georgia, because he was right out of central casting as a redneck.

Don’t think that the article won’t have an impact. In my years of management consulting, one of my biggest challenges was dealing with CEOs who would read a popular business book or business article about a new fad and then direct company managers to adopt the fad. Like most humans, most CEOs like to follow the herd.

The print edition of the article has a confusing chart that lists cities that have a high, medium, or low “tech-talent diversity score” and a lower cost of living.  Tucson doesn’t make the list.  Amazingly, nor does my boyhood home of St. Louis, although the metropolis is very racially diverse; has a diverse economy of industrial, biotech, and financial giants; has abundant cultural attractions; has two top-notch universities; has hip gentrified neighborhoods, and has a low cost of living and affordable housing. Phoenix did make the list, however, as having a medium score.

Damon Young: To Stop White Supremacy, Eliminate Whites

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Damon Young, a black writer for The Root, a black-oriented commentary site owned by the same people who own Jezebel, Gizmodo, and The Onion (their parent company is Univision), had this to say at The Root about the Atlanta massage parlor mass murders:

I don’t have much to add here today that hasn’t already been said.

Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people—white people and people who are not white, my mom included. There will be people who die, in 2050, because of white supremacy-induced decisions from 1850.

A line can and should be drawn from the actions of the white supremacist who walked into three Atlanta-area massage parlors yesterday, and allegedly killed eight people—six of whom were of Asian descent—to the relentless anti-Asian rhetoric pollinating national discourse over the past year. The former president, and the party of the former president, can and should be blamed for this and the sudden increase of racist violence against Asian Americans. The line doesn’t stop there, though. It extends back 400 years and has tentacles clawing everywhere white supremacy exists here, in America, which is everywhere.

There’s a line connecting this act of terror to the 11 people killed at the Tree of Life synagogue in 2018, and the nine people killed at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in 2015, of course. But also to gentrification, to red-lining, to racial profiling, to gerrymandering, to voter oppression, to mass incarceration, to the war on drugs, to the subprime mortgage crisis, to the vast disparities in both COVID deaths and who receives COVID vaccinations, to how the men and women who stormed the capitol just went home and had dinner with their families afterward. While we were still processing and recovering from what we witnessed, they were already back on their couches, watching Criminal Minds.

White supremacy is a virus that, like other viruses, will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it, and kill it. I guess a vaccine could work, too. But we’ve had 400 years to develop one, so I won’t hold my breath.

Is this calling for genocide? I find it hard to read it any other way. “It won’t stop until there are no more bodies left for it to infect.” So we have to kill “it”. That is, the bodies that it could infect. White bodies.

Jewishness is a virus that, like other viruses, will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it, and kill it. I guess a vaccine could work, too. But we’ve had 400 years to develop one, so I won’t hold my breath.

Damon Young would be out of a job if he wrote that, and would deserve to be. It’s straight-up Nazism. You could read similar descriptions of black people in white supremacist literature. Stone-cold evil this is, wherever it emerges. But now, it is fashionable in the US progressive media to dehumanize white people.

A decade ago, the author David Livingstone Smith appeared on NPR to talk about his new book Less Than Human, which covered the process of dehumanization as a precursor to mass murder. From the book:

Sometimes the Nazis thought of their enemies as vicious, bloodthirsty predators rather than parasites. When partisans in occupied regions of the Soviet Union began to wage a guerilla war against German forces, Walter von Reichenau, the commander-in-chief of the German army, issued an order to inflict a “severe but just retribution upon the Jewish subhuman elements” (the Nazis considered all of their enemies as part of “international Jewry”, and were convinced that Jews controlled the national governments of Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Military historian Mary R. Habeck confirms that, “soldiers and officers thought of the Russians and Jews as ‘animals’ … that had to perish. Dehumanizing the enemy allowed German soldiers and officers to agree with the Nazis’ new vision of warfare, and to fight without granting the Soviets any mercy or quarter.”

The Holocaust is the most thoroughly documented example of the ravages of dehumanization. Its hideousness strains the limits of imagination. And yet, focusing on it can be strangely comforting. It’s all too easy to imagine that the Third Reich was a bizarre aberration, a kind of mass insanity instigated by a small group of deranged ideologues who conspired to seize political power and bend a nation to their will. Alternatively, it’s tempting to imagine that the Germans were (or are) a uniquely cruel and bloodthirsty people. But these diagnoses are dangerously wrong. What’s most disturbing about the Nazi phenomenon is not that the Nazis were madmen or monsters. It’s that they were ordinary human beings.

When we think of dehumanization during World War II our minds turn to the Holocaust, but it wasn’t only the Germans who dehumanized their enemies. While the architects of the Final Solution were busy implementing their lethal program of racial hygiene, the Russian-Jewish poet and novelist Ilya Ehrenburg was churning out propaganda for distribution to Stalin’s Red Army. These pamphlets seethed with dehumanizing rhetoric: they spoke of “the smell of Germany’s animal breath,” and described Germans as “two-legged animals who have mastered the technique of war” — “ersatz men” who ought to be annihilated. “The Germans are not human beings,” Ehrenburg wrote, “… If you kill one German, kill another — there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses.”

This wasn’t idle talk. The Wehrmacht had taken the lives of 23 million Soviet citizens, roughly half of them civilians. When the tide of the war finally turned, a torrent of Russian forces poured into Germany from the east, and their inexorable advance became an orgy of rape and murder. “They were certainly egged on by Ehrenburg and other Soviet propagandists…” writes journalist Giles McDonough:

East Prussia was the first German region visited by the Red Army … In the course of a single night the red army killed seventy-two women and one man. Most of the women had been raped, of whom the oldest was eighty-four. Some of the victims had been crucified … A witness who made it to the west talked of a poor village girl who was raped by an entire tank squadron from eight in the evening to nine in the morning. One man was shot and fed to the pigs.

Damon Young and The Root are preparing their readers to commit racist atrocities by dehumanizing those they will victimize. The Root is owned and published by Univision. Here is Univision’s executive leadership team. I bet not one of these people are aware that their company is underwriting what could easily be read as a casual exhortation to anti-white genocide. They ought to be.

*****

This article was published on March 18, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.