A leftist comedian has some apt criticism of far left totems, include “woke.” From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
In 2019, comedian Bill Maher warned Americans “we are going to have to learn to live with each other or there will be blood.”
Almost exactly three years ago, the HBO host reminded the world that he was the only liberal pundit on TV who will call “the tolerant” left on its BS, by daring to admit that the US media manufactures more “fake news” than Russia ever could (and ironically, in recent weeks, has been proven 100% correct on ‘Russia collusion’ hoax lies).
Then, two years ago, Maher first ratcheted up his honest-reality filter to ’11’ by refusing to follow fellow Democrats down the ‘woke’ abyss, exclaiming “you’re the fucking nuts, this is insane” at progressive officials’ relentless anti-white activism in New York schools, both public and private.
Since then he taken a shot at “social justice warriors”, mocked the left’s demands for reparations, made fun of progressives’ hypocritical claims of racism against the ‘Chinese virus’, and further shamed the left’s constant COVID fear porn, among many other topics including mask-wearing fanaticism, media burying the Hunter Biden laptop story, gender reassignment, and celebrating obesity.
There is very little journalism left that even purports to be objective. The profession has been bastardized. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:
We previously discussed the movement in journalism schools to get rid of principles of objectivity in journalism. Advocacy journalism is the new touchstone in the media even as polls show that trust in the media is plummeting. Now, former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward have released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Notably, while Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.
We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.
Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
For curiosity to flourish, it can’t be punished, as it has during the Covid regime. From Brian C. Joondeph, M.D. at americanthinker.com:
Medicine, like most sciences, entails thinking and hypothesis creation to explain the myriad complexities of the healthy and diseased human body.
Hypotheses are tested and refined, with new information or insights nudging or abruptly shifting current knowledge in a new direction.
For examples, bloodletting with leeches is no longer standard medical practice for most ailments as it was up until the late 19th century. More recently, Vioxx was considered a safer painkiller, until it was found to cause heart attacks and strokes, similar to another “safe and effective” product introduced about two years ago. Oxycontin was marketed as a nonaddictive pain killer until it devasted hundreds of thousands of lives and families and was shown to be otherwise.
YouTube screen grab
Physicians, upon medical school graduation, recite the Hippocratic Oath. Quoting from the revised version (simply because the language is easier to understand), physicians swear, “I will not be ashamed to say, ‘I know not’” and “Above all, I must not play at God.”
Saying “I don’t know” is what drives the pursuit of new or alternate hypotheses. Physicians of a few hundred years ago saw their bloodletting patients die and didn’t know why, so they devised better treatments by asking questions and not playing God.
The Enlightenment propelled much of what we call civilization. From Paul Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:
We are watching the Enlightenment collapse before us in real time. I’ll be fairly brief in my explanation of why this is so and how it came about, but it strikes me as something we should understand.
Bear in mind that what remains of the Enlightenment is collapsing for structural reasons. I haven’t formed this discourse around political or academic theories, I’m basing it on facts and direct observations. Obviously I’m simplifying (one can’t write history any other way), but minus the inevitable exceptions and complications, this is what happened and what is happening.
How The Enlightenment Gained A Structure
The Enlightenment began with a collection of outsiders studying science. They had little backing and few credentials. In fact, the motto of the first group (that became The Royal Society) was Nullius in verba: “Take nobody’s word for it.” There was a lot to like in the early Enlightenment, and it led to a long string of crucial discoveries.
About halfway through its run, however, at about 1750 AD, the Enlightenment took a dark turn. Rather than working to discover what was right, it began to fixate on what was wrong. That is, the leading voices of the Enlightenment left off building and moved into tearing things down.
There was no reason for the Covid commissars to inflict what they did on children, who had only an infinitesimal chance of contracting the disease and even less of a chance of being seriously ill with it. From Scott W. Atlas at newcriterion.com:
On America’s moral compass in the face of COVID.
At long last, media censorship of the scientific debate during the COVID-19 pandemic has become undeniable. Censoring portrayed an illusion of consensus and intimidated scientifically valid disagreement. Policymakers and citizens were deceived by those suffocating scientific data and perspectives on risk, mitigation effectiveness, biological immunity, lockdowns, and especially the impacts of COVID and the policies themselves on children.
Perhaps censorship explains why the standard recommendations fifteen years prior to this pandemic remain unknown to the public. Henderson’s 2006 classic review clearly stated two related, but separate, conclusions: lockdowns were not effective, and lockdowns were extremely harmful, including: “Closing schools for longer periods (greater than ten to fourteen days at the beginning of an epidemic) in hopes of mitigating the epidemic by decreasing contacts among students is not warranted”; “There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods”; and “The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme . . . that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.”
All honest leaders, all individuals with integrity, should acknowledge that people were directly damaged and even died from the censorship of truth.
But as important as the censorship revelations have been, we may be witnessing yet another misdirection. Focusing on social media as the main culprit permits a flee from responsibility by lockdown advocates, including Drs. Fauci, Birx, Walensky, and countless academics filling America’s “expert class.” If that deflection of responsibility is swallowed by the public, then reintroduction of similarly reckless, destructive, and morally indefensible policies by those in power remains a viable possibility.
One of the worst things you can do to bright kids is not challenge them. From Vince Bielski at realclearwire.com:
Alex Shilkrut has deep roots in Manhattan, where he has lived for 16 years, works as a physician, and sends his daughter to a public elementary school for gifted students in coveted District 2.
It’s a good life. But Shilkrut regretfully says he may leave the city, as well as a job he likes in a Manhattan hospital, because of sweeping changes in October that ended selective admissions in most New York City middle schools.
These merit-based schools, which screened for students who met their high standards, will permanently switch to a lottery for admissions that will almost certainly enroll more blacks and Latinos in the pursuit of racial integration.
Shilkrut is one of many parents who are dismayed by the city’s dismantling of competitive education. He says he values diversity but is concerned that the expectation that academic rigor will be scaled back to accommodate a broad range of students in a lottery is what’s driving him and other parents to seek alternatives.
Although it’s too early to know how many students might leave the school system due to the enrollment changes, some parents say they may opt for private education at $50,000 a year and others plan to uproot their lives for the suburbs despite the burdens of such moves.
“We will very likely leave the public schools,” says Shilkrut, adding that he knows 10 Manhattan families who also plan to depart. “And if these policies continue, there won’t be many middle- and upper middle-class families left in the public schools.”
Teachers and administrators foist questionable material on young students, and they won’t allow parents to even question it. From Star Parker at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:
Schools in the Rochester school district in Michigan include in their curriculum a course called “History of Ethnic and Gender Studies.”
If my child were attending school there, I would wonder why this is in the curriculum as part of K–12 education and what is taught.
One mother, Carol Beth Litkouhi, wondered enough that she went to the school and asked for details about what will be conveyed to her child in this program.
The response she got from the school amounted to “sorry, none of your business.”
Excuse me. A mother has no right to know what her child is being taught?
Litkouhi turned to the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, which filed a lawsuit against the school district. A request was made under the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to release to this mother details about the program. But this request also went nowhere.
Now the Oakland County Circuit Court has ruled supporting the school district’s claim that because teachers belong to a teachers union, they are not public employees subject to the FOIA.
Mackinac will appeal this absurd ruling.
But let’s forget the legalities for a moment and just consider the outrageous reality being perpetrated against America’s parents and children by public school bureaucracies and teachers unions.
Look at the website of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the nation’s second-largest teachers union. It is an unapologetic megaphone for America’s left.
Brats are brats, and many kids today are high-tech, drug addled brats. From Restoring Truth at restoringtruth.substack.com:
On the Epidemic of Disordered Childhood
Meet Xander and Chloe, the celebrated offspring of two educated and very distracted parents. These two little nuggets love to make a stir; being noticed for their endearingly awful behavior is just part of being special—-and to see their trophy shelves, you’d know they are special, indeed.
Their habitual fits of anger and eardrum-piercing objections are “caused” by unfortunate things like red food dye, fatigue, or poor reading skills. Therefore, they must carry fun iPads everywhere the family goes, or they’ll melt down. Their parents’ commands, cleverly disguised as perky questions, are usually met with defiance or ignored altogether.
From a shelf full of soccer trophies to a summer packed with boredom-crushing lego “camps,” Xander and Chloe have impressive resumes. Their academic pedigrees are off to a good start at the local expensive private school. At the after-school Little Tigers club, Xander can learn yoga, and Chloe can design a robot.
Their histories full of travel, art classes and swim meets would shame the average adult. However, those same adults would rather drive or walk than share an airplane row with these budding little Napoleons.
I sat behind a Xander and Chloe on a recent flight to Florida. Both were dressed ominously in trendy sweatshirts announcing “here comes trouble” and “be kind”. Obnoxious, but endlessly coddled by their hipster dad, they bucked the system from takeoff to landing.
From The Babylon Bee:
BEAVERTON, OR — Third-grade teacher Ms. Gaywood (she/her) became frustrated during the first day back from the holiday break when she discovered half her students had detransitioned and were no longer identifying as made-up genders.
“You were all beautiful specks of uncompromising individuality, and now you’re conforming to a heteronormative, patriarchal society,” a frustrated Gaywood complained to the group of children who had been fearfully and wonderfully made as unique individuals in the image of God. “What happened?”
Students who had relapsed into a toxic heteronormative lifestyle admitted they weren’t sure how to act as anything other than who they were without their instructor’s constant guidance. “I forgot your lesson about mansplaining,” mansplained Robert Cliff, a young boy who previously identified as a powerful she-elf named Persephone. “And my older brother said I can’t have babies!”
Ms. Gaywood reportedly tried to ignore this setback and begin lessons on the racist history of Greek mathematicians in light of the Antebellum South, but the class became unruly and asked her to define what a woman is.
“I used to think I was a 23-year-old man but now I’m really thinking I’m a girl like my mom says,” said student Sarah Harden.
Ms. Gaywood, who said she would have clutched her pearls if she was one of the stereotypical women who like jewelry, immediately complained to the school principal and contacted Child Protective Services. “These kids are being raised by their parents!”
At publishing time, CPS representatives from the Portland area relocated the unruly children into gender-affirming foster homes.
Here’s a crazy idea. Maybe before the U.S. gets fully involved in war with Russia, we should learn a little bit about Russian history and culture. It couldn’t hurt. From Laurent Guyénot at unz.com:
What is Russia? How does Russia define herself, and how does she conceive of her relationship to Europe? Specifically, from what tradition do Russia’s current ruling elites draw their vision of Russian civilization? I wanted to learn about the Russian thinkers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that the Russians themselves have rediscovered since the fall of Communism, and who are said to have a strong influence on Vladimir Putin and his entourage. Here is what I found.
Let’s start, quite logically, with three authors whose books were offered by Vladimir Putin to governors and members of his United Russia party for the New Year 2014 (see here and here):
- Vladimir Solovyov’s The Justification of the Good
- Nikolai Berdyaev ‘s The Philosophy of Inequality
- Ivan Ilyin’s Our Tasks
All three authors are deeply religious and patriotic, and as such committed to Russian Orthodoxy. All three are passionate about Russia, and hold her as “an original and independent civilization,” in the terms used by Vladimir Putin in his October 27, 2022 speech at the Valdai Forum.