American Elephants


Summing-Up, Fact Checking, Questioning, Digesting the News by The Elephant's Child

This seems to be a day of summing up. Trying to digest and make sense out of the past few weeks.Very much is about the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, and the battle therein, from scenes of screaming protesters (female) having to be dragged out of a senate hearing room, to embarrassing revelations of the mindset of members of the media or protesters and commentators.

NBC reporter Ken Dilanian tweeted today that “States with varying population sizes should not get the same representation in the U.S. Senate.” Not fair! He was quoting a Washington Post article that said “Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans.” Um. Constitution. Senate has equal representation for all 50 states, directly because the states with large populations could overrule those with small populations. Basic. You’re fired.

—Is it possible there is hope for some small segment of the media? At American Thinker, Tom Lifson is astonished by a headline and a news story from, of all places, CNN.

—Why Republicans and sane people are celebrating the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh: Here’s a tweet from a writer on the Stephen Colbert show, who has nearly 40,000 followers on Twitter. (Apparently not blocked) One Ariel Dumas:
“Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”

—Heather MacDonald in a post at City Journal titled “Trauma and Truth” says the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court dealt the #Me Too and #Believe Survivors a major defeat. “Those feminist ideologies will continue wreaking havoc throughout American institutions—especially the claim that self-professed sexual assault victims deserve Unqualified belief.”

—A new well-funded Progressive group, linked to Democratic campaign organizations, is based on demonizing senior citizens. They have decided to attempt to turn younger voters against senior citizens. Identity group warfare is supposed to be another strategy for success at the polls. If they’ve got gray hair, attack them? The group in question is called ACRONYM according to CNN, Sept 24.

Acronym [is] a progressive nonprofit launched last year by veteran digital strategist Tara McGowan to help narrow the advantage Republicans had built in digital capacity.

A progressive group on Monday launched a $3 million voter registration campaign in the 36 states that allow online registration, with a focus on Arizona, Florida and Georgia, CNN reported.

Here’s their first campaign advertisement: Seems dumb to me, but they apparently have lots of financing.

—A 27 year-old congressional staffer has been arrested for posting on Wikipedia the private addresses of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, what’s called “doxing” or releasing the private information of public  figures, witness tampering, threats, identity theft, and unlawful entry. For the media, he is a hapless overzealous intern, but it was a criminal act, particularly in the current climate when everybody who is anybody is getting death threats.

—And finally, retired reporter Don Surber listened to President Trump’s version of the Six O’Clock News in Topeka, Kansas. He found it “less biased, more factual and presented better.” but decided he’d better fact-check the man.

Advertisements


Joe Biden Explains FBI Investigations by The Elephant's Child

Here’s Joe Biden, a bit younger back in 1991, during the Clarence Thomas hearings, explaining that FBI investigations, such as the one demanded today of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, do not reach conclusions. That’s not their job, nor how they do things. Embarrassing to Democrats to have us dredge up ancient evidence, but there it is. The FBI investigates, but they do not reach conclusions.

Democrats really hate it when we do this. They have no concern about consistency, and hate it when we make fun of them.



Kavanaugh: Continued, On and On. by The Elephant's Child

The fourth person that Christine Blasey Ford identified as being at the fabled party when she was assaulted, put a damper on Ford’s charge. In a Saturday evening email, an attorney representing Ford’s former classmate, Leland Ingham Keyser, stated that his client “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party of gathering where he was present, with, or without Dr. Ford.” She’s the fourth person to refute Ford’s story.

Claire Berlinski from the Manhattan Institute commented that: “news organizations could render a valuable service if, whenever they report that someone has taken or proposes to take a polygraph, they reminded readers (or explained to them) that polygraphs are voodoo.  Junk science. They are no more reliable than a pack of Tarot cards. Polygraph evidence is inadmissible in court. There is a good reason for that. To check Brett Kavanaugh’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, Congress would do well to ask him whether he believes Frye v. United States and United States v. Scheffer were correctly decided. …

A polygraph measures your heart rate, breathing, and galvanic skin response. There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological responses is unique to deception. Polygraphs are useful to investigators trying to elicit a confession, however: if you convince suggestible people that these measurements are associated with lying, they are more likely spontaneously to confess when you tell them, “The machine says you’re lying.”

And Heather MacDonald, also at Manhattan Institute: chimes in with a little common sense. “If Supreme Court Justice William Brennan were posthumously discovered to have aggressively groped a girl once in high school, should that fact discredit his landmark opinions expanding press freedom, legal protections for criminal defendants, and voting and welfare rights? Would it have been better for the country, from a liberal perspective, if Brennan’s judicial career had been derailed from the start? What about Justice John Marshall Harlan, whose groundbreaking 1896 dissent from the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson declared that the Constitution was “color-blind” and rejected state-sponsored segregation? If Harlan had once jumped on a girl as a 17-year-old, should that one-time outbreak of boorish adolescent male hormones efface his contributions as a public thinker?

The Democratic response to the allegation that three and a half decades ago, Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh assaulted a girl during a pool party bears many hallmarks of campus culture, from the admonition that “survivors” should always be believed to the claim that the veracity of the accusation matters less than the history of white-male privilege. But the most significant import from academic feminism is the idea that a long-ago, never-repeated incident of adolescent sexual misbehavior (assuming that the assault happened as described, which Kavanaugh has categorically denied) should trump a lifetime record of serious legal thought and government service. (Now, a new allegation, reported by The New Yorker, that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a Yale classmate at a party—though the New York Times regarded the evidence as too flimsy to publish—has ramped up outrage to the point that feminists are demanding that the Ford hearings they had called for be cancelled.) The feminist nostrum that the personal is political is being weaponized to subordinate the public realm of ideas to the private realm of sexual relations—all, ironically, in the service of a highly political end: preventing a judicial conservative from being seated on the high court. The domain of Eros and the domain of public action are, however, in most cases distinct. If it turned out that James Madison had groped his domestics, it would be absurd to discard the constitutional separation of powers on that ground. Madison’s political insights are more important to civilization than any hypothetical chauvinist indiscretions.

Sleazy porn-star lawyer Michael Avenatti has located someone who will claim gross drunken college parties. Avenatti, with his representation of Stormy Daniels discovered media attention, and loves it so much that now he even wants to run for president. Apparently there is something intoxicating about appearing on camera, getting attention—we know that Hollywood celebrities will do or say anything to get the attention of the public. If it’s outrageous enough, maybe they will get into People or maybe just one of the movie magazines that you find at the beauty parlor.

I expect that most of you are as tired and angry about all this as I am. Judge Kavanaugh should be promptly confirmed, and enough of these phony stories.



Democrats Want Control, But What Do They Mean By Control? by The Elephant's Child

google_2015_logo_detailFrom the Washington Free Beacon, Sept. 13, 2018:

Former Google research scientist Jack Poulson has resigned from the company over its decision to move forward with a censored search engine approved by the Chinese government for use in the country.

Poulson quit after he raised concerns with his supervisors about Google’s secret project to release a censored search app in China, ultimately determining the company was willing to “capitulate” to China, the Intercept reported.  …

“I view our intent to capitulate to censorship and surveillance demands in exchange for access to the Chinese market as a forfeiture of our values and governmental negotiating position across the globe,” he wrote. “There is an all-too-real possibility that other nations will attempt to leverage our actions in China in order to demand our compliance with their security demands.”

Poulson said around five people have resigned for the same reason. When the project, codenamed Dragonfly, was reported in the press, he was one of many both inside and outside the company demanding answers from the tech giant. Not only did they fail to answer him, Google executives even refused to show up to a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and answer questions about their activity in China.

From Foreign Policy: “48 Ways to Get Sent to a Chinese Concentration Camp: Something terrible is happening in Xinjiang”

From Daily Wire.com:Google Built China a Prototype Search Engine That allows Government to Spy On Citizen’s Search Queries”

From Reuters: Chinese Official says China is educating, not mistreating. Muslims”

From The Wall Street Journal: By Walter Russell Mead: “Imperialism Will Be Dangerous for China:“Beijing risks blowback as it exports surplus economic capacity to Africa and Asia.

From ABC.net.au: “Leave no dark corner” China is building a digital dictatorship to exert control over it’s 1.4 billion citizens. For some, “social credit” will bring privileges—for others, punishment.

Do read the whole thing, particularly the last piece just above. Note the facial recognition. Democrats here at home want control. Just what do they mean by control?

What is it that George Soros wants, that he is so ready to plow in big money to influence? Nancy Pelosi has already been somewhat clear in declaring that they will immediately end the tax cuts that have created such a booming economy, because they only(in spite of vast evidence to the contrary), went to the very rich. But it is also rumored that Democrats are determined to get rid of Pelosi as a potential Speaker, once again.

We were taken aback at the crazy Democratic reaction to the election of President Trump – calling it Trump Derangement Syndrome – almost as if it was all a big joke. It isn’t. Someone, and I forget who, explained that the Democrats were terrified when the Tea Party movement broke out. Republicans weren’t supposed to protest, be activists, Democrats depended on their polite objections, not actual confrontation. We might keep that in mind.



We Need to Take the Idea of “Control” A Lot More Seriously by The Elephant's Child

413800-jinping-98

The news is, at best, as disturbing as could be imagined, but it takes a lot of reading to understand the developments. Let’s start with China. President Xi Jinping is not merely an authoritarian leader. He evidently believes that the Party must have absolute and complete control over society, and he must have absolute and complete control over the Party. China returns once more to totalitarianism.

“By 2020, Chinese officials plan to have about 626 million surveillance cameras  operating throughout the country. The cameras will, among other things, feed information into a national “social credit system.

That system, when it is in place in perhaps two years, will assign to every person in China a constantly updated score based on observed behaviors. For example, an instance of jaywalking, caught by one of those cameras, will result in a reduction in score.

Although officials might hope to reduce jaywalking, they seem to have far more sinister ambitions, such as ensuring conformity to Communist Party political demands. In short, the government looks as if it is determined to create what the Economist called “the world’s first digital totalitarian state.”

That social credit system, once perfected, will surely be extended to foreign companies and individuals.

A journalist named Liu Hu was prevented from taking a flight because he had a low score. According to the Global Times (a communist controlled paper) by the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 1.4 million flights and 4,25 million high-speed train trips. Liu said “I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school” You are being controlled by the list all the time.

Chinese leaders have long been interested in making defiance virtually impossible. With the the capabilities they are developing it would seem that absolute control is in the works.

Americans who have studied up on Communism as practiced in Russia, the eastern European nations, and Castro’s Cuba, and now Venezuela, find our own Democrat party’s fight to be in control of our country and our Politics off-putting. But this kind of control is far beyond anything that we even could imagine. Do Read the Whole Thing. It’s not that long.



A Nation of Immigrants, from Prager University by The Elephant's Child

Here’s Michelle Malkin to explain about immigration. There is enormous confusion about the issue. In demonstrations you will see Latin American immigrants holding signs that proclaim than”No human is illegal”, which is silly. Of course those who cross the border in defiance of American Law are Illegal. That’s the meaning of the word. If they are citizens of another country to which they owe allegiance, they aliens illegal aliens. Straightforward dictionary definitions. The immigration laws assume that we can accept about one million new immigrants a year.

The law is complicated by all sorts of problems like H-1B workers here because industry claims to need them. Then the law has to deal with their wives, and can the wives work? The laws are a bit of a mess, and need cleaning up. We do need a wall, walls do work, as the evidence from other countries who have walls demonstrates. And lots of countries have walls. Mexico has a wall, with watchtowers on their southern border.

The best source for information is the Center for Immigration Studies — cis.org. They are pro-immigrant, anti-illegal immigrant, and try to make sense of all the information and misinformation.

Democrats are loudly proclaiming that our laws are mean and we should have open borders. The problem is that they have no concern whatsoever for the  illegal immigrants—or their welfare, they simply want more bodies for the 2020 census, which counts bodies, not citizens. The number of people in a state will determine the number of representatives a party may have in the House of Representatives, and the count in the electoral college. So you can probably guess why they want more illegal immigrants.



Accountability Journalism by The Elephant's Child

According to past statements (2008) the Associated Press endorses “Accountability Journalism, ”

“Op-eds are old news and neutrality and equal treatment to all sides of an issue aren’t what journalism should be about, AP believes. Will the opinion editorial category disappear under the new rules.”begins an article about journalistic ethics as bureau chief Ron Fournier believes. The conventional press model, he says, where both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight , is exactly what journalists need to avoid.”

“Fournier believes those old journalistic ethics are what stops reporters from telling the truth as they see it.”

Before Fournier took over the job as bureau chief, he himself wrote pieces which are being referred to as a “model” of the new brand of journalism he is encouraging from the AP writers.

One piece was titled, “Obama is bordering on arrogance”, and was written as straight news, not opinion, despite the opinion that is explicit in the headline itself.

Ooooh! “bordering on arrogance?” When was Obama not arrogant? It was one of his most characteristic poses. Fournier sounds remarkably like Bob Dorsey of  Twitter, or Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, pompously insisting that they ban people only for real reasons, not ever anything political, as they refer to the Southern Poverty Law Center (a wildly radical leftist group) to help them “fact check”.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal was one of the most frequent critics of this new brand of “accountability journalism” who said “The problem is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it,you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting and then add opinion to that.

Here’s the article from John Hinderaker at Powerline, and a description of the new “accountability journalism” of the AP in “reporting “on the attacks by the AP that they apparently do not understand as attacks, nor even as partisan.This kind of thing is why the president tweets about “fake news” and a dishonest press. They don’t see themselves as partisan, just right — correct thinking. Of course Trump is dishonest, racist, arrogant and authoritarian, and as we accept that basis, we’ll try to tell the truth as we see it.

Here’s the Society of Professional Journalists’ formal Code of Ethics which makes interesting reading. Because they consider themselves the honest elite, with a real code of ethics, and they consider Trump and all his minions as deplorables beneath consideration, any attempt to be non-partisan must seem like a surrender to the evil other side, and therefore perfectly legitimate. They are true believers,and their side is right and proper, and the other guys –us– are beyond the pale.




%d bloggers like this: