New Year Reflections, Part III (The Corrupt Mainstream Media)

Make no mistake, the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) is corrupt.  Not just biased, but corrupt.  Following former President Trump's historic win in the Iowa caucuses, Rachel Maddow explained why MSNBC would not air Trump's victory speech.  "We will let you know if there is any news made in that speech, if there is anything noteworthy, something substantive and important."

Maddow:  "The reason I'm saying this is, of course, there is a reason that we and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered, live platform to remarks by former President Trump.  It is not out of spite, it is not a decision that we relish, it is a decision that we'll regularly revisit.  And honestly, earnestly, it is not an easy decision."

But there is a cost to us, as a news organization, of knowingly broadcasting untrue things.  That is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are.  And so, his remarks, tonight, will not air live here, we will monitor them and let you know about any news that he makes."  

Well isn't that special.  Here is the truth, however.  The D-MSMC wants Biden to win, regardless of the cost to their journalistic integrity.  And they will do their best to make sure that Biden does win.  They certainly do not want their viewers to see a man, only a few years younger than Biden, able to speak extemporaneously, unlike the presumed Democrat candidate.  And just how elitist are these people, telling the American people that they do not need to hear the words of the likely Republican nominee for President of the United States.  You also have to wonder how Maddow was able to say with a straight face that they do not want to broadcast "untrue things."  Here is the short reply I would give to Maddow:  Russian collusion hoax, which you repeated over and over again.

Should Biden and Trump end up being their party's nominees, and in the unlikely event Biden agrees to a debate, I have a recommendation for the D-MSMC.  When Biden is speaking, air all of his remarks.  When Trump speaks, mute his comments and put up on the screen "we will let you if the former President says anything newsworthy."  Ridiculous?  Of course.  Yet that is exactly what MSNBC just did.

Not surprisingly, CNN joined in.  Here was Jake Tapper:  "A relatively subdued speech as the(se) things go so far.  Although, here he is, right under my voice."  Under my voice?  Why are you talking over him?  Here is one excuse why people should not be allowed to hear Trump.  "You can hear him repeating his anti-immigrant rhetoric."  What???

The American people view the open border and illegal immigration as the biggest issue facing the country.  Big city mayors across the country - Democrats - are complaining about the flood of illegal immigrants.  Here is Trump's so-called anti-immigrant rhetoric:  "W are going to seal up the border.  Because right now, we have an invasion.  We have an invasion of millions and millions of people that are coming into our country.  I can't imagine why they think that's a good thing."

So, Trump is saying he is against illegal immigration, not all immigration.  But the corrupt D-MSMC never makes that distinction when talking about Republicans.  Trump said it's an "invasion."  Well, what the hell else would you call it when as many as 10 million people have entered the country illegally during Biden's first three years in office.  Anybody need a better example of why I refer to most of the media as the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex?

New Year Reflections, Part II (A Further Discussion of DEI)

(Note:  In the December 9, 2023 post, "Year End Reflections, Part II,"  I discussed the evil of DEI.  This is a further discussion about that.)  As with many universities and businesses, Johns Hopkins Medicine has an Office of Diversity.  Heading the office is one Dr. Sherita H. Golden.  In the January edition of their Diversity Digest (yes, they have such a publication), Dr. Golden said this:  "In the United States, privilege is granted to people who have membership in one or more of these social groups identity groups:  white people, able bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people (you identify with the sex you were born with, i.e. almost everybody), males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle aged people, and English-speaking people."

So then, what are we talking about?  99% of the population?  Won't the vast majority of people fall into one of those groups?  It's nonsense.  And what's the point?  Taking the first two groups, white people and able bodied people, I'll use myself as an example.  Am I white?  Yes.  Am I able bodied?  Not since age 15.  So, as between those those groups, would I be identified as 50% privileged and 50% non-privileged?  But what if my physical limitations have had a greater impact on my life than being white?  So, can we say then I am only 25% privileged and 75% non-privileged?  How would we even measure the impact of the two?  And what's the point?

I have good reason to believe that early in my career I was turned down from two different jobs for these reasons.  The first time was because I am Jewish.  So...I ended up at a firm run by Jewish attorneys and where I was very happy.  The second time was because of my physical disability issues, and was walking with a cane for years prior to my bilateral hip replacements.  So...I ended up at a firm that said they didn't care about that.  In fact, I had the two hip replacements while working at that firm, and they took care of me while I was off for two months each time.  And they paid my salary.  What's the lesson?  There are a-holes in the world, but there are plenty of good people also.   

Dr. Golden:  "...privileges are unearned and are granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their intent."  Whether you want it or not.  Regardless of your intent.  Well, there is guilt by association for sure.  How should we punish you?

Dr. Golden subsequently apologized for her post, likely under pressure from the administration at Johns Hopkins Medicine.  The President and Dean issued a statement in which they "repudiate(d)" the statement by Dr. Golden.  And they added that the definition of privilege by Dr, Golden "runs counter to the values of our institution, and our mission and commitment to serve everyone equally."  Here are a couple of questions.  I would ask the President and Dean:  Are you serious?  What did you expect from a DEI office?  And I would ask everyone, how comfortable would you be getting treatment from Dr. Golden if you fall into one of her privilege categories?  And, depending on how much influence Dr. Golden has had on the other doctors at Johns Hopkins, how comfortable would you be there at all?  

In May of last year, the Pew Research Center issued poll results from people who work as employees.  56% said focusing on DEI at work is a good thing.  28% said it is neither good nor bad.  And 16% called it a bad thing.  Not surprisingly, more women (61%) than men (50%) thought it was a good thing.  Also not surprising was the difference between the races.  78% of blacks said it was a good thing, joined by 72% of Asians and 65% of Hispanics.  But a minority of whites, 47%, said it was a good thing.  

Also not surprising was the age gap, with 68% of those 18 to 29 saying the focus on DEI was a good thing.  56% of those age 30 to 49 agreed, but only 46% of those age 50 to 64 agreed.  In the 65 or older group (likely many were soon to be retired) the number went back up to 52%.  And, least surprising of all was the difference between the two parties.  Democrats and those leaning Democrat favored the focus on DEI by 78%.  Republicans and those leaning Republican - only 30%.  (Pew said the poll was taken of employees at companies with 10 or more people.  And the results for Asians consisted of only those who spoke English.)  

I would submit to my readers that Republicans came in with that low number because they actually believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King - that people be judged based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.