A year-end mess
Becket Adams
The establishment media seem determined to end the year 2022 as they began it: poorly.
In one example, the Washington Post made a shocking discovery this week: The Capitol honors the slaveowners and Confederates who played a key role in the formation of the federal government.
Stop the presses!
“A Washington Post investigation of more than 400 artworks in the U.S. Capitol building found that nearly one-third honor enslavers or Confederates,” the paper teased on social media.
More amusing than the Washington Post acting as if it had stumbled onto a startling truth is that it characterizes its “investigation,” which is based entirely on publicly available information, as an “exclusive” — just as if archaeologists have now opened King Tutankhamun’s tomb for the first time and granted the paper “exclusive” access.
But the Washington Post wasn’t granted “exclusive” access, according to, well, the Washington Post.
“To complete this analysis,” the paper explains, “[we] used lists of artworks supplied by the Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the Senate Historian and the Office of the House Historian, and also conducted in-person inspections of the building. A variety of academic, archival and biographical sources were used to determine the slaveholding status of each figure who reached adulthood before the passage of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery.”
The Washington Post adds: “Only fine art depicting people or scenes was counted; decorative arts like pillars or painted flora and fauna were not. Some artworks may not have been included in this analysis if they are located in areas closed to the public and the media or not documented by the offices of the Architect of the Capitol, the House historian or the Senate historian.”
In short, Washington Post staff requested copies of lists from offices that exist to supply them. They then paced around the Capitol, cross-referencing the listed artwork against publicly available historical databases.
“Exclusive”!
Question: When is an “exclusive” not exactly an “exclusive”?
Answer: When the story is based entirely on publicly available information, easily retrieved, that anyone with the time and inclination can examine. But good job with the yearslong attempt to undo all the work of the Reconciliation era!
Balance
If Republicans support it, you can bet a newsroom will find a reason to oppose it, regardless of whether Republicans are in the right.
Case in point: Time magazine dinged Republicans this week for pushing fellow lawmakers to vote in person.
“Proxy voting afforded some lawmakers an unprecedented level of work-life balance,” Time said in a news blurb. “House Republicans plan to ditch it.”
Oh, come on.
Voters ask so little of their elected representatives (and they expect even less). Most lawmakers don’t even read the bills they pass. Many lawmakers are woefully ignorant of life outside of elected office. Many lawmakers lack even a basic understanding of the industries they oversee and regulate (e.g. any congressional hearing involving Big Tech). This is on top of the fact that, between 2001 and 2021, the House averaged only 149 days in session per year (on average, the Senate spent 164 days in session during this same time frame). For 2022, the House will have only 112 days in session.
Meanwhile, you, the common schlub, work an average of 260 days per year, all the while subsidizing a chronically dysfunctional, ignorant, and, frankly, lazy legislative body (see: read the bills).
It’s an embarrassing state of affairs voters have more or less just accepted. But now we’re being told it’s unfair for Republicans to press lawmakers to show up for work? Pushing for more in-person voting is a threat to lawmakers’ “work-life balance”?
What work?
Tomboys
Of all the latest trends in creative writing, few are as irritating as the attempt to retcon history to validate modern niche sexual identities.
In the 1990s, it was all the rage to recast certain historical figures as gay or lesbian (see: St. Joan of Arc). Now, it’s fashionable to recast certain historical figures as transgender or nonbinary (see: St. Joan of Arc).
On Dec. 24, 2022, a New York Times op-ed asked, “Did the Mother of Young Adult Literature Identify as a Man?” The author in question is Little Women author Louisa May Alcott.
Elsewhere, on social media, the paper wrote: “The word ‘transgender’ did not exist during the life of ‘Little Women’ author Louisa May Alcott. But [contributing author Peyton Thomas] asks whether it might be the best word to capture the experience of an author who wrote about having a ‘boy’s spirit’ and a ‘man’s soul.’”
Thomas concludes the article thus:
“In the absence of necromancy to settle the question, we must base our understanding of Alcott’s identity on her writing. ‘I long to be a man,’ she wrote in one journal entry. ‘I was born with a boy’s nature,’ she said in that letter to Whitman, and ‘a boy’s spirit’ and ‘a boy’s wrath.’ As a child, she didn’t ‘care much for girls’ things.’ Recall that as an adult, just a few years from death, she saw herself as ‘a man’s soul, put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body.’ Why not take Lou at his word?”
You know what word did exist during the life of Little Women author Louisa May Alcott? “Tomboy.” The word Thomas is looking for is “tomboy.” The word worked just as well then as it does now to describe women such as Alcott. There’s no need to invent a thin backstory for modern audiences, recasting the author’s stated preference for traditionally male affairs, interests, and dispositions as a niche sexual identity.
As it turns out, the people of the 19th century, who wrote much more eloquently and convincingly than we do in the present, possessed robust vocabularies. And unlike many people nowadays, they could explain, describe, and understand themselves beyond mere sexual identity. Imagine that.
Alcott’s personal musings don’t suggest a woman who identified as a man biologically, but as a man temperamentally. There is, in fact, a significant difference.
A zillennial can consider himself an “old soul,” born by “some freak of nature” into the wrong decade. But this doesn’t mean he actually believes he is a senior citizen from the 1930s or the 1940s. His affinity for “old school” values and aesthetics certainly doesn’t qualify him for an AARP membership.
Criminently.
Propaganda
CNN this week assured readers the Biden administration has “renewed” its commitment to freeing former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan from Russian imprisonment.
What, exactly, is the Biden administration doing differently from the past? What, exactly, does this “renewed” commitment look like?
CNN doesn’t say! It merely assures readers the Biden White House is on it.
“Biden administration renews commitment to free Paul Whelan on fourth anniversary of his detention in Russia,” the headline reads.
The story itself reads: “The Biden administration on Wednesday renewed its commitment to secure the release of American Paul Whelan on the fourth anniversary of his wrongful detention in Russia, as Whelan’s family expressed hope that he would not mark yet another milestone in Russian prison.”
The article then quotes Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who said this week: “Today marks four years that Paul Whelan has spent wrongfully detained, away from his family, suffering through an unfathomable ordeal. His detention remains unacceptable, and we continue to press for his immediate release at every opportunity.”
CNN also quotes President Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan, who said: “As the President and I have told the Whelan family, we will not stop, we will not relent, we will not cease until all Americans can celebrate Paul’s return.”
And that’s it. There’s nothing else to the report except for a brief recounting of how Whelan wound up in a Russian prison, how long he has been there, and how the White House has failed to secure his release. The article also includes old quotes from Whelan’s family.
It seems strange for a major newsroom to say the White House has “renewed” its “commitment” to free an imprisoned Marine and then fail to list a single action beyond a few measly statements. The story reads more like state propaganda than an actual news item.
Dear leader’s commitment to his beloved children has not faltered, will never waver in the face of capitalist saboteurs and running dog kulaks!
Also, it’s a little thing, but the wording of CNN’s reporting is confusing (or amusing, depending on your disposition). As my old friend Siraj Hashmi notes, “‘Renews’ implies there was an interruption in that commitment to free Paul Whelan.”