Friday morning, CBS Radio purposefully misdescribed the “controversial” North Carolina law as removing “protections for LGBT people.” It does not do that. What the law does is prevent special rights (AKA exemptions from current laws) for sexually confused people. It requires those people to obey the same laws that you and I have to, i.e. we can’t go into whatever restroom we wish, whenever we want. The North Carolina law is not controversial other than someone simply insisting that it is. It does nothing new but rather reestablishes what was law for 99.9999% of North Carolina’s history.
This wave of misdescribing/misreporting the law is not an accident or through incompetence, it is part of a purposeful campaign of disinformation organized by the pro-homosexual group, the so-called “Human Rights Campaign.” It has many hyperloyal allies in the mainstream media. Many in the lamestream media see themselves as activists in league with this group. They don’t report news but are rather fighting for a cause, issuing propaganda just as any revolutionary or totalitarian lackey would.
This is a simple issue — you go to the restroom where others with your plumbing go. Your “feelings” that day or how you want to view yourself do not count.
Stepping over to misreporting at the Wall Street Journal. Recently, in the “Overheard” column in the April 6 issue, the anonymous writer described Donald Trump’s proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border as “designed to keep citizens of that country [Mexico] out” and “designed to keep their [Mexico] citizens out of the U.S.”
I happen to think such a wall to be foolish and likely to be an expensive white elephant. However, the reporters clearly misreported the purpose and intent of the wall. It is designed to keep illegal immigrants out. That some of those might be Mexican citizens is immaterial (many being kept out or citizens of other countries to the south). Being a Mexican citizen does not provide one with a carte blanche on U.S. soil. Those citizens committing criminal acts are not protected by their Mexican citizenship.
One could just as easily argue that one could break into a retail store because normally people enter the store at other times so the manner of entering the store is not important. One might also argue the same for breaking and entering private homes since the owners probably often have visitors so the manner of visitation is not important. This is completely upside down. Yet such nonsense passes these days as discussion — and a one-sided discussion it is in the news media.
The crux of those laws is the manner of entry.
The wall would not prevent Mexican citizens from entering the United States so long as they enter at the proper points and obey the law. The same is required of U.S. citizens entering Mexico. Why is this so contentious? Why is this so hard for reporters to report?
I think we know why.
One more episode of misreporting from the WSJ. The April 1 “Ahead of the Tape” column by Steven Russolillo, who seems to dueling with Justin Lahart as to who can spin unemployment numbers the most favorably for the Obama administration, was rehearsing how great the unemployment situation was becoming — 4.9% unemployment and all that. He acknowledged the labor participation rate was a bit weak, but amazingly, he saw that as a positive. Then he reasoned that if just a few more Baby Boomers retired and some more people would simply join the permanently unemployed, the unemployment rate could fall further.
He said, “And if the participation rate resumes its decadeslong descent by half a percentage point, the unemployment rate would fall to 3.4%. That hasn’t happened since the 1960s.”
That fewer people would be employed and more were actually unemployed did not seem to occur to him or maybe bother him. He focused exclusively on the official “unemployment rate.” This rate has become divorced from reality under the Obama administration propagandists at the Dept. of Labor. Had Russolillo simply acknowledged that, a fact reported several times by his employer, his article might have made more sense in a highly niched, statistically anomalous way. But he didn’t.
Amusingly, he even offered a tip of the hat to the long-discredited phantom of the mid-1970s, the Phillips Curve. He didn’t name it but worried about the phenomenon.
Then he concluded, “With the economy already near full employment, participation arguably matters more now then ever.” Wait, suddenly those permanently unemployed are back on the radar. But you just said we were at “near full employment.” How can we be near full employment when there are legions of unemployed.
Ah, life in the Age of Obama.
To people like Russolillo, the long-term unemployed aren’t people, they are just numbers. Numbers that sometimes get in the way of good news; in which case they can be ignored.
I can make it a lot easier — the unemployment rate is 0%. Why? Because everyone who is employed is employed. Of course that makes the unemployment rate 100% because those unemployed are unemployed. But they don’t count.