Displaying posts published in

June 2016

Is there an editor in the house? Roger Franklin

It’s tough for Fairfax’s Paul McGeough, even harder in many ways than for the competent journalists and sub-editors who have been shown the door as their industry collapsed about them. McGeough and his gig as a US-based foreign correspondent have survived, for now at any rate, while the bureaux that once operated in New York, Washington, London and elsewhere have been shuttered. So there he is, sending back copy to the clickbait kiddies who run the Age and SMH websites, with no adults left on the premises to save the poor man from himself.

Take today, for example, which sees the SMH homepage giving pride of place to his latest dispatch. Atop this item is a screen grab reproducing how it was bannered. Click on the link and you get this story purporting to be an accurate account of Donald Trump’s latest address. In the old days, when newsroom children compiled the shipping notices, fetched their elders’ take-away meals and wrote colour stories, if they were lucky, about dogs that wear trousers and other human-interest wotnots, the processing of such a report would have passed through an institution know as the “back bench”. This where seasoned hands, men and women who knew a thing or two about life and the world and, yes, journalism too, would pick through the submitted words, spot the errors and inconsistencies and fire off notes to authors asking for clarifications.

Obviously, going by today’s McGeough offering, if the SMH still has a back bench it must be sitting in the laneway out back and waiting for the next hard-rubbish collection. Forget the one-eyed perspctive, we’ll get to that in a tick. Meanwhile, just look at the headline and blurb reproduced above.

To “wipe the floor” is generally accepted to mean a crushing and undisputed, all-points victory. Yet the lines beneath assert that same alleged victory was nothing but “wild unsubstantiated allegations”. Apparently, along with the back bench, the sort-of-editors who remain at Fairfax are interested in dictionaries only for their potential to be re-cycled into carbon-fighting organic mulch.

As to the story itself, one can only imagine the barrage of questions and queries that would, in better days, have been flying back across the Pacific. Such a note would have gone something like this:

Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions In 4-3 ruling, court advises schools to continuously review race-based policies By Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall

WASHINGTON—A divided Supreme Court Thursday upheld racial preferences in public-university admissions, a defeat to a yearslong conservative drive to roll back affirmative action.

Writing for a 4-3 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy found that the University of Texas at Austin’s challenged plan passed constitutional muster because it was designed in a narrow way to improve diversity on campus. The school’s plan considered race as an additional factor when evaluating certain black and Hispanic applicants.

Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said universities are defined by “intangible qualities…which make for greatness.”

“Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission,” Justice Kennedy wrote in a 20-page opinion.

At issue was a long-running lawsuit filed by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission by the University of Texas at Austin in 2008. She alleged that the state’s flagship university violated the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee by giving an edge in admissions to black and Hispanic students.

​​“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled that students applying to the University of Texas can be treated differently because of their race or ethnicity,” Ms. Fisher said in a statement issued by the Project on Fair Representation, an organization that financed her case and has sponsored other litigation opposing government programs that benefit minorities. CONTINUE AT SITE

Britain Declares Independence The Tories should now strive to make the U.K. a pro-growth model.

The United Kingdom has always had Europe’s most robust democracy, and with Thursday’s vote to leave the European Union it has given its Continental peers a powerful example of the meaning of popular rule. Now we’ll see if the British have the wisdom to make the best use of their historic choice.

We argued earlier this week that Britain should remain in the Union. But we also acknowledged that it was a close call, and we did so more out of concern for the EU’s future than for Britain’s.

The Brexit vote deprives the EU of its second-biggest—and most dynamic—economy, with the strongest growth rate among Europe’s major economies and a record-setting employment rate of 74%. Government spending as a percentage of GDP has also come down to pre-financial crisis levels, again disproving the Keynesian doomsaying about the perils of fiscal “austerity.”

Brexit may encourage other states—the Netherlands is often mentioned—to debate their membership in the EU, especially if Britain does not suffer the economic and diplomatic catastrophes forecast by the Remain camp, starting with Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne. Norway and Switzerland have shown it’s possible to have prosperity and security in Europe with less nannying by Brussels.

If the EU wants to prevent other countries from catching the Brexit bug, our advice is to avoid the temptation to punish the U.K. with an arduous renegotiation of terms for its re-entry into the common market. The perception of EU high-handedness is what alienates public opinion across the Continent. Brexit ought to be the wake-up call the EU needs to return to serving as a common market that encourages growth and competition, and not—as it has become since the late 1980s—an innovation-killing superstate obsessed with regulatory harmonization, tax hikes, green-energy dogma and anticompetitive antitrust enforcement.

London will have its own challenges. To adapt a line from Margaret Thatcher’s famous 1988 Bruges speech on Europe, Britain has not voted to free itself of a European superstate to see it return in the form of the nanny state exercising dominance from Westminster. CONTINUE AT SITE

NYC Has a New Bathroom Policy The city council tackles the issue of single-occupancy toilets. By Celina Durgin

The New York city council has approved a law requiring all single-occupant restrooms in private establishments to be gender neutral — a relatively simple way, according to the bill’s sponsor, Councilman Daniel Dromm, to make transgender and gender-nonconforming people feel welcome.

Dromm also said the measure honors the LGBT people killed in the Orlando massacre. The council approved the law by a 47–2 vote, and it will go into effect on January 1.

The law follows Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s March executive order requiring city agencies to make clear that people are allowed to use city single-sex facilities matching their gender identities.

Mayor DeBlasio has never explained how the city can possibly accommodate his order, given that proponents of the gender-identity doctrine almost uniformly believe that the gender binary doesn’t fully exhibit the range of gender identities, and therefore certain individuals cannot, strictly speaking, use the facility that matches their gender identity, since no such facility exists.

I give the NYC council members credit on their recent measure for tacitly recognizing that gender-neutral facilities are the only way to accommodate gender-nonconforming individuals, who do not find themselves at home in either the male or the female bathrooms. But this legislation also falls into the nonsensical.

Single-occupant bathrooms are often gender neutral to begin with. (This law would merely make this practice standard in NYC.)

American higher education sinks deeper into the muck. By Theodore Kupfer

A professor at the University of Northern Colorado assigned Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff’s “The Coddling of the American Mind” to his students — and watched as they proved the essay’s point.

According to a report obtained by Heat Street, students filed a complaint with the school’s “Bias Response Team” based on the professor’s lesson. The professor, whose name has been redacted, seems to have assigned the essay as part of a broader lesson about the value of debate: After reading “The Coddling of the American Mind,” students were instructed to chart out competing arguments on topics such as transgenderism, abortion, and global warming.

Doubtless, the professor intended to use those first-order issues as a bridge to the more challenging second-order question: Why does debating controversial subjects provoke so much controversy itself? Instead, he unwittingly gave the world more proof that American higher education has gone off the rails: The mere notion that people disagreed about such issues was, apparently, cause for an investigation. The Bias Response Team was put on the case.

What, precisely, is a Bias Response Team? Around the country, universities are increasingly using them as part of an effort to do . . . something. The University of Northern Colorado describes that something as follows in response to an inquiry: “The intent of the bias-response team is to facilitate discussions between members of the campus community when non-legal concerns of offensive behavior are reported.” UNC offers further assurance that “there’s nothing punitive about” Bias Response hearings, and that “this is about understanding, not punishment.”

Ideologues Make for Dangerous Politicians Opportunists are at least attuned to public opinion, unlike ideologues. By Victor Davis Hanson

Hillary Clinton is a seasoned liberal politician, but one with few core beliefs. Her positions on subjects such as gay marriage, free-trade agreements, the Keystone XL pipeline, the Iraq War, the Assad regime in Syria, and the use of the term “radical Islam” all seem to hinge on what she perceives 51 percent of the public to believe on any given day.

Such politicians believe truth is a relative construct. Things are deemed false by politicians only if they cannot convince the public that they are true — and vice versa. When the majority of Americans no longer believe Clinton’s yarns about her private e-mail server to the point of not wanting to vote for her, then she will change her narrative and create new, convenient truths to reflect the new consensus.

Donald Trump is an amateur politician but a politician nevertheless. He is ostensibly conservative, but he likewise seems to change his positions on a number of issues — from abortion to the Iraq War — depending on what he feels has become the majority position. And as with Clinton, Trump’s idea of truth is defined as what works, while falsity is simply any narrative that proved unusable.

Politicians glad-hand, pander, and kiss babies as they seek to become megaphones for majority opinions. But ideologues are different. They often brood and lecture that their utopian dreams are not shared by the supposedly less informed public.

After Fleeing the Nazis, a Legacy That Won’t Run Dry The frugal couple bumped into young Warren Buffett. Now they’ve left millions to Israeli water research.y Seth M. Siegel

http://www.wsj.com/articles/after-fleeing-the-nazis-a-legacy-that-wont-run-dry-1466722996 How does one overcome almost unimaginable horror and trauma? For Holocaust survivors Howard and Lottie Marcus, the healing came, in part, from the hope that they could help to provide refuge for other Jews who might find themselves at risk. But after restarting their broken lives in America, this modest couple could never have […]