NPR editor who criticized the network is suspended; NPR CEO’s tweets

The New Neo Posted on by

Uri Berliner, who has worked at NPR for 25 years, wrote an expose of their leftist bias. You can find it here. He seems to be somewhat of an old-fashioned liberal (or maybe an old-fashioned principled leftist), a rarity these days.

Now NPR has struck back; no surprise there. I quote another NPR article on that (my comments follow each excerpt from the piece):

NPR has formally punished Uri Berliner, the senior editor who publicly argued a week ago that the network had “lost America’s trust” by approaching news stories with a rigidly progressive mindset.

Berliner’s five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.

As I said, no surprise there.

Yet the public radio network is grappling in other ways with the fallout from Berliner’s essay for the online news site The Free Press. It angered many of his colleagues …

Why? Can’t they take criticism? Do they really believe that NPR is objective? If so, I’ve got this bridge …

… led NPR leaders to announce monthly internal reviews of the network’s coverage, and gave fresh ammunition to conservative and partisan Republican critics of NPR, including former President Donald Trump.

Oh no! It gave Republicans ammunition for pouncing. We can’t have that, even if the ammunition consists of the truth.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is among those now targeting NPR’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the network.

So so long ago. Perhaps she was a mere child? We’ll see in a moment.

Among others, those posts include a 2020 tweet that called Trump racist and another that appeared to minimize rioting during social justice protests that year.

Those were very mild examples, carefully chosen.

Maher took the job at NPR last month — her first at a news organization.

Her first job at a news organization is to direct a huge one.

In a statement Monday about the messages she had posted, Maher praised the integrity of NPR’s journalists and underscored the independence of their reporting.

“In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen,” she said. “What matters is NPR’s work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests.”

Well then, it’s obviously fair and objective in its coverage, and the incredible bias of its director or its reporters – or its actual articles – is irrelevant. Of course Maher’s tweets while a private citizen are protected free speech. But people are merely pointing out the intensity of her leftist bias as expressed in those tweets, and suggesting that her bias might make it just a teeny bit hard to be objective.

If NPR’s mission is “to serve the American public,” please do so for a change because you haven’t in a long long time.

As for Maher’s tweets, that so-called “conservative activist” Chris Rufo is on the case. A lot of it is about that terrible thing, “whiteness” (Maher is white). You can find a sampler here as well as here.

I bet Maher thinks her own opinions are mild, because she’s probably been surrounded for a long time by people who are even more extreme than she is in their woke leftism.

Republicans defend Trump on the lawfare trials

The New Neo Posted on by

The right loves to criticize Republicans. And it’s not as though it’s hard to do; there’s plenty about the GOP with which to find fault. But please stick to the facts and do your homework.

There’s a particular sort of comment that I so typically see on blogs on the right that I’ve written several previous posts and/or comments on the phenomenon (although I can’t find them now): the “no GOP member is doing such-and-such” variety. Today I see that commenter “Sgt. Joe Friday” has obliged with the following:

Maybe I’ve missed it, but I have yet to hear any influential Republican speak up in Trump’s defense, or to even utter the words “innocent until proven guilty.”

Remember folks, the Democrats and Republicans in DC are not opponents, they’re dance partners.

No, they are not, and it’s a dangerous error to think so although a common one. They are different on many metrics, although the GOP often disappoints by joining the Democrats on certain issues, particularly involving spending. However, the Democrats are far left and are approving of many policies and people that are far more destructive to the nation and the world than what the Republicans advocate. Much of what I write on this blog day after day demonstrates that fact.

But back to the more narrow topic of Republicans speaking in Trump’s defense about the lawfare going on against him in the courts: just because you haven’t seen it or read it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. You may have missed it, as “Sgt. Joe Friday” mentions. You may have seen it and forgotten. Or it may be that GOP members are trying to get the word out but the media isn’t covering it. But it’s usually quite easy to find with a search.

For example, I searched for “rubio on trump trial” just now, and up popped quite a bit. Instantly. To take one example:

In an interview with “CBS Mornings,” [about the classified documents case about Trump] Florida Sen. Marco Rubio … expressed concern about the impact of the indictment on the country — and said it is “political in nature.”

“When you bring an indictment like this, it’s not done in isolation. It’s not done in a vacuum. You gotta take a lot of things into account. There’s no allegation that there was harm done to the, to the national security. There’s no allegation that he sold it to a foreign power or that it was trafficked to somebody else or that anybody got access to it,” said Rubio.

“You have to weigh the harm of that, or lack thereof, on the harm that this indictment does to the country. This is deeply divisive,” he said.

He said prosecuting the likely GOP presidential nominee, who will run against an incumbent president, is alone “political in nature,” and said there will be “certain harm.” …

When asked about Trump’s leadership qualities, Rubio expressed his belief that Trump could “do a better job” than President Biden as the next leader of the country. He also said he would personally choose Trump over Biden “in a heartbeat.”

Now, Ted Cruz. Immediately we get:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Wednesday he is hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court “puts a stop” to what he called an “abuse of power” aimed against former President Trump after the high court announced it will weigh whether the former president can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

“I’m glad the Supreme Court is taking the case. I have to say what we’ve seen in the past year — about the targeting from the left, the targeting from Democrat prosecutors of Donald Trump — has been an enormous abuse of power,” Cruz said Wednesday on NewsNation’s “Elizabeth Vargas Reports.”

Or this:

It’s easy to find more – although, unsurprisingly, Mitch McConnell (who has nevertheless endorsed Trump for president) is not one of them. But you know who is? None other than Mitt Romney, who said:

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a sharp Trump critic, voiced criticism of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of the former president on Tuesday, calling it an “overreach” that is political in nature.

“I believe President Trump’s character and conduct make him unfit for office,” Romney said in a statement. “Even so, I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.”

He added: “No one is above the law, not even former presidents, but everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. The prosecutor’s overreach sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public’s faith in our justice system.”

Also, in that same article:

“It’s clear that this is a politically-motivated prosecution against President Trump,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a Senate Judiciary Committee member, said in a statement.

“Politics should never tip the scales of justice, and Congress has every right to demand answers and accountability from the Manhattan D.A.’s office, especially as this directly relates to federal law.”

Also Mike Johnson, House Speaker:

I could easily go on, but I’ll stop here because I believe the point is made: search, and you’ll find.

Trump on trial: election interference, anyone?

The New Neo Posted on by

Election interference is just fine with the left if it’s the left doing it. So is political prosecution.

I’m with John Hinderaker on this:

Alvin Bragg’s criminal case against Donald Trump goes to trial today. It says something about the world we live in that we haven’t even bothered to mention it lately.

I summed up Bragg’s case against Trump here. In a word, it is pathetic. Trump made one or more “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels, which was perfectly legal. The alleged crime is that his business documents reflect falsely that the payments were for legal fees and expenses. They were made to Michael Cohen, who in turn paid Daniels.

This is exactly the same dodge that Hillary Clinton’s campaign used when it camouflaged its payment for the fake Fusion GPS Trump dossier as payments to its law firm, Perkins Coie. Hillary’s case was much worse, however, as the payments were made by her campaign, not by her personally, and her false filing with the FEC was a campaign finance violation. Hillary, of course, has not been indicted.

The case against Trump is a joke because the records violation of which Trump is accused is a misdemeanor, on which the statute of limitations has run. It is only a felony if the records were falsified to cover up another crime. That is what Bragg alleges. But what crime? Bragg’s indictment doesn’t say. Presumably his theory will be that the payment to Daniels was a campaign finance violation, only it wasn’t. The payment was legal and no false filing was made with the FEC. Trump has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any such violation.

So the case against Trump is terrible. But does it matter? The only reason Bragg brought the case (and the only reason the other prosecutions of Trump have been brought) is so that Democratic Party news outlets can say that Trump is a “convicted felon.”

It’s not the only reason, actually. Another reason is to keep Trump from campaigning for a while, because the judge has said that Trump must attend the trial every day:

“That I can’t go to my son’s graduation or that I can’t go to the United States Supreme Court, that I’m not in Georgia or Florida or North Carolina campaigning like I should be is perfect for the radical left Democrats, that’s exactly what they want,” Trump said in a press conference following the first day of court. “This is about election interference, that’s all it’s about.”

Will this make Trump into even more of a martyr? The prosecutors, the Democrats, and the left are betting that it won’t, but it’s at least possible that they may lose that bet. The outcome depends on the American people’s ability to see what’s happening here.

Ace has compiled several sources, and I suggest you read the whole thing. One issue is the judge’s conflict of interest:

Democratic clients of Loren Merchan, daughter of the judge presiding over Donald Trump’s hush-money trial, have raised $93 million in campaign donations, leveraging the case in their fundraising efforts. This has led to renewed calls for the judge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, to recuse himself as Trump heads to a New York courthouse Monday for the beginning of jury selection in the case.

Loren Merchan is the president of Authentic Campaigns, a progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the Senate Majority PAC.

Since the indictment of Trump, Schiff’s campaign for US Senate has raised $20 million, while the Senate Majority PAC has raised $73.6 million.

Trump was ultimately gagged by Merchan’s father, Justice Juan Merchan, for raising concerns of a conflict of interest–leading to widespread condemnation, including from Stormy Daniels’ former attorney, Michael Avenatti who tweeted, “We can’t be hypocrites when it comes to the 1st Amendment.”

Ah, but many people can.

The jury selection process is ongoing, and I wish Trump’s attorneys luck in finding at least one person in New York who can be objective about this case – and even then, the judge has lots of power to shape what that person hears in the courtroom.

More on the Iran attack

The New Neo Posted on by

Jordan participated in the defense against Iran’s strike on Israel, saying it did so to protect its own citizens. But was that the only reason? As I wrote in this post nearly a week ago, the government of Jordan and Hamas are not friends, not at all – and that goes for the government of Jordan and the government of Iran. The message from Jordan is: don’t mess with us. Jordan is well aware that Hamas and Iran would love to topple the Jordanian government and have its own proxies take over.

There’s been at least a slight (and perhaps temporary) uptick in sympathy for Israel on the world stage:

Even among Israel’s closest allies, pressure had been growing to end the war in the Gaza Strip. The focus shifted to suffering Gazan civilians, with the world losing sight of the need to decisively defeat Hamas on the battlefield.

Iran succeeded in rallying the US and top European powers to Israel’s side. Not only did the US, the UK, and France express their unequivocal support for Israel; they actively took part in its defense, using a network of satellite, planes, and radars on the ground and at sea.

And instead of the UN Security Council discussing the need for a ceasefire in Gaza, it will be debating the Iranian threat and Israel’s right to self-defense on Sunday, with three permanent members sure to band together to condemn Tehran and Moscow.

I just did a search, but so far I can’t find anything that indicates such a vote ever happened, although there was a lot of discussion with both Israel and Iran claiming they acted in self-defense.

Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, however, it would be whole nother ball game. The risks for Iran in using nuclear weapons would be much higher, as well. It really depends on how badly the mullahs wish to martyr their own people (I’m assuming they have bunkers for themselves that probably would provide personal safety) versus how much they want to destroy Israel. They’ve certainly been yelling that the latter is their goal ever since 1979.

Here’s an interesting idea:

An Israeli strike on Iran’s drone facilities would not only be a fitting rejoinder to Saturday’s strikes, but would also help Ukraine in the face of Russian attacks. It would also be a message to Biden and the Europeans to consider the larger regional picture as they push Israel to wind down the campaign against Hamas in Gaza.

Then again, there’s the theater aspect of the present Iran/Israel conflict, which will be a topic for another post today or tomorrow.

Equality versus freedom

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s been said many times by many people.

Solzhenitsyn:

Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.

And then there’s Robert Frost (in the excerpt that follows, Frost uses “justice” in the traditional sense rather than in the leftist “social justice” sense). That link I just gave is now dead, but I used the quote and the link in this post from 2016:

Frost was convinced that the conflict between justice and mercy in human affairs is an eternal and universal moral problem of humanity, and not merely a contemporary political partisan concern…

With these facts in mind Frost’s criticism of the New Deal as “nothing but an outbreak of mass mercy,” is clearly more than mere partisan politics. In 1936, in the midst of attacks on [his collection of poetry] A Further Range by the political Left, Frost wrote to Ferner Nuhn, a young New Deal acquaintance and friend of Henry Wallace, that “strict justice is basic” for a free society, and freedom implied that some people succeeded and others failed. The winners reaped the rewards of their talents and efforts, but what about the losers? Frost acknowledged that government “must do something for the losers. It must show them mercy. Justice first and mercy second. The trouble with some of your crowd is that it would have mercy first. The struggle to win is still the best tonic. . . . Mercy . . . is another word for socialism.” Frost believed that what was commonly called “distributive justice,” the attempt to spread the wealth of society to the masses, through graduated in-come taxes and other such devices, was really distributive mercy misnamed. Frost drew out for Ferner Nuhn the logical consequences of a system of socialistic mercy:

“The question of the moment in politics will always be one of proportion between mercy and justice. You have to remember the people who accept mercy have to pay for it. Mercy means protection. And there is no protection without direction. A person completely protected would have to be completely directed. And he would be a slave. That’s where socialism pure brings you out.”

From Milton Friedman:

A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.

Thomas Sowell says it in his book The Quest For Cosmic Justice:

Not only does cosmic justice differ from traditional justice, and conflict with it, more momentously cosmic justice is irreconcilable with personal freedom based on the rule of law. Traditional justice can be mass-produced by impersonal prospective rules governing the interactions of flesh-and-blood human beings, but cosmic justice must be hand-made by holders of power who impose their own decisions on how these flesh-and-blood individuals should be categorized into abstractions and how these abstractions should then be forcibly configured to fit the vision of the power-holders. Merely the power to select beneficiaries is an enormous power, for it is also the power to select victims—and to reduce both to the role of supplicants of those who hold this power.

And yet we find ourselves in a society in which the idea of an elite group dispensing “justice” – as in social or cosmic justice – and creating “equality” has been in the ascendance, especially among the young. As Frost also wrote (from that same post of mine in 2016, with its dead link):

In a letter to Bernard De Voto in 1936 Frost wrote: “The great politicians are having their fun with us. They’ve picked up just enough of the New Republic and Nation jargon to seem original to the simple.” In 1939, in “The Figure a Poem Makes,” Frost said: “More than once I should have lost my soul to radicalism if it had been the originality it was mistaken for by its young converts.”

The appeal to the young is always present, unless it is strongly countered.

Videos of the April 8 total eclipse

The New Neo Posted on by

I very much enjoyed these videos. They make me want to go out of my way to see one of the future total eclipses – although I’d have to go very far out of my way.

On April 8 I could have seen the total eclipse with much greater ease, although it still would have been a long drive. About a week beforehand, I actually tried to enlist someone to go with me, but I wasn’t successful and then I realized that I hadn’t planned far enough ahead and would probably be thwarted by traffic (and exhaustion) if I tried to go by myself. I had checked out some motels in places within striking distance, thinking I might stay overnight on the day before to beat some of the traffic, but they were full.

So I saw the partial eclipse, but that experience – although fascinating – is nothing like a total.

Enjoy:

This one just shows the crowd reaction and the darkness falling rather than the sun itself:

Does Hamas have a strategy?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Art Deco” observes:

I don’t think Hamas ever had what you’d call a ‘strategy’, unless there were co-ordinate campaigns planned which Iran and Hezbollah never implemented. It’s what Martin Peretz described 40 years ago in a review of a play, “A crazed Arab to be sure, but crazed in the particular ways of his culture. He is intoxicated by language, cannot discern fantasy from reality, and assuages himself with a momentarily satisfying but ultimately ineffectual act of bloodlust”.

I also wonder whether there was a larger plan to simultaneously include Hezbollah and Iran, and perhaps the West Bank as well. In a surprise attack this multi-pronged approach might have been even more devastating to Israel. But either it was considered too much and likely to turn the world against the Palestinians and their ally Iran, or the attackers got their signals crossed, or it was never planned that way in the first place.

But I disagree that there was no strategy in the October 7 attack. There was plenty of strategy. The Palestinians have known for many many decades that it is to their advantage to provoke retaliation from Israel though terrorism and then emphasize their own suffering – with numbers – in order to turn world opinion even further from support of Israel. There are so many propaganda advantages, and this is above all else a propaganda war.

Back in November, even the Wapo was acknowledging this [emphasis mine]:

The evidence, described by more than a dozen current and former intelligence and security officials from four Western and Middle Eastern countries, reveals an intention by Hamas planners to strike a blow of historic proportions, in the expectation that the group’s actions would compel an overwhelming Israeli response. … After breaching the Israeli border in some 30 places, Hamas militants staged a mass slaughter of soldiers and civilians in at least 22 Israeli villages, towns and military outposts and then drew Israeli defenders into gun battles that continued for more than a day.

… Some militants carried enough food, ammunition and equipment to last several days, officials said, and bore instructions to continue deeper into Israel if the first wave of attacks succeeded, potentially striking larger Israeli cities.

The assault teams managed to penetrate as far as Ofakim, an Israeli town about 15 miles from the Gaza Strip and about half the distance between the enclave and the West Bank. One unit carried reconnaissance information and maps suggesting an intention to continue the assault up to the border of the West Bank, according to two senior Middle Eastern intelligence officials and one former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of the evidence. Hamas had been increasing its outreach to West Bank militants in recent months, although the group says it did not notify its West Bank allies of its Oct. 7 plans in advance. …

Hamas meticulously planned and prepared for a massacre of Israeli civilians on a scale that was highly likely to provoke Israel’s government into sending troops into Gaza, analysts said. Indeed, Hamas leaders have publicly expressed a willingness to accept heavy losses — potentially including the deaths of many Gazan civilians living under Hamas rule.

“Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it,” Ghazi Hamad, a member of the Hamas politburo, told Beirut’s LCBI television in an interview aired on Oct. 24. “We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”

And to even exaggerate the numbers and publicize them to the Western MSM, which will spread the propaganda around to great effect.

“They were very clear-eyed as to what would happen to Gaza on the day after,” said a senior Israeli military official with access to sensitive intelligence, including interrogations with Hamas fighters and intercepted communications. “They wanted to buy their place in history — a place in the history of jihad — at the expense of the lives of many people in Gaza.” …

…“They planned a second phase, including in major Israeli cities and military bases,” said a senior Israeli official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified intelligence. …

“Hamas knew Israel would strike back hard. That was the point,” Katz said. “To Hamas, Palestinian suffering is a critical component in bringing about the instability and global outrage it seeks to exploit.”

Even if its current leadership is effectively destroyed, she said, Hamas and its followers will continue to regard Oct. 7 as a victory. That’s partly because the group unquestionably succeeded in focusing the world’s attention on the Palestinian conflict, she said.

“It’s the first time I can remember that Hamas has become so prominent on a global scale,” Katz said. “So many people have already forgotten Oct. 7 because Hamas immediately changed the discussion. It put the focus on Israel, not themselves. And that’s exactly what they wanted.”

It wouldn’t have mattered that Hamas “changed the discussion” if so many in the West didn’t cooperate in that endeavor. But all of that was not an accident; it was Hamas’ strategy all along. The only question is whether Israel will give up in the face of all of the opprobrium. I don’t think they will, for the simple reason that their survival is at stake and now just about everyone in Israel knows it.

None of this is new, and none of it is specific to Hamas only. It was the strategy of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War (written by John McCain in 2013):

Giap was a master of logistics, but his reputation rests on more than that. His victories were achieved by a patient strategy that he and Ho Chi Minh were convinced would succeed—an unwavering resolve to suffer immense casualties and the near total destruction of their country to defeat any adversary, no matter how powerful. “You will kill 10 of us, we will kill one of you,” Ho told the French, “but in the end, you will tire of it first.”

Giap executed that strategy with an unbending will.

Plus this from Bui Tin, who had been a colonel on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army:

[The American antiwar movement] was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. …

The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

It wasn’t just American opinion, either. Much of the West turned against that war, and the MSM certainly did so as well.

Knife attack in Sydney [scroll down for UPDATE]

The New Neo Posted on by

A man only identified so far as a 40-year-old killed 6 people and injured eight others in a knife attack in a Sydney mall:

The man stabbed shoppers as he moved through the shopping centre – including a mother and her nine-month-old baby.

– Video footage appears to show a shopper confronting the attacker on an escalator in the centre by holding a bollard [see this] towards him.

– Emergency services were called to Westfield Bondi Junction at around 3.30pm, following reports that multiple people had been stabbed.

– A female police officer who was nearby went into the centre alone and approached the attacker who had by this point moved to level five of the shopping centre.

– The officer shot the attacker after he turned to face her, raised a knife and lunged at her.

– The officer conducted CPR on the attacker until the arrival of paramedics, who worked on the man; however, he could not be revived.

Knives can be very very deadly, and of course just about everyone possesses one. Five of the six dead are women; I don’t know how many of the injured are women. Did the killer target women, or is it just that most of the mall shoppers were women?

In addition, we have this statement:

Police did confirm the attacker acted alone and was known to them. They also said that they do not believe his motive was related to terrorism.

“If it is the person we believe it is, we don’t have fear for that person holding an ideation,” Webb said.

“In other words, that it’s not a terrorism incident.

“We believe that this person acted alone and there’s no ongoing threat to the community.”

I’ll believe it when you tell me more about the attacker – his name and his history, for starters. He could be a random crazy. Or he could indeed be a terrorist, although a free-lancer.

The baby is in critical condition; the mother has died. Absolutely horrific.

The police officer who shot the killer is reported to have been at the mall on an unrelated matter. It’s a good thing she was there, because the death toll almost undoubtedly would have been higher if she hadn’t been already on the scene.

It might have been lower, however, if some of the regular shoppers had been armed, or if the assailant had the notion that they might be. Gun laws in Australia are quite strict:

In the last two decades of the 20th century, following several high-profile killing sprees, the federal government coordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments.

Gun laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement. In two federally funded gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders and State Governments’ gun amnesties before and after the Port Arthur Massacre, more than a million firearms were collected and destroyed, possibly a third of the national stock.[1]

A person must have a firearm licence to possess or use a firearm. Licence holders must demonstrate a “genuine reason” (which does not include self-defence) for holding a firearm licence[2] and must not be a “prohibited person”. All firearms must be registered by serial number to the owner.

In December 2023 National Cabinet agreed to implement a national firearms register within four years.

None of the articles I’ve seen mention whether the mall was a gun-free zone.

RIP to the victims.

UPDATE: Random crazed killer it is: the perp had a history of mental illness (schizophrenia) and obsession with weapons, especially knives.

We now have pretty good drugs for schizophrenia, but it’s not unusual for patients to make a decision to go off them without telling anyone. It’s possible that happened in this case, although that’s a total guess on my part.

Five women were killed and the sole male victim is said to have been a security guard. This makes me wonder once again whether the killer was targeting women.

And now, just a couple of minutes after writing the above paragraph, I read this:

Chilling footage showed Cauchi ignore a man who had bravely attempted to confront him during the attack.

Speculation has been raised the knifeman had been targetting women.

Today show host Karl Stefanovic said he had ‘no words’.

‘I don’t care what the excuses are, and I hope there’s a special place in hell reserved for him, given the fact that he walked past men, and didn’t do anything about it and attacked women,’ he said.

‘A woman with a baby.’

Seems to be young women he was intent on attacking – plus the baby. I haven’t read anything describing the victims who survived (they are now reported to number 12), and whether they were young women, too. One of the murder victims was Dawn Singleton, 25, the daughter of a wealthy businessman. She was engaged to marry her childhood sweetheart.

The killing of Dexter Reed: the police as Israel

The New Neo Posted on by

In Chicago, a black man named Dexter Reed was killed by police after he shot one of them during a traffic stop. The media covered it in the usual manner:

Three weeks ago, Dexter Reed out of Chicago shot by police during a traffic stop. He is Black, a hundred shots were fired. Here’s the family.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why does the police keep doing this to young Black African men? If he was supposed to be pulled over for a traffic stop, why did they have four guns pointed at him? He was scared.

BANKS: He had just bought his new car three days before that and he was just riding around in his car.

He said “Mom, I’m going for a ride.” And they killed him. They killed him. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Reed’s family is upset and we’re so sorry. There’s nothing like losing a child. But they’re not telling you the truth.

Dexter Reed opened fire on police. After he was pulled over, he shot at police first and they returned fire. His gun was recovered and he’d emptied his clip.

We’ll show you the video in a second. But look at these headlines. Seatbelt violation ends with Black man dead on Chicago street after cops fired nearly 100 bullets.

Police fired 96 shots in 41 seconds killing Black man during traffic stop.

Deadly Chicago traffic stop where police fired 96 shots raises serious questions about use of force.

Not one of those headlines tells you that Reed is the one who started the shootout.

Watters also points out that some of the officers were black.

At this point, The Chicago Tribune is calling for some cool:

The first and most obvious lesson: If you’re stopped by police and asked to roll down your window or get out of your car, do so. And if you shoot at police, they will — and should — shoot back. Lost by too many in the anger over Reed’s death was the fact that he shot a police officer who, as Mayor Brandon Johnson properly noted on Tuesday following release of the multiple videos offering views of what happened, was lucky to escape with the injuries he did.

But according to the left and much of the MSM, police are not allowed to protect their own lives, much less the lives of the public. The paramount concern of the left much of the media is protecting the lives of people – often criminals – who don’t cooperate with traffic stops and who attack police during them.

Why do I liken the attitude of the left and the MSM towards the police as akin to their attitude about Israel? Because even self-defense is not allowed, if it ends up causing the death of someone labeled as “oppressed,” no matter how violent, threatening, and guilty that person (or group) is. There’s also similar language from those doing the criticizing [emphasis mine]:

… COPA Chief Administrator Andrea Kersten felt free to share her opinions far and wide, including during a conveniently timed appearance at the City Club. Among the most questionable of those was her view (injudiciously expressed in advance of a completed investigation) that the cops’ response to Reed’s multiple shots at them wasn’t “proportional.” Police shot 96 times while Reed fired considerably fewer shots, although there have been conflicting reports of how many.

So, are we now going to criticize — or, as some want, prosecute — police who fail to count how many bullets are flying their way before shooting back and ensuring the number of shots is “proportional?” Even after a fellow officer has been shot? We are asking officers to risk their lives every day on the streets of a city awash in guns, many of them illegal. (Reed was facing past charges for illegal gun use.) Requiring cops to respond “proportionately” when someone is shooting at them not only is unreasonable; it will make recruiting new officers even harder.

A Chicago police officer’s job only has gotten more dangerous. Cops were shot or shot at 68 times in 2023 versus 55 times in 2022, WGN-TV reported. The number of people shot by police dropped over that same time frame to 11 from 18.

The care taken by police doesn’t matter to the forces determined to demonize them. And the people who suffer most from this are the black residents of Chicago. But the critics don’t care when there are lies to be told, facts to be omitted, and propaganda points to be made.