The Ultimate DEI Hire

Former President Trump sat for a scheduled interview before the National Association of Black Journalists’ annual convention, and the fireworks started with the opening question and answer:

Former President Donald Trump attacked Vice President Kamala Harris over her race, baselessly suggesting his election rival only began identifying as a Black woman in recent years.

“I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black,” Trump said Wednesday at the National Association of Black Journalists’ annual convention. “So I don’t know, is she Indian, or is she Black?”

He continued: “I respect either one but she obviously doesn’t because she was Indian all the way and then all of a sudden she made a turn and she became a Black person. And I think somebody should look into that, too.”

Following the interview (PBS / YouTube at the bottom of this post), partisans leapt immediately into the fray attacking and defending President Trump's answers to various questions, with the main focus on whether Vice President Harris self-identified as "Black" or "Indian". There are videos supporting both positions, but my own take is that this contretemps will blow over when the Democratic convention begins on August 19th.

Also, the immediate negative reaction to President Trump's statements about Kamala Harris' race was understandable but self-defeating. The great American public, including myself, was unaware of how often she emphasized her Black or Indian heritage to the press, depending on which position was more advantageous. That's no crime, just opportunism.

President Trump made a smart chess move because:

1) It reminded us that Vice President Harris was selected as President Biden's running mate because of her sex and race, the ultimate DEI hire. (There are various speeches by candidate and President Biden declaring this to be the case.) DEI is becoming a dirty word in corporate circles.

2) Both white and black journalists later stated that they were highly offended by this latest example of Trumpian racism. Reporters should grow a pair, because the story isn't about them. Rational voters don't care about TV personalities' feelings, especially if the latter are rich and successful.

3) President Trump wasn't trying to convert the mostly hostile crowd who wasn't intending to vote for him anyway. He was going after the 10-20%, of all races,who are not enthusiastic about identity politics and who are staying silent because they're afraid of being cancelled if they strayed from the dominant narrative.

Let's first see what Kamala Harris does with the naming of her running mate and actually being declared the nominee of the Democratic Party before delving too deep into the dynamics of a Trump-Harris contest.

Good, Albeit Biased News

L to R: Anthony Robinson, Derje Blanks, Cameron Moody (KRON4)

The hate-crime articles usually start with the history of racism against Asians.

First is the mention of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882-1943), and next the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. After these two indisputable and shameful examples, writers often add the 1982 murder of Vincent Chin, who was killed by Detroit auto workers who thought he was Japanese, or the difficulty of the Vietnamese "boat people" in being accepted in America.

The history always ends with President Donald Trump and his accusations that the COVID-19 virus originated in China and the alleged scapegoating of Chinese people by President Trump and/or Republicans.

From these articles one would have thought that the violent attacks against Asian-Americans were perpetrated by MAGA-hat wearing, white supremacist trogolydtes, but one would be wrong.

Asians, at least in the Bay Area, have learned to ignore these politicized narratives because they're useless in ascertaining who is originating the current attacks (let's just say that only a minority are white, and the most violent are not).

The police finally caught a group of men who have been targeting Asians (photo at the top of this post): [bold added]

Two men have been charged with robbery in connection to dozens of purse snatchings targeting Asian women throughout the Bay Area, the Santa Clara County district attorney said Saturday.

The men — Derje Blanks, 23, and Anthony Robinson, 24 — were also charged with hate crime enhancements. The office for District Attorney Jeff Rosen said the suspects “used ethnic slurs to refer to their victims,” who were almost all of Asian descent.

“We will hold these defendants and anyone who worked with them fully accountable for their ignorant and destructive behavior,” Rosen said in a press release.

Blanks and Robinson were arrested by San Jose and Hayward police on September 8. Robinson fled in a vehicle and ran a red light, colliding with another car and injuring a two-year-old and her father, according to police.

A third suspect was arrested on Thursday, ending what SJPD called “yearlong, multi-jurisdictional investigation” into the “prolific robbery crew.”

The crime spree began in late 2020, according to the district attorney’s office. The pattern was nearly always the same: The men would follow women in parking lots to their cars, wait until the victim was inside her car and either smash a window or quickly open the door to steal a purse off the passenger seat.

Sometimes, the incidents became violent. There were “numerous incidents where victims were pulled or wrestled to the ground,” and some were injured, according to the district attorney.

Evidence shows that the defendants targeted the victims because they “believed that Asian women don’t use banks.”

“We are sensitive to the hate aspect targeting Asian females,” San Jose police chief Anthony Mata said in a release. “I commend District Attorney Jeff Rosen for pursuing hate crime enhancements.”

The Chronicle has published numerous articles and opinion pieces of the sort discussed at the top, that is, they strongly imply that Donald Trump and his followers are responsible for the recent spate of attacks on Asians.

This article, reprinted in its entirety, never discloses the race of the men arrested. (The photo of the suspects, not a MAGA hat among them, was pulled from the KRON4 website.) For many of the people in the media, if the facts contradict their politics, don't disclose the facts.

Vice President, Mother, and Woman of Color

Kamala Harris, husband Doug Emhoff, and step-
children Cole and Emma Emhoff (Chron photo)

The Chronicle features another puff-piece on the Vice President:

Kamala Harris is the highest-ranking mom ever in U.S. politics. Here's why that matters

Harris is also a mother, affectionately known as “Momala,” to two now-adult stepchildren with husband Douglas Emhoff, whom she married in 2014 when she was California attorney general.

That has meant her own juggling of career and family, including a high-profile Senate hearing that conflicted with her stepdaughter’s high school graduation.

Experts say this is one of the subtle but powerful ways that Harris is changing politics by virtue of being the first person like her in her position — including the first mother elected on a presidential ticket, as well as the first woman and woman of color. And, they say, it couldn’t be more timely.

The article goes on with nary a discouraging word. I was surprised, however, about all the references to motherhood given the Biden Administration's renaming "mothers" as birthing persons.

The Chronicle has to update its style book. Even the woke can't keep up with the woke.

Philosophical Underpinnings

(Examiner image)

Out of curiosity more than necessity your humble retired accountant has been sampling online Continuing Professional Education courses that CPA's take to maintain their active status.

It's a hard slog, with tax modules grinding through Internal Revenue Code sections and accounting training covering the recently recompiled accounting bible, the Accounting Standards Codification. Right, I could barely keep my eyes open writing the previous sentence.

If you can handle the tedium, you can find nuggets of substance, such as:

An entity should aggregate or disaggregate disclosures so that useful information is not obscured by either the inclusion of a large amount of insignificant detail or the aggregation of items that have substantially different characteristics.

Don't overwhelm the reader with "insignificant detail", yet don't combine dissimilar information if it will mask meaning. Holding to these principles requires deep understanding of the material by the writer and an ethical obligation both to present and not to omit significant information.

Long ago I seriously considered a career in journalism, and I thought its aspiration to report the truth without fear or favor was similar to accountancy.

Both professions fall short of that ideal, of course, but IMHO most journalists no longer view truth as their ideal anyway; rather, they seek to weave a narrative to influence readers toward a particular point of view.

Accountancy harks back to an Enlightenment perspective: present all information that will be important to rational, intelligent readers of financial statements (e.g., lenders, investors, employees, customers, etc.) in making their decisions. Despite the mockery they must endure, accountants can take pride in the philosophical underpinnings of their profession.

Now, back to the dusty ledgers and green eyeshades....

Reckoning Time

The odds are against it, but this week's Time cover has the potential to be as memorable as the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline on the November 3, 1948 Chicago Daily Tribune.

If President Trump succeeds in his challenges to the validity of the vote count in certain states, he could still become the next President.

Time's unqualified declaration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as President-Elect and Vice-President-Elect would become in retrospect the high water mark of fake news, and the masks on the two individuals will be seen to have multiple meanings.

It will become a cover that rivals Dewey Defeats Truman.

My base expectation is that there will be proof of the existence of fraudulent Biden-Harris ballots, but there will not be proof, just suspicions, that there exist enough of them to overturn the election. Joe Biden is still a heavy favorite to be the next President, and everyone should make their plans accordingly.

However, these suspicions will be enough to poison the discourse of the body politic for months, even years.

I wonder if Time and other news organizations will have the courage to investigate how ballots were counted in the major cities of swing states after President Biden is inaugurated. The fact that the stories by Time and other news organizations on November 4th said that the claims of fraud were "debunked" when the claims were still being prepared is not encouraging.

There will be a terrible reckoning---we don't know when or in what form---but both the guilty and innocent will suffer. Hey, it's Sunday, it's time to use Biblical language.

Accountants Don't Want to Stand Up and Be Counted

In 2008 I contrasted my profession of accounting with that of journalism:

CPA’s can’t get too close. Accountants’ principal duty is to the shareholders, lenders, and anyone else who reads the financial statements. There may come a time when auditors must disclose information that will damage the stock price. They have to make a choice between their client and their responsibility to the public. There is no question what they are expected to do.

Keeping their distance and independence is a must for CPA’s if they are to maintain trust and a reputation for integrity. Some accountants violated that trust during the go-go tech boom and Enron / Worldcom scandals. In order to save the profession, accountants had to reassert the guiding principles of independence and integrity. You don’t see auditors standing up and cheering at shareholders meetings.

...Today the profession of news journalism has lost its way. Opinion has leaked beyond the editorial pages to the rest of the newspaper. “Newsmen” publish unconfirmed rumors that support their stances and ignore inconvenient facts that don’t. Outside the office, they openly display their political preferences; there’s no attempt to maintain even the appearance of objectivity.

Yet when Obama emerged from a curtain on stage, the audience of more than 2,000 [minority journalists] bolted to its feet, cheered and whistled. His remarks drew repeated applause throughout the 30-minute broadcast, which CNN and Time Inc. sponsored.

12 years later accountancy by and large has held steady to the principles of independence, objectivity, and the appearance of objectivity, while journalism has only gone downhill.

But back to accountants: I wonder if there's any connection between their ethics and political preferences?

Headline: Accountants favor Trump in election by large margin

In a survey of over 400 accountants from across the country conducted by Arizent, the publisher of Accounting Today, 55 percent of respondents said that they plan to vote for the incumbent president, against 38 percent who plan to vote for his rival, Democrat Joe Biden....

"If we end up with a Democratic presidency and Democratic control of both houses, then the 2017 tax act will probably be vitiated and as much as the market increased due to the lower corporate rates, it will fall," predicted one respondent. "Ironically, raising the corporate rate will almost certainly cause less government revenue due to multinational business fleeing our shores, and less capital gains income tax income."

...Respondents were roughly evenly divided about the potential impact of lots of mail-in ballots, with 44 percent saying they would be not very or not at all confident in the results of such an election, and 39 percent saying they would be very or extremely confident in them.

...When asked if they thought social media platforms and the media business were doing enough to stop the spread of misinformation and to help protect the integrity of the election, the vast majority of responding accountants said they weren't — but their direct responses suggest that they don't want media to do more, so much as to do it very, very differently.

"It is not the job of social media companies to regulate political speech," said one accountant. "It is, however, the job of our news outlets to report news without political bias and without opinion. Our country is being fed distorted news every day!"

"Social media should stay out of deciding on reliability of information," added another. "The mainstream media is so biased, their reporting is largely ignored."

Bucking the stereotype, accountants are white-collar and college-educated, yet prefer Republican policies. I suspect the reasons are:

1) In college and later at work accountants are in an environment where there is "objective truth" to be discovered. There are different opinions about what the numbers can mean, but Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards keep the differences to a defined range. There is little room for "your truth," "my truth", and diverse perspectives when it comes to preparing financial statements and tax returns;

2) Accountancy is not glamorous, and most practitioners do not seek publicity or influence. Consequently it has escaped the left's notice as an institution to be captured, that is, to be made "woke".

Flying under the radar is how accountants like it; let them do their jobs and don't discuss matters that have nothing to do with work. It's no surprise that the political party that is more likely to leave them alone gets accountants' vote.

© 2020 Stephen Yuen

Another Cheerful Time Cover

Last week your humble blogger pointed out how easy it was to detect the bias of a publication.

Because Time wanted to minimize the damage of Black Lives Matter protests, Time used statistics instead of a count: 570 violent riots in 220 cities and towns in three months became "93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds". Reporting it in this manner gave the impression that the movement is mostly peaceful.

On the other hand a statistical headline--for example, "Americans have a less than 0.1% chance of dying from the coronavirus in 2020"-- doesn't horrify the reader. Instead, the emphasis is on "the absolute number of deaths"-- 189,000 in the United States at the time of the post.

U.S. infections and deaths as of this writing

As predicted, this week's cover, in funereal black, anticipates U.S. virus deaths reaching 200,000. As of this writing the toll is 193,000; it's almost as if Time can't wait to trumpet the milestone.

In our vast nation, where the annual number of deaths from heart disease and cancer are 655,000 and 606,520, respectively, 200,000 virus deaths are a sign of monumental failure, and Time knows who to blame:

Although America’s problems were widespread, they start at the top. A complete catalog of President Donald Trump’s failures to address the pandemic will be fodder for history books. There were weeks wasted early on stubbornly clinging to a fantastical belief that the virus would simply “disappear”; testing and contact tracing programs were inadequate; states were encouraged to reopen ahead of his own Administration’s guidelines; and statistics were repeatedly cherry-picked to make the U.S. situation look far better than it was, while undermining scientists who said otherwise. “I wanted to always play it down,” Trump told the journalist Bob Woodward on March 19 in a newly revealed conversation. “I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”

"Statistics repeatedly cherry-picked"--that's a good one by a publication that cherry-picks numbers every week to flog systemic racism or denigrate Donald Trump.

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." – Josef Stalin, reportedly.

Too Useful to Get Rid Of

My Amazon shopping cart normally has 1-5 items.

Abandoned shopping carts are a burden to supermarkets that have to retrieve them. Abandoned carts are also a nuisance in the on-line world because they distort merchants' data on what products attract customers.

They also cause an administrative burden by triggering e-mail reminders to "customers"; if the messages bounce back, eventually the merchant has to intervene and delete the cart.

Which brings us to the mysterious shopper John Smith who has been abandoning carts across the Internet.

John Smith started shopping early on a recent Wednesday and didn’t stop for days.

(Image from iaffiliatemanagement)

He visited an auto-supply site where he loaded his cart with a replacement turn-signal lever, emergency strobe light and two dozen other items. He hopped over to a home-goods merchant for another 10 items including wood picture frames, address plaques, a towel rack and mailbox. He ordered one of every kind of baby bundle, ranging from about $80 to nearly $500, from a site that sells infant sleeping boxes popular in places such as Finland.

When the roughly 48-hour spree was over, John Smith did what he always does. He walked away without buying anything.

For more than a year, online merchants selling items ranging from kayaks to keychains have puzzled over the mystery shopper with the generic name behind thousands of abandoned carts.

In a triumph of investigative journalism the Wall Street Journal tracked down the serial looker. Merchants noted that John Smith always had a gmail address. Repeated telephone calls to Google unearthed the truth:

The mystery shopper is a bot of its own creation. The purpose: making sure the all-in price for the product, including tax and shipping, matches the listing on its Google Shopping platform or in advertisements. It wasn’t to cause angst to merchants due to thousands of abandoned carts.

Internet platforms and news sites have been flooded by bots that dispense fake news, sell products, and degrade debates. So why aren't they eliminated completely? Because the platforms find them useful, too.

Who Did It? Then I'll Tell You How Outraged I am

In one NoCal hospital, nurses store their PPE in
marked paper bags for re-use. (Chron photo)

Given the nationwide shortage of PPE (personal protective equipment), this headline is another example of criminal neglect by the government:

"Coronavirus: 21 million N95 masks stockpiled. All are expired."

Actually, below is the real headline from the Chronicle (belated April Fool's) with three words restored:

Coronavirus: The state had 21 million N95 masks stockpiled. All are expired.

Credit to the Chronicle for pressing California agencies and Governor Newsom until they admitted the mistake. Also, it's quite refreshing to read a story that's devoid of outrage about government errors. (If it were President Trump's responsibility for the expired masks, would the tone be the same? This is an example of a rhetorical question.)

It's not so bad because the expired N95 masks can still be useful. Said John Balmes, a UCSF pulmonologist: [bold added]

“It would be nice to see the state purchasing new masks on a regular basis, but ... I think the expired masks should be distributed for protection of frontline health care workers to hospitals that are running out of non-expired N95s,” he said. “An expired N95 is very much more effective in protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection than homemade cloth masks.”

It's also not so bad because we're really not out of masks. UCSF spokeswoman Kristen Bole:

“We have received expired masks from the state, but we are not refurbishing them at this time,” she said. “At the current time, we have an adequate supply of new N95s to meet our needs, at least for the time being, so we are reserving the state masks for backup use.”

Ditto from Kaiser Permanente:

“We are providing our staff with the protective equipment that is aligned with the latest science and guidance from public health authorities,” said Karl Sonkin, a Kaiser spokesman. “We are not providing expired masks to our medical staff. We would do so only if every other possible source of masks was exhausted.”

Here in California individual hospitals are responsible for their own purchasing decisions. They can judge best whether to stockpile items for wildfires (yes), earthquakes (yes), or tornados (no), with the State as backup.

In New York City it appears that the Federal Government, i.e.,President Trump, is responsible for shortages of ventilators, masks, and hospital beds. As of this writing NYC's deaths from COVID-19 are approximately 1,400, which is 27% of the U.S. death toll of 5,112. For perspective NYC comprises under 3% of the U.S. population.

You may resume your outrage.

Yellowflake, and I Don't Mean Tuna

I suppose it takes someone of Chinese ancestry to say this to some Asians: quit whining about the "racism" in "Chinese virus."

The plague broke out in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province. The Chinese government covered up the burgeoning catastrophe, and the result is a contagion that has triggered a worldwide recession, and 11,000 deaths so far.

Large swaths of the U.S. are under lockdown, including two of its biggest States:

No state is completely preventing people from going outside or to work, but some measures were more drastic. California Gov. Gavin Newsom effectively banned residents from socializing outside their homes, while New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo went further in cordoning off the elderly and sick populations.

Now China is suggesting the virus' origin was really a U.S. biowarfare project. Here's the tweet from diplomat Zhao Lijian.

2/2 CDC was caught on the spot. When did patient zero begin in US? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals? It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation! pic.twitter.com/vYNZRFPWo3

— Lijian Zhao 赵立坚 (@zlj517) March 12, 2020

China through its diplomat just threw the accusation out there with no evidence. The not-made-in-China falsehood needs to be stamped out now by political leaders, journalists, and anyone with a platform. If calling it the "Chinese/China/Wuhan virus" in the daily news conference makes them stop, then good, we all can focus on the real enemy, COVID-19.

A few more comments directed at the young Asians who are triggered by "Chinese virus" and its variations:

Get your priorities straight; if some of the many thousands who are working the problem are racist, so what? Sticks and stones.

Use this time to toughen yourself. Your parents, grandparents, and ancestors endured far worse discrimination--some of it was the law of the land--and you complain about words, especially words that are not epithets?

Report on really offensive speech, if you must, after the crisis has peaked. No one wants to address complaints that are not helping to put out the fire, but the post-mortem phase is the time to go over bad decision-making and morally reprehensible behavior.

"Kung flu" is mildly racist, mildly funny, and is far, far from the worst thing I've ever heard. The journalist refuses to name names, btw, so we're not sure the story is even true.

The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II is the most well-known example of modern discrimination against Asians. Despite having their assets seized, their families imprisoned, and their good names sullied, Japanese-Americans responded by giving their lives for the country that mistreated them. To this humble blogger the Nisei soldiers of World War II are the shining example of how to respond to unjust treatment and how to change hearts and minds.

To the aggrieved Asian-Americans of today: no one's throwing you into internment camps, and one's asking you to die in the Vosges mountains. Help out however you can, share your complaints with friends and family, and never repay evil with evil.

Lastly, physical attacks on Asians should be fully prosecuted, but isn't that one of the dumbest things you've ever heard? Are there really people who beat up those who they think have a deadly, highly contagious disease?

Mr. Brown, You're Doing a Heckuva Job

(Chronicle photo)

Democratic éminence grise Willie Brown opined five months ago that Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg would be the Democrats' dream ticket.

Now that Senator Harris dropped out of the race, Willie Brown has changed his estimation of the ability of his former protégé:

Kamala Harris should go on vacation, get away from the cameras and then get back to work...But having been cut, tailored and stretched by advisers, Harris needs to get back into her own skin.

Running for president forced her to pass herself off as an expert on health care, the economy and foreign policy.

She’s not.

Credit goes to Willie Brown for changing his stance when events prove him wrong, but it will cause this humble reader to view his predictions a little more skeptically.

Another reason I'm happy that Kamala Harris is no longer running for President: I don't have to read her memoir, which Time declared a "must-read" last January.

I subscribe to Time because it occasionally commits journalism, but its monochromatic anti-Trump editorial positions have affected other departments like book and movie reviews. Sadly, I trust partisan Willie Brown a lot more than America's former greatest news periodical.

Haughtiness Oozing

A firehose of information comes at us every day. Accordingly, a filter that tells us what we need to know without tipping over to advocacy is specially valuable. I don't want to get deep into the weeds about intelligent curation--I know it when I see it!--but a wise editor decides which stories are important and, if an action is being promoted (ban fossil fuels, nationalize health care, tax both wealth and income, impeach the President) which arguments, pro and con, carry weight.

I am a paid subscriber to the San Francisco Chronicle and Wall Street Journal, both of which have not only strong opinion sections but also trustworthy news departments that frequently undermine the editorial positions. And I'm on the lookout for a few more information sources.

On the Twitter feed was an ad for Blinkist, a site that identifies "important" books, summarizes their contents, and links to the sources if the reader wishes to dig deeper. I clicked through...to my regret. Nearly every sentence was a turnoff to me, and, I suspect, many American readers. (Particularly irritating words and phrases are highlighted for your convenience.)

The Innovative App That's Trending Among Intellectuals - Blinkist Magazine

Studies have shown that last year, the typical American read 4 books. In contrast, the average number of titles completed by a Blinkist user was 26. That's why intellectuals are turning to Blinkist—because it's a proven way to get through more of the world's leading titles.

At Blinkist, we summarize the key insights from nonfiction books into 15-minute reads and listens. There are over 3,000 titles across 27 unique categories, cementing our app as the go-to destination for big thinkers.

More than 11 million people are expanding their horizons with Blinkist, with thousands of knowledge hunters downloading the app everyday.

'Blinkist encourages you to read more nonfiction books. The app contains cleverly written digests — called blinks — where books are broken down into their main arguments.'

– The New York Times

So, what exactly is it that top thinkers like about Blinkist?

1. It's Backed By Science

At Blinkist, there's a dedicated team of experts who sift through the millions of books published each year to find the best ones out there. We don't just want bestsellers, we want the hidden gems, the timeless classics, books written for intellectuals, by intellectuals — because we have built an app with serious purpose and intention.

'When we started most apps were for social media or gaming. We wanted to do something different and build an app that would add genuine value to someone's life'.

– Holger Seim, Blinkist co-founder

Once the books are selected, our specialist editors identify the key ideas and themes from each book, and turn them into useful summaries of insights. The best part, all of the content is created using neuroscientific principles making all the information easy to understand, but hard to forget.

Actionable examples, case studies, and anecdotes help deliver information that's relevant, useful, and applicable to a person's life. Plus, Blinkist is tailored: as soon as people start reading, the app will start to recommend new titles that they'll love, based on their unique interests and individual preferences.

2. Built By The Smartest People In Europe

We don't rely on algorithms to choose or make our content, we choose people. We read every book ourselves, we edit and record each pack of insights. We're a team of experts, specialists with PhDs and diplomas, people who are hungry, eager, and passionate for understanding and sharing knowledge.

To ensure our app, and our content, is the best it can be — we've built a team of over 200 qualified people who want to make powerful information available to millions.

3. Join The Club Of Global Intellectuals

Millions of tech-savvy intellectuals are using Blinkist to stay ahead of their peers, and on top of their fields. Blinkist encourages readers to explore a range of different areas and genres, discovering new knowledge around exciting subjects. We know intellectuals want to expand their knowledge, which is why we have 27 topic categories, filled with a wide spectrum of titles.

Blinkist allows intellectuals to learn from the best writers and thinkers, in order to become better themselves.

4. Read The World's Most Important Books

The Blinkist library contains over 3,000 titles across 27 different categories such as Self Improvement, Entrepreneurship, Parenting, Sex & Relationships, and Management & Leadership among many others. Whatever it is you're eager to learn about, Blinkist has got you covered.

'As a productivity coach and one of the lifelong learners, I can't tell you how happy I was to find Blinkist. If you enjoy nonfiction reading and are short on time, Blinkist will be your new favorite app.'

– Karen Trepte, Huffington Post

Time-honored favorites sit next to the latest bestsellers and talked-about new titles so that you're getting a complete look across the breadth of nonfiction. There are 10 new titles added to the app every week so even the most voracious reader will never run out of great content.

5. Global Success And The Stamp Of Approval

We're proud of what we do — we believe in our product because it has meaning, purpose, and intention. Our aim is to help people learn, to allow them to grow, and to better themselves in whatever way they would like.

This was recently recognized and praised by the United Nations, who acknowledge Blinkist as a Global Leader in Learning and Education.

'With Blinkist you can boost your knowledge and gain new perspectives so that you can be a better professional, a better partner, or a better you—and finally get through your book list or make sense of the increasingly big and busy world of ideas'.

– United Nations

With a community of 11 million people located across the world — from tech entrepreneurs in New York, to meditation teachers in the Himalayas — we have a band of people spanning the globe who are all thirsty for inspiring knowledge.

Be part of it! Download the Blinkist app now and join the 11 million curious thinkers who also love to learn.

The Blinkist writer's first mistake--I guess she can be forgiven because the app originated from Germany and is not attuned to American sensibilities--is that an "intellectual" is automatically viewed favorably by an American audience. Another turnoff is the presumption that people who read 4 books a year are certainly not intellectuals but essentially stupid and inferior. Then she tries to seal the deal by appealing to our putative aspirations to be a global thinker; the app has been "recognized and praised" by the United Nations, the apparent arbiter of intellect and probity.

The haughtiness oozes from each page, but they don't have a lot to be haughty about.

Today's Fishwrap

...or birdcage liner.

I suppose all these old-newspaper references are lost to today's readership, because who reads newspapers anymore?

As for magazines, I use them to sop up the leaks from green "bio" bags that I store in the refrigerator while awaiting the weekly compost pickup. Case in point—-Time's cover story in the impending impeachment of Donald Trump: [bold added]

But Pelosi is actually playing a deeper game. Her aides note that she’s never ruled impeachment out. All she’s done, they say, is set a standard: increased popular support and some degree of GOP backing...

But there are already signs Pelosi’s standard could be met...Large majorities say they would favor Trump’s impeachment and removal from office if Mueller finds he authorized coordination with Russia or obstructed justice.

Now that the Mueller report has found no Russian collusion or obstruction of justice, I suppose the raison d'être for impeachment, using Nancy Pelosi's standard, has gone away.

Fortunately, I have lots of bio bags this week, so it’s not a total waste of Time.

Dropped From Sight

In this week's version of "it's the end of America as we know it" President Trump will soon nominate another Supreme Court Justice. Anthony Kennedy retired last week, kicking off a nomination firestorm that will dominate headlines into fall.

For perspective I pulled up the 2018 Time covers to see if the overturning of Roe v. Wade (a threatened occurrence, BTW, with every Supreme Court nomination by a Republican President since 1987) would be more outrageous than any of the other things that Donald J. Trump was responsible for this year.

There were several weeks of #MeToo coverage that recounted numerous incidents of sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault that predated not only President Trump but also the 21st century. Yes, let's shame or prosecute the people responsible, but at least give President Trump indirect credit. #MeToo would never have happened under President Hillary Clinton, with big-time supporter Harvey Weinstein yukking it up with the Big He in the Lincoln bedroom.

Then there are President Trump's inflammatory speeches and tweets directed at Kim Jong Un. Time's February mushroom cloud (which indeed would have been worse than anything going on with the Supreme Court) was superseded by the June cover that showed the two leaders talking amiably.

And what happened to those determined, angry kids who want gun restrictions? I agree that stopping school shootings has to be a national priority. Despite the polarization, surely we can reach common ground on mental illness, rapid-fire technology, and background checks. Or was it all a voter registration drive for Democrats?

Then there are the pictures of border families and crying kids who seem to elicit powerful emotions from people on all sides of the illegal immigration issue. Here's where over two decades of screening grant requests has hardened my heart. Everyone who wants money knows that crying babies trump nearly all rational consideration. OK, reunite the border families, but you still have to deliberate over the adults, some of whom are using their children to catch a break. Note: in California alone there are over 50,000 children separated from their parents by Child Protective Services, undoubtedly for good reason. Over 20,000 are age 5 or younger; I'll bet some of them cried when they were taken away, but their pictures aren't on the cover of Time. I do get it, CPS good, border patrol bad. Indeed, I have to work on my hardened heart.

Other observations: 1) the portraits of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a sexual-predator felon are both cast in shadow. I wonder what Time's editorial position is on these guys. 2) Pictures or representations of President Trump appear on four covers, only one of which is non-hostile. If Time were a person, I'd advise it to get therapy for its obsession. 3) What happened to Russia-Russia-Russia and the anytime-now impeachment of Donald Trump? 4) What happened to the tariff wars that will plunge the world into the next Great Depression? (I'm actually worried about this one and wonder why they're not using this to undermine the President's support from business.)

Now that I've done the half-year in review I feel a lot better. These "crises" must not have been so important after all because they've dropped from sight.

Still Secret After All These Years

(WSJ graphic)

The Great Pyramid of Giza has a hidden space, dubbed the ScanPyramids Big Void:

The Big Void is at least roughly 100 feet long, according to the study, and between 160 and 230 feet above ground, higher than the Grand Gallery....There are still unanswered questions, [Mehdi Tayoubi of the HIP Institute] said, like what’s inside the Big Void, whether it’s a single or multiple rooms, or what its purpose was. The sensors used to detect this new pocket inside the Great Pyramid couldn’t make out individual artifacts within, or its internal structure.

I believe that the Big Void allowed itself to be revealed, now that our species' technology is sufficiently advanced to receive its secrets.

But which brave soul will be the first to go in? Who has the knowledge, wisdom, maturity, and flexibility to react with good judgment to a discovery that could change human history?

Geraldo, we're sorry about the things everyone said the last time. We really need you!

Unfair to the Enquirer

Guilty reading pleasure: My former landlady always
picked up the current copy at the supermarket.

South Carolina representative Trent Gowdy (R) on the "Trump dossier": [bold added]

"I want to know whether the nation's premier law enforcement agency relied on a document that looks like the National Enquirer prepared it."

Hey, Trent, you're being unfair to the Enquirer.

ABC news, 2010: National Enquirer Now Legit, According to Pulitzer Prize Board

The National Enquirer is now legit, according to the Pulitzer Prize Board.

The body behind journalism's most prestigious award conceded Thursday that the self-proclaimed tabloid can compete with mainstream news outlets for its prizes. Because it broke the story about former presidential candidate John Edwards's mistress and love child, the Enquirer's staff is eligible for the Pulitzer in two categories: "Investigative Reporting" and "National News Reporting."

Of course, the National Enquirer raising its standards is only one possible explanation of how the supermarket tabloid is becoming like the rest of the industry.

Well, It Oughtta Be True

During a natural disaster it's not just Donald Trump that the media tries to make look bad, it's Republican presidents in general. The Washington Post, on disaster reporting standards during the Bush years:

New Orleans Mayor Nagin and Police Superintendent
Compass after Hurricane Katrina (CBS photo)

One of the great media-fed myths of Katrina was that criminality, violence and looting swept New Orleans after the breach of the city’s levees. There were apocalyptic stories about snipers shooting at rescue helicopters, roving gangs indiscriminately killing and raping throughout the flooded city, and the Superdome overflowing with dead bodies.

Almost none of it was true.

Much of the defective reporting stemmed from exaggerated or wholly inaccurate comments from official sources, including the mayor and police chief, said W. Joseph Campbell, the author of “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the Greatest Myths in American Journalism.”

Sensationalist reporting boosts sales and generates clicks. As a bonus, if it hurts politicians that the media detests, why should facts and journalistic standards get in the way of the story?

Before A Word Has Been Uttered

(Image from info254.com)

In a hypothetical criminal case developed for an experiment, judges went easier on a "remorseful" defendant who was trying to make amends. (Their decisions should have been based on the law and the facts, not the defendant's characteristics.)

While 87% of the judges upheld the conviction of the extremist Serb, no matter what the precedent, only 41% did for the remorseful Croat. In other words, rulings were driven by the defendant’s personal attributes rather than by legal precedent.

Even more interesting were the judges’ explanations for their decisions. Did they write about how legal precedent is one thing, but at the end of the day the most important thing is the individual on trial? No. Most cited the precedent if it supported their decision. Others discussed legal or policy matters.

In other words they made their decision based on emotion or other non-legal factors, then used legal reasoning to support the decision.

There's a strong suspicion that that is how most of us behave: base a decision on whether we like a person (sometimes merely whether he is in or out of our "tribe"), then justify the decision based on "facts", "reason", and "logic." That is why we usually know what a politician, reporter, or judge will say on a subject before a word has been uttered.

Biased News

Desiree Fairooz confronts Condoleeza Rice in 2007. She
attempted to intimidate her with red-stained hands, but Dr.
Rice responds with a fearless expression. (Guardian photo)

There are several techniques to bias a news article without lying. One way is to leave out important facts that may cause the reader to take the opposite position from the writer (example: advocates of compact fluorescent bulbs omitted mention of mercury poisoning).

Another is to bury countervailing information at the bottom of the article. Example from the Guardian.

Headline: Woman who laughed at Jeff Sessions hearing convicted for being 'disorderly'

Desired Reaction: someone was convicted for laughing at the Attorney General. He sounds like a hypersensitive jerk who throws his weight around.

Lead sentence: A jury in Washington has convicted a woman who was arrested after laughing during a confirmation hearing for the attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

Desired Reaction: Yep, the article matches the headline. Arrested for laughing? This is America!

Well, if you make it to paragraph 10 [bold added]:

A spokesperson for the jury that convicted Fairooz, who spoke to the Huffington Post on condition of anonymity, said: “She did not get convicted for laughing. It was her actions as she was being asked to leave.”

While newspapers now take advocacy positions in the news section, most still retain enough journalistic ethics so as not to deliberately mislead. The Guardian isn't one of them.

Peggy Picks Up a Pulitzer

Peggy Noonan is a panelist on ABC's Sunday talk show.

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wins the the Pulitzer Prize.

Ms. Noonan is one of the very few political professionals who became successful, trusted journalists (the late Tim Russert and William Safire also come to mind).

Excellence in journalism requires knowledge and facility with the language. It also requires a willingness to set aside biases and personal associations in the quest for truthful reporting.

Ms. Noonan was a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush ("thousand points of light" and "kindler, gentler nation" were her creations) and tends toward conservative viewpoints, but she has been critical of Republican politicians and laudatory of Democrats when her principles demanded it.

Long may she write.

Below is her most recent Journal essay, What’s Become of the American Dream?