Readers Pass – Schow – The Railroading Of Dr. David Sabatini16x9

The Railroading Of Dr. David Sabatini

David Sabatini

Investigation

Lawsuit

MeToo

Readers Pass

Relationships

Science

Hollywood went woke and never looked back.
It doesn’t matter how many woke projects disappoint at the box office, the industry keeps cranking out more. A rare few, like 2019’s “Booksmart,” actually rose above to make us smile. Most, though, sink under a crush of finger-wagging moments and ham-fisted woke lectures.
So, in no particular order, here are 10 woke movies with little, if any, entertainment value to cushion the messaging blow.
<h4>“Ghostbusters” (2016)</h4>
This franchise reboot (don’t call it a sequel) unofficially kicked off the industry’s woke manifesto. Letting four comic actresses take the baton from the 1984 film’s male quartet told audiences this wasn’t just a franchise extension. It was a broadside against the PatriarchyTM.
The attack proved aggressively mediocre. The comedy’s gender swap mania extended to the ghostbusters’ office clerk, now played by Chris Hemsworth in full “himbo” mode. The film’s first trailer crashed the Internet in all the worst ways, and the film reportedly <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/ghostbusters-box-office-loss-sequel-unlikely-918515/">cost Sony $70 million.</a>
The studio licked its wounds, jettisoned the gender-empowering cast and brought the franchise back from the dead via last year’s “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.”
<h4>“Antebellum” (2020)</h4>
“Get Out” delivered a rare woke treat. Jordan Peele’s 2017 smash fused progressive messaging with slick genre shocks, and audiences rallied to its side. This slavery-themed shocker tries a similar tactic but fails miserably. Janelle Monae stars as both a powerful author and a slave trying to escape her master’s chains. 
The film clumsily stitches those two character sides together, delivering woke lectures and a painfully predictable story arc. The film’s creepy score was its sole selling point.
<h4>“Charlie’s Angels” (2019)</h4>
“I believe a woman can do anything,” Kristen Stewart’s “Angel” says in the very first line of this franchise reboot. Let the eye rolls commence.
The TV source material had little on its brain beyond titillation and skin-deep stories, but it showcased three strong women saving the day each week. The first film adaptation, starring Lucy Liu, Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore, souped up the action but retained the sexy spirit.
Director Elizabeth Banks surgically removed the pulchritude from the reboot, focusing on Empowerment 101. It flopped spectacularly at the cineplex, crushing the franchise for the foreseeable future. Even the <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/charlies-angels-2019-movie-reboot-kristen-stewart.html">far-Left Slate.com</a> mocked these “Angels” for being so ”concerned with its messaging that it fails to be fun.”
<h4>“Captain Marvel” (2019)</h4>
This MCU origin tale crushed the box office, period, with an eye-popping $426 million stateside. The MCU’s bulletproof brand at the time, not the film itself, can be credited for that.
MCU films typically nail the critical casting calls – think Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch). Oscar winner Brie Larson is too smug and charmless as the title character, a Kree warrior trying to crack her identity issues.
The film flounders when it should be soaring, and the comic moments don’t land as they normally do in other MCU romps. “Captain Marvel” introduced woke elements to the franchise, from our heroine’s victim status to feminist dialogue that lands with a thud.
<h4>“Wonder Woman 1984” (2020)</h4>
What happened? How could 2017’s “Wonder Woman” deliver on almost every level, while the ‘80s era sequel stumbles from start to finish? It’s one of the biggest mysteries in recent years, considering the creative team from the original returned for the obligatory sequel.
Gal Gadot remains the quintessential Wonder Woman, but she’s adrift in a sea of campy gags, stiff action sequences and stupefying villains. You can hate Donald Trump all you want, but the Trumpian baddie (the usually reliable Pedro Pascal) crushes the film’s modest momentum.
And, of course, woke flourishes abound, particularly with Kristen Wiig’s pre-villainous character.
<h4>“Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising” (2016)</h4>
Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne, a seriously underrated comic star, powered the surprise 2014 hit about new parents living next to a sorority house from Hell. A sequel made economic sense, but the minds behind the original had something else in mind for round two.
Female empowerment.
Rogen and co. even hired <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/meet-women-behind-neighbors-2-sorority-rising-article-1.2637136?utm_content=buffer0602c&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=esacks+twitter">two female screenwriters</a> to oversee the project. Why? To ensure an R-rated comedy delivered gender positive characters. They should have spent more time on the jokes. 
This resulted in a disappointing comic dud that hauled in only a third of what the original earned, killing the young franchise in the process.
<h4>“Star Wars: The Last Jedi” (2017)</h4>
The middle film in the final Skywalker trilogy remains one of the most debated sequels in modern memory. And for good reason, since it marked Disney’s attempt to woke-ify the beloved brand.
Writer/director Rian Johnson insults “Star Wars” canon, delivering a maddening sequel which stops mid-film for a lecture on wealth inequality. Johnson also emasculates the saga’s Han Solo stand-in (Oscar Isaac) and delivers the ultimate Mary Sue character, Kelly Marie Tran’s Rose Tico.
The film made a mint at the box office ($620 million) but proved far less successful than its predecessor, “The Force Awakens” ($936 million).
<h4>“Downsizing” (2017)</h4>
Writer/director Alexander Payne could do no wrong on the big screen … until this woke belly flop. Payne’s enviro-satire stars Matt Damon as a man who voluntarily shrinks himself to help save the planet. Smaller people, less resources required to sustain them.
The plan goes awry, and the smart setup and lo-fi effects give way to grating supporting characters, the obligatory “wall” reference and other progressive tropes which interrupt the opportunity for enjoyment.
The initial gimmick opened up a world of satirical potential. That Payne couldn’t lean into any one idea captures just how badly “Downsizing” squanders its potential.
<h4>“The Hustle” (2019)</h4>
Duck! It’s yet another gender swap reboot. To be fair, the 1988’s “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” was itself a remake of 1964’s “Bedtime Story.” The ‘80s version became a comedy staple thanks to the chemistry between Steve Martin and Michael Caine.
Suffice to say Rebel Wilson and Anne Hathaway lack that duo’s comic chops. To be fair, they never had a chance given the atrocious screenplay which hits a false note in the opening scene and never recovers.
The remake doesn’t flood the zone with woke elements, but it doesn’t take a Gender Studies degree to spot them.
<h4>“Suburbicon” (2018)</h4>
Woke has been very bad to Matt Damon. Not only did the #MeToo movement pummel him for not <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/01/matt-damon-hollywood-reckoning-apology">reciting the proper talking points</a>, he’s also starred in at least two woke bombs. (“Promised Land” deserves an honorable mention here…)
George Clooney directs not one but two ‘50s-era storylines that never coalesce into something coherent, let alone engaging. Damon stars as a family man whose home is invaded by thugs. Meanwhile, a kindly black couple endures endless harassment for daring to move into a mostly white neighborhood.
Yes, Clooney is waving the era’s racism in our faces, but his approach is neither delicate nor engaging. 
Kudos to Oscar Isaac for stealing a few scenes outright, but the moment he leaves the screen the film reverts back to room temperature.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Readers Pass – Toto – Toxic Ten- The Worst Woke Movies_216x9 copy

10 Woke Movie Disasters

Hollywood

Movies

Woke Culture

Freedom of speech is so important to us as Americans our founders made it one of our most foundational liberties. 
According to the First Amendment, 
<blockquote>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press&#8230;”</blockquote>
But should all speech be permitted? Is that the American way?
What if someone spreads defamatory lies about you, claiming that you were responsible for the spread of COVID in your community, giving out your home address, posting pictures of your children, calling for violence against you and your family, and instructing people how to burn down your house? Should that speech be permitted in the public square?
What kind of speech should be allowed on social media? All speech of all kinds?
The hysterical reaction of many on the left to Elon Musk’s pending purchase of Twitter reveals the degree to which free speech is a one-way street for them. To paraphrase their words, We can speak freely, since we are enlightened truth-tellers. But ignorant haters like you must be silenced! 
As I <a href="https://askdrbrown.org/library/university-campuses-it-free-speech-me-not-thee">wrote</a> recently with reference to the campuses of America, it is free speech for me but not for thee.
Yet as far as ensuring that social media platforms are free and fair to all, an <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-elon-musk-twitter-facebook-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-20220502-gan5wamrsvcjde226e23kqvpr4-story.html">editorial</a> in the Chicago Tribune was correct in stating that when it comes to Elon Musk heralding free speech on Twitter, “He’ll find the devil is in the details.”
That has proven to be absolutely true, but not in a way that is unique to Musk or Twitter at all. Instead, these are the perennial legal questions that are constantly addressed by the courts.
For example, the Freedom Forum Institute <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/">asks</a> the question, “Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?”
Their answer is that, “Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories.”
These nine categories are: Obscenity; Fighting words; Defamation (including libel and slander); Child pornography; Perjury; Blackmail; Incitement to imminent lawless action; True threats; Solicitations to commit crimes.” (For further details, see <a href="https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258">here</a> and <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does">here</a>.)
Obviously, each of these categories requires further definition and description. But the simple point is this: freedom of speech does not mean that all speech of all kinds is protected under the First Amendment. Very few of us are advocating for that.
But we do believe that the vast majority of speech should be permitted and, more importantly, that the playing field should be level and the rules be the same for everyone. 
That is what matters most, and that is where Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms have failed the most miserably. The playing field has been anything but equal and everyone has not been allowed to play by the same rules. (For detailed documentation, see my book <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Silencing-Lambs-Ominous-Culture-Overcome/dp/1629999849/ref=pd_ybh_a_sccl_2/138-7824061-8776029?pd_rd_w=2LI1h&amp;pf_rd_p=48b4f440-2099-4e34-afeb-210417d3bf51&amp;pf_rd_r=H88PFYZNB4RKZ81D3HWC&amp;pd_rd_r=ee5c6eda-ebb1-4b4a-a77e-afba37a73594&amp;pd_rd_wg=v9Nlb&amp;pd_rd_i=1629999849&amp;psc=1">The Silencing of the Lambs</a>.)
Seriously now, when you can get <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/599051-twitter-suspends-babylon-bee-for-misgendering-rachel-levine/">banned from Twitter</a> for stating a biological fact (such as, “Richard ‘Rachel’ Levine is a biological male”), something is terribly amiss. 
Or when, as a professional psychologist, you permanently lose your YouTube channel for sharing peer-reviewed documentation about homosexual men whose same-sex attractions were lessened through trauma therapy, something is very wrong. (For the record, the respected psychologist in question, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Jr., was <a href="https://www.reintegrativetherapy.com/youtube-cancels-psychological-science-calls-it-hate-speech">banned for hate speech</a>.)
And it is here that, as far as I can tell, Elon Musk has this correct. He wants neutrality and he wants fairness under the law, as he tweeted on April 26:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. 
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. 
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So, should Holocaust deniers and inciters to violence be allowed on Twitter? If their speech is protected under the First Amendment, yes. If not, no.
If it is considered legal by the courts, meaning, these people could circulate their views in newspapers or books or pamphlets, then they should be able to circulate those same views online. If their speech is illegal, then it should not be allowed on online platforms.
Of course, there will always be gray areas, and it will be impossible for perfect neutrality to be maintained, given human nature. And decisions will be made to err in one direction or another (too much freedom or too little freedom). And any individual platform should be able to dictate what it chooses to ban. (For example, my ministry chooses to ban profanity on all our social media platforms.)
But when it comes to social media platforms claiming neutrality and presenting equal guidelines for all, things have gotten drastically out of whack.
In that light, it shouldn’t be hard to reverse Twitter’s steady, at times radical, shift towards the left. And, as Musk is navigating these muddy waters himself, his simple dictum has lots of truth: “Is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like? If that is the case, then we have free speech.”
Let the real debates begin.
Dr. Michael Brown (<a href="http://www.askdrbrown.org/">www.askdrbrown.org</a>) is the host of the nationally syndicated <a href="http://www.lineoffireradio.com/">Line of Fire</a> radio program. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and is the author of 40 books. Connect with him on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AskDrBrown">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/DrMichaelLBrown">Twitter</a>, or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbINn3x-intLp88Zrf8acpg">YouTube</a>.

Brown – We Welcome Holocaust Deniers and Inciters to Violence to Social Media Platforms in the Name of Free Speech_

Should We Welcome Holocaust Deniers And Inciters To Violence To Social Media Platforms In The Name Of Free Speech?

Elon Musk

Free Speech

Holocaust

Twitter

As millions of fans know, Marvel Studios recently released its latest superhero blockbuster Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Like earlier Marvel films, this offering unfolds within an interconnected network of parallel universes known as the “Multiverse.”
Popular culture has grown increasingly fascinated with the concept of alternative universes. The idea has been featured in comics since the 1960s and in movies like Sliding Doors, the 2009 reboot of Star Trek, and the films in DC Entertainment’s Extended Universe series. Mark Zuckerberg has even advanced the idea of infinite alternative digital universes.
So what exactly is the Multiverse and why has it generated so much interest? Isn’t one universe enough?
Although it may seem like pure science fiction, the Multiverse has gained traction in popular culture largely because serious scientists first proposed it. According to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Irg_E3gpw">some scientists</a>, every possible event that could have occurred in our universe actually has occurred (or is occurring) in another parallel universe. 
Thus, strangely, the Multiverse concept implies that a copy of each of us exists—not just in one other universe, but in an innumerable array of other universes. It also implies those other copies of ourselves are experiencing infinitely many different circumstances—some similar to those in our world, some dramatically different. 
In 1956, physicist Hugh Everett first proposed the Multiverse as an interpretation of a strange quantum phenomenon known as “the collapse of the wave function.” 
In the 1980s, Physicist Alan Guth, introduced “Inflation Theory,” suggesting that as our universe expands it will eventually birth an infinite number of new bubble universes.
Physicists conceive of parallel universes as disconnected realities that have, nevertheless, emerged from some common “universe-generating mechanism.” In science fiction, however, characters can “teleport” between universes through “wormholes” or via dreams.
So given its weirdness, what accounts for the popularity of the Multiverse? 
In physics, the Multiverse has gained adherents because it seems to explain an otherwise inexplicable mystery known as “fine-tuning.”
Since the 1960s, scientists have discovered that the physical laws and parameters of our universe have been finely tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations—such as the expansion rate of the universe or the strength of gravity or electromagnetism or the exact masses of elementary particles—would make sustainability or even the existence of life impossible. 
In essence, physics has revealed that we live in a “Goldilocks universe” where the forces of physics have just the right strengths and balances and the properties of matter just the right characteristics to allow for life. Physicists refer to these many fortuitous factors as “cosmological fine-tuning.”
Many scientists initially concluded that this improbable fine-tuning points to a “Fine-Tuner”—an intelligent creator who established the physical parameters of the universe with life in mind. 
As former Cambridge University astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle argued: “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.
To avoid this conclusion, some physicists have doubled down on the Multiverse. That allows them to portray the fine-tuning of our universe as the outcome of a grand lottery in which some universe-generating mechanism spits out billions of universes—so many that our universe with its improbable combination of life-conducive factors eventually had to arise. 
Thus, despite its speculative character, the Multiverse has attracted support from prominent scientists, from Hugh Everett to Alan Guth to Stephen Hawking. Why? In part because it provides an alternative to an idea many would prefer to avoid: intelligent design by a transcendent creator. 
Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind explains the attraction of the multiverse this way: “Without any [other] explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID [intelligent design] critics.” Indeed, the Multiverse is now the go-to atheistic explanation for the design of the universe.
Multiverse advocates overlook two obvious problems, however. 
First, as Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DJ-Miw4g-I">has argued</a>, the Multiverse constitutes a more convoluted, less simple explanation than “the God hypothesis.” The God hypothesis requires the postulation of only one explanatory entity, a transcendent intelligence, rather than the multiplicity of entities—including an infinite number of separate universes and various universe-generating mechanisms—required by the Multiverse. Thus, positing one God meets the test of Ockham’s famous razor, whereas positing Many Universes does not.
Second—and here’s the twist—all Multiverse proposals, whether based on “inflationary cosmology” or “string theory,” posit universe-generating mechanisms that themselves require prior, unexplained fine-tuning. This means that the ultimate origin of the fine-tuning remains a mystery—which seems to take us right back to the need for an ultimate Fine-Tuner.
Ironically, the folks at Marvel and DC studios seem to recognize this. The Marvel Universe envisions a God-like figure called the One-Above-All as the creator of all the interconnected universes in the Multiverse. His DC equivalent is called The Presence. 

Yet many modern scientists, wedded to atheism or materialism, fail to distinguish these ideologies from science itself. Consequently, they have recently advanced ever more strange and exotic hypotheses. In addition to the multiverse, some scientists posit a space alien designer to explain the digital code in DNA, while others suggest we may be nothing more than the simulation of a cosmic computer programmer. 
These speculative hypotheses illustrate the growing strangeness of scientific atheism, as scientists reach for increasingly exotic ideas to explain evidence that seems otherwise to point straightforwardly to God. 

As for the Multiverse, even sci-fi writers now recognize that if such a thing exists, it would still require an ultimate Creator.  
So, who will tell the scientific atheists?
Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He is the author of Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (HarperOne).

Multiverse Piece

The Madness Of The Multiverse And The Strangeness Of Atheism

Marvel

I am a call manager at the Center for Pregnancy Choices (CPC) in Jackson, Mississippi, a nonprofit providing counseling services to women facing unexpected pregnancies. Some would say I am perfect for this role – I faced two difficult unexpected pregnancies myself. Today, I give back so other women know they are not alone.
In my work at the clinic, I sometimes receive calls from women who just found out they are pregnant and in need of help. Many are looking for a listening ear or the resources to make their own decision. Most of them are anxious and unsure.
I can relate. An unexpected pregnancy threatened my educational goals.
When I was a senior in college, a positive pregnancy test stalled me in my tracks, blurring my hopes for graduation and grad school. I was overwhelmed with panic, fear, and stress.
What would I do? How would I finish school? What would my boyfriend and parents say? What would the members of my Christian college community think? I doubted whether I could handle a baby while simultaneously completing my education.
Yet, amidst the wave of panic and stress, I knew I had somewhere to turn. 
Through CPC, I was provided with a list of doctors to see, prenatal vitamins, free counseling, an ultrasound, parenting classes and other support. They even helped me navigate telling my parents.
Unlike some girls facing unexpected pregnancies, I was blessed to have supportive parents. My boyfriend at the time – who is now my husband – was also very supportive. 
Still, the road was far from easy. I knew I wanted to further my education despite my unexpected pregnancy, however, this required many sacrifices. It was tough to walk around campus and attend classes with a visible bump. At times, I felt the disapproval of other students in my campus community. Juggling classes with pregnancy appointments and battling morning sickness was extremely difficult.
Thankfully, my college professors allowed me to finish my classes at home during my pregnancy, which helped me to graduate only one semester behind. 
While at graduation, my boyfriend surprised me by proposing.We got married that summer after college, right before we started graduate school in August.
Though the journey was hard, bittersweet moments like these helped me realize I made the right choice. 
My experience inspired me to work at CPC while attending graduate school – where I found out I was pregnant again. This time I knew I had the support of CPC and they stepped in to help ease the process. 

Now I give back so that others have the support and resources that I did. Through CPC, I was able to recognize the need to let women know there are alternatives to abortion, and support systems in place should they choose life.
My experience with an unexpected pregnancy has enabled me to empathize and encourage these women. So many women are like I once was – shocked, afraid, and unsure. Through my work, I seek to give women hope, and to give them the strength and resources necessary to shoulder the burdens of an unexpected pregnancy.
In addition to my work at the CPC, I am currently pursuing a doctorate in public health. Did I mention I love education? My dissertation focuses on the correlation between mental health illness and unplanned pregnancy, and it emphasizes the importance of maternal mental health screenings, counseling, and support for women, so that they have a healthy pregnancy outcome for both mother and child.
Just a few years ago, staring in panic at my first positive pregnancy test, I never thought that pursuing my DrPH would be possible.
But it was. Through the support from CPC and my loved ones, I knew that my goals could be met without ending the life of my child. More importantly, I found beauty and grace in a journey that gave me a new life calling, and a deep desire to give back. Each of my children have blessed my life in countless ways, and I am thankful for the people and support networks that encouraged me to fulfill my goals and dreams, even after experiencing two unplanned pregnancies.
Today, when I talk to women who call our center, I am constantly reminded of my journey and those who made it possible. I find joy in being able to help women as I was once helped, and in sharing the message that I&#8217;ve learned over the years: You’re stronger than you think.
DaChiron lives in Jackson, Mississippi.

Readers Pass – DaChiron – An unplanned pregnancy didn’t stop me from reaching my goals. Now I work to support other wome

An Unplanned Pregnancy Didn’t Stop Me From Reaching My Goals. Now I Work To Support Other Women.

Abortion

Motherhood

Pregnant

The media thinks Twitter finally has Elon Musk over a barrel. After agreeing to buy the social media giant, he’s now holding up the deal while trying to discover what percentage of Twitter users are really robots. The media reports that  Twitter might <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-says-committed-enforcing-elon-034301886.html"> force Musk to go ahead with the deal</a>, and if he doesn’t, he could pay<a href="https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/elon-musk-wants-sec-to-probe-twitters-daily-user-numbers/">  over a billion dollars in penalties</a>.
But the media has it backwards. It’s Elon Musk who’s doing the right thing and has all the power. He has Twitter between a bot and a hard place – not the other way around.
I say this as a tech CEO who’s negotiated hundreds of business deals over the past decade. The only good deals are based on full honesty and transparency. Yet the more we learn about Twitter, the more it looks like the company could be holding back the truth. Musk, and the rest of America, are rightly wondering: What percentage of Twitter is totally fake?
If you listen to the company, the answer is essentially: there is nothing to see here. In legally binding federal filings, Twitter has said that<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/17/elon-musk-twitter-deal-proof-bots/"> only 5% of its users are bots</a>. Yet at times, it<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/17/elon-musk-twitter-deal-proof-bots/"> also says the number</a> “could be higher.” That’s the sort of statement that demands to be unpacked, yet to date, Twitter has failed to do so. What’s worse, this week it<a href="https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/twitter-fake-accounts-bots-parag-agarwal-elon-musk/2528301/"> refused to make public how it reached that 5% claim</a>.
This is totally unacceptable, especially for someone who wants to buy the company at the<a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-says-committed-enforcing-elon-034301886.html"> enormous cost of $44 billion</a>. Twitter might be deliberately lying, completely incompetent, or maybe both. No wonder Musk is seeking answers.
He&#8217;s asking the right question. Basically anyone who’s ever used Twitter already knows that huge numbers of users are bots, and based on my own experience on the platform, I’d say the real number is well over 5%. Everyone I’ve ever talked to says the same thing. Sure enough, independent research has found that<a href="https://sparktoro.com/blog/sparktoro-followerwonk-joint-twitter-analysis-19-42-of-active-accounts-are-fake-or-spam/"> about 20% of active Twitter users</a> are either fake accounts or spam.
The real total may be even higher. Musk himself has drawn attention to an audit finding that<a href="https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/social-media-news/elon-musk-reacts-to-report-claiming-half-of-joe-bidens-22-mn-twitter-followers-are-fake-articleshow.html"> half of President Biden’s 22 million followers are fake</a>. A similar process found that<a href="https://sparktoro.com/blog/sparktoro-followerwonk-joint-twitter-analysis-19-42-of-active-accounts-are-fake-or-spam/"> about 70% of Musk’s followers</a> may not be “authentic, active” Twitter users. How can that be, if Twitter<a href="https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1526237583058952192"> deletes half a million fake accounts every day</a> as it claims it does?
The media thinks Musk’s fake followers are hypocritical, but that’s not his fault. It only proves his point that Twitter needs to come clean. If it can’t figure out who’s following the leader of the free world, to say nothing of its future owner, there&#8217;s a low chance Twitter knows what’s happening on the rest of the platform. 
Elon Musk has every right to demand the truth. If it turns out that Twitter has more fake users than it admits, he also has every right to demand a lower price before buying the company.
Here’s my suggestion: For every 1% of Twitter users beyond 5% that are fake, Musk should pay 1% less. So if he’s right that 20% of accounts are bots, then he should pay 15% less. (Personally, I’d demand an even steeper discount, given Twitter’s track record of censorship. Violating free speech doesn’t deserve full price.) 
One thing’s for sure: Twitter needs Elon Musk more than Elon Musk needs Twitter. The total lack of clarity around bots is just the latest proof that the social media giant is poorly run. It desperately needs a real visionary and true entrepreneur at the helm. Only then will it reach its true potential. And Elon Musk has the drive and desire to make Twitter what it should have been all along: A place for people and free speech, not bots and Big Tech censorship.
Peter Rex is founder and CEO of Rex, which builds and invests in tech companies.

Readers Pass – Rex – Elon (TBD)16×9

Twitter Is Between A Bot And A Hard Place

Big Tech

Dr. Enver Tohti, a former physician in China, remembers the day with horror. The whistleblower said his chief surgeon approached him and asked, “Do you want to do something wild?” The surgeon then took Dr. Tohti and other medical professionals to the site of a public execution, pointed to one of the criminals, and told him, “As quick as possible, remove the liver and two kidneys.” 
“Then, I saw he was alive,” Dr. Tohti, who is now an Uber driver in London, recently <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH0F75tpD_A">told</a> Vice TV. 
Stories of China harvesting organs from live “donors” have proliferated for decades, but a new and credible scholarly article has exposed concrete evidence that China has engaged in the gruesome practice. Researchers Matthew P. Robertson of Australia and Jacob Lavee of Israel combed through 2,838 papers on Chinese organ transplantation published in medical journals, covering prisoner organ donations between 1980 and 2015. They <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajt.16969">published</a> their findings on April 4 in an article titled “<a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/AJT-Execution-by-organ-procurement.pdf">Execution by organ procurement: Breaching the dead donor rule in China</a>,” in the American Journal of Transplantation, a peer-reviewed journal. 
The pair looked for discrepancies between donors being declared “brain dead” and the circumstances of their medical treatment. According to the paper, in Western medicine one can only be declared brain dead after intubation and receiving the apnea test on a ventilator. In dozens of cases in China, they found that that did not take place. 
“The removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the proximate cause of the donor&#8217;s death” in cases documented in 71 papers, they wrote.
In at least one case, “intubation took place after sternal incision as surgeons examined the beating heart” of the “donor.” (Emphasis in original.) They quote an account from a 1995 journal article: 
<blockquote>The donor was intravenously injected with heparin 3mg/kg 1h before the operation… The heartbeat was weak and the myocardium was purple. After assisted ventilation through tracheal intubation, the myocardium turned red and the heartbeat turned strong… The donor heart was extracted with an incision from the 4th intercostal sternum… This incision is a good choice for field operation where the sternum cannot be sawed open without power.</blockquote>
Robertson told me it is important that the media not misreport their data about live organ transplants. “It&#8217;s not that there were only 71 of this sort,” he said. “It&#8217;s 71 that we found.” 
He and his co-author are almost certainly undercounting the incidences when CCP officials killed prisoners by removing their beating hearts, because they counted only those officially documented in medical journals. “We don’t know how many transplants actually end up in a medical paper,” said Robertson. “It could be one in 100; it could be one in 1,000; it could be 1 in 10.” 
Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but estimates abound — and none of the numbers add up. In 2019, the China Tribunal <a href="https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ChinaTribunal_JUDGMENT_1stMarch_2020.pdf">found</a> that Chinese physicians likely performed 60,000 to 90,000 organ transplants a year from 2000 to 2014, but the number of eligible organ donors registered in 2017 numbered only 5,146. Another estimate places the number of organs taken from Falun Gong practitioners at <a href="http://www.david-kilgour.com/2015/speech_04212015.pdf">41,500</a> over a five-year period. For his part, Robertson said once Chinese Communist Party officials perfected the process, they employed this form of organ removal “probably with all heart transplants” in the nation.
Allegations of Chinese Communist organ harvesting stretch back decades. U.S. congressional hearings on the topic go back as far as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/24/nyregion/us-says-2-chinese-offered-organs-from-the-executed.html">1998</a>. At a subsequent House hearing in 2012, representatives described how Chinese Communist Party officials ordered organs from prisoners the way others order hors d’oeuvres off a menu. “They were able to put in the order, and then the wardens at various prisons would fill that order,” <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75859/html/CHRG-112hhrg75859.htm">said</a> pro-life Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ). Between U.S. hearings, the United Nations broached the topic in <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-un-human-rights-experts-alarmed-organ-harvesting-allegations?LangID=E&amp;NewsID=27167">2006 and 2007</a>, but to no avail. 
All investigators agree that China targets prisoners for such organ donations — many of whom are imprisoned because of their faith. “The Chinese Communist Party has engaged the State in the mass killings of innocents, primarily practitioners of the spiritually-based set of exercises, Falun Gong, but also Uyghurs, Tibetans, and select House Christians, in order to obtain organs for transplants,” David Matas, a senior legal counsel for B’nai Brith Canada, <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA16/20160623/105116/HHRG-114-FA16-Wstate-MatasD-20160623.pdf">told</a> Congress in 2016. 
Last June, a group of UN experts warned organ harvesting from disfavored minorities continues apace. “Forced organ harvesting in China appears to be targeting specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities held in detention,” they <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-un-human-rights-experts-alarmed-organ-harvesting-allegations?LangID=E&amp;NewsID=27167">wrote</a>. They found that Chinese officials performed blood tests and organ examinations on the prisoners (who were often held without charges) then logged the results in a database of living organ donors. 
&#8220;They performed three blood tests but gave me no results,” <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/china-falun-gong-harvesting-human-organs-huge-scale/3390235.html">said</a> Falun Gong practitioner Ma Chunmei, who was imprisoned in 2002. “After I was released from the camp, one of [the Falun] practitioners, who happened to be a doctor, told me they were doing a bone marrow test to see if my kidney was a match.&#8221;
The healthy lifestyle of religious practitioners, who eschew alcohol and cigarettes, makes their unsullied organs particularly valuable for transplantation. During testing, only bad news brings good news. Falun Gong adherent Jennifer Zeng <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/organ-harvesting-china-survivors-victims">said</a> she escaped forced organ donation in a Chinese labor camp only because she had Hepatitis C. But sometimes ill health does not spare prisoners, or the organ’s recipients, from the death penalty. A 14-year-old girl from Saudi Arabia <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA16/20160623/105116/HHRG-114-FA16-Wstate-DelmonicoF-20160623.pdf">died</a> after she received a tainted kidney transplant from a Chinese prisoner in exchange for $200,000, according to testimony offered by a Harvard Medical School professor at a congressional hearing in 2016. 
Unfortunately, the West does not have clean hands. Reports of Westerners traveling to China for illicit organ transplants proliferate. Also, “plastinated body parts from China have been sold to medical schools and universities throughout the Western world,” said Matas. 
Indeed, the United States has made the problem worse by exporting medical technology to Beijing. The U.S. has sold China extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machines, which prolong the amount of time human organs can be harvested. “Before ECMO, a victim’s few salvageable organs were worth maybe $250,000,” <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/06/01/chinese-dissidents-are-being-executed-for-their-organs-former-hospital-worker-says/">wrote</a> Stephen Mosher of the <a href="https://pop.org/">Population Research Institute</a>. “Now, with ECMO, every organ can be harvested — even the skin — and the victim is easily worth two or three times as much.” 
China officially denies these allegations and publicly claims it put an end to any disreputable organ donation practices in 2015. Robertson admitted that “2015 is the last year we had positive findings” for live human organ transplants in their data sample. “There are two possible explanations,” he told me. While it is possible that China kept its word, “it’s also possible that an order went out to medical journals to stop publishing this stuff, and it just happened to coincide with the 2015 ban.” 
“We’re skeptical of official claims,” he said.
Such well-founded allegations illustrate that China may commit virtually any human rights abuse with impunity. Despite decades of eyewitness testimony and expert confirmation, the West has applied no meaningful sanctions to those responsible. Under Pope Francis, even the Vatican has maintained and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/06/vatican-defends-inviting-chinese-ex-minister-huang-jiefu-to-organ-trafficking-talks">publicly defended</a> its cordial relations with Communist China.
These allegations also illustrate the legacy media’s perpetually favorable coverage of the People’s Republic of China. “China used to harvest organs from prisoners. Under pressure, that practice is finally ending,” The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-the-face-of-criticism-china-has-been-cleaning-up-its-organ-transplant-industry/2017/09/14/d689444e-e1a2-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html">told</a> its readers in 2017. “China vows to battle corruption in organ harvesting,” <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/organ-transplants-china-1.3808084">reported</a> the Associated Press a year earlier. But human rights attorney Hamid Sabi told the UN Human Rights Council in 2019 that forced organ harvesting in China “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-organ-harvesting/u-n-urged-to-investigate-organ-harvesting-in-china-idUSKBN1W92FL">continues today</a>.” 
Such silence makes it all the more important for Western media outlets to cover these atrocities. “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-enemy-within-how-americas-elites-sold-us-out-to-china">China and their advocates</a> will do everything they can to belittle or discredit” such findings, said Andrew Bremberg, a former ambassador and now CEO of <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/">Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation</a>. “And all too often, people in the U.S. and the West will do their best to ignore” them. 
But in order for such human rights abuses to end, the West must act. Thanks to Robertson and Lavee’s research, some of the doctors who took part in China’s forced organ harvesting are now known, Bremberg said. “But we don&#8217;t know all of their relationships with U.S. or other Western-based hospitals or universities, or whether they collaborate or publish with other Western academics.”
A bipartisan collection of legislators — Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Chris Coons (D-DE) and Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), and Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) — introduced the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act last March. The bill would <a href="https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/bipartisan-legislation-to-combat-forced-organ-harvesting-introduced-in-senate-and-house">allow</a> U.S. officials to identify and sanction those involved in organ harvesting, including revoking their passports. 
“It’s past time to hold Beijing accountable for these heinous acts,” said Sen. Cotton.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

China

‘He Was A Live Donor’: For The First Time, We Have Proof Of China’s Organ Harvesting Operation

Gerontocracy (noun) : rule by elders: specifically, a form of social organization in which a group of old men or a council of elders dominates or exercises control.
Two-hundred forty-five years.
Two-hundred forty-five years ago the Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia during the Second Continental Congress. Two-hundred forty-five years also happens to be the cumulative ages of the current Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi), House majority leader (Steny Hoyer) and majority whip (Jim Clyburn).
All three of them, of course, have declared they are running for re-election no matter how calamitous the midterm elections turn out to be for their own party.
The Senate is now the oldest it has been in all of American history. Last year, The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/06/02/senate-age-term-limits/">noted,</a> “Twenty-three members of the Senate are in their 70’s; only one is under 40. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average age of senators at the beginning of this year was 64.3 years—the oldest in history.”
My senator, Dianne Feinstein, turns 89 next month and has been the subject of <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-senate-17079487.php">a whisper campaign</a> questioning her mental capacity to continue in the job. Charles Grassley, of Iowa, has been a senator for over four decades.
Elderly senators are not a new phenomenon, of course—Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948 and, 53 years later, was not only still in office, but was actually third in line to the presidency as President Pro Tempore. Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, required <a href="https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20100628/NEWS/306289979/sen-robert-byrd-of-west-virginia-dead-at-92">two canes to walk</a> and, towards the end of his career, needed a wheelchair to travel around the capital.  
Joe Biden will be 82 years old at the end of his current term of office. He has already <a href="https://thehill.com/news/administration/3272281-biden-has-told-obama-hes-running-again/">told President Obama</a> he plans on running again in 2024. If Bernie Sanders had won the nomination and general election in 2020, he would have been 83 at the end of his first term. If Donald Trump pulls a Grover Cleveland and becomes the second non-consecutive two-term president in American history, he would be 82 at the end of his second term. 
In the past seventeen years, three sitting members of the Supreme Court have died while still serving. In the aftermath of a stroke, William O. Douglas’s health was so imperiled his fellow justices decided he would no longer write opinions and even said they would <a href="https://wamu.org/story/19/01/23/from-cover-ups-to-secret-plots-the-murky-history-of-supreme-justices-health/">refuse to count his vote</a> if he was part of a 5-4 majority. At 80 and suffering from thyroid cancer, William Rehnquist unequivocally <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/rehnquist-denies-rumor-of-retirement.html">announced</a>, “I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement.” John Paul Stevens was 90 when he finally decided to retire. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 when she passed away, almost certainly attempting to serve until a Democrat president could replace her.    
Yes, we have an age problem in our nation’s capital. 
Essays bemoaning the advanced age of the United States Congress and Judiciary are all the rage these days—<a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/gerontocracy-is-hurting-american-democracy.html">New York Magazine</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/supreme-court-retirement-age/616458/">The Atlantic</a>, and The Washington Post have all published them recently. But it isn’t just the Senate. 
 It’s clear we have a holistic age problem in our system of government and it is present at the commanding heights of all three branches of government.  
Don’t get me wrong. I have a deep and profound reverence for our elders, especially in the realm of political discourse. I’d much rather have the Pelosi-Hoyer-Clyburn trifecta running things in the House than “The Squad.” Henry Clay came out of retirement to help craft the Compromise of 1850 and avoid a premature Civil War. President Reagan was one of the most significant presidents of the 20th century and was also the oldest in history at the time. 
Older representatives and senators tend to be humbler in their capacities, more generous towards their colleagues, and aware of the arduous but necessary task of coalition-building through brokering consensus. They are not engulfed by the braggadocio and balderdash required to make a splash on social media or cable news. I am even beginning to much prefer an elderly Jerry Brown to a spry Gavin Newsom. 
Still. 
In order for our institutions to function properly, they must be populated by public servants who are unencumbered by the ailments of advancing age. The essential problem with a gerontocracy is that, in the winter of life, a four or six or life term can translate into a public servant possessing far different capacities at the end of a term than at the beginning. It is not ageist to worry about President Biden’s capacity two years into the future. It is not ageist to believe, like <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/supreme-court-retirement-age/616458/">Canada, Britain and Australia do,</a> that judges should not be allowed to continue in their jobs in perpetuity, regardless of their mental or physical state.   
The Founders were certainly concerned with age, but not old age, perhaps because they had achieved so much as young men. Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence at thirty-three. Madison wrote the Virginia Plan when he was merely thirty-six years old and his collaborator on The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, was a buoyant thirty years of age at the Philadelphia convention. Teddy Roosevelt ascended to the presidency at the age of forty-two.  In Federalist Paper 62, Madison argued that minimum age requirements would provide for a “stability of character.” 
So, why were maximum age limits not discussed in Philadelphia? 
Obviously, people didn’t live as long as they live today. It simply wasn’t an option for leaders to serve in office decades beyond the peak of their vitality. 
But here is the real constitutional conundrum: notions of leadership and public virtue were wholly different during the genesis of the American republic. Overt political ambition was considered gauche and public service was supposed to be a temporary activity, not a way of life or career. Even those who clamored for power had to camouflage their ultimate aspirations in a veneer of oblique indifference. Madison had to beg Washington to chair the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson stepped back and let Madison take part in the party machinations that would eventually deliver TJ the presidency in 1800. Active campaigning was a prima facie disqualification for higher office. 
Not so today. 
No one pretends anymore. As much as normal people wonder why Pelosi, Feinstein, and Grassley don’t decide to spend more time with their grandchildren or take more Viking cruises, the modern reality is their thirst for political power often outweighs their capacity to effectively exercise it. Older congressmen and senators become far too reliant on staff to carry out their responsibilities. Supreme Court justices lean on their clerks. And in the case of President Biden, youthful and more progressive advisors clearly have many hands on the wheel of policymaking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.   
There is a clear—admittedly undemocratic—solution at our disposal: amend the Constitution to set mandatory retirement ages for all three branches. What those ages should be and if they should differ from branch to branch is up for debate. Career politicians and lifetime appointees require an additional check on their power; a 28th amendment would be a logical and just measure to find a middle ground between pursuing a noble life of public service and endlessly indulging venal quests for power and position.          
Jeremy S. Adams is the author of the recently-released Amazon best-selling book Hollowed Out: A Warning About America&#8217;s Next Generation. He has taught American civics for 24 years in Bakersfield, California and was the 2014 California Teacher of the Year (DAR). You can follow him on Twitter @JeremyAdams6.

Adams – It’s Time to End the DC Geriatracy

It’s Time to End the D.C. Gerontocracy

Dianne Feinstein

Joe Biden

Politics

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme Court

The Squad

Theodore Roosevelt

U.S. Senate

In Tuesday night’s Pennsylvania primary most attention was focused on Republicans running for Senate and Governor, but something very important also happened on the Democrat side.
Progressive John Fetterman (D-PA) easily defeated his more moderate opponent Conor Lamb (D-PA), and in the PA 12 House race, Summer Lee (D-PA), a Squad-style progressive won the nomination for the open seat. These were two more clicks of a ratchet tightening the grip of the far left over the Party of Jefferson and Jackson.
It is hard to imagine that a party which just voted almost en masse for abortion until birth and which treats the Southern Border like the lightning lane at a Disney ride could go much farther left—but here is why it likely will. 
 
It’s not just a matter of primary victories in strong blue districts. It is also the fact that if anything like a red wave happens in November, the losing Democrats in swing districts will almost by definition be moderates. This will bestow enormous power to the progressives in the Democratic caucus. 
This power grab by the far left will be about more than just pure numbers of elected officials. Because along with that comes power and resources, committee assignments, the ability to spend the party’s money to elect even more progressive candidates, and a stronger bully pulpit. This is how parties shift ideologically. We saw it with Trump-supporting-Republicans exiling the “Never Trump” elements of the party, and we are seeing it again, this time in blue. 
Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York (D-NY) recently provided an extremely telling example of exactly how leftists are taking over the Democrat Party. A self-styled “practical progressive,” which I guess is what passes for moderate these days, Torres bemoaned the Empire State’s bail reform at a Manhattan Institute event. But when asked if he would support a primary challenge to state officials who refuse to address bail reform, his answer was no. This despite the fact that minutes earlier he had blamed the laws for getting people in the Bronx, his district, killed. 
This is flat out asymmetrical warfare. AOC, the Squad, and the Justice democrats would primary a picture frame if they thought it skewed right. And “right” to them is anything short of supporting free abortions, student debt cancellation, and never driving cars again. Ritchie Torres, along with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden, all declare that of course they oppose defunding the police. Maybe they do, but what they don’t do is oppose the Democrats who are striving to implement it.
What is happening right now is that the far left is doing on a national scale what they have done to Democrat machines in most of our major cities over the past decade or two. It starts with low hanging fruit, a few city council seats, then a district attorney, eventually a mayor, and suddenly you have Seattle and San Francisco. 
 
The big Democrat machines used to run our cities, and yes, they were corrupt, but they didn’t let communists on the city council. And now most of these cities have no centrist Democrat machine to fight back. 
Few, if any, of our local urban Democrat parties have been able to steer back to the center once the progressive takeover happens. There is so much patronage, so many party appointments that a castle is built around to keep the far left power. New York City tried this with newly elected mayor Eric Adams, by most accounts the results have been dim at best. And no, Adams also won’t support primary challenges for Democrats who are anti-police and seemingly pro-criminal. 
It may already be too late to stop the oncoming cavalcade. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) can only do so much, James Carville’s folksy wisdom only goes so far. The only clear opportunity to veer back will be the 2024 presidential election. But a centrist challenge to Joe Biden, should he run, seems very unlikely.
For five years, we have all marveled at the transformation of the Republican Party from that of Romney to that of Trump—and yes, it was a massive and sudden shift. But it&#8217;s not the only one. 
 
When you take your eyes off of Trump, and cast them leftwards, it becomes clear that the Democrats are not who they were when Barack Obama left office, either. On every issue they have become more extreme. On every debate less tolerant. 
How far left could this new Democrat Party go? How far left, ya got?

Readers Pass – Marcus – Democrats Are Poised To Become Far More Radical16x9

Democrats Are Poised To Become Far More Radical

Democratic Party

Leftism

Pennsylvania

Tony Pennay, Chief Learning Officer at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, shared with us how he sees the future of education shifting from what we’ve always known to what it may become. 
<h4>How have students best learned to develop soft skills, like communication, decision-making, and leadership in the past? What does data and evidence tell us about these skills now?</h4>
Some methods of teaching are timeless. But what I found teaching middle school English and social studies is for students to immerse themselves in activities outside of the textbook. That’s been the best way for kids to learn these essential soft skills.
In fact, when we look back to the medieval apprentice system, kids learned through hands-on practice of their respective craft or trade. The same principle applies to students who aspire to be strong leaders. It takes practice. 
When I taught world history, students retained the information better when the lesson revolved around a simulation. When learning about the feudal system, for example, we would build castles out of desks. Students would then simulate battles between feudal lords and knights and fend off attacks. This allowed them to connect to a world beyond themselves.
The same is largely true of durable soft skills. You learn to communicate better by communicating. Students need a real world context to apply their knowledge. 
<h4>Have you seen a shift in students’ comfort levels and development of certain soft skills from years past to now? What do you think has caused this change?</h4>
Yes, I have seen a shift in students’ comfort levels, due in part to two factors: The pandemic and the rising tides of polarization. During the pandemic, our educational system seemed to shift away from practicing the true art of civil debate.
Civil debate is no longer seen as a tool in the classroom, which is an essential method to developing a whole host of soft skills. It’s not that students are unable to engage in polarizing topics. Each year, 25,000 – 50,000 students are involved in field trips, scholarships, and summer leadership programs at the Reagan Library and the Nation’s Capital. Not all of them agree with everything President Reagan stood behind.
Lately, it’s been up to the students to take the initiative and develop their own critical thinking, decision-making, and ultimately leadership skills. And this is partially due to shrinking social studies programs, which is doing a disservice to students and the landscape of civic education. It’s that historical context that’s important to understand why this country is a special place in the history of the world. 
Even non-civic educators<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/BrookingsPolicy2020_BigIdeas_Winthrop_CivicEducation.pdf"> agree</a> that civic education should be incorporated in the realm of “21st-century skills.” Civic education, the art of debate, and the development of durable soft skills are very interconnected.
As Ronald Reagan said in a radio address to the nation on education, 
“Since the founding of this nation, education and democracy have gone hand in hand… Jefferson and the Founders believed a nation that governs itself, like ours, must rely upon an informed and engaged electorate.”
Debating from a civic framework allows students to dive into information about history and policy while also forcing them to deeply understand the opposite side of the argument.
<h4>The pandemic certainly created a shift in learning. What are the most positive discoveries made about student learning during the pandemic? What have been the most detrimental?</h4>
Despite the pandemic’s undeniable impact on learning, I’ve been extremely encouraged to discover students still eager to intellectually grow. Middle school and high school are when kids begin to form conceptions of themselves as young leaders.
 While the Senate was conducting their Supreme Court nomination hearings earlier this month, I had the privilege to witness<a href="https://www.reaganfoundation.org/education/scholarship-programs/great-communicator-debate-series/competition-information/"> kids across the country</a> critically debate on the topic of instituting term limits on Supreme Court Justices. 
Whether students debated remotely or in-person, their well-crafted, policy-focused arguments leapt off the screen and from the podium. These kids were engaging in high-level policy debates on-par with, and in some instances surpassing, their senior counterparts. In preparing for their academic debates, they carefully examined everything from the Constitution to a long history of policies and political debate.
They then had to summarize and deliver the most effective arguments and illustrations for their side. By grappling with resources and acquiring a deep understanding of the opposition, these kids were able to unlock the power of critical thinking and gain confidence in their own public speaking and communication skills.
On top of that, the students left the competitions as friends. It’s brought me an overwhelming sense of hope to see the next generation dodge the waves of polarization through civil debate.
The most detrimental has been the lack of in-person leadership opportunities. The pandemic has exacerbated these lingering concerns surrounding the soft skills gap. This is because our kids missed out on a crucial component of their education that is integral to cultivating soft skills and leadership – extracurricular activities and learning opportunities.
Much learning takes place outside of the classroom. Growing up, I was very involved in extracurricular activities—from Boy Scouts, to student government, to sports—and I have found many skills that have translated well in my academic and professional career I learned through these experiences. 
<h4>What have you found most surprising about students’ learning styles through your work with Reagan Academy?</h4>
 I have been most surprised, not necessarily by their learning styles, but by their ability to practice historical empathy. Watching students learn from president Reagan and his leadership journey, students are often  inspired to embark on a similar leadership journey. All from engaging with our program materials.
 As a former history teacher, overcoming the tendency to read history backwards was one of my greatest challenges. It clearly continues to be an educational struggle in the classroom today.
<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036827?seq=3">Historical empathy</a> calls for a deep understanding of people’s actions in the past. Multiple forms of evidence are needed, along with a healthy degree of intellectual separation from the topic and a basic understanding of the time period being studied.
Unfortunately, today we tend to see history with a present-day lens without appropriate contextualization. We often find historical figures and leaders under assault for mistakes they made hundreds of years ago. It is essential to invite students to suspend their present world views when examining the past. Rather than shield our kids from debate, we should encourage them to embrace it. 
Through our hands-on, community-building Reagan Academy<a href="https://www.reaganfoundation.org/education/e-learning/"> online courses</a>, we aim to empower students with these very skills.
<h4>What are some of the best pieces of advice you can give parents who may be reading this? How can they encourage and support their child to become effective communicators and well-rounded citizens?</h4>
I strongly advise parents to encourage their kids to participate in a variety of extracurricular activities. Help them explore passions outside of the classroom. This is one of the main lessons of pandemic learning. 
For example, <a href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1302954.pdf">Studies</a> have also shown that competitive debate participation is linked to improved academic performance and college readiness. It allows students to confront varying viewpoints in an active, enriching way. Studies have also shown debate has positive outcomes for strong social-emotional development and self-efficacy. 
With that in mind, I advise parents to look to outside sources to put them ahead of the game and make them more competitive for university admission preparedness and employment readiness down the road.
It is critical to get kids out of the mindset that school and learning is not just about GPA, it’s a lifelong journey of intellectual growth and development that should continually be pursued outside of the classroom in order to be a well-rounded citizen. 
<h4>What do you see as the most important aspects of educating future American leaders?</h4>
I think the most important aspects of molding effective future leaders are to bring back civic learning, historical empathy, and informed, civil debate. 
Ronald Reagan famously called for an “informed patriotism.” History instruction today is often presented with bias or a particular slant. Conclusions about what it all means in the broader context come prepackaged.
We should trust the intellectual ability of our children. Present history with all its complications, with a multitude of primary sources, and then allow students to interpret the story. The American story is compelling and interesting. When we present it as it happened, students will develop their own love for it.
Cultivating conversations around civics and history is essential to educating the future leaders of America.

Pennay – How Has Education Changed Since the Pandemic and Where Is It Headed Now_

How Has Education Changed Since the Pandemic and Where Is It Headed Now?

Education

High School

Pandemic

Ronald Reagan

In June of 2020, a high school friend of mine publicly accused a former teacher of child sexual abuse. Her vicious string of social media posts had one goal: To destroy this man’s life. 
She claimed that during our senior year, this beloved drama teacher sexually groomed her, engaged in explicit Snapchat conversations with her, and invited her and other “young girls” over to his apartment for dinner and movies.
Each of her accusations included other classmates and close friends, and, in the following weeks, those individuals eventually made the brave decision to stand up and share the truth: the claims made by this young woman were false, and they had the facts to prove it. 
Sadly, these types of false accusations were hardly rare throughout my young adult life.
I grew up in the midst of the #MeToo Movement. A movement that taught us to <a href="https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/dont-gaslight-us-believewomen">believe all women</a> — <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html">regardless</a> of facts, logic, or behavioral history — and perpetuated the idea that modern men were inherently toxic and that masculinity was something we needed to fear and “dismantle.”  
What started as a genuine initiative in 2006 to amplify the voices of women who had been raped and assaulted turned into a radicalized political arm of third-wave feminism when Alyssa Milano made the phrase go viral in a 2017 tweet. It was quickly adopted by Hollywood elites who wasted no time in establishing a non-profit, raising millions of dollars and planning a myriad of virtue signaling campaigns. 
Right and left, men started being “MeToo-ed.” A swift cancellation would follow along with the destruction of their careers, even if the accusations were vague, denied, or even falsified.
Like many issues that have been exploited for political gains, sexual harassment and abuse are real, and incidents of these horrific acts happen every day. I’ve been touched and treated inappropriately by former employers, and I know women who have been raped and have been in abusive relationships. I’m sure you do, too.
However, no matter how common these occurrences are, they are circumstances that call for nuance, honesty, vigilance, and empathy. The #MeToo movement rejected this call, choosing instead to manufacture a pervasive attitude that men are always in the wrong.
This dangerous precedent has been largely upheld for the past five years… until Amber Heard took the stand. Whether she intended to or not, Heard has single-handedly ripped the movement to shreds. 
We are now weeks into the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial, and, at this point, I would assume that most of the country — though some begrudgingly — understands the basics of the case.
However, I recently went out into Nashville and asked people on the street about the trial for a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAjVvLfyLi0">YouTube video</a>. Shockingly, a vast majority of those I spoke with had very little knowledge of the case… or said they simply didn’t care. 
For most celebrity legal spats, I’d usually agree with their sentiments. However, this case is different, so I’m going to challenge the idea that we shouldn’t care because it&#8217;s just “Hollywood drama.” 
While it is certainly a theatrical case between two celebrities, it is also the destruction of the #MeToo Movement.
Technically, Depp is suing Heard for $50 million dollars in damages over a Washington Post article she wrote in 2018. In this <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html">op-ed</a>, Heard claims to be a victim of domestic abuse. While Depp was not named in the piece, he claims it alluded to him abusing her during their 15-month marriage. 
Regardless, Depp was exiled from Hollywood almost immediately. Most notably, he says that he was removed from the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pCLzfYA450">Pirates of the Caribbean</a>” franchise and cut from the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxOgWD23Wyg">Fantastic Beasts</a>” series, costing him millions. His personal life was destroyed, and, in the height of the hyper-politicized #MeToo movement, it seemed like he had no chance of redemption. Until now.
By suing Heard and fighting for the trial and having it live-streamed for the public’s viewing, Depp has not only cleared his own name, but he has set the stage for leveling the radically imbalanced playing field created by the #MeToo Movement. 
At this point, whether or not Johnny and his team are able to legally prove defamation is almost inconsequential; a <a href="https://www.insider.com/petition-signatures-johnny-depp-pirates-of-caribbean-franchise-2022-5">number of people</a> in the court of public opinion <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/4aw93j/justice-for-johnny-depp-internet-comments">have already ruled</a> in his favor. Millions of people have been glued to their screens, watching Amber’s allegations crumble.
Due process is important for both sides, of course, and legal experts can’t offer certain predictions on the outcome of the case. However, the evidence presented against Heard has presented a much-needed reality check.
Without a doubt, there are more men out there who have been falsely accused and convicted of crimes they did not commit because of legal and cultural bias against men, and, in a way, Johnny Depp has become their representative. With the backing of his resources, Johnny has had the fortunate opportunity to publicly fight his accuser in court, and his ability to do so is why this case is so important.
After years of being told that women were not to be questioned about abuse and their encounters with men, the world is now watching a known woman be questioned and scrutinized. It’s equality in the court of law, plain and simple.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Cooper

I’m A Woman And I Don’t Support The #MeToo Movement — Here’s Why

Entertainment

Feminism

Female domestic abusers don’t get caught as often as their male counterparts because they aren’t as common. It’s often hard to determine if abuse is happening, even when the evidence feels irrefutable. Even Hollywood isn’t immune to these toxic women who abuse their partners. 
Two of the most notorious of these are Jada Pinkett Smith and Amber Heard. Both of these movie stars have slowly fallen out of public favor as people realize that they’re more than capable of destroying the men they claimed to love.
Take Jada, for example. Will Smith’s name trended for weeks following the now infamous slapping incident at the 2022 Academy Awards. The public outrage over his actions, however, quickly morphed into a retrospective on all the times the actor’s wife treated him terribly.
Fans couldn’t help but notice that Will <a href="https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/4990884/will-smith-laughed-at-chris-rocks-jada-joke-before-storming-on-stage-and-slapping-him/">seemed</a> content to scoff at Chris Rock’s joke about Jada’s bald head until he noticed how angry she looked about it. They claim the “Men In Black” star only stormed the stage after noticing how Jada couldn’t stand Rock gently mocking her. Jada did seem to chuckle a little later after watching Will publicly humiliate himself in front of a national audience. His reputation and career may never recover. 
This wasn’t the only instance of Jada asserting dominance over Will, fans pointed out. Another <a href="https://twitter.com/swxxtsanade/status/1512132170952884235">video</a> started circulating which showed the actress ignoring her husband’s request to stop filming him. 
In the clip, Jada asks Will, &#8220;You know Esther Perel is coming to the table, she&#8217;s gonna be at the Red Table, would you say she has been instrumental in you and I redefining our relationship?&#8221;
Will responds, &#8220;I would say don&#8217;t just start filming me without asking me,&#8221; before Jada turns the camera and exasperatedly says she’s “still dealing with foolishness.” 
She continues filming and persists with, &#8220;Would you say that she helped us heal the hurts that we caused between one another?&#8221; Will’s face during the entire exchange looks defeated.
He then replies,&#8221;My social media presence is my bread and butter. So you can&#8217;t just use me for social media. Don&#8217;t just start rolling, I&#8217;m standing in my house. Don&#8217;t start rolling.”
Again Jada ignores him. She turns the camera back to herself and says, &#8220;Please watch Esther at the Red Table because she&#8217;s helped us a lot.”
This behavior led fans to take a closer look at Jada’s treatment of Will over the years and what they found was a pattern of troubling comments. They pointed to the couple’s notorious open marriage, which was reportedly Jada’s <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/leylamohammed/will-smith-confirmed-jada-pinkett-smith-open-marriage">idea</a> since she didn’t have traditional views on marriage like her husband did. The couple has gone through several public rough patches but have amazingly stayed married for over 23 years.
It’s not just longtime married men experiencing abuse in Tinseltown. Johnny Depp claims to have gone through such extreme trauma at the hands of his ex-wife Amber Heard, to whom he was only married for 15 months. In that short amount of time this former couple appears to both have treated each other badly. Heard later accused Depp of abuse, which he is saying cost him his career and reputation.
The “Pirates of the Caribbean” star sued his ex for $50 million dollars. Their public trial revealed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-14-most-shocking-revelations-in-the-johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial">sordid details</a> from their past, including allegations of some truly horrible treatment of Depp at the hands of Heard. Some fans who formerly thought of him as the villain did an almost complete turnaround after observing the trial.
One of the more infamous details revealed at trial regarded Heard allegedly admitting to leaving poop in the bed she shared with Depp after an argument in April 2016. A security guard employed by Depp testified that Heard told him it was “a horrible practical joke gone wrong.”
There were also moments that weren’t so humorous. Depp said he lost part of his right middle finger after a fight with Heard when she threw a glass vodka bottle at him. Heard disagreed, saying Depp cut his own finger while intoxicated. 
During the trial, there were multiple audio recordings that absolutely couldn’t be refuted by either party. A clip revealed Heard saying, “You can tell people it was a fair fight … see what the jury and judge think. Tell the world, Johnny, tell them — ‘Johnny Depp, I, Johnny Depp, a man, I’m a victim, too, of domestic violence … and it’s a fair fight.’” 
Heard said in the audio, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/audio-heard-suggests-no-one-will-believe-depp-if-he-also-claims-to-be-abuse-victim-because-hes-a-man">reported</a> by The Daily Wire. “And see how many people believe or side with you.”
Another clip had Heard admitting to hitting Depp.
“I didn’t punch you, by the way,” Heard said. “I’m sorry that I didn’t hit you across the face in a proper slap. But, I was hitting you. It was not punching you.”
“You’ve been in a lot of fights, you’ve been around a long time,” she continued. “You didn’t get punched. You got hit. I’m sorry I hit you like this, but I did not punch you. I did not f***ing deck you. I f***ing was hitting you. I don’t know what the motion of my actual hand was.”
“But you’re fine,” she told Depp. “I did not hurt you, I did not punch you, I was hitting you.”
“I’m not sitting here b****ing about, am I? You are. That’s the difference between me and you. You’re a f***ing baby,” she added. “You are such a baby! Grow the f*** up, Johnny.”
Neither Will Smith nor Johnny Depp are innocent victims in these situations. The defamation trial against Depp has brought up plenty of bad behavior on his part, with people testifying that he abused drugs and alcohol and behaving erratically. 
Smith also chose to strike Rock of his own accord. He’s also admitted to having sex with other women while married to Jada. According to <a href="https://www.gq.com/story/will-smith-november-cover-profile">GQ</a>, Will has confirmed that his wife was not the “only one” to have a relationship with someone else during an interview in 2021, just after the world found out about Jada’s “entanglement” with August Alsina. 
“The public has a narrative that is impenetrable. Once the public decides something, it’s difficult to impossible to dislodge the pictures and ideas and perceptions,” the “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” alum said, “delicately” explaining that anyone who believed he was faithful while she cheated was mistaken.
“Jada never believed in conventional marriage,” Will continued. “Jada had family members that had an unconventional relationship. So she grew up in a way that was very different than how I grew up. There were significant endless discussions about, what is relational perfection? What is the perfect way to interact as a couple? And for the large part of our relationship, monogamy was what we chose, not thinking of monogamy as the only relational perfection.”
In summary, there are abusers in Hollywood, there are victims, and then there are some who are both at the same time. It’s a mistake to believe that only men can treat their partners in truly horrible ways.

Readers Pass – Harding – (TBD)Toxic Femininity16x9

Hollywood Villains: Jada Pinkett Smith And Amber Heard Prove Women Can Be Abusers, Too

Amber Heard

Jada Pinkett Smith

Johnny Depp

Will Smith

Menu