Issuing his groveling hostage statement for expressing his professional opinion at a public meeting, Charlestown Emergency Management Agency Director Kevin Gallup may have saved himself from cancelation, but in doing so, he gave more of our shared ground of freedom away to the woke wave:
“Like everyone, I have blind spots,” Gallup said. “I hope that in my years of service to the town and in my private life I haven’t acted on any biases I may have. In reality I probably have, though, even if in small ways that were never deliberate.”
His offense, as you may have heard (because for some reason this is considered important news), was suggesting the following during a discussion of a proposed food-truck event during the summer:
During the discussion, Gallup said, “If we’re going to have people showing up from Providence and hanging out that we don’t know, along with our children, some people aren’t going to appreciate that, and I can tell you that for a fact. So you’re going to need that police detail.”
The disproportionate reaction to this statement shows how insidious is the progressive hatred of free speech. For starters, a reference to people from a city does not equate with a reference to minorities. By casually insisting that it does, activists are conveniently erasing a little more than half of Providence’s residents, who are white, as if they don’t exist.
Regardless of race, it’s simply the case that designing an event such that it attracts an urban crowd changes the nature of an event. City life is faster paced and often louder and more boisterous, and “people from Providence” attending such events are apt (on average) to be younger and childless. Without offering an opinion on whether a suburban or rural town should discourage such visitors, one can acknowledge that an event is different depending on the nature and number of people who attend it. Moreover, in an honest media environment, stories might include reference to the gangland violence and assaults on college students that are seemingly on the rise in the capital city.
While it may be foolish to fear that a food truck event would bring Providence crashing down upon Charlestown, it isn’t out of bounds for residents to consider it. And whether or not one believes local government ought to be used to forbid private events that make some residents mildly uncomfortable, the same genre of rights requires that those residents be free to believe differently.
In that respect, note that Gallup was expressing his opinion not about what he prefers, but about what he thinks some people in the community that he serves will demand. Not improbably, he had heard from such residents and had specific conversations in mind. Pushing such statements out of bounds implicitly removes those residents’ rights to be heard and to be represented.
Just so do would-be tyrants keep us distracted and at each other’s throats as they tear out the guts of our representative democracy. Their work is so advanced that nobody in mainstream Rhode Island society, much less journalists and decision-makers will even think to make such a point, either because they’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated or because they’ve internalized the danger to their own careers.
Featured image by Justin Katz.
[Open full post]
On WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM, John DePetro and Justin Katz discuss:
- Brewed attacks on small businesses
- Developments in CD2 and governor races
- The governor’s feckless bonuses
- The teachers union wins with DARVO
- Shekarchi’s arson stalker?
Featured image by Peter John Maridable on Unsplash.
[Open full post]
In a curious alignment of political machines, both the Massachusetts House and the House of Representatives in Congress independently passed their own “CROWN Acts,” which both would, as WPRI’s Kayla Fish puts it in the case of Massachusetts, “prohibit discrimination based on a person’s hair.” Naturally, the bill is being sold in racial terms, but one of the twins who inspired the legislation describes it as much farther reaching:
“This would protect all hairstyles: straight hair, dyed, dreads, braids, everything,” Deanna [Cook] told Boston 25. “Hair should not affect whether you get a job, or whether you are going to be successful at an interview.”
The messaging on the national bill is more disciplined, with emphasis on its titular acronym: “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.” With that framing, the request is certainly reasonable that everybody in a pluralistic society should accept differences in standards for what constitutes formal or respectable styles for racial or ethnic groups whose bodies have different tendencies, as with hair.
We should not lose sight, however, of the essential action, here, which isn’t encouragement toward tolerance but the passage of a law. As a function of law, this legislation advances the principle that government can telling all private organizations what they can value — what they can think is important. From the smallest independent store to the largest national corporation, activists and politicians will be telling Americans in every industry that they are forbidden from believing that hair style matters to the functioning of their businesses.
If we’re to be responsible citizens of a free country, we must also invert the question of why companies should have standards for something as seemingly superficial as hair and ask whether government should be involved in something so seemingly superficial and subjective.
The United States has lost an important value — perhaps its most foundational. The principle used to be that we were free to make our own determinations for ourselves and for our organizations, with the government stepping in only when absolutely necessary and in limited circumstances. Woke progressives are ascendent in their campaign to make the United States of America a non-free country, wherein government sets standards from which people and organizations can only deviate when absolutely necessary and in limited circumstances.
Just so, this seemingly minor and morally obvious issue is furthering a profound change in our society. Consider the main axis of my circular political spectrum, which divides the left from the right in terms of where they believe morality should reside. Until this point in history, America has been to the right on this question, meaning that American law is structured (and American society is formed) such that morality is determined by the individual and fostered by the culture. A country of the left would hold that the government should codify morality, so that anything that is moral must be written into the law and immoral actions must also be illegal.
That is where our country is going, and history has proven again and again that down this path lies misery and death on a massive scale.
Featured image by 1MilliDollars on Unsplash.
[Open full post]
Does the headline of this post seem unreasonable? I can’t decide. I wrote it to illustrate a point about the unreasonable activism of woke progressives, but as I considered whether to go with it or not, the statement began to look like a pretty straightforward description of events.
The “fascist” is Jennifer Lima, who is a member of the North Kingstown School Committee. The fascism is her effort to harm a business for allowing parents in her district to schedule an event on its premises. (Her crew managed to get the event canceled, although the parents involved managed found another venue.)
The incriminating word in the following quotation is the “but” that retroactively erases her disclaimer of respect for civil rights:
“Everybody of course has their First Amendment right to speak and to share, you know, their thoughts on things. But I was disappointed in Brewed Awakenings that they had hosted this and that they were posting it on social media because that indicates support,” demonstrator Jennifer Lima said.
As the featured image of this post shows, Lima wasn’t just “disappointed.” She protested outside of the business calling it a “bigot academy.” In case you’ve been smart enough to pay minimal attention to cultural developments over the past few years, that’s a pretty severe accusation these days, and taking action to deprive others of their livelihood based on mere association with people whose ideas one dislikes is fascistic.
That is why roping Toray Plastics into a story about one of its employees seemed like it might be unfair (let alone noting that the company has received over a half million dollars from the state government for programs that may or may not have benefited her). In the limited context of trying to illustrate a point, however, I think a little edginess is justified. If anything, I’m being more fair than Lima, inasmuch as I’m only observing the connection, not accusing Toray of endorsing her fascism. On that count, the company’s PR department has not responded to my inquiry, but we can safely assume that the similarity between her titles as Political Organizer and Demand Supervisor is a pure accident of language.
Our community (broadly speaking) needs to back away from the edge of escalation. There have always been — think Salem witch trials — and will always be people like Jennifer Lima, who become so intoxicated with their own righteousness that they think any level of aggression justified for the good of humanity. They only become dangerous when others begin to react to their ravings as if they are reasonable… and especially when they begin to take government offices.
Featured image from Nicole Solas on Twitter.
[Open full post]
Whether in a fictional battle of good and evil or real-life politics, when the dark side is ascendant, we have an unfortunate tendency to ascribe to it a competence it does not have. Sure, a cabal of elite globalists may scheme on behalf of a Great Reset, but… they’re nuts. In the long run, their scheme will not work — we know this — and there’s no reason to assume they will succeed in implementing a plan that is sure to fail.
This truism can be difficult to feel because pathologies can be effective in a limited scope. Progressives have undeniably conquered education, which gives them a tremendous amount of influence. That the field of education was vulnerable to nonsense, however, does not make nonsense any more rational. Thus, in reading and in life, one might notice a peculiar confusion among younger adults. They’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated into an incoherent set of beliefs that is actually contrary to the values it claims to uphold, and they can’t help but learn from the more subtle, but more persistent, teacher of reality.
One bit of evidence is a VICE article on which I commented for Accuracy in Media. Seeking an explanation for the political establishment’s turn against work-from-home policies, Katie Way finds no villain as obvious as capitalism. Click the link for the full response, but as I write, to the contrary, “the ideology that wants everybody on an orderly treadmill from home to train to work to cafeteria/restaurant is socialism.”
Conservatives need only find a way to clear the fog of indoctrination from the eyes of the young, and “America’s political landscape would change overnight.”
Featured image by David Clode on Unsplash.
[Open full post]
If your feelings toward Donald Trump are negative, put them aside and imagine this situation with a non-establishment presidential candidate you would support. If your feelings toward him are positive, then just read on:
American Bridge said Trump was using his Save America PAC — registered as a political committee in support of multiple candidates — as a vehicle for his own 2024 ambitions, and that he must register his PAC as a presidential campaign committee in order to comply with the law.
That would subject him to tighter campaign-finance regulations, including a $2,900 limit on individual political contributions until the 2024 general election.
I’ve noted this before, but no direct political donation (particularly if it must be reported) can possibly match the value and degree of corruption implicit in a network of established players who have embedded their contributions in their (quote, unquote) non-political activities. A company that pays Hunter Biden for no-show work, largely entailing communication with his father or for neophyte artwork (1) cloaks the amount of its contribution, (2) is unlimited in the amount it can give, and (3) is acting on inside information about the politician’s intentions.
These propositions are true in the more-common and less-brazen situation in which politicians secure lifetime sinecures from special interests whose causes they advanced while in office. If the network is sufficiently established, there doesn’t even have to be a direct transaction; a narrow aristocracy simply maintains itself by internal and exclusive rules.
Campaign finance laws ensure that no candidate can announce early enough to compete with that level of institutionalized corruption by appealing to people who can afford to pay more than $2,900 in direct political contributions, but not the equivalent of a lifetime annuity.
The more one considers the actual functioning of our political and social systems, the more these audacious reversals of reality come into view. Campaign finance laws are sold as limits on corruption, but they make the system inevitably more corrupt. Advocates insist that their objective is to reduce the ability of moneyed interests to buy elections, but their policies ensure that nobody can compete with truly moneyed interests when it comes to buying politicians.
Featured image by Jon Tyson on Unsplash.
[Open full post]
According to Jack Perry’s uncritical recitation of the Anti-Defamation League of New England’s warning about an increase in “white supremacist propaganda,” Rhode Island is seeing a dangerous increase. By their own standards, though, the ADL and the Providence Journal are contributing to the threat. Consider the last line of the article:
“By using propaganda to spread hate, a small number of people can have an outsized impact, giving the appearance of larger numbers and affecting entire communities,” the report says.
Exactly. Post a few stickers around, and the ADL and Projo will tell people far and wide that you’re growing in popularity.
What precisely are we talking about, here?
Rhode Island had 78 incidents of white-supremacist propaganda in 2021, up from 61 in 2020 and 19 in 2019, the report says. …
About 70 of the Rhode Island incidents involved the Patriot Front distributing fliers with messages such as, “America First,” “For the nation, against the state,” “Not stolen, conquered” and “Reject poison,” according to the ADL.
All but eight of the “incidents” were fliers (aka free speech) with some variation of these stickers. The puzzling part, to me, is why the ADL and Perry would include the “reject poison” tagline as an example of white supremacist propaganda. Of itself, it is only a message not to do drugs. Is that “white supremacy”?
The inclusion of a pro-health message is illustrative of the dangerously muddled thinking of progressive activists. Anybody who actually reads the article (rather than merely reacting mindlessly, as is probably intended) will be confused. Rejecting poison is a good idea. “For the nation, against the state” could be the motto of patriotic libertarians. Many people take “America First” to be a statement wholly in opposition to handing our sovereignty over to a global cabal. Of the provided examples, only “Not stolen, conquered” is objectionable on its face.
American progressives are in a strange place, indicative of the fundamental dishonesty of their own rhetoric. They promote the notion of a growing white supremacist threat that requires good people to be on edge and willing to compromise their civil rights like free speech and donate money to progressive causes, so they have incentive to join in the effort of promoting the propagandists. Implicit in their warning is the assumption that white people, writ large, have an innate hatred and bigotry that can easily be drawn out with goofy images deployed by strange people.
Putting aside that insulting (and racist) assumption, if progressives really believe it, they should consider the danger of their attempts to bring attention to themselves by bringing attention to it. I suspect, however, that they don’t believe it but rather are sowing division and fear for self-interested reasons.
Featured image from the Parker County Sheriff’s Office on Weatherford Democrat.
[Open full post]
Just as he was out and about regularly reporting on Antifa/BLM protests in the Providence area, just as he was covering large protests against Governor Dan McKee’s vaccine mandate for health care worker, John DePetro has travelled to Poland and the Ukraine border to provide live, on-the-scene reportage.
So many young children from Ukraine being swept up by their parents and carried through a busy train station in Poland after traveling days on packed trains to leave their bombed out neighborhoods. Our first week has been both eye opening and heartbreaking to watch as Putin decided to bomb Ukraine and destroy the lives of millions of people while destroying the peace we enjoyed. The people I have met and interviewed are hard working people who love their country and their President. One might think people would have harsh words for their leader after their country had been attacked but the only words of hate are directed at Putin. It is disgraceful the way some Americans blindly follow the propaganda of Russia and China and root for their own country to fail while sharing misinformation to aid the enemy. Worse, conservative hosts are being shown on Russian state-TV praising Putin and bashing Biden. Troubling to see so many people confused as to what news is real and which news is foreign propaganda.
That last sentence strikes home in a not-quite-ironic way. Imagine for a moment that it was just about any other media personality from Rhode Island who had traveled around the world to provide this sort of coverage, whether somebody from the mainstream journalist clique or one of the progressive journalists who are so well received by the mainstream. The journalists of the Ocean State would be having him or her on as a recurring guest. They’d be applauding. They’d be encouraging funding.
But if you don’t listen to DePetro’s radio show or read Anchor Rising, you’d have no idea that anybody from the Rhode Island news universe is over there.
The blacklist is real. For most of the people who claim to keep you informed, who brings you news is at least as important as whether you receive it.
No doubt, many of those mainstreamers would nod along while (accidentally) reading DePetro’s complaint about Americans’ falling for foreign propaganda. What we really need, however, is for them to realize that they’re producing domestic propaganda that is of an identical character.
[Open full post]
It’s interesting how topics bubble up in the constant flow of information in which we swim, these days. Yesterday, I came across Martha Rosenberg’s interview with women’s health advocate Mike Gaskins, whose research has investigated the science and politics with which the birth-control pill became a cultural mainstay:
Several years ago, I heard a lecture by an autoimmune disease expert who explained how endocrine disruptors that mimic natural estrogen play a crucial role in the condition, but when I asked him about the pill specifically, he said it played no role “at all.” In fact, he said it had never been linked to any of the diseases.
Later, I went online and discovered a study that found a significant link between the pill and the autoimmune disease lupus. I thought the expert must be unaware of the study, until there was a quote from him in that very article saying it didn’t mean women should stop taking the pill. I became interested in why the medical community seems eager to downplay the pill’s risks and began my research.
The “expert’s” response feels very much like the doggedly insistent proclamations we’ve been getting about COVID vaccines.
Earlier today, I was listening to an episode of the Jordan Peterson podcast with his wife and daughter, and the conversation turned unexpectedly toward the women’s terrible experience with the pill and how it changed their personalities starkly for the worse.
Maybe the political health establishment became so brazen with COVID that people are beginning to question other campaigns, too.
[Open full post]
The amazing thing about Sarah Doiron’s report on the staged protest of the state Department of Education by teachers union members is that it doesn’t say why the state took control of their schools. The audacity is nothing short of shocking:
More than 100 teachers marched the streets of Providence Monday afternoon to demand the state end its takeover of the capital city’s school district.
The state took control of Providence Public Schools in 2019, and Providence Teachers Union President Maribeth Calabro argues nothing has changed since then.
“It’s stunning that things are worse, not better,” Calabro said. “If state leaders say otherwise, they’re not being honest.”
Let’s review. The Institute for Education Policy at Johns Hopkins School of Education conducted a study finding that Providence schools were failing their students with an intolerable mess. In perhaps the single instance of real integrity of his entire time in office, Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza insisted that the state must use its authority to implement a “transformational” contract with the union as the only way to fix the travesty.
The union dug in. The state government (in which the unions hold a majority share of corruption) and Department of Education attempted to play nice. And here we are.
Now the union has flipped the script, making it the state’s fault that it didn’t force the union to comply with what needed to be done. The media is reporting the event as straight news, going back to its preferred pro-union script. Doiron actually lets union president Maribeth Calabro go unchallenged in her rhetoric about “our kids.” No. The union did this to your kids, and now it is hiding behind them.
Worst of all, nobody of any stature is pointing out the obvious.
I learned an acronym from the world of addiction and abuse the other day that describes the union’s strategy perfectly: DARVO. Deny the behavior. Attack the accuser. Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender.
This problem is not going to be fixed until something happens to shake the very soul of Rhode Islanders. (Apparently the Johns Hopkins study was not enough.)
If you are unfortunate enough to have children in the Providence schools, do anything you can to get them out. If you are considering moving to Providence and have or may have children, go elsewhere unless you are confident you can afford private school throughout your children’s education.
Abusive thugs who win a victory like this don’t say amongst themselves, “That was a close one. We better fix things in a way we like before we’re forced to fix them in a way we don’t like.” Rather, they learn that their psychological abuse technique works.
Parents must realize that the government and people of Rhode Island do not have their backs, or at least they don’t have the ability to do anything about the abuse.
Featured image by Susan Wilkinson on Unsplash.
[Open full post]
