Charlotte Observer Admits Charlotte’s Bathroom Provision Was Never Needed

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Facts

Facts matter.

It’s always highly amusing when the sanctimonious editorial troupe over at the Charlotte Observer slip up and admit the truth about an issue they’ve been demagoguing for months and months. It happened again Wednesday night regarding the HB2 issue.

The state’s HB2 bill is about more than just bathroom access, of course, but bathroom access for “transgender persons” was at the top of the agenda for the activist left for years here in Charlotte prior to the city’s eventual passage of an NDO that included language effectively allowing transgender individuals to use whatever bathroom they wanted to. It also allowed men who did NOT identify as such access to women’s bathrooms, showers, fitting rooms, etc.

Gather ’round the campfire, y’all. Because I’ve got a story to tell ya.

When the City Council first took up this issue in 2015, the Democrat majority couldn’t agree on the particulars – in particular as it related to bathroom access – and the issue was shelved.

Fast forward a few months later to a new mayor (Jennifer Roberts) and a couple of new (Democrat, natch) council members, and in February of 2016, they passed the NDO with the all-important “must-have” bathroom provision. This in spite of the fact that the primary objection to the ordinance from citizens was including that provision. This in spite of the fact that the Governor himself (a former mayor of Charlotte) and a number of state legislators – some in leadership positions – practically begged them to keep the bathroom provision out of the ordinance. Leave it out, they said in so many words, and we won’t take action in response.

The Charlotte City Council did it anyway. And they deliberately made it effective the first week in April, which was 3 weeks before a the state legislature would meet for its next regular session. They knew that the only way the state legislature could stop the bill from going into effect was to call an “expensive” special March session, and the city council knew the media would kick up a fuss if they did. And that’s exactly what happened. The result was HB2.

During all this, the Charlotte Observer – along with their sister paper the Raleigh News and Observer as well as broadcast news outlet WRAL – led the way in pushing for the Charlotte ordinance to pass and relentlessly slammed the state legislature for responding with HB2. They mocked opponents’ legitimate concerns about what opening up women’s restrooms and fitting rooms to men would mean, and in one now-infamous piece, the majority-male editorial team at the CO actually told women and children that it was time to “overcome their discomfort” over male genitalia being in their locker rooms:

The Observer was also a proponent of boycotts and economic sanctions, even though they admitted to being “conflicted” because they knew it would hurt innocent people by way of lost jobs and revenue for the state – not to mention be a blow to NC’s hospitable reputation.

But here’s the kicker: After an endless amount of editorials and opinion pieces disguised as “objective” reporting over a period of several months where women, men, parents, sexual assault victims were portrayed as bigots and homophobes with no legitimate concerns, and after the NBA pulled the All-Star game out of Charlotte, and the NCAA and ACC pulled several championship games out of North Carolina over HB2, the Observer got around to unwittingly admitting Wednesday night that the bathroom provision of Charlotte’s original ordinance was never needed.

Editorial page editor Taylor Batten started out by talking about how the state is now paying the price for the “imaginary threats/ghosts” that supporters of HB2 – including survivors of rape – worried about. Then, he got around to the inadvertent admission:

He finished his piece by complaining about how Gov. McCrory “didn’t have the spine” to oppose state legislators who “wanted a wedge issue” (even though they specifically asked Charlotte to NOT include the bathroom provision to avoid the state having to respond), and then mentioned again how proponents of common sense bathroom laws were making North Carolina suffer for a “manufactured fear of mythical predators.”

Here’s the funny thing. What Batten said about transgenders using bathrooms before HB2 is in line with what I’ve had members of the transgender community tell me privately: That they had had very few issues over the years before any ordinance was passed using the bathroom corresponding with their gender identity and did not like the fact that the activist left were using them and in the process making it harder for them because now everyone would now be aware of it, sparking concern.

In other words, they didn’t need that “special bathroom protection” in the ordinance. It was unnecessary. “We were getting along just fine without it,” some have told me. And so Batten has admitted. So if they were getting along “fine without it” and using the bathroom of their choice before the ordinance was passed then …

There was no need to include bathroom protections in the first place in the ordinance.

There was no need to “legally” open up women’s bathrooms and showers to MEN. No need to make illegal that crucial trigger that causes front desk clerks at the gym to ask questions and immediately alert security if a man walks into a women’s locker room. Under the “new system” Charlotte put in place, a front desk clerk faced legal consequences for questioning males who walked into women’s facilities, so by the time a woman or child had been victimized by a non-transgender male allowed to go in without question it would have been too late. Damage done.

The “imaginary, mythical ghost” was the supposed “need” pushed by Batten and the Charlotte Observer for “bathroom protections” for transgenders in the first place.

Let’s break it down: If there’s no need for the bathroom provision in the ordinance, there’s no need for Charlotte to include it in their final NDO. If it’s not included in the final NDO, then the state legislature leaves them alone. If the state legislature leaves them alone, then there’s no special session, no HB2. If there’s no HB2, then there are no lawsuits, no calls for economic sanctions by the activist left, no loss of revenue, jobs, concerts, events, business expansion, reputation, etc.

Are we clear now just how badly the City of Charlotte under Mayor Jennifer Roberts’ (D) leadership royally f*cked all of this up now, Charlotte Observer? You can let us know right after you dismount from your high horses.

(Contact information for the Charlotte Observer)

RELATED: The Truth About NC’s HB2 (Storified)

Journalism Dean: “There are limits to free speech”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

freespeech

It’s a measure of how craven and corrupt our political culture has become that even the Dean of a journalism school in a nation founded on free speech and freedom of the press should say “there are limits, however:”

Charlie Hebdo has gone too far.

In its first publication following the Jan. 7 attack on its Paris office, in which two Muslim gunmen massacred 12 people, the once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.

Charlie Hebdo’s latest depiction of the prophet Mohammed — a repeat of the very action that is thought to have sparked the murderous attack on its office — predictably has given rise to widespread violence in nations with large Muslim populations. Its irreverence of Mohammed once moved the French tabloid to portray him naked in a pornographic pose. In another caricature, it showed Mohammed being beheaded by a member of the Islamic State.

While free speech is one of democracy’s most important pillars, it has its limits.

So says DeWayne Wickham, Dean of the School of Global Journalism and Communication at Wayne State University. In a very limited sense, he’s right: I cannot go yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater (1), for example (2). Nor can I incite to violence by, for example, standing before a crowd and telling them to go now and beat up a certain person or persons.

But that’s it. All other political speech is within bounds, regardless of whom it offends. You cannot have a free society unless the it includes the right to freely criticize those in authority — and not just criticize, but to satirize and mock, too. If I as a Catholic want to question Original Sin and the need for Divine Grace, or that Jesus was not Divine until adopted by God, then the Church might well denounce me as a heretic and excommunicate me, but the law cannot punish me for my beliefs, nor should I fear physical violence. If I want to be truly outrageous and place the Crucifix in a beaker of urine, I would be a jackass, but I still should not have to fear either legal sanction nor physical violence.

And the same is true of any religion. If I want to question Muhammad’s status as a prophet, or even if he existed at all; if I want to argue that his earliest biography shows he was a bandit, a warlord, and a torturer; and if I want to criticize Sharia, Islam’s divine law, for calling for the execution of homosexuals, that is my right as a free man — even if I want to draw questionably funny satirical cartoons.

This is the right of any human being and well-within the “limits” of free speech.

Let’s be honest. It’s not a regard for the proper limits of free speech that motivates Mr. Wickham. If he or one of his students offended some Amish who then complained, I’m willing to bet he’d be on his soapbox screaming about “free speech” and “freedom of the press.”

And that leads us to the truth. Amish might shun you. Catholics won’t invite you to Bingo Night. A Buddhist would probably just decide you’re an annoying illusion and don’t really exist.

But all too many Muslims would be quite willing to kill you for insulting their Muhammad. Just ask the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, or Theo van Gogh.

The limit to Dean Wickham’s freedom of speech is his fear of punishment, and thus he is not free at all.

via Michael Walsh

PS: It’s great to see ST back in business. :)

Footnote:
(1) Popehat argues there are serious flaws with that particular justification for censorship.
(2) When it’s not true, that is.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

How about we stop demanding apologies from public figures?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Arsalan Iftikhar

Arsalan Iftikhar, Senior Editor for The Islamic Monthly.

For the very simple reason that most of the time it’s forced – and they really don’t mean them anyway. And making them rationalize their remarks in depth serves to expose them even more.

Brought this up after reading the story of an MSNBC contributor who made a despicable remark about Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), which prompted a wave of demands for an apology. Via CNN media guy Brian Stelter (hat tip):

MSNBC is distancing itself from a guest who asserted on Monday that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal “might be trying to scrub some of the brown off his skin.”

Arsalan Iftikhar, a human rights attorney and commentator, made the racially-tinged remark on MSNBC’s “Now with Alex Wagner.” It immediately prompted criticism.

An MSNBC spokeswoman told CNN on Tuesday morning that Iftikhar won’t be appearing on the channel again.
“We found this guest’s comments offensive and unacceptable, and we don’t plan on inviting him back,” the spokeswoman said.

Iftikhar didn’t immediately respond to a request for further comment. But on Monday night, he told CNN, “I will apologize to Bobby Jindal when he apologizes to seven million American Muslims for advancing the debunked ‘Muslim no-go zones’ myth.”

Jindal did no such thing on Tuesday. Instead, he faulted MSNBC for giving Iftikhar a platform in the first place. The governor compared Iftikhar’s criticism to liberal filmmaker Michael Moore’s recent assertion that “snipers aren’t heroes.”

[…]

[Iftikhar] laid low on social media after Monday’s MSNBC appearance, choosing not to respond to tweets like this one from conservative political strategist Matt Mackowiak: “Your outrageous, racist, bigoted, disgusting attack on @BobbyJindal requires an immediate, public apology.”

Nah – forget the apology. We ought to let stuff like this stand, and instead of demanding an apology, ask the offending idiot (in this case, Iftikhar – an Obama donor) to explain their comments in depth. They won’t be able to, and will usually instead dig themselves into a deeper whole and be unable to get out.’

Seriously, don’t ask them to take it back. Invite them to expand on it at length. Expose them for the bigoted fools that they are. Forcing them into an apology seems, well, forced most of the time, and even at that most apologies from public figures are of the “I’m sorry you were offended” variety, anyway.

Don’t help them look better in the eyes of the masses by pushing them into an insincere “I’m sorry.” Call ’em out, put them in the position where they have to go into detail about what they mean. By the time they’re done, their “credibility” will take a serious dive. And deservedly so.

QOTD: Obama “never had reporters eating out of his hand” sez former WH spox

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
I wonder if even they laugh over some of the ridiculous claims they make?

I wonder if even they laugh over some of the ridiculous claims they make?

It is to laugh, my dear readers. It is to laugh:

So you think that President Obama’s rise stemmed in part from media favoritism? Reid Cherlin, a former Obama campaign media liaison and later a White House spokesman, has different ideas, as outlined in a Rolling Stone piece:

No, Barack Obama never had reporters eating out of his hand the way that right-wingers love to allege — even though Obama’s intellectual approach made him seem like someone who could just as easily have been a columnist as a candidate. Appearing at his first Correspondents’ Dinner, in 2009, the president joked, “Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me.” But even as polite laughter settled over the black-tie crowd, there was ample evidence that the old way of the news business – in fact, the news business entirely – was falling away, and with it, the last shreds of comity between subject and scribe.

Time to book Cherlin on a conference panel with Mark Halperin. The co-author of “Game Change” and well-traveled pundit and reporter said after Obama’s 2008 victory: “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

Halperin was, of course, correct.   And several years later, unfortunately, not much has changed.

How the Associated Press perpetuates the “Israel is the enemy” myth (UPDATED)

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Associated Press

A disturbing, revealing tweet from the Associated Press earlier this morning (screen-capped in case they delete it):

As you’ll see below in the original piece published by the AP and written by journalist Bradley Klapper, this wasn’t just a headline writer gone wild. It was in the actual piece as well, the first two lines:

I’m not sure how long the article stayed up this way, but someone got a hold of it and revised it (even though as of this writing, the tweet is still there in all its infamy), and it now reads:

WASHINGTON (AP) — As the war in Gaza escalates, U.S. lawmakers are pressing the Obama administration to take no action that puts pressure on Israel to halt its military campaign against Hamas.

It’s fascinating, really, when you think about it – even the revised version is biased. Where the original article implied the Palestinians were being unfairly and horrifically targeted by IDF and ganged up on by US politicians who were “falling all over themselves” to support Israel, the revised version insinuates that Israel started the “military campaign” against Hamas without provocation. Ignored throughout the piece is the real horror behind the Gaza war, and not just this one but many prior: Palestinian children are taught from birth to loathe the Jewish people. And as soon as they’re able to hold a gun, the children are militarily trained on how to target and kill Jews. Not much later than that in their young lives, they’re instructed about martyrdom and how it is an “honor” to blow yourself up “for the cause.” Also not mentioned in Klapper’s hit piece is how Hamas routinely uses children and other innocents as human shields in their battles against Israel, how they deliberately store weapons they want to use against Israel near hospitals and schools so Israel looks like they bad guy when they destroy those weapons of war and innocents get caught in the crossfire.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Sadly, this isn’t just standard operating procedure for the Associated Press, but other news orgs as well, like Reuters and the BBC, all of which are seemingly incapable of putting their “#FreePalestine!” bias aside in favor of straight news reporting on a very delicate and dangerous subject. I’d like to think the light shined on the Associated Press today on the glaringly obvious bias in Klapper’s article will cause them and other news outlets to be a little more careful in the future when it comes to how they word their reports on the conflict in Gaza, but I won’t hold my breath. Israel-shaming is popular today, and – unfortunately – not just in media circles.

And besides, Hamas is just a “humanitarian organization“, right? o=> 8-|

Update – 12:50 PM: The AP has now ‘officially’ revised their tweet:

Never change, AP. Never change.

Get ready for the Sarah Palin Internet channel

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin

The USA Today reports that the “rogue” Alaskan has decided to cut through the left wing media filter and launch her own network:

Sarah Palin has gone rogue again, this time launching her own Internet channel.

“Tired of media filters? Well, so am I,” the former Alaska governor proclaimed Sunday on her Facebook page. “So let’s go rogue and launch our own member-supported channel. “

In a video on sarahpalinchannel.com, Palin calls the new subscription-based network a “community” where she and viewers can share ideas. “I want to talk to directly to you on our channel on my terms and no need to please the powers that be,” she says, promising to go beyond soundbites and to “cut through the media’s politically correct filter.”

The new channel includes videos of Palin criticizing President Obama and his addiction to “OPM,” or other people’s money, and her explanation of why she believes he should be impeached. There’s also a blog by her daughter, Bristol, and running tallies of the national debt and how many days, hours, minutes and seconds are left in the Obama administration. Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, will serve as the channel’s executive editor and will oversee all posted content.

Here’s the announcement she made as read/viewed on her Facebook page. Video below.

As to the cost? $9.95 a month, or $99.95 for a year.

Rest assured there will be a lot of laughter and mockery over this coming from the Usual Suspects, but I say more power to her. Any opportunity you have to cut through media spin, to provide your own side unfiltered – especially in a visual/video format, is a good thing. Rock on, Sarah!

—–

Memeorandum has more.

Headline of the day: ‘Barack Obama locks out the press — again’

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

President Obama in toast

Our celebrity President held a couple of high-dollar fundraisers on the left coast this week – and the mainstream media are not happy that they weren’t granted access whatsoever to either of them (via):

SAN FRANCISCO — President Barack Obama went to the West Coast to meet donors from two top Democratic super PACs, but the press wasn’t invited.

Tuesday, the reporters and photographers traveling with the president on Air Force One and in his motorcade were left on the gravel path not even within sight of former Costco CEO Jim Sinegal’s house in the Seattle suburbs where Obama sat for a Senate Majority PAC fundraiser with a $25,000 entrance fee.

Wednesday morning, when he met with big donors for the House Majority PAC at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown San Francisco, they weren’t even told what room or floor he was on.

“We think these fundraisers ought to be open to at least some scrutiny, because the president’s participation in them is fundamentally public in nature,” said Christi Parsons, the new president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “Denying access to him in that setting undermines the public’s ability to independently monitor and see what its government is doing. It’s of special concern as these events and the donors they attract become more influential in the political process.”

Despite constant complaints from the press corps and promises from White House officials, access to the president continues to be limited. The constantly repeated line that they’re running the “most transparent administration in history” tends to prompt snickers. Halfway through Obama’s West Coast swing, it’s tipping toward outrage.

Make sure to read the whole thing as Politico writes about other events that the press were only allowed very limited access to, and notes two meetings with high profile Democrats that the media only found out after the fact.

This is nothing new. In fact, the secretive nature of this administration is so absurd that they have actually blocked reporters from covering meetings about … transparency!  So it’s about freaking time someone in the mainstream media got outraged.  Bring on the chorus of frustrated journalists. Let’s hear more about it!

“Transparency” you can believe in – only it’s the kind of  phony”transparency” that I described here….

Related: Via the SF Chronicle – Signs of donor fatigue at Obama’s Bay Area fundraisers