The W.C. Weekend Dispatch
Newsletter - Edition for July 29th, 2023
Welcome to this week's edition of The W.C. Weekend Dispatch. Dive deep into a curated selection of articles that explore pressing cultural, and political news. For your convenience, we've provided the Dispatch Directory below, offering quick access to the articles this week:
The #MeToo Movement’s Destructive History - New Contributor Exclusive
The W.C. Dispatch is reader-supported. Consider becoming a subscriber and sharing.
Local: Ohio News
Vote YES on Issue 1: The Defense Against Manipulating Our Constitution
In a continuation from our story last week, it's clear that Ohio stands on the precipice of an important decision regarding the sanctity of life. As we edge closer to November, it becomes increasingly crucial for Ohioans to understand what's at stake.
The Secretary of State has officially certified that an amendment focused on abortion access will appear on the November ballot. This comes after petitioners amassed over 700,000 signatures, surpassing the required 413,487. While supporters of the amendment see this as a triumphant moment for women's rights in Ohio, we must ask: is this truly in the best interest of all Ohioans? Opponents have rightly pointed out that despite the large number of signatures, it reflects only a fraction of Ohio's population and cannot be taken as a sweeping endorsement.
Here's where Issue 1 takes center stage. It aims to ensure that citizen-led constitutional amendments need 60% approval rather than a mere majority. Why is this important? The answer is evident: to prevent any faction from hastily altering our state's constitution with a slight majority. The constitution is the bedrock of our rights and legal processes. To manipulate it so flippantly, especially on a matter as grave as abortion, is not only unprincipled but also a dangerous precedent.
While some argue that Issue 1 may divert groups towards the initiated statute process, the fact remains that initiated statutes are seldom used. The process itself is cumbersome, requiring two rounds of signatures and legislative intervention before it ever reaches voters. Since 1912, only 12 initiated statutes have reached Ohio's ballot, and a mere three have been passed. This highlights the inherent challenges in the process.
Those opposing Issue 1, like a particular consultant who once successfully navigated the initiated statute route, claim that the statute process is inferior since it offers no protection from subsequent legislative modifications. While it's true that statutes can be changed, isn't that the very essence of democracy? Laws and statutes should evolve with society, reflecting the will and values of the majority.
The gravest concern, however, remains the attempt to weave abortion rights into our state constitution. A constitution is not a policy document. It's a guiding principle. The mere fact that supporters were able to gather so many signatures underscores the urgency of Issue 1. It serves as a stark reminder of how vital it is to safeguard our foundational document from being altered by transient majorities.
Additionally, the amendment on abortion rights seems to be part of a larger strategy, echoing nationwide attempts to overturn abortion bans through ballot measures. It's slated to move to the Ohio Ballot Board for final language drafting.
Ohioans must stand firm and vote YES on Issue 1. It's not just about preserving the sanctity of life but ensuring our constitution remains a resilient, unyielding document, not easily swayed by the winds of change. It's our duty to ensure that it isn't twisted to suit any particular agenda, no matter how passionately some might feel about it.
Protecting Minors: Ohio's Rightful Ban on Drag Performances for Children
Ohio's recent proposal to ban drag performances from venues where children may be present isn't just appropriate; it's fundamentally necessary. At a time when the lines between adult entertainment and family-friendly content seem to blur, Ohio stands as a beacon, asserting the importance of preserving the innocence of our youth.
Firstly, the premise: the Ohio bill proposes a clear delineation, marking drag shows as strictly adult content. By redefining adult cabaret performers to include those exhibiting a gender identity different from their birth, the bill restricts these events to adult-only venues. This isn't about stifling creativity or artistic expression. It's about ensuring that content, particularly of a sexual or mature nature, isn't thrust upon unsuspecting children.
Contrary to what some advocates may claim, this isn't an assault on the LGBTQ community or a move to suppress gender non-conformity. This is about ensuring the safety and well-being of minors. Just as we wouldn't allow children into a strip club or an R-rated movie, we shouldn't expose them to drag performances. It's simple: certain content is meant for adults, and adults alone.
Co-sponsors of the bill from Clark County emphasize that the bill doesn't aim to abolish all drag shows. It targets those that might be inappropriate for children. Yet, certain LGBTQ groups have retaliated, framing this as discrimination. But this isn't a matter of prejudice. It's a matter of principle.
It's disturbing to think that anyone would argue for the right to expose children to overtly sexual performances. To wrap such intentions in the banner of "artistic freedom" or "right to expression" is not only disingenuous but also dangerous. It's a manipulation that detracts from the genuine concerns and threats facing the LGBTQ community, such as hate crimes.
Other states have attempted to legislate in this arena, with mixed results. Yet the underlying imperative remains consistent: children should be protected. While some have framed this as an infringement on rights, it's crucial to recognize it for what it truly is—a dedicated effort to ensure that children remain children, untainted by adult themes they're not equipped to comprehend.
In summary, Ohio's stance is commendable. Drag shows, like any adult-themed entertainment, should be kept out of children's reach. It's our duty to ensure the safety and innocence of our youth, and any move to compromise that under the guise of 'expression' should be met with skepticism and resistance.
[House bill aims to ban drag shows from public places BY ANNA STAVER COLUMBUS DISPATCH AND JESSICA OROZCO STAFF WRITER - Columbus Dispatch, Springfield News & Sun]
Circleville: Unjustified K-9 Attack
In Circleville, Ohio, a chilling incident involving an officer and his K-9 has brought under the spotlight the conduct and responsibility of local law enforcement. Video evidence clearly depicts a Circleville police officer releasing his dog onto a truck driver who was standing with his hands raised in clear surrender. This act led to the officer's rightful termination. However, the police union is intervening, aiming to reinstate the officer, contending that due procedures were not followed.
The situation depicted in the video is unequivocal. Other officers, including state troopers, present at the scene can be heard cautioning the officer against releasing the dog. They even question him afterward, specifically inquiring if he'd heard their clear directive to not release the dog. This lapse in judgment casts a significant shadow over the officer's training and decision-making, and raises concerns about the Circleville department's internal protocols and leadership.
To be clear, incidents like this are the exception rather than the norm. Despite frequent media portrayals suggesting otherwise, most encounters with law enforcement across the country do not result in undue use of force. However, when they do, as in this case, they should be highlighted and thoroughly addressed.
Though the truck driver had reportedly evaded police for more than 25 miles, his raised hands signaled a clear intent to surrender. While evading police is a serious offense, the officer's response was disproportionate and completely unjustified.
The repercussions of this incident are already visible. A forthcoming rally demands the resignation of police officials involved in the situation. With the truck driver now represented by a notable civil rights attorney, the event has garnered attention from higher governmental levels, including the governor and the White House.
The Circleville police department's challenges don't end with this incident. Several officers have recently resigned amid distinct allegations of misconduct. One particular claim includes an officer alleging that the current police chief physically assaulted him after he reported internal misconduct. Another unsettling development involves the family of a man named Ryan Speakman, who, because of shared names, has been mistakenly targeted with threatening calls.
While the vast majority of interactions with law enforcement across the nation are conducted professionally, this specific event in Circleville underscores certain issues within the local department that need immediate attention. Accountability is critical to maintaining trust between the community and its protectors, and the Circleville department must address this incident transparently and conclusively.
National American Headlines:
The Political Double Standard: Biden vs. Trump
In this week's unfolding political drama, a distinct narrative is becoming clear. At the forefront, the Biden dynasty is steeped in a quagmire of questionable dealings. Meanwhile, former President Trump appears trapped in an endless loop of charges that reek of political retribution.
Hunter Biden's recent courtroom drama isn't just about the finer points of law. It highlights the protective bubble that often surrounds influential political figures like him. A vigilant judge, probing the intricacies of the plea deal and its potential to shield him from further prosecution, has revealed deeply concerning inconsistencies. The apparent leniency embedded in the deal suggests it was meticulously designed to protect Biden Jr. from a deeper probe. The pressing question is, why such preferential treatment?
Amid the barrage of recent revelations, the clamor concerning the Biden family's potential corrupt dealings grows louder. As the details come into focus – the hints of Joe Biden's clandestine dinners with foreign partners known to his son Hunter, and the growing belief that he might indeed be the so-called "big guy" standing to gain financially – it's becoming increasingly challenging to brush these claims aside as simple partisan skepticism. The unfolding story compels us to ask: When does a cloud of doubt, fed by accumulating evidence, demand serious investigation and accountability?
On the other hand, the legal challenges confronting former President Trump seem to multiply without end. To many, this feels like just another chapter in a drawn-out saga aimed at diminishing Trump's electability. Recent allegations, like those of mishandling classified information or alleged efforts to erase surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago, appear to some as tactics in a broader strategy. And with the evidence often appearing thin, there's a strong sentiment that these moves aim to derail any potential Trump bid for the presidency in 2024.
While the Biden family grapples with ever-growing accusations of intertwining personal enrichment and public duty, it's clear that their narrative is starkly different from Trump's. For the former president, his legal battles seem less about overt acts of corruption and more about navigating a labyrinth of bureaucratic intricacies. Why is it that one side faces charges linked to substantive misuse of power, while the other is ensnared in what appears to be procedural pitfalls? This disparity prompts one to ask: Are some in the political arena shielded, while others face disproportionate scrutiny?
As the clock ticks closer to the significant 2024 elections, the resonance of these legal disputes in the public sphere cannot be understated. For the conservative community, the storyline isn't obscured by legal jargon or political posturing; it's as clear as day. They discern a distinct bias in these investigations, which seem to carry an underlying political agenda. The more these probes advance, the stronger the sentiment becomes that not all are held to the same standard in the eyes of the law. It is easy to argue that in today's charged political climate, the scales of justice are tipped, favoring those with the right connections and leaving others to bear the brunt of unrelenting legal onslaughts.
Amidst an atmosphere rife with escalating suspicions and distrust, the allegations surrounding the Bidens stand out not as isolated whispers, but rather as loud proclamations of a potential erosion of integrity at the highest echelons of power. With tales of personal profits intertwined with public office, one cannot help but question: are we witnessing the very foundations of our democracy being undermined?
In sharp contrast, former President Trump's tribulations paint a different tale. For many, these charges don't seem anchored in concrete misdeeds. Instead, they appear as calculated strikes, aimed not at upholding justice but at settling old scores. It's hard to overlook the narrative's undertone: that these allegations against Trump are less about truth and more about political maneuvering, to diminish his standing and influence.
In this unfolding drama between two political behemoths, a fundamental question arises: Are the scales of justice truly balanced, or are they swayed by the winds of political agendas? As the stories of both Biden and Trump continue to unravel, it becomes crucial to discern between genuine pursuit of truth and mere political theater. It's a distinction that not only defines these narratives but also shapes the faith of the American populace in their democracy.
Facebook Dot Gov: The Unholy Alliance of Censorship
The intricate dance between government and Big Tech has long been a subject of intrigue and debate. But recent revelations have added a new (but not surprising) twist to this relationship, casting a shadow over the very principles upon which American democracy stands. Internal communications from Facebook, which surfaced just yesterday, have spotlighted a covert operation influenced significantly by the Biden administration, raising profound questions about the integrity and autonomy of massive tech platforms.
Less than a month ago, a federal judge, responding to a lawsuit by Republican attorneys general, issued a comprehensive injunction that curtailed communication between the government and major social media platforms concerning online content. His ruling declared that the Biden administration's attempts at policing posts likely infringed upon the sacred First Amendment. At that time, the full scope of the situation was not yet evident to the public. The judge's statements, likening the U.S. Government's actions to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth,' seemed severe. He spoke of evidence presenting an "almost dystopian scenario," painting a tableau of a government suppressing protected speech.
But with the new cache of internal Facebook emails that have come to light, the judge's decision seems not just justified, but prophetic. These communications lay bare a disturbing narrative: Despite having lifted its ban on posts suggesting the virus's potential man-made origins, Facebook found itself pressured to reintroduce such censorial measures. One Facebook executive's confession was particularly telling: "We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more." This candid admission, emerging from discussions that roped in high-ranking figures like Nick Clegg and Sheryl Sandberg, offers a chilling glimpse into the pressures faced by tech behemoths.
The White House's agenda was unmistakable: a stringent crackdown on vaccine misinformation by Facebook, all paraded as a public health initiative. The Biden administration's maneuvering throughout the COVID pandemic was a clear and egregious act of censorship. Manipulating narratives and stifling dissent during such pivotal times isn't just unsettling, it's revolting. There's no situation, pandemic or otherwise, that ever warrants government infringement on speech. This is a fundamental betrayal of the principles of open dialogue upon which our democracy is built. Amidst their internal deliberations about the ramifications of quelling vaccine-hesitant voices, Facebook seemingly yielded to the pressures exerted by the administration.
The recent disclosures have sparked a fierce resurgence of scrutiny and apprehension. House Republicans interpret these actions as undeniable proof of a government-led censorship initiative—a sinister intrusion on the sacred rights of free speech. On the other hand, Democrats attempt to portray it as a necessary measure, an assertive response in the face of a health catastrophe. Yet, given the weight of evidence pointing to the Biden administration's heavy-handed tactics across an array of topics—from COVID to the questionable dealings surrounding Hunter Biden, and even the sanctity of election security—the scenario appears more nefarious than ever.
Fundamentally, this ongoing scandal demands clarity on a pivotal issue: Where is the boundary between purported public health advocacy and blatant violation of constitutional freedoms? It's becoming alarmingly clear that the balance has been disrupted, and disturbingly, not towards the preservation of individual rights. As the situation continues to unravel, it accentuates the vital need for absolute transparency and unwavering moral principles in the interactions between governmental entities and powerful platforms like Facebook. In an age riddled with both truths and falsehoods, the unwavering commitment to clarity and righteousness is indispensable for the sustenance of our democratic principles.
The Untouchable Sam Bankman-Fried
In a nation that reveres the tenet of justice for all, Sam Bankman-Fried seems to dance to a different beat. The recent developments surrounding his case have many questioning if the scales of justice are indeed balanced, or if they tip favorably for those with deep pockets and influential connections.
Federal prosecutors recently implored a judge to revoke Bankman-Fried's bail, citing a concerning attempt to sway a trial witness. This move was allegedly executed by sharing private writings of his former lover and colleague, Caroline Ellison, with the intent of discrediting her before her crucial testimony. If such allegations stand firm, it suggests not just a flagrant disregard for legal proceedings but a potential pattern of witness intimidation. Yet, despite this, Bankman-Fried remains free, prompting many to question why.
His defense, as articulated by his lawyer, is that Bankman-Fried is merely exercising his free speech rights, defending himself against adverse media portrayals. Yet, this freedom doesn't grant anyone the license to potentially obstruct justice or intimidate witnesses. The presiding judge, in a display of caution, has temporarily barred him from discussing the case in public, signaling that Bankman-Fried's media interactions might inevitably influence the decision on his incarceration.
Digging deeper into his affairs paints a troubling picture. Accusations point towards Bankman-Fried pilfering billions from FTX customers, with an impending fraud trial scheduled for October. These allegations alone would be damning for any ordinary American. But Bankman-Fried isn't just anyone. With six charges already dismissed, it's difficult not to speculate about the influence of his prominent political donations. The fact that he's a considerable Democrat donor might raise more than just eyebrows, as political favor could be a potential factor in the leniency he seems to enjoy.
Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has put forth allegations that Bankman-Fried, in tandem with his firm Alameda Research, might have misappropriated a staggering sum of up to $1 billion from unsuspecting FTX customers. And yet, the narrative thickens with talk of potential sweetheart deals on the horizon, courtesy of his political ties.
The heart of the matter isn't just Bankman-Fried's individual case, but the looming shadow it casts on the justice system. When political connections possibly shield individuals from the consequences of their actions, it undermines the public's faith in an impartial judiciary. As the story continues to unfold, many are left pondering: If Bankman-Fried were any ordinary American, devoid of political ties and immense wealth, would he already be behind bars?
[Prosecutors Want Sam Bankman-Fried Jailed Before Fraud Trial - WSJ]
Merit Over Mandate: The DEI Debate in Medical Schools
In the realm of higher education, the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) debate continues to gain traction, and medical schools have found themselves front and center. With several states aiming to reel back DEI initiatives in their institutions, medical schools historically resisted such efforts, often pointing towards stringent accreditation requirements.
The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the national accrediting body for medical schools, maintains standards that necessitate diversity policies and recruitment. However, the insertion of DEI criteria into medical education is, to put it mildly, baffling. The primary concern for any patient isn't the racial or gender background of their physician; it's the competency, knowledge, and skill of that medical professional. In life and death situations, merit, not mandated diversity, should be the guiding principle.
But here's the silver lining. The LCME has recently shed light on a potentially transformative perspective. They have elucidated that while they do have standards in place concerning diversity, schools possess the discretion to define and align these priorities in sync with their unique missions. Such clarification is not merely an advisory note; it's a gateway for states and institutions alike that are looking to dismantle unnecessary DEI bureaucracies that have mushroomed within their medical schools.
Further solidifying this standpoint, the LCME emphasized that their guidelines do not necessitate specific diversity categories or enforce any quantitative outcomes that schools must reach. Interpreting this, it's apparent: institutions are not bound to prioritize DEI at the potential expense of merit-centric medical education. The core of medical schooling should remain unwavering - to produce the best doctors equipped with unparalleled expertise.
Concerns have mounted regarding the influence of politicized diversity in shaping the selection process in medical schools. There's growing unease that such an approach could compromise the quality and readiness of our future medical professionals. By pushing for DEI over merit, are we inadvertently setting up a system where the next generation of doctors might be ill-prepared for the rigors of the medical field?
It's pertinent to understand that while accrediting bodies like LCME might possess the ability to promote particular political agendas, schools now can view LCME's clarifications as a beacon, signaling them to pivot back to what truly matters: merit and capability.
In conclusion, the recent revelations from LCME offer a fresh perspective, emphasizing flexibility and discretion. With this newfound understanding, it's plausible that states and schools might reconsider their current DEI trajectories. After all, when it comes to medicine, shouldn't competence always take precedence over any politicized criteria?
[A Medical School Treatment for DEI - WSJ]
Must See Podcast:
Tucker Carlson Interviews Rapper Ice Cube
This week, Tucker Carlson sat down with the multifaceted rapper, Ice Cube, in a candid interview that touches upon the intolerance many face when they express political views divergent from the mainstream. Ice Cube's recent experiences have made him somewhat of an emblematic figure, exemplifying the pressures many face in the public eye for standing their ground.
What's commendable about Ice Cube is his refusal to compromise on his principles. In an era where social pressures often mold and influence public personas, Ice Cube has chosen to prioritize integrity over appeasement. The interview is a deep dive into the nuances of his political views, and the consequences he has faced for voicing them.
For those interested in understanding the complexities of navigating the political landscape as a public figure, and the price of staying true to one's beliefs, this podcast is a must-listen. The conversation between Carlson and Ice Cube is a reminder that freedom of speech and thought should be celebrated, not suppressed.
Link to Studio interview here: Tucker & Ice Cube
The #MeToo Movement’s Destructive History:
In the aftermath of the #MeToo movement's inception, a tidal wave of change swept across the globe. This wave promised a new era where perpetrators of sexual misconduct would be held accountable. The voices of countless victims, long silenced, would finally echo in the corridors of power.
However, as history has often shown, seismic shifts in societal discourse come with their own set of complexities, nuances, and unintended consequences. This exclusive article delves deep into the murkier waters of the movement. We explore instances where the commendable intent of #MeToo has been overshadowed by ulterior motives, media sensationalism, and unchecked allegations.
From the controversial expose by Rolling Stone, "A Rape on Campus," to the high-stakes legal battles involving figures like Kevin Spacey and Johnny Depp, our journey takes a critical turn. We embark on an examination of the potential missteps and repercussions of a movement. A movement that, in its fervor, has occasionally bypassed the bedrock of due process.
As we navigate the tumultuous waters of the #MeToo era, we confront the pressing challenges of discerning truth amidst a cacophony of narratives. This analysis, however, is reserved for our dedicated readers who support in-depth journalism. The bulk of this article, filled with meticulous research and keen insights, is available exclusively to The W.C. Dispatch's paid subscribers. If you're not yet a subscriber, we urge you to join our community.
By doing so, you'll gain access to this comprehensive analysis and all future long-form pieces, as well as a plethora of upcoming premium content updates. Dive deeper, challenge your perspectives, and become an integral part of the conversation. Subscribe now to uncover the full breadth of this investigation.