Bob’s Hailstone 7‑22‑25

Echoes Unsilenced, Legacies Exposed

Bob’s Hailstone 7‑22‑25
Echoes Unsilenced, Legacies Exposed
By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

Grook:
Echoes ring from silenced doubts,
Legacies in sharp relief.
Falsehoods swell like frozen spouts,
Crashing down in cold belief.

Today’s Hailstone Format: Sharpened & Efficient
In our continued effort to refine how we deliver the day’s news, we’re presenting today’s summaries in crisp, bullet-style format. Our mission is simple: communicate the most insight in the fewest words—no fluff, no spin. Just patterns, clarity, and the big picture.

Nobody else does this. We digest the stories, analyze them in context, then push out our take before noon every day. Bob is a fast reader and brings an opinion on everything. Jim provides a broader, pattern-based interpretation.

If a story grabs your interest, we encourage you to read the full version on RealClearPolitics. But most readers aren’t chasing every detail—they’re after the themes, the tremors, the truth behind the noise. That’s the true aim of the Hailstones.

Bonus Feature (Today Only):

To wrap things up, we’re adding a one-day trial feature. After Bob and JK’s end-of-Hailstone chat, you’ll find all of today’s two-paragraph news summaries laid out in full. Think of it as the raw data behind Bob and Jim’s commentary—no jokes, no gloss, just meat.

Read them if you like. Or skip ahead to real life. But remember: if you’re not familiar with the facts, maybe hold off on shouting your opinions.

Let us know if this extra detail is valuable. Should we keep it? Make it subscriber-only? You tell us.

🧭 Unifying Introduction

Tuesday stirs with Russiagate’s persistent reverberations clashing against defensive denials, Obama’s legacy dissected amid accountability calls, and Democrats stubbornly resisting electoral lessons. Policy skirmishes over federal spending, sanctuary cities, and voter reengagement intersect with cultural reflections on family chores, tech education, and media’s declining empire. It’s a mosaic of unsilenced truths and tolling bells for propaganda machines. Bob views it as the deep state’s echo chamber finally cracking; I see the gradual thaw of fabricated fears, revealing the sturdy bedrock of common sense and reform.

📌 Story Summaries

1. Russiagate Suppressed Doubts

• What happened: Aaron Mate (RealClearInvestigations) reveals that Russiagate architects like Brennan and Clapper suppressed internal doubts to push false hacking claims—declassified docs show “high confidence” ignored contrary evidence.

• Why it matters: The 2017 ICA glossed over FBI/CIA reservations, weaponizing weak intel into a narrative against Trump.

• Backlash: Mate demands probes into perjury and media complicity. Steve Benen (MSNBC) warns such probes risk national security. Cathy Young (The Bulwark) calls Gabbard’s memo “smoke and mirrors.”

Leans: [Right‑explosive; Left‑defensive; Center‑skeptical]

Bob: Suppressed doubts? That’s code for ‘we knew it was bogus but peddled it anyway.’

Jim: Echoes of deceit linger like frost on a window—clearing only when the sun demands it. Translation: They were lying to us. Will we punish the perps for sabotaging Trump’s first term? Sounds like a serious crime to me. MSNBC and The Bulwark offer predictable lefty gaslighting. Take what they say and reliably believe the opposite is true.

2. Calling It a Coup

• What happened: Julie Kelly (Benny Show) urges Trump’s DOJ to investigate Obama and Biden for “seditious conspiracy” in Russiagate.

• Why it matters: She points to declass docs showing meetings, suggesting same Jan 6 charges could apply. J.B. Shurk (American Thinker) reexamines Obama’s legacy, citing IRS scandals & deep-state tactics.

Leans: [Right‑investigative; Right‑critical]

Bob: Seditious legacy? Obama’s blueprint for backroom sabotage finally gets its due.

Jim: Shadows lengthen over the mirage—hope unravels into calculated haze. This story has legs.

3. Democrats Still in Denial

• What happened: Jeet Heer (The Nation) criticizes Democrats for ignoring lessons from Harris’s loss and avoiding real introspection.

• Why it matters: He warns ignoring working-class alienation risks repeating defeats.

Leans: [Left‑reflective; lesson‑pleading]

Bob: Learning nothing? That’s the Dem playbook—repeat until irrelevant.

Jim: Post-mortems buried under denial, ghosts of defeats whispering warnings. This is what happens when the crew who made the mistakes hires itself to analyze these same mistakes. Just another form of the recursive hailstone.

4. Trump’s HR Game

• What happened: Philip Wegmann (RealClearPolitics) profiles Scott Kupor as Trump’s “kinder, gentler” HR czar, pushing federal hiring reforms.

• Why it matters: He advocates merit-based hiring, tackling Social Security overpayments, and curbing DEI bloat.

Leans: [Center‑analytical]

Bob: Kinder HR? As long as it trims fat without fluff.

Jim: Gentle hand steering bureaucracy toward sanity. Or: Fire half of them in a kinder, gentler manner. I think we’ll get along just fine.

5. Audit the Fed’s Facade

• What happened: Scott Bessent (X) urges review of the Fed’s $2B HQ renovation, calling it mission creep.

• Why it matters: He wants audits to refocus on financial stability, not luxury offices.

Leans: [Right‑practical]

Bob: Renovations? Fix the economy first, not the facade.

Jim: Marble halls hide cracks—time for fiscal foundation checks. Why in the hell do they have 24,000 people working at the Fed? What do they do all day? How many people does it take to decide whether or not to raise interest rates?

6. Democrats Should Let GOP Flail

• What happened: Bill Scher (Washington Monthly) argues Democrats should walk away from spending talks, leaving Republicans to own any shutdown chaos.

• Why it matters: He believes Republicans will be blamed for failure if Dems refuse compromise.

Leans: [Left‑strategic]

Bob: Walk away? Finally, a Dem idea with backbone—about time.

Jim: The only reason Republicans were blamed for former shutdowns was the endless caterwauling of the liberal media. Nobody believes them anymore.

7. ICE vs. Sanctuary Cities

• What happened: Katie Pavlich relays Tom Homan’s pledge to flood sanctuary zones with ICE agents.

• Why it matters: Trump-era enforcement returns, targeting criminal aliens and defiant mayors.

Leans: [Right‑tough]

Bob: Sanctuary? More like hideouts for havoc—Homan’s cleaning house.

Jim: Cooperation with federal authorities - who are just enforcing laws - would solve many issues. Locals are endangering ICE everywhere. If this non-cooperation results in lasting harm to federal agents, then pursue blue mayors and governors more aggressively.

8. Reclaim the Silent Left-Voters

• What happened: Robert Kuttner (American Prospect) highlights Biden 2020 voters sitting out 2024 due to economic disillusionment.

• Why it matters: He urges progressive outreach with bold job and wage policies.

Leans: [Left‑optimistic]

Bob: Start by listening to the lunch-pail left-behinds.

Jim: I believe Joe still got most of the REAL silent voices – the dead ones. His message moved them, apparently.

9. Hunter Biden Drama Continues

• What happened: Mark Penn (X) criticizes Hunter Biden’s renewed spotlight and immunity post-pardon.

• Why it matters: He sees it as distracting from serious policy questions.

Leans: [Center‑frustrated]

Bob: Hunter’s the sideshow that stole the circus.

Jim: Spotlights swing to the undeserving, shadows deepen on the real stage. Does Hunter’s incessant potty-mouth raise his profile? Hunter reflects on his father: “If THAT guy can be president, then I can be president!” Plus, he has already mastered the autopen.

10. Autopen Presidency Deepens

• What happened: Michael Thielen (RealClearPolitics) reports autopen use escalating, masking Biden’s cognitive decline.

• Why it matters: Probes reveal proxies making policy and fueling transparency concerns.

Leans: [Right‑investigative]

Bob: This autopen’s been signing checks we can’t cash.

Jim: At least I make a scribble with my own finger when I buy chips at the gas station check-out counter. Biden didn’t even do that.

11. Back to Basics: Chores & Labs

• What happened: Christine Carrig (The Atlantic) urges parents to keep kids doing chores; Oren Cass (Commonplace) calls for school labs over personal devices.

• Why it matters: They emphasize early responsibility and practical tech education.

Leans: [Center‑practical]

Bob: Chores and labs? Teach ’em young, or pay the lazy tech tax later.

Jim: First chore in some neighborhoods is to avoid gangster bullets. Sad but true.

12. Airwaves Are Tolling

• What happened: Matt Taibbi (Racket News) mocks NPR’s scandals; Robert Malone warns cable news is crumbling.

• Why it matters: Media empires face collapse from bias, funding loss, and audience exodus.

Leans: [Right‑mocking; center‑predictive]

Bob: Propaganda radio? Finally, static we can all cheer.

Jim: Bells toll for empires of echo—new voices rise from the rubble. Listening to NPR results in embarrassment for this taxpayer.

🔚 End Note

As Tuesday fades, Russiagate’s echoes and exposed legacies remind us that suppressed truths resurface, sharper than ever. Amid policy fights and cultural nudges, the heart lies in reclaiming accountability—from boardrooms to kitchens. Hold doubts, question narratives, and let tomorrow’s hail bring clarity.

Note on Sources:
All stories referenced here came from the RealClearPolitics homepage. For full articles and original context, visit the site directly.

🎙 Optional Extra

[Setting: Foggy radio studio. Bob and JK sit across steaming coffee mugs. A faint bell tolls.]

Bob: JK, welcome. Russiagate suppression, Obama’s legacy—coffee or conspiracy first?

JK (grinning): Conspiracy, Bob—it’s got the real jolt.

Bob: Mate’s suppression hammer, Benen’s theory bash—what’s the real garble?

JK: It’s deep-state playbook: ignore doubts, peddle lies. Gabbard garbles nothing—she’s clarifying the treasonous fog.

Bob: Investigating Obama-Biden for seditious? Bold move.

JK: If Jan. 6 fits, so does this coup crew. Time for receipts.

Bob: Media bell tolls—Taibbi’s NPR funeral, Malone’s cable collapse?

JK: Propaganda’s empire crumbles. New voices rise, unfiltered.

Bob: Advice for the foggy crowd?

JK: Question everything. Hold legacies accountable. Brew strong coffee for revelations.

Bob: Thanks, JK. If that didn’t clear the air, we’ll fan the flames again—next up, airtime accountability.

Full Summaries: Only if you are interested in all the details. Just the facts, ma’am.

Russiagate Architects Suppressed Doubts To Peddle False Claims by Aaron Mate, RCI

The article discusses the unraveling of the Russiagate narrative, which alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to favor Donald Trump. Despite Robert Mueller’s failure to find a conspiracy between Trump and Moscow, his report claimed a “sweeping and systematic” Russian effort to elect Trump and sow discord. Newly declassified documents, released by Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, reveal that U.S. intelligence leaders, including the NSA and FBI, expressed “low confidence” in attributing the hacking and leaking of Democratic Party material to Russia in a September 2016 report, contradicting the public narrative. These documents challenge the intelligence consensus portrayed in subsequent reports, such as the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and the Mueller report, which claimed high confidence in Russian involvement, including Putin’s alleged orders.

The article highlights how the Obama administration suppressed these doubts to promote the Russian interference narrative. The DHS and ODNI issued a joint statement in October 2016 claiming confidence in Russian hacking, despite FBI objections and lack of technical evidence, with President Obama approving the statement. Further disclosures show reliance on CrowdStrike, a firm working for the Clinton campaign, whose president later testified to lacking concrete evidence of data exfiltration by Russia. The January 2017 ICA, ordered by Obama, excluded dissenting views and relied on speculative evidence, including the debunked Steele dossier, to assert Russian interference, maintaining a false consensus despite internal divisions and evidentiary gaps within the intelligence community.

Gabbard’s New Russia Probe Conspiracy Theory by Steve Benen, MSNBC

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has faced significant challenges, including bipartisan ridicule on Capitol Hill and being sidelined in the White House, with reports indicating she was excluded from important meetings and fell out of favor with President Donald Trump, who publicly dismissed her opinions on a military strike in Iran. Amid these struggles, Gabbard’s office released a report titled “Declassified Evidence of Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert President Trump’s 2016 Victory and Presidency,” claiming a “treasonous conspiracy” by top Obama officials to undermine Trump, a narrative she promoted on Fox News and which Trump enthusiastically supported, posting about it at least 17 times on social media. House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed this, calling it evidence of a “political hit job” by Obama officials and intelligence agencies, though the report’s release coincided with Trump’s CIA director reaffirming Russia’s 2016 election interference to favor Trump, consistent with prior findings by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Gabbard’s report, however, has been criticized as lacking substance, with analyses describing it as an “embarrassment” and “ludicrous,” pointing out it misrepresents Obama administration actions by focusing on a revised post-election assessment that did not involve vote-counting machine tampering, contrary to her claims. The report highlighted that Democratic officials never alleged Russia targeted election infrastructure, instead focusing on Russian-linked hacks of Democratic emails provided to WikiLeaks, a conclusion announced before the election. Despite her report’s credibility issues, Gabbard has pushed for indictments and prosecutions of Obama officials based on these claims, suggesting the report was not only an attempt to regain Trump’s favor but also a step toward influencing the Justice Department, raising concerns about its impact on U.S. intelligence community credibility and potential partisan misuse.

Obama’s Real Legacy Comes Into Focus by J.B. Shurk, American Thinker

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has accused former President Barack Obama of organizing a coup d’état against his successor, citing declassified documents that detail a treasonous conspiracy by high-ranking Obama administration officials to subvert the 2016 election results. Gabbard claims that intelligence was politicized and weaponized by key figures in the Obama White House, including intelligence chiefs, to fabricate evidence suggesting Russian interference in favor of Donald Trump, aiming to undermine his presidency. General Michael Flynn, a former National Security Advisor, supported Gabbard’s assessment, noting the surreal nature of the allegations and suggesting that her recent attacks were due to her determination to expose the conspiracy. The article lists individuals involved, such as John Brennan, James Clapper, and Susan Rice, who allegedly participated in meetings to advance the false Trump-Russia collusion narrative, with leaks to media outlets like the Washington Post amplifying these claims.

The article argues that Obama and his administration, along with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, conducted a “color revolution” against the United States by fabricating the Russia collusion hoax, which distracted government resources from real threats and damaged America’s international reputation. It highlights the expulsion of Russian diplomats and increased tensions with Russia, potentially risking direct conflict, as outcomes of these actions. The piece contends that this was not merely a political “dirty trick” but treason, contrasting it with the prosecution of social media satirist Douglass Mackey for a harmless meme, while ignoring the larger conspiracy. It concludes that the lies propagated by Obama, Clinton, and their allies caused social division, political strife, and made the U.S. weaker, asserting that this represents Obama’s true legacy, with lasting harm including possible loss of life due to neglected security threats.

Democrats Committed to Learning Nothing From Harris Loss by Jeet Heer, The Nation

The article critiques the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) approach to analyzing its 2024 election defeat, suggesting that the forthcoming “autopsy” will serve as a cover-up rather than a candid self-assessment. It highlights that the DNC’s review, led by longtime party insider Paul Rivera, is expected to avoid scrutinizing key decisions made by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, such as Biden’s decision to run again despite concerns about his age and frailty, and Harris’s choice to replace him without distancing herself from unpopular policies. Instead, the report is anticipated to focus on blaming external factors, particularly the Super PAC Future Forward, accusing it of ineffective advertising strategies and poor coordination with the Harris campaign, despite these issues not fully explaining the scale of the loss to Donald Trump, who won both the popular vote and all swing states.

The article argues that the DNC’s refusal to engage in honest self-criticism mirrors past behavior, such as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, which also avoided a formal postmortem and blamed external factors like Russia and media coverage. It notes that Trump’s 2024 victory, despite his personal unpopularity, was driven by mobilizing previously disengaged voters, particularly economic populists disillusioned with Democratic policies, as shown by polling favoring figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The piece suggests that a more truthful analysis would acknowledge the party’s failure to address voter concerns, such as economic populism and foreign policy, and calls for a leadership change if the DNC continues to avoid responsibility, drawing parallels to Trump’s rise within the Republican Party after 2012.

Scott Kupor: Trump’s Kinder, Gentler HR Director by Philip Wegmann, RealClearPolitics

Scott Kupor, the new director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), recently addressed the press for the first time, outlining a more measured approach to reforming the federal workforce compared to the aggressive tactics previously employed by Elon Musk and the DOGE team. Having been on the job for just eight days, Kupor announced plans to reduce OPM’s workforce by one-third by year-end, achieving this through voluntary resignations, early retirements, and buyouts rather than mass firings. He criticized Musk’s earlier promise to cut $2 trillion in spending as “Pollyanna-ish,” emphasizing a realistic strategy focused on fiscal responsibility and leveraging incentives to improve efficiency, drawing on his background as a business executive without prior government experience.

Kupor’s approach emphasizes respect and humility toward federal employees, acknowledging the impact of job losses on families and communities, with OPM expecting to cut its staff from 3,000 full-time employees and 1,200 contractors to 2,000 salaried workers and 600 contractors, with only 129 firings reported. His plan includes transforming OPM into a leader in operational efficiency, fostering a high-performance culture, and preparing for AI integration in areas like customer service and public comment summarization. Confident in his convictions and unconcerned about potential backlash due to his financial independence from Silicon Valley, Kupor aims to reshape the federal bureaucracy, supported by a recent Supreme Court ruling enabling significant government reorganization, while distancing himself from past DOGE decisions and maintaining no personal relationship with Musk.

Dems Should Walk Away From Spending Bill Talks by Bill Scher, Washington Monthly

The article argues that Democrats should cease negotiations on spending bills with Republicans, who have consistently broken budget deals, and instead force them to pass legislation unilaterally to avoid a government shutdown. It points out that Republicans violated a bipartisan agreement from June 2023 by pushing for deeper cuts and including controversial riders on social issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights, leading to delays in passing fiscal year 2025 appropriations bills. The author suggests that by withdrawing from talks, Democrats can highlight Republican dysfunction and extremism, particularly as the party is dominated by MAGA hardliners, and avoid being blamed for any shutdown, given historical precedents where Republicans suffered politically from such events.

Furthermore, the article notes that a shutdown could expose internal GOP divisions, as moderates might rebel against hardliners, potentially weakening Speaker Mike Johnson’s position. It emphasizes that Democrats have already made concessions in previous deals, and continuing to negotiate would only enable more demands from Republicans. The piece concludes that this strategy aligns with the need for Democrats to adopt a tougher stance post-2024 election losses, focusing on exposing Republican overreach rather than compromising, which could benefit them in future elections by clarifying party differences to voters.

Homan Has a Message for Sanctuary Cities by Katie Pavlich, Townhall

Over the weekend, two illegal aliens with extensive violent arrest records, including attempted kidnapping and stabbing, shot a Border Patrol agent in the face in New York, highlighting issues with sanctuary city policies that had previously allowed their release. This incident underscores the dangers faced by law enforcement, as evidenced by a more than 800 percent increase in assaults on ICE agents since December, amid efforts by some to dox the agents’ families.

In response, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Czar Tom Homan held a press conference in New York City, announcing plans to “flood the zone” against sanctuary jurisdictions harboring illegal aliens. The press conference aimed to address the challenges posed by these policies, with a focus on enhancing enforcement efforts in such areas, reflecting ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement and sanctuary city practices.

Bringing Back Nonvoters by Robert Kuttner, American Prospect

A recent poll highlighted in the article reveals insights into the voting behavior of individuals who supported Joe Biden in the 2020 election but did not vote in 2024. These nonvoters are primarily economic progressives who were seeking strong leadership but felt it was lacking, which may have influenced their decision to abstain from voting in the subsequent election.

The article also emphasizes the role of The American Prospect as a nonprofit, reader-funded source of journalism that focuses on in-depth reporting, holding power accountable, and explaining the impact of policy on people’s lives. It encourages support through donations to fund fearless reporting and subscriptions to their print magazine, which is published six times a year, underscoring the importance of independent journalism that goes beyond surface-level headlines.

The Autopen Controversy Is Just Beginning by Michael Thielen, RealClearPolitics

The article discusses the ongoing investigations into what is termed the “autopen presidency,” highlighting concerns that President Joe Biden was not fully in charge of the country, with unelected individuals potentially making key decisions. It reveals that Biden did not personally sign certain documents, including pardons for violent criminals, and was sometimes unaware of the actions taken under his name, such as pausing LNG exports to Europe, which he claimed he did not authorize. The use of an autopen for signing legislation, previously seen with Barack Obama, is noted, but the article emphasizes Biden’s apparent lack of awareness, raising questions about the validity of laws and executive orders signed during his tenure. Legal experts suggest autopen signatures could be legal if symbolic, but the article questions whether Biden understood the implications of what he signed, especially given reports of his mental and cognitive incapacity.

Further details emerge about Biden’s staff possibly hiding information from him, particularly regarding pardons, including a preemptive pardon that may have protected Dr. Anthony Fauci from criminal investigation, despite Biden’s potential unawareness. This has led to renewed efforts by Sen. Rand Paul to refer Fauci for investigation. The article also mentions House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer’s determination to uncover the truth, though faced challenges like Dr. Kevin O’Connor pleading the Fifth Amendment. It concludes by stressing the need for a serious discussion about the 25th Amendment, given Biden’s perceived impairment, especially highlighted during a debate, and questions why he was allowed to remain in office if deemed unfit for campaigning, suggesting his signature was exploited for political and personal gain.

Gabbard Garbles 2016 ‘Russiagate’ Intelligence by Cathy Young, The Bulwark

Tulsi Gabbard, as Director of National Intelligence, released a memo claiming that the intelligence community manipulated and withheld evidence during the 2016 “Russiagate” investigation, alleging that high-level Obama administration officials weaponized intelligence to undermine Donald Trump, potentially laying the groundwork for a years-long coup. This narrative, which threatens prosecution for treasonous conspiracy against figures like James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper, has been celebrated by MAGA supporters and some leftists critical of the national security state, aligning with Trump’s view of the investigation as a hoax. Gabbard’s claims suggest that intelligence assessments in fall 2016 found Russia lacked the capacity to alter election outcomes via cyberattacks on infrastructure, but a December 2016 assessment, ordered by Obama, contradicted earlier findings, leading to media reports of Russian interference to help Trump, allegedly directed by Vladimir Putin.

However, the memo’s substance is criticized for lacking evidence and relying on manipulation, as media reports cited by Gabbard actually referred to Russian-linked hacks of Democratic emails provided to WikiLeaks, not vote tampering, a conclusion consistent with a pre-election October 2016 joint statement by intelligence agencies. The memo also misrepresents a September 2016 report and omits context, such as Obama’s review being prompted by congressional pressure amid Trump’s denial of Russian interference. While the memo admits evidence of Russian hacking of Democratic entities, it ignores the 2020 bipartisan Senate report confirming Kremlin efforts to boost Trump and his campaign’s interactions with WikiLeaks, suggesting Gabbard’s report serves to reinforce MAGA and Kremlin narratives, potentially distracting from other issues and aligning with her history of amplifying Kremlin-friendly claims.

Investigating Obama and Biden for Seditious Conspiracy by Julie Kelly, The Benny Show

Julie Kelly, during an appearance on “The Benny Show” with host Benny Johnson, suggests that President Donald Trump should consider pursuing seditious conspiracy charges against former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama. The discussion highlights the potential legal actions that could be taken, focusing on the idea of investigating the two former presidents for such serious allegations.

The article does not provide detailed arguments or specific reasons for the suggested investigation, nor does it elaborate on the conclusion of this proposal. It primarily serves as an introduction to the topic, directing readers to a full article for more information via a provided link.

The Mistake Parents Make With Chores by Christine Carrig, The Atlantic

The article discusses the importance of involving children in household chores and the common mistakes parents make that can hinder this process. At a Montessori school, preschoolers participate in a cleanup routine after lunch, initially making messes but gradually improving their skills, which helps develop motor skills, responsibility, and confidence. In contrast, the author reflects on their own experience at home, where early actions like taking over tasks from their children, such as stirring pancake batter or refolding clothes, diminished the children’s enthusiasm for helping. Research cited in the article shows that children often contribute less than 3 percent to household chores compared to significant contributions from parents, and many parents limit chores to tasks benefiting the child, like cleaning their room, rather than family-oriented duties.

The article highlights the benefits of chores for children, including developing executive function, self-competence, and fine-motor skills, which are essential for tasks like handwriting and have been declining in recent years. Chores also serve as “social glue,” integrating children into the family and giving them a sense of purpose, with young children often eager to contribute, as shown in studies where they prefer real tasks over pretend ones to help others. However, parents may discourage this by shooing children away due to their initial clumsiness or turning chores into micromanaged lessons, reducing the child’s interest. The article suggests finding a middle ground, such as letting children participate in small ways, and turning chores into social activities to engage resistant kids, emphasizing that early involvement is easier than convincing older children to start, and children often want to help as a way to contribute to the family.

Bring Back the Computer Lab by Oren Cass, Commonplace

The article reflects on the historical role of the Computer Lab in schools, a dedicated space where students learned to use computers through activities like playing educational games and mastering basic computer skills such as file management, document creation, and email usage. It highlights that during this period, computers were treated as a subject to be taught rather than a tool for learning other subjects, emphasizing the importance of understanding computer technology itself. The decline of the Computer Lab came as computing costs dropped, leading to the vision of providing personal devices to every student, a shift accelerated by the availability of low-cost laptops and the COVID-19 pandemic, which made personal computers a necessity for all students.

The article argues that the transition from learning how to use computers to using computers for learning has been problematic, driven by technophilia rather than educational necessity. It critiques the current push to integrate AI into education, suggesting that this could exacerbate issues by offering shortcuts that undermine genuine learning, particularly for disengaged students and teachers. The author cites the behavior of technologists who limit technology in their own children’s education and the lack of educational gains despite significant investment in classroom digitization as evidence. The article concludes with suggestions for AI companies to prevent their models from aiding in schoolwork and for schools to remove computers from classrooms, reserving computer education for dedicated spaces like the Computer Lab to focus on developing habits of mind and genuine learning.

Bell Finally Tolls for National Propaganda Radio by Matt Taibbi, Racket News

The article discusses the historical and current roles of public media, particularly PBS and NPR, highlighting their evolution and the controversies surrounding their funding and perceived biases. Initially, PBS was praised for producing diverse, informative, and quirky programs like NOVA, This Old House, and Frontline, as well as introducing American audiences to international shows like Doctor Who and Monty Python’s Flying Circus, serving as a valuable counterweight to commercial television. However, the article argues that NPR has shifted, transforming public news into what it describes as a partisan therapy session, with content that feels alienating to apolitical listeners, such as linking diets to rape culture or critiquing white teeth as colonial remnants. It notes Republican complaints about left-leaning biases in public media, with NPR receiving only about 2% of its budget directly from federal funds, though a significant portion comes indirectly through member stations, complicating the debate over public funding.

The article further examines NPR’s response to criticism, including CEO Katherine Maher’s mixed messages on bias, acknowledging past errors like labeling Trump a “fascist and deranged racist sociopath” and addressing whistleblower concerns, yet defending NPR’s funding against Trump’s executive order on First Amendment grounds. It critiques NPR’s programming for adopting a tone reminiscent of foreign propaganda, such as Voice of America, with examples like Bastille Day segments questioning national greatness and repetitive Fourth of July features focusing on historical critiques rather than celebration, like annual readings of Frederick Douglass’ speech. The article suggests NPR has moved away from traditional patriotic content, such as readings of the Declaration of Independence, now accompanied by trigger warnings, and questions the appropriateness of taxpayer funding for what it sees as a politicized narrative, proposing a pause until a less didactic approach is found.

Old Cable News Model Unlikely To Survive Much Longer by Robert Malone, Substack

The article “Old Cable News Model Unlikely To Survive Much Longer” suggests that significant changes are on the horizon for the traditional cable news industry. It highlights the impending transformation, indicating that the current model is nearing the end of its viability, though specific reasons for this shift are not detailed in the provided content. The title and brief introduction imply a critical evaluation of the sustainability of legacy cable news operations in the face of evolving media landscapes.

The article concludes with an optimistic note, stating “Change is coming, and it is good,” suggesting that the anticipated transformation is viewed positively. However, without access to the full article linked at https://www.malone.news/p/the-apocalypse-of-legacy-media, the exact nature of these changes and the supporting arguments remain unclear from the given excerpt. The summary is limited to the information provided, focusing on the inevitability and perceived benefit of the upcoming changes in the cable news sector.