Watch Trump’s new press secretary thrash him on Fox and CNN in 2015 – Yahoo News

President Trump appointed Kayleigh McEnany to be his fourth press secretary last month. McEnany, previously Trump's campaign spokeswoman and before that a conservative cable news regular, was not always on Team Trump, as CNN discovered when digging through the cable news vaults for a highlight reel broadcast Thursday.

Trump "doesn't deserve" to be near the top of the GOP polls, McEnany told Fox Business in the summer of 2015. "Look, the GOP doesn't need to be turning away voters and isolating them, we need to be bringing them into the tent. Donald Trump is the last person who's going to do that." Trump's comments about Mexicans were "very inartful and very inappropriate," she told CNN. "I think the mainstream Republican does not want to send the illegal immigrant back to Mexico. ... That's not the American way, we're not going to ship people across the border. There has to be some path to citizenship." She even suggested Trump's comment was "racist."

McEnany certainly isn't the first Trump skeptic who has since publicly changed their mind Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), recent White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for example, made scathing comments about Trump's unfitness for office during the 2016 campaign. But it is interesting to remember how far the Republican Party has shifted over the past four years.

By October 2015, McEnany had changed her tone and said calling Trump a sexist and a racist was helping him among people sick of political correctness. But her problem was never that he was too conservative, the clips suggest. "Hey, I don't want to claim this guy," she laughed on CNN in June 2015. "Donald Trump, if we're going to be honest, is a progressive. ... This is not a true Republican candidate, and the fact that he's being portrayed as such in media is troublesome and not accurate."

At least McEnany is consistent about blaming the media.

More stories from theweek.com7 scathing cartoons about America's rush to reopenOuted CIA agent Valerie Plame is running for Congress, and her launch video looks like a spy movie trailerThe U.S. reportedly didn't take up a January offer that would have led to the production of 1.7 million masks per week

Go here to read the rest:

Watch Trump's new press secretary thrash him on Fox and CNN in 2015 - Yahoo News

YouTube and Pewdiepie Can’t Afford to Quit Each Other – VICE

Felix Kjellberg, better known as Pewdiepie and owner of the most popular individually operated channel on YouTube, has signed an exclusive deal with Google's ubiquitous video platform to promote its live streaming service, a clear competitor to the Amazon-owned Twitch.

On the one hand, this is a no-brainer. Getting the most popular creator on YouTube's platform and one of the most famous personalities in video games globally to promote YouTube's live streaming service is an obvious choice. On the other hand, much like YouTube itself, Kjellberg has been mired in controversy for years, all of it self-inflicted and easily avoidable. And while YouTube and Kjellberg have often been publicly at odds, with Kjellberg taking shots at the company in his massively popular videos and YouTube previously distancing itself from its most popular creator for numerous controversies, both sides are now doubling down on each other and ignoring many of YouTube's most harmful aspects in the process..

In 2018, Motherboard wrote about the way in which he taught his fans to harass women streamers (we still get hateful emails and tweets from his fans about this story today). A year earlier, he apologized for using the n-word during a live stream, much like the one YouTube just announced they enlisted him to promote. Earlier that same year, YouTube famously canceled an original series featuring Kjellberg over an anti-Semitic joke video he made. The press release announcing the exclusivity deal obviously doesn't mention any of this.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It's not as if Kjellberg has spent time since then rehabilitating his image, or making overtures to YouTube. He's had plenty of controversies since, and has started his "Pew News" series of videos, many of which focus on needling YouTube and the media for political correctness.

YouTube has been my home for over a decade now and live streaming on the platform feels like a natural fit as I continue to look for new ways to create content and interact with fans worldwide, Kjellberg said in a statement. Live streaming is something I'm focusing a lot on in 2020 and beyond, so to be able to partner with YouTube and be at the forefront of new product features is special and exciting for the future.

YouTube, in the past, has made supposedly principled decisions regarding Kjellberg, and Kjellberg in turn has spent much time detailing YouTube's failures in treating creators like himself. But, as we can see, neither side is all that principled when it comes to the bottom line. YouTube can't not use its most powerful creator if it wants a chance in hell in competing with the already-dominant Twitch, and Kjellberg can't walk away from a YouTube channel with more than 100 million subscribers, and whatever YouTube is paying him for this exclusivity deal.

YouTube is Pewdiepie, Pewdiepie is YouTube, and neither will change because they need each other too much.

Read more from the original source:

YouTube and Pewdiepie Can't Afford to Quit Each Other - VICE

Watch a Mini Episode of The Adult Animated Series THE FREAK BROTHERS with Woody Herrelson, John Goodman and More – GeekTyrant

Woody Harrelson,John Goodman,Tiffany HaddishandPete Davidsonare set to star in a new adult animated series titled The Freak Brothers, which is based on the hippie-era underground comic. Heres the synopsis:

In 1969, life in San Francisco consists of free love, communal living and political protest. Freewheelin Franklin Freek (Harrelson), Fat Freddy Freekowtski (Goodman), Phineas T. Phreakers (Davidson) and their mischievous, foul-mouthed cat, Kitty (Haddish) spend their days dodging many things the draft, the narcs and steady employment all while searching for an altered state of bliss.

But after partakking of a genetically mutated strain of marijuana, the Freaks wake up 50 years later to discover a much different society. Quickly feeling like fish out of water in a high-tech world of fourth-wave feminism, extreme gentrification and intense political correctness, the Freaks learn how to navigate life in 2020 where, surprisingly, their precious cannabis is now legal.

The series will consist of eight-episodes and four-mini episodes, the first of what you can watch below. The pilot episode is almost finished and the regular episodes will be 22-minutes long.

Mark Canton and Courtney Solomon are executive producers on the series and it was written and produced by Silicon Valleyalums Dave Krinsky and John Althschuler andHighly GiftedsDaniel Lehrer and Jeremy Lehrer.

The mini-episode below is titled Kentucky Fried Freaks and its NSFW. The story follows the main characters as they head to the white house where they ask Donald Trump to get some fried chicken.

More here:

Watch a Mini Episode of The Adult Animated Series THE FREAK BROTHERS with Woody Herrelson, John Goodman and More - GeekTyrant

Furry Freak Brothers coming this fall, voiced by Woody Harrelson, John Goodman, Pete Davidson, and Tiffany Haddish – Boing Boing

Yesterday saw the online premier of a mini-episode of a new animated comic series based on the classic Gilbert Shelton underground comic, the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. As a hippie wannabe teen in the 70s, this (and Zap! Comics) was everything to me.

In 1969, life in San Francisco consists of free love, communal living, and political protest. Freewheelin Franklin Freek (Harrelson), Fat Freddy Freekowtski (Goodman), Phineas T. Phreakers (Davidson) and their mischievous, foul-mouthed cat, Kitty (Haddish) spend their days dodging many things - the draft, the narcs, and steady employment - all while searching for an altered state of bliss.

But after partaking of a genetically-mutated strain of marijuana, the Freaks wake up 50 years later to discover a much different society. Quickly feeling like fish out of water in a high-tech world of fourth-wave feminism, extreme gentrification and intense political correctness, the Freaks learn how to navigate life in 2020 - where, surprisingly, their precious cannabis is now legal.

OK, sounds good. But is it? If the reaction to the first mini-episode is any indication, maybe the Freaks should have remained in their drug-induced coma. As one Facbooker commented: "Get yourself a collected set of the original comic and skip this drivel!"

Visit The Nib to read Gemma Corrells timely and accurate video conference call bingo comic.

The Angel, The Automobilist, and Eighteen Others is a new collection of early drawings by eccentric illustrator and storyteller Edward Gorey (1925-2000). Over at The Comics Journal, Mark Dery, author of the Gorey biography Born to Be Posthumous, reviews the slim new volume while considering where Goreys odd oeuvre sits (or doesnt) in the comic []

Award-winning comic creators Brian K. Vaughan and Marcos Martin launched Panel Syndicate in 2013 as a digital-only, name-your-price publishing outlet for their near-future Internet noir The Private Eye. Theyve released several comics through this imprint since then from themselves, and from other creators that all fit under the same DRM-free, pay-what-you-want f0rmat, with []

It seemed like such a great idea at the time. You wanted to put together a video for a loved one, including all their family and friends singing their praises, making their life look as epic as a Hollywood production. Oh, it was a Hollywood production, all right. Contributors showed up late and sent weird []

Fear is ripe soil for the unscrupulous. With so much uncertainty and concern over our health and the broader world economy, cybercriminals have been playing on that fear to steal a few extra dollars out of the most scared and vulnerable. The U.S. Secret Service warned that phishing attacks were up significantly and scams over []

Drummers hear all the jokes. What do you call a drummer with half a brain? Gifted. How is a drum solo like a sneeze? You know its coming, but theres nothing you can do about it. What do you call a drummer that breaks up with his girlfriend? Homeless. Drummers hear the jokes and []

See the article here:

Furry Freak Brothers coming this fall, voiced by Woody Harrelson, John Goodman, Pete Davidson, and Tiffany Haddish - Boing Boing

10 Male Sitcom Characters From The ’80s That Would Never Fly Today – Screen Rant

Sitcom characters, and sitcoms themselves from the '80s, were very different, which is why these 10 male characters would never fly nowadays.

While we're seeing a lot of TV shows from yesteryear being rebooted, many new ones are appearing as well. And they reflect the current state of the world, our changed attitudes, political correctness, and more.

The way things have changed so dramatically over the last few years means that some characters that were popular in shows from past decades really wouldn't fly today.

RELATED: 10 Male Sitcom Characters From The '90s That Would Never Fly Today

Who exactly? Here are some from the '80s.

A bartender who is both a recovering alcoholic and a notorious womanizer? Both of these things would be frowned upon these days. Some might say that Sam working in and owning a bar would be triggering to his alcoholism.

Meanwhile, his treatment of women on this iconic showwould be considered just wrong, along with the storyline that Diane only decides to pursue her dreams when he encourages her to do so on their wedding day. Really?

A young man moving in with his best friend to help him raise his three young daughters after his wife unexpectedly passes away leaving him a single father is a lovely story. However, that man still living in the basement well into his 30s when the kids are now teenagers could seem suspicious.

Some people thesedays don't want to see dad's best friend give a teenager girl advice about dating. Nosy neighbors would have confronted him about this.

Tony himself is a great character, but a male housekeeper working for a powerful female executive isn't groundbreaking today like it was when this show first debuted in the late '80s.

RELATED: 10 Sitcoms With More Female Main Characters Than Male

The show was progressive for its time but today, the character wouldn't shock anyone. And Angela as the wealthy and hard-working single mother is pretty much ubiquitous today.

This series, which aired in the '80s and '90s, was about a lower-to-middle-class family just trying to get by. The dad, Al, was a shoe salesman who was presumably depressed about his life, mourning his glory days of high school football.

Aside from his treatment of his wife and two teenage kids, Al insulted just about anyonehe could, including customers who came into his store. His favorite targets were overweight women, and no way some of the things he would say on the show would be allowed in a sitcom today.

It isn't so much Jack who wouldn't fly today as it would be the entire concept of the show. A young man named Jack who needed a place to live moved in with two young women, and the only way the conservative landlord was okay with the arrangement was because he was told Jack was gay. He was, of course, not gay at all, and in fact a pretty big womanizer.

Jack having to pretend he was gay and "act" gay throughout the series led to plenty of high jinks. But the character just wouldn't fly today.

Aside from the obvious fact that the character was designed to make fun of foreigners, the over-the-top portrayal would be considered totally offensive today.

RELATED: 10 Female Sitcom Characters From The '90s That Would Never Fly Today

And so would Balki's ridiculous outfits, naivety, and total cluelessness. It's one thing to have a language barrier, but Balki made it seem as though small-town people from other countries had zero idea about American culture.

It's a wonder how they ever thought an elderly man would be able to adopt a young girl back when this show aired, but it is even more unbelievable now.

On the late '80s series, Punky is being raised by her foster parent, an elderly window who decides to try and adopt her. Even though the show portrays the struggle for Henry to gain custody of the abandoned child who showed up in his building, chances are slim that a man of his age would ever win custody of a random young girl.

The whole idea behind this show would never fly today. Two single men are struggling with their careers and decide to disguise as women so they can afford an apartment together.

RELATED:10 Underrated LGBTQ+ Movies of the Decade

Sure, it was hilarious but viewers would look down on a show where two men pretend to be women in order to gain an advantage in life.

George was a successful businessman who first appeared in the '70s sitcom All in The Family. It's a nice rags to riches story, and it touched on a lot of cultural and racial topics that was groundbreaking at that time.

Today, the character,however, wouldn't be so groundbreaking. Plus, viewers would be angered that a successful African-American man leading a sitcom also had to be rude, bigoted, and not very intelligent, despite his career achievements.

Can someone imagine a family hiring a random young college student to live with them and, in exchange for room and board, he is tasked with caring for their children? People aren't as trusting nowadays so this would never happen.

It's a shame since the series, which aired from 1984 through to 1990, was really great and showed how a young man could mature quickly after having to care for children. But today, no sane parent would ever be okay with such an arrangement.

NEXT: 10 Sitcoms With An All-Female Core Cast

NextIt Would Be Extremely Painful: 10 Hilarious Dark Knight Bane Memes We Love

A professional writer and editor with 18+ years of experience, Christine, now a freelance writer/editor, is a self-professed TV fanatic with tastes that vary considerably from comedies to dramas, sci-fi, and more. She can usually be found binging a new show at night, coupled with a glass of red wine. With a long history writing in the field of consumer tech, she now also writes on topics from entertainment to parenting, lifestyle, marketing, and business. She resides in Toronto, Ontario in Canada with her husband and young son.

Continued here:

10 Male Sitcom Characters From The '80s That Would Never Fly Today - Screen Rant

McKinsey, BCG and Bain advice on surviving COVID-19 – The Australian Financial Review

These include dealing with any problematic offshored and outsourced operations, establishing hi-visibility leadership, deploying 'pop-up' business models and, if required, making the difficult decision to reduce costs by cutting jobs.

A spokeswoman for BCG said the firm had published dozens of articles "covering many different themes and addressing priorities of different industries working in different countries at different stages of this crisis".

"There is not a one-size fits all approach to business strategy at a time of discontinuity," she said.

"Some companies are overwhelmed with demand, and others are [very] short of demand. The pandemic has some of the characteristics of a one-off shock [differs by country], but with prolonged effects in many areas and likely permanent effects in others. Different governments have provided different support models for business, such that each countrys situation is different, often with differences within a country by state or region."

"Our general point of view is therefore equally not one-size-fits all. What we have consistently said is that leaders need to pull levers that will help them be resilient, and also help them prepare for growth on the other side of the crisis," she said.

A spokeswoman for Bain said the firm's consultants had been initially focused on "helping companies get back to work safely and effectively" amid the pandemic.

"The team have deconstructed four of the most common workplaces - customer-facing [stores, banks, restaurants], manufacturing, warehouse and distribution centers, and office. They have also detailed examples of the six risk-mitigation responses that companies might need to put in place in each," she said.

"The basis for this thinking comes from our overall strategic approach to navigating the COVID-19 crisis called Act Now/Plan Now. This approach emphasises the dual set of activities business leaders must focus on simultaneously to protect the business today and recover and retool for the new world."

McKinsey has noted that the outbreak is "first and foremost a human tragedy" when outlining how businesses could respond to the crisis.

"We suggest that in order to come back stronger, companies should reimagine their business model as they return to full speed," a recent article from the firm notes.

"The moment is not to be lost: those who step up their game will be better off and far more ready to confront the challenges - and opportunities - of the next normal than those who do not.

"There are four strategic areas to focus on: recovering revenue, rebuilding operations, rethinking the organisation, and accelerating the adoption of digital solutions."

ICG founder David Moloney.Supplied

Mr Moloney said that clients were now requesting advice on how to adapt their business models to suit the new environment.

He added that ICG was also helping clients replace offshoring and outsourcing arrangements which have proven fragile during the pandemic, due to travel restrictions and lockdowns.

"There is some talk about supply chains but as the same consultants were the champions of offshoring and outsourcing as a way to cut staff costs, they haven't highlighted the about-turn in their recommendations," he said.

"Companies need to create local alternatives which will be anti-fragile."

ICG's human capital leader, Greg Barnier, said leaders had to shift from helping employees feel safe to charting a path for a return to normal working conditions.

"Good leaders are acknowledging that in these circumstances you can not separate work from home. They are accepting and acknowledging the 'interruptions' or conflicting priorities to the work day that may bring, such as children or family pets appearing in zoom meetings, home schooling demands [and so forth]," he said.

"A challenge for employers in the city may be the reluctance of people to return to work early due to concerns of safety in public transport, or a preference for more flexible work options now that many employees have experienced work from home."

Mr Moloney said that in addition to helping companies develop tactical 'pop-up' business opportunities, companies might need to look at ways to dramatically reduce their cost base.

"The firms all talk about cost reduction but they don't say how or why. The number one option is to reduce labour. You are moving customers and staff to digital channels. What the virus has created is an opportunity to step-change digital migration," he said.

"It's a gap [caused by] political correctness. No one wants to talk about cutting jobs when everyone is talking about protecting jobs. At the moment it is still to early to talk about staff reductions, but of course the virus has exposed pockets of unproductive labour and accelerated digitisation so it's created an opportunity to right-size."

See the original post here:

McKinsey, BCG and Bain advice on surviving COVID-19 - The Australian Financial Review

LETTER: Sometimes, it takes a crisis to drive technological innovation. – Eye On Annapolis

Sometimes, it takes a crisis to drive technological innovation.

We saw this during the Y2K scare. Fears that our computers would stop working in the year 2000 led to a massive effort to rewrite software. Along the way, other bugs were discovered, large sections of code were rewritten more efficiently, and we benefited from a huge surge in software performance and productivity as a result.

Content Continues Below

With the shift to online learning, Anne Arundel County Public Schools is finding out how far behind the times their technology department has fallen. Basic webinar and video conferencing capabilities, used by businesses and colleges for over a decade, were completely foreign to AACPS. And while teachers and students have had access to the Google Meet platform for several years, the technology department has actively discouraged its use. Now, forced into offering online instruction, the schools chief information officer has thankfully backpedaled on his antiquated stance.

The good news is that AACPS will come out of this pandemic with a stronger, more robust online learning platform. Hopefully, they wont stop using or innovating it once schools are reopened. More should be done to ensure that teachers will continue to use it, that school buildings have adequate Wi-Fi, and that students have access to basic resources such as Chromebooks and internet service.

Thats not to say that improvements cant be made in the meantime. For one, the technology department strangely refuses to provide technical support directly to students. Students must first contact their teacher with an issue, who will then pass it on to the IT department. Its extremely inefficient, particularly when readily-available solutions like Zendesk would allow for students to submit their own support requests.

Also, while AACPS is making Wi-Fi networks at school buildings open to public access, the hours are limited from 7 AM to 5 PM. These should be expanded and made available 24 hours.

More common sense also needs to be placed on the online curriculum itself. Administrators on Riva Road were quick to replace core academic subjects like science and math with a controversial Global Community Citizenship course. Now, more than ever, is not the time to replace science and math with political correctness and social indoctrination.

How will we look back at these events a decade from now? Teachers and students have adapted admirably to this new normal, but the Central Office administrators continue to create more roadblocks than they remove. Online learning presents an opportunity for Anne Arundel County Public Schools to shine as a leader in innovation. The only thing holding them back is their own leaderships reluctance to do so.

Scott Shaffer, Annapolis

Scott Shaffer is a candidate for the Anne Arundel County Board of Education from District 6.

Related

Category: OPINION, Post To FB

View post:

LETTER: Sometimes, it takes a crisis to drive technological innovation. - Eye On Annapolis

Technofascism: Digital Book Burning in a Totalitarian Age – John Whitehead’s Commentary Technofascism: Digital Book Burning in a Totalitarian Age By…

Those who created this country chose freedom. With all of its dangers. And do you know the riskiest part of that choice they made? They actually believed that we could be trusted to make up our own minds in the whirl of differing ideas. That we could be trusted to remain free, even when there were very, very seductive voicestaking advantage of our freedom of speechwho were trying to turn this country into the kind of place where the government could tell you what you can and cannot do.Nat Hentoff

We are fast becoming a nationnay, a worldof book burners.

While on paper, we are technically free to speakat least according to the U.S. Constitutionin reality, however, we are only as free to speak as the government and its corporate partners such as Facebook, Google or YouTube may allow.

Thats not a whole lot of freedom. Especially if youre inclined to voice opinions that may be construed as conspiratorial or dangerous.

Take David Icke, for example.

Icke, a popular commentator and author often labeled a conspiracy theorist by his detractors, recently had his Facebook page and YouTube channel (owned by Google) deleted for violating site policies by spreading coronavirus disinformation.

The Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which has been vocal about calling for Ickes de-platforming, is also pushing for the removal of all other sites and individuals who promote Ickes content in an effort to supposedly save lives.

Translation: the CCDH evidently believes the public is too dumb to think for itself and must be protected from dangerous ideas.

This is the goosestepping Nanny State trying to protect us from ourselves.

In the long run, this safety control (the censorship and shadowbanning of anyone who challenges a mainstream narrative) will be far worse than merely allowing people to think for themselves.

Journalist Matt Taibbi gets its: The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant.

Dont fall for the propaganda.

These internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns about COVID-19, a virus whose source and behavior continue to elude medical officials. Theyre laying the groundwork now, with Icke as an easy target, to preemptanydangerous ideas that might challenge the power elites stranglehold over our lives.

This is how freedom dies.

It doesnt matter what disinformation Icke may or may not have been spreading about COVID-19. Thats not the issue.

As commentator Caitlin Johnstonerecognizes, the censorship of David Icke by these internet media giants has nothing to do with Icke: What matters is that were seeing a consistent and accelerating pattern of powerful plutocratic institutions collaborating with the US-centralized empire to control what ideas people around the world are permitted to share with each other, and its a very unsafe trajectory.

Welcome to the age of technofascism.

Technofascism, clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem. As journalist Chet Bowers explains, Technofascisms level of efficiency and totalitarian potential can easily lead to repressive systems that will not tolerate dissent.

The internet, hailed as a super-information highway, is increasingly becoming the police states secret weapon. This policing of the mind: is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of hat will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.

Its a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.

Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

Were almost at that point now.

What you are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideaslegitimate or notand the people who espouse them.

Today, the forces of political correctness, working in conjunction with corporate and government agencies, have managed to replace actual book burning with intellectual book burning.

Free speech for me but not for thee is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

This is about much more than free speech, however. This is about repression and control.

With every passing day, were being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called government speech.

The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the principal pillar of a free government.

The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state.

Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use.

The end result is control.

In totalitarian regimesa.k.a. police stateswhere conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.

In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioneddiscouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatredinevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

Its political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own censorship, spying and policing: this is how you turn a nation of free people into extensions of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent police state, and in the process turn a citizenry against each other.

Tread cautiously: Orwells1984, which depicts the ominous rise of ubiquitous technology, fascism and totalitarianism, has becomean operation manual for the omnipresent, modern-day surveillance state.

1984portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or "Party," is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: "Big Brother is watching you."

We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by not only Orwell but also such fiction writers as Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.

Much like Orwells Big Brother in1984, the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move. Much like HuxleysA Brave New World, we are churning out a society of watchers who have their liberties taken away from them, but rather enjoy it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing. Much like AtwoodsThe Handmaids Tale, the populace is now taught to know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected up to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves thatthey will accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away.

And in keeping with Philip K. Dicks darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police statewhich became the basis forSteven Spielbergs futuristic thrillerMinority Reportwe are now trapped in a world in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few skulls to bring the populace under control.

What once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.

Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alikefacial recognition, iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so onare incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, thedystopian visions of past writers is fast becoming our reality.

In fact, our world ischaracterized by widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, fusion centers, driverless cars, voice-controlled homes, facial recognition systems, cybugs and drones, and predictive policing (pre-crime) aimed at capturing would-be criminals before they can do any damage. Surveillance cameras are everywhere.Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails.And privacy and bodily integrity have been utterly eviscerated.

We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state.

What many fail to realize is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot.

The government requires an accomplice.

Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental overreach.

In fact, Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother, and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles have spread worldwide.

The government now has at its disposal technological arsenals so sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections null and void. Spearheaded by the NSA, which has shown itself to care little to nothing for constitutional limits or privacy, the security/industrial complexa marriage of government, military and corporate interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant surveillancehas come to dominate the government and our lives.

Money, power, control.

There is no shortage of motives fueling the convergence of mega-corporations and government. But who is paying the price?

We the people, of course. Not just we Americans, but people the world over.

We have entered into a global state of tyranny.

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is safe and accepted by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

Americans have beenconditioned to accept routine incursions on their privacy rights. In fact, the addiction to screen devicesespecially cell phoneshas created a hive effect where the populace not only watched but is controlled by AI bots. However, at one time, the idea of a total surveillance state tracking ones every move would have been abhorrent to most Americans. That all changed with the 9/11 attacks. As professor Jeffrey Rosen observes, Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable,a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered privacy and anonymity.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenrymute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears allwe have nowhere left to go.

We have, so to speak, gone from being a nation where privacy is king to one where nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government.

In search of so-called terrorists and extremists hiding amongst usthe proverbial "needle in a haystack," as one official termed itthe Corporate State has taken to monitoring all aspects of our lives, from cell phone calls and emails to Internet activity and credit card transactions. This data is being fed throughfusion centersacross the country, which work with the Department of Homeland Security to make threat assessments on every citizen, including school children.

Wherever you go and whatever you do, you are now being watched, especially if you leave behind an electronic footprint.

When you use your cell phone, you leave a record of when the call was placed, who you called, how long it lasted and even where you were at the time. When you use your ATM card, you leave a record of where and when you used the card. There is even a video camera at most locations equipped with facial recognition software. When you use a cell phone or drive a car enabled with GPS, you can be tracked by satellite. Such information is shared with government agents, including local police. And all of this once-private information about your consumer habits, your whereabouts and your activities is now being fed to the U.S. government.

The government has nearly inexhaustible resources when it comes to tracking our movements, from electronic wiretapping devices, traffic cameras and biometrics to radio-frequency identification cards, satellites and Internet surveillance.

Speech recognition technology now makes it possible for the government to carry out massive eavesdropping by way of sophisticated computer systems. Phone calls can be monitored, the audio converted to text files and stored in computer databases indefinitely. And if any "threatening" words are detectedno matter how inane or sillythe record can be flagged and assigned to a government agent for further investigation. Federal and state governments, again working with private corporations, monitor your Internet content. Users are profiled and tracked in order to identify, target and even prosecute them.

In such a climate, everyone is a suspect. And youre guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

Heres what a lot of people fail to understand, however: its not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how youthinkthat is being tracked and targeted.

Weve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called hateful thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on various subject matter.

Say hello tothe new Thought Police.

Total Internet surveillance by the Corporate State, as omnipresent as God, is used by the government to predict and, more importantly, control the populace, and its not as far-fetched as you might think. For example, the NSA has designed an artificial intelligence system that can anticipate your every move. In a nutshell, the NSA feeds vast amounts of the information it collects to a computer system known asAquaint(the acronym stands for Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence), which the computer then uses to detect patterns and predict behavior.

No information is sacred or spared.

Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA and shared freely with its agents.

Thus, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).

Clearly, the age of privacy is at an end.

So where does that leave us?

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers. This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us on a daily basis.

It wont be long before we find ourselves looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.

To be an individual today, to not conform, to have even a shred of privacy, and to live beyond the reach of the governments roaming eyes and technological spies, one must not only be a rebel but rebel.

Even when you rebel and take your stand, there is rarely a happy ending awaiting you. You are rendered an outlaw.

So how do you survive this global surveillance state?

As I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People, were running out of options.

Well soon have to choose between self-indulgence (the bread-and-circus distractions offered up by the news media, politicians, sports conglomerates, entertainment industry, etc.) and self-preservation in the form of renewed vigilance about threats to our freedoms and active engagement in self-governance.

Yet as Aldous Huxley acknowledged inBrave New World Revisited: Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures. A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in their calculable future, but somewhere else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those would manipulate and control it.

Which brings me back to this technofascist tyranny being meted out on David Icke and all those like him who dare to voice ideas that diverge from what the government and its corporate controllers deem to be acceptable.

The problem as I see it is that weve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And weve allowed ourselves to become so timid in the face of offensive words and ideas that weve bought into the idea that we need the government to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean.

The result is a society in which weve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears.

In this way, we have become our worst enemy.

You want to reclaim some of the ground were fast losing to the techno-tyrants?

Start by thinking for yourself. If that means reading the dangerous ideas being floated out there by the David Ickes of the worldor the John Whiteheads for that matterand then deciding for yourself what is true, so be it.

As Orwell concluded, Freedom is the right to say two plus two make four.

More here:

Technofascism: Digital Book Burning in a Totalitarian Age - John Whitehead's Commentary Technofascism: Digital Book Burning in a Totalitarian Age By...

Opinion: Robert McNeil: Modern comedy might make some folk gag but the joke’s not over yet – HeraldScotland

GLUMNESS settles on a large part of the nation whenever the subject of comedy comes up now. The lockdown has led to a more frenetic search for entertainment, and the current state of humour hasnt wanted for critics. This week, Royle Family star Ricky Tomlinson, 80, said it was dire, and listed several comedians, adding: They should be done under the Trade Description Act.

I sympathised with his assessment, while also feeling there were a few comedians today who are as fine as any of previous generations.

Milton Jones, for example, has a weekly show on BBC Radio 4 that I heartily recommend. I dont like quoting too many jokes (spoilers, in a way), but heres one example.

My business floated last week.

Youre probably just not eating enough fibre.

Think I ruined it by not telling it properly. Its all in the timing. At the current time, incidentally, Radio 4 has been better of late, precisely because, with the coronavirus affecting production, its been utilising its archives.

READ MORE:Coronavirus: Pantos could be cancelled

In the last couple of years, its become an excruciating repository of wokeness, with programme after programme majoring on political correctness and identity politics. Its been relentless

It is, literally, propaganda, but achieved through process, a sort of osmosis, rather than needing a specific identifiable State Department of Comedy and Entertainment, though that cant be far off, particularly in Scotland.

Talking of Scotia, Frankie Boyle is laugh-out-loud funny, being blessed with a fantastic imagination. People underestimate how clever and creative he is. You can cavil at some of his more wince-making subjects (including poor, defenceless targets like newspapers), or be dismayed by the fact that he seems uber-woke, but theres no denying hes a comedy genius.

Mark Steel, another contemporary communist, is also very funny, so I dont think all is lost. That said, Ive found myself delving into the past for comedic solace recently.

I remain a big fan of Alexei Sayle, another communist, regrettably enough, and can at least quote a couple of his jokes from the past (relatively recent), such as his observation that austerity was based on the assumption that the economy could only be fixed by closing Wolverhampton public library.

Or there was his line about the Universal Credit authorities saying someone dying in a doorway could have got a job as a draught excluder.

Ive also been watching the late and lovely Victoria Woods Dinner Ladies, with its splendid characterisations of Lancashire folk (salt of the Earth, in my view), my favourite being Stan the repair man. Had he never married? No, ah like to keep me spanners in the livin room.

Or his chat-up line: Anyway, not to put too fine a point on it, I wondered if youd consider having some sort of sex wi me.

The search for joy in comedy has taken on greater desperation while were all Home Alone. But home, surely, is where we always got most of our comedy.

Id never dream of attending a comedy club, and also eschew larger venues as I cannot relax enough to laugh out loud in public, except when with my mates in the pub (a pub, children, is a place where nice people used to go to be happy).

I ought to come up with a punchline here but cant think of one and can only say that, all joking aside, and speaking as a communist myself, I think theres still a lot of good comedy around.

Opinion: Rab McNeil: Bottom line no nudes is good nudes

Noises off

YOUVE got to laugh. I certainly did, on this occasion at yet more research purporting to show that the garden is good for your psychological wellbeing.

Youre having a you-know-what. Youre lucky if you get 15 quiet minutes before the high-pitched DIY drills and horticultural ordnance starts up. The garden is now the last place I go to for peace and quiet.

For peace of mind, youd be better off walking down Leith Walk or the Great Western Road. The constant, soothing drone of traffic is infinitely preferable to that awful moment that always occurs shortly after youve just sat down in the garden with a glass of lemonade* and a good book.

A light breeze ruffles the foliage of the trees. A blackbird sings intermittently. A dove coos. Its very pleasant.

Then the high-pitched whine starts up and cuts through everything, the very air shaking above the supposed havens of peace outside your back door.

Im starting to think that theres something macho in all this too. If one person (man, generally) starts a racket, someone else will come out to start a bigger one. And, as ever, the formula holds: the bigger the equipment, the smaller the private parts.

While Im having a horticultural moan, leave enough height on your grass for the daisies, buttercups and bees. In line with the buzzcuts of Brutal Britains heids, lawns in this country are scalped to within a millimetre of their lives, presumably to lessen the need to do them again quickly, since you bought a house with a garden but hate gardening.

No offence, but you really are the most peculiar species. I cannot begin to tell you how much Im looking forward to returning to my own planet.

* The names of some drinks have been changed in this article.

Twos a crowd

HOW I sympathised with the older gentlemen who complained in the pages of this newspaper about young couples, in particular, who refuse to go into single file when approaching others using a narrow path or pavement.

I dont understand this. Do they think they can just breenge into you like a collective tank? This sort of behaviour was bad enough before the coronavirus but is particularly reprehensible now.

On greenways and urban paths, and in city parks, the vast majority of complaints have cited cyclists and joggers. But nobody expected any better of these self-regarding narcissi.

Young couples on foot, and perhaps even in love, ought to be in a better frame of mind than the usual sweat-scattering bullies and fops. They should be full of the joys of life. They should be nice. They should be considerate.

We all wish them well. But, soon, well be wishing they were imprisoned, or at least given on-the-spot fines, if they persist in their pathway truculence. One can only hope that, after this nightmare ends, the new Post-Viral Order will inaugurate compulsory classes in Decency and Manners for all citizens.

Lego my ear

LIKE most people who grew up to be decent citizens, I deplored both Lego and Meccano as a child. To me, these seemed pointless exercises for sprogs with cogs for brains.

I was similarly appalled by jigsaws. Why take a perfectly good picture and break it into pieces solely for the purpose of reassembling it?

Sadly, I was never in a position to campaign for abolition of these practices. If I complained about having a Lego set bunged at me for Christmas, Father would say: Shut up, you. Mother would intervene, saying: Dont speak to him like that, Robert Senior. Hes peculiar. I mean sensitive.

Press photies this week showed former football star David Beckham proudly posing with a Lego model of Hogwarts Castle that hed built. It was disgraceful.

Like me, Gandalf the wizard deplored breaking things into pieces only to reassemble them, saying: He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

In adolescence, I showed these words to Father but, in a surprisingly deft movement, he reached forward and twisted my ear immoderately.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.

Read the original post:

Opinion: Robert McNeil: Modern comedy might make some folk gag but the joke's not over yet - HeraldScotland

The Freak Brothers Clip Finds A Way to Get a Mask on Donald Trump – Bleeding Cool News

The Freak Brothers executive producers Mark Canton and Courtney Solomon's adult animated cartoon adaptation of the hippie-era underground comic lined up a killer line-up of vocal talents: Woody Harrelson ("Hunger Games" franchise), John Goodman (The Conners), Tiffany Haddish (The Last O.G.), and Pete Davidson (Saturday Night Live). To further make their case, they released the first of four upcoming webisodes to help introduce viewers to our time-displaced heroes: Freewheelin' Franklin Freek (Harrelson), Fat Freddy Freekowtski (Goodman), Phineas T. Phreakers (Davidson), and their cat, Kitty (Haddish).

In the first chapter, our fellow freaks are nostalgic for the OG taste of The Colonel's original fried chicken recipe of "seven herbs and spices" so they make it their mission to enjoy that taste one more time. Unfortunately, they find out who they have to go through to get it: Donald Trump (John Di Domenico). As you're about to see in this focus clip from the webisode, that's a lot easier to write than to get done when you're dealing with a man who would definitely change Mt. Rushmore in real life if he could get away with it. The clip does have us wondering just how large those masks would have to be.

In 1969, life in San Francisco consists of free love, communal living, and political protest. Freewheelin' Franklin Freek (Harrelson), Fat Freddy Freekowtski (Goodman), Phineas T. Phreakers (Davidson) and their mischievous, foul-mouthed cat, Kitty (Haddish) spend their days dodging many things the draft, the narcs and steady employment all while searching for an altered state of bliss.

But after partaking of a genetically mutated strain of marijuana, the Freaks wake up 50 years later to discover a much different society. Quickly feeling like fish out of water in a high-tech world of fourth-wave feminism, extreme gentrification, and intense political correctness, the Freaks learn how to navigate life in 2020 where, surprisingly, their precious cannabis is now legal.

Written by Dave Krinsky and John Althschuler (Silicon Valley), and Daniel Lehrer and Jeremy Lehrer (Highly Gifted), the eight-episode series has tapped Alan Cohen and Alan Freedland (King of the Hill) to serve as showrunners. The series is expected to premiere this fall, with work on the pilot reportedly complete. The series is currently considering distribution offers, and production on the remaining 22-minute episodes currently underway. Krinsky, Althschuler, Daniel Lehrer, and Jeremy Lehrer produce, with Workaholics alums Adam Devine and Blake Anderson executive producing. Canton and Solomon for WTG Enterprises, Gilbert Shelton, and Manfred Mroczkowski also executive produce, with Jeffrey S. Edell serving as co-executive producer. Starburns Industries (Rick and Morty) and Pure Imagination Studios (The Simpsons) are handling animation.

Serving as Television Editor since 2018, Ray began five years earlier as a contributing writer/photographer before being brought on board as staff in 2017.

twitter instagram envelope

Originally posted here:

The Freak Brothers Clip Finds A Way to Get a Mask on Donald Trump - Bleeding Cool News

COVID-19 Exposed the Divide Between White Rural Georgia and Atlanta – zocalopublicsquare.org

by James C. Cobb|May6,2020

The number of Georgias confirmed coronavirus cases jumped by 30 percent in the seven days before Governor Brian Kemp appeared at the state capitol in Atlanta on April 20. There and then, he announced that he was relaxing his previous shelter-in-place order and allowing gyms, barbershops, tattoo parlors, and ultimately, restaurants as well, to reopen.

This was hardly welcome news a scant five miles to the northeast, where experts at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were warning that such a move would be extremely risky until the incidence of infection is genuinely low. Although these same Atlanta-based experts had cautioned in mid-February that people who contracted the virus but remained asymptomatic could still infect others, Kemp claimed to have heard that early warning for the first time only on the eve of his grudging and long-overdue April 2 announcement that he was imposing restrictions in the first place.

The CDC has been in Atlanta since its beginnings in 1946. Its rise to prominence as one of the worlds most respected public health protection agencies has long been a point of pride for the citys perennially image-polishing, growth-obsessed leaders. By the 1970s their ardent courtship of the approval and capital investments of Fortune 500 executives hadled disgusted rural Georgians to complain that Atlanta had been surrendered to the Yankees yet again, and this time without a single shot being fired.

But rural antagonism toward Atlanta is hardly of recent vintage. It has been a defining element in Georgia politics for almost 150 years. And therein lies much of the story behind the story of the Georgia governors apparent aloofness to the health jewel in his own capitals crown, and to all the CDC expertise that could have helped avoid the healthcare disaster that may soon envelop his entire state.

The physical and financial devastation of the Civil War left Georgias farmers, white and black alike, trapped in an accelerating down swirl of dependency and debt. But by 1900, Atlanta, which had been a modest railroad hub of some 9,500 in 1860, had blossomed into a flourishing state capital and commercial and transportation center of 90,000. Atlanta was not only Georgias largest city. It had risen from the ashes, and proudly so. Its biggest booster, editor and orator Henry W. Grady, declared it a gleaming embodiment of a New South. With Atlanta as its guiding light, Grady predicted, the rest of Georgia would quickly shed its dependence on agriculture to embrace industrialization, urbanization, and commerce and soon be savoring the fruits of an unparalleled prosperity.

This divergence of urban and rural economic fortunes and momentum did not go unnoticed in the countryside. As the largest state by land area east of the Mississippi, Georgia already had 123 counties by 1870. Growing unease over the growth of Atlantas population and potential political clout helped to explain why the rural majority in the legislature took the lead in adding of another 29 counties over the next half century. But the sense that even this further dilution of Atlantas potential clout might be insufficient to safeguard rural prerogatives gave rise to one of the most blatant and brutally effective anti-urban political artifices ever devised.

Used informally for over a decade before it gained legal sanction in 1917, the county-unit system supplanted the popular vote as the means of determining the outcome of statewide elections in Georgia. This arrangement was basically a downsized and even more egregiously anti-democratic version of the national Electoral College. Under the system, each county, no matter how tiny its population, was assigned at least two unit votes, while no county, no matter how populous, was granted more than six.

The effectiveness of this device in neutering Atlanta politically was proven in countless elections, including the 1946 Georgia gubernatorial primary, when fewer than 1,100 votes cast for one candidate across three of the states most sparsely populated counties effectively countered more than 58,000 votes cast for his opponent in Atlantas home county of Fulton. The beneficiary of this particular thwarting of democracy was Eugene Talmadge, who was elected governor four times between 1932 and 1946 by appealing to rural voters with such proven stratagems as inviting them to join him on the front porch of the governors mansion in Atlanta so they could piss over the rail on those city bastards.

It was a point of pride for ol Gene that he had never campaigned in a county where there were streetcars. And he relished his studied role as nemesis to all things cosmopolitan and erudite, intimating more than once that he felt that any home boasting a Bible and a Sears, Roebuck catalog had as much of a library as it needed.

Understandably enough, as a historian of that era reported, upper-class Atlantans embarrassed and repelled by the buffoonish mockery of their refinement and expertise that emanated from the countryside were quite evidently not proud of [the rest of] Georgia. Such feelings were hardly a secret, and, if anything, served only to stoke the Atlanta-bashing that remained a fixture of Georgia gubernatorial politics between 1920 and 1962, when not a single urbanite managed to claim the states highest office.

Carl E. Sanders, who hailed from Augusta rather than Atlanta, managed to break that protracted dry spell in 1962, after the courts had finally forced Georgia to scuttle the county unit system for good. Finally free of its anti-progressive clutches, Georgia saw a rapid and vitally important expansion of Atlantas generally moderating political influences within the statewhich, despite the ranting of rural politicians determined to preserve segregation at all costs, may ultimately have kept Georgia from joining the full retreat that wrought such havoc and horror in Alabama and Mississippi.

The beneficiary of this particular thwarting of democracy was Eugene Talmadge, who was elected governor four times between 1932 and 1946 by appealing to rural voters with such proven stratagems as inviting them to join him on the front porch of the governors mansion in Atlanta so they couldpiss over the railon those city bastards.

The demise of the county unit system seemed to point to a more sophisticated approach to statewide campaigning, but old habits die hard. Even more progressive candidates were still not above pandering to enduring anti-Atlanta, or at least anti-urban, sentiments. These included Jimmy Carter, who portrayed himself in the 1970 gubernatorial primary as just a simple, hardworking country peanut farmer, while referring to his principal opponent, former governor Sanders, as Cufflinks Carl, an elitist, country club liberal wholly out of touch with the common folk of rural Georgia.

Although Carter proved the exception, gubernatorial candidates who used Atlanta as a punching bag historically reserved a few licks for African Americans and other minorities as well. None in recent memory has sunk so low as Eugene Talmadge, whose deliberate attempts to inflame racial passions in the 1946 campaign set the stage for the lynching of two black couples in rural Walton County shortly after the votes were cast. Race-baiting was Talmadges stock-in-trade, but his rhetoric was especially heated in 1946 because, courtesy of a recent court decree, that contest was the first truly meaningful election in the 20th century in which more than a relative scattering of black people had been allowed to vote in Georgia.

Black voting would remain limited, especially in Georgias rural counties, until Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which quickly boosted black registration from 34 to 55 percent of the eligible population, rendering outright race-mongering a bit risky for any white candidate in a statewide contest. The Voting Rights Act also accelerated the exodus of white Georgians from Democratic Party. During the 1964 presidential election, a few months after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the state moved into the Republican presidential column for the first time. Save for three elections, two of them involving Democrat Jimmy Carter, it has remained there since, paving the way for a Republican takeover of both houses in the state legislature in 2004.

Because this political revolution was so overwhelmingly race-driven at the outset, Republican strength in Georgia has been most apparent, not in Atlanta or its immediate environs, but in the majority-white counties most geographically and culturally distant from them. Meanwhile, over a strikingly short time, metropolitan Atlanta counties have seen a massive influx of more affluent white and African American people from outside the state, and upwardly mobile black people have also left the city proper for the suburbs and even the exurbs. The result has been a decided purpling of these heavily populated counties adjacent to Atlanta, reflected in the Republican Brian Kemps meager 1.3 percent victory over Democrat Stacey Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial election.

A former Athens businessman, Kemp appeared to reach straight back into the old Gene Talmadge playbook in that campaign, presenting himself as a rural superhero who flaunted his disdain for political correctness and other city-slicker signifiers. This persona came through vividly in his ads. One showed him, clad in cowboy boots and jeans, pointing his shotgun at his daughters supposed boyfriend; in another, he sat behind the wheel of the slightly dented pickup truck, which he promised to use to round up undocumented migrants.

Kemps calculated rusticity served him well in the 125 predominantly rural counties where he racked up an average victory margin of 38 percent, but it almost backfired on him statewide. Abrams persuaded her metropolitan base of minorities and moderate whites to turn out in large numbers. With the county unit system gone, it makes a difference that some 60 percent of Georgias voters now reside in the fast growing, larger metro Atlanta counties, where, on average, Abrams bested Kemp by 17 percent in 2018. Kemps narrow escape illustrates why he and his Republican colleagues have dedicated themselves to suppressing minority voting, a role he embraced with bravado in his previous post as Georgias Secretary of State. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (another local entity not high on his list) reported that in 2017, as he prepared to run for governor, he had managed to purge the rolls of some half-million, largely black and Hispanic would-be voters.

Kemps hostility to immigrants seemed to put him solidly in step with President Donald Trump, at least until the governor declined to appoint ardent Trumpite Republican Congressman Doug Collins to fill the seat left vacant by the resignation of U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson. Kemps eagerness to get back into Trumps good graces may help to explain why he leapt well ahead of other Republican governors to respond to White House pressure to re-open their states during the COVID crisis. Another explanation might be that much of the lobbying for the sheltering in place and restrictions on business operations came from in and around Atlantarather than the less populous rural counties where Kemps political biscuits are buttered.

Up to this point, residents of Georgias rural areas have been noticeably more inclined than their metropolitan counterparts to see social distancing and cutbacks in business operations as unwarranted disruptions instigated by outsiders, including scientists and liberal politicians, with no sense of the importance of maintaining the familiar economic and social rhythms of their communities. Ironically, with reported cases now on the rise in rural Georgia, it is there that the worst fears about Kemps decision to reopen the state early may be realized.

Rural black countieswith older and poorer-than-average populations beset by heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes, and lacking ready access to health carehave already registered death rates from the virus that are 50 percent higher than in metro areas. These same health problems are also well-known in many of the white majority counties claimed by Kemp in 2018. More than a third of these white counties are currently without a functioning hospital.

Kemps country cracker guise worked just well enough to get him into the governors office. But it also may have obligated him to artificially distance himself from the CDC. If so, his stiff-necked resolve to adhere to the Georgia political tradition of defying the Atlanta intelligentsia, rather than heeding the most informed advice available for combating an epic medical emergency, may wind up being more catastrophic for his political supporters than for those who opposed him.

Continue reading here:

COVID-19 Exposed the Divide Between White Rural Georgia and Atlanta - zocalopublicsquare.org

What Is a Card Shark vs a Card Sharp? – Poker Hustlers and Cheaters – BestUSCasinos.org

Long has the debate raged over whether a card cheat is properly termed a card sharp or a card shark.

Sharks, after all, are known for mercilessly attacking their prey, which would seem in this linguistic battle to favor the card shark camp, since those who manipulate the cards with the express intent of cheating others have no more conscience or concern for their victims than do their finned counterparts.

Yet card sharp also has in its favor that it seems to conjure up mental images of the poker cheats of the Old West, sharp-featured men with cards up their sleeves. Which, therefore, is it?

Both terms still mean someone skilled in cheating at cards, although in recent years card shark has also come to acquire the less odious definition of someone skilled at the play of cards.

Were that not so, one would have to question the naming of the 1978 TV game show Card Sharks, on which contestants tried to guess whether the next card in a sequence was higher or lower than its predecessor.

As to whether card sharp or card shark entered the English language first, the answer is far from straightforward. A print sighting of card sharp dates to 1884 and one of card sharper to 1859, while the first print sighting of card shark takes us back only to 1942.

You might think this evidence which would seem to settle matters. However, both sharper and shark (in the sense of one who cheats) antedate all of the above, sharper to 1681 and shark to 1599, evidence which could be seen as giving the nod to shark.

By the way, the shark in question has nothing to do with carnivorous fish; it instead likely entered the English language via the German schurke, a word that in the 16th century had the meaning of a cheat or swindler.

If you thought the answer might be found via looking at the words sharp and shark absent the word card, that pursuit also leads down a blind alley, because some definitions of both those words contain elements of cheating or connivance.

As for the word shark, in addition to encompassing the species of flesh-eating fish it identifies, it has over time come to serve as a label for certain dislikable characters: those who prey greedily upon others and those who by virtue of superior skill outmaneuver less capable opponents.

Common compound nouns have been formed from shark that address both meanings, such as loan shark in the prey greedily category and pool shark in the superior skill category.

Card Sharks features two players who face off in a head-to-head elimination game with the goal of one player making it to the grand prize winning deck.

This show from legendary Mark Goodson-Bill Todman Productions features two contestants trying to predict answers to survey questions for the opportunity to play a game with oversized playing cards for a chance to win cash.

Each contestant has to decide if the odds are worth the risk of losing it all and making it to the big game. Ultimately, players can either take their earned cash and quit or continue betting with the hope of reaching the top for a chance to take home a major cash prize. Community star and funnyman Joel McHale hosts.

Card-sharp, sometimes written cardsharp, might be thought to be a misspelling of card-shark. The latter is the more commonly used of the two synonymous phrases, especially outside the UK, which is one of the few countries to prefer card-sharp.

It is sometimes suggested that one term derived from the other. Theres no clear evidence to support that view, although if it is the case then it must have gone from sharp to shark as card-sharp appears to be the older term.

Such tricksters were also known as broadsmen or spielers and card-sharping was also called Greekery a derogatory term that probably wouldnt get past the political-correctness lobby these days.

The reason for thinking that card-sharp and card-shark may be independent coinages is the existence of the two much earlier words sharping and sharking. These terms for deceitfulness have been adopted into other phrases, for example sharp practice and loan shark.

Tricksters were called both sharps and sharks well before the 19th century, which makes the separate coinages entirely plausible.

Whatever you think about how and when the terms were coined there can be little doubt about where. Both card-sharp and card-shark appear in print in the United States many times before they are seen in publications elsewhere, a sure sign of country of origin.

The first such devious card players were called card-sharpers rather than card-sharps, although the dates of the earliest known citations of the two terms are close enough together to raise doubts as to which came first. Card-sharpers was recorded by George Augustus Sala, in his Twice round the clock, or the hours of the day and night in London, 1859:

German swindlers and card-sharpers.

As mentioned above, the earliest known citations of card-sharp and card-shark come from the United States.

It seems overly generous to have two almost identical terms for the same thing and in time no doubt one will do to the other, probably card-shark to card-sharp, what grey squirrels have done to red squirrels. Until then, its the dealers choice.

The former is generally the accepted term across the United States and Canada. They do both share the same general definitions: (1) a professional card player, (2) a person who is skilled in card games, and (3) a person who is skilled in cheating at card games.

For the British version of card shark vs card sharp, the implication is that the player is up to some form of shadiness or cheating. In American English, a card shark is simply someone who spends most of their time playing cards. Also, a player who demonstrates an extremely adept skill at cards.

If you look at the history of poker, youll see that the use of the term card sharp dates way back to the era of Wild West saloons and small town card rooms found all across America in the 1880s. Long before PokerStars was just a twinkle in its daddys eye.

By the 1940s the term had evolved into card shark. Both phrases do make perfect sense in their own ways. Sharping is from the early 19th century and is used to describe the act of swindling or stealing. Not just applied to gambling but also a variety of other activities. For example, a con man posing as a bona fide preacher in the Old West would be known as a gospel sharp.

In this sense, the word sharp has its origins in the German word schurke, meaning rogue or rascal. To that end, a card sharp could very well be a card shark.

Cardsharps who cheat or perform tricks use skilled methods to maintain control of the order of the cards or sometimes to control just a specific card. Many of these methods employ sleight of hand.

Essential skills are false shuffles and false cuts that appear to mix the deck but actually leave the cards in the same order. Some of the more advanced techniques include culling or manipulating cards to the top or bottom of the deck, and stacking or positioning desired cards in position to be dealt.

Dealing the cards can also be manipulated. Once a desired card or cards are located they can be controlled and dealt as the cheater wishes.

This is called a false dealing, if a card is dealt from the bottom it is called bottom dealing and if it is second from the top it is called second dealing.

Also, two cards could be dealt as one or the second card from the bottom could be dealt, hence the Greek deal and double deals.

Finally, dealing may be done from the middle of the deck, known as the middle deal or center deal, but is almost always performed as a display of skill rather than actual cheating.

Today both terms still have a slight implication of cheating. But not in the sense of sleight of hand or the hiding of cards. Or even card counting.

The very mention of an apex predator can instantly lead one to see an expert of cards pitted against and taking advantage of a lesser, more novice foe. In the same manner, pool sharks and pool hustlers are just using their advanced skill level to win, but only after hiding their playing powers. Are you an apex predator?

More here:

What Is a Card Shark vs a Card Sharp? - Poker Hustlers and Cheaters - BestUSCasinos.org

Harvey: If I were the prince of darkness – Times Record News

Ted Buss Published 12:00 a.m. CT May 3, 2020

Last week I mentioned 1950-60s radio talk host Paul Harvey and his noted, The rest of the story segment. A friend reminded me of a commentary he did that captured the imagination of the nation in 1965 called, If I were the prince of darkness.

Ted Buss(Photo: c)

You can watch it on you tube or read it online, and it hasnt aged a day. Noticeably, it stands out as a straightforward piece long before the political correctness run amok movement.

If I were the prince of darkness, Harvey said, I would engulf the whole world in darkness.

I would have a third of all real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldnt be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree . . . thee.

So I would set about, however necessary, to take over the United States.

I would subvert the churches first, and I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: Do as you please.

To the young I would whisper that the Bible is a myth. I would convince children that man created God instead of the other way around.

And to the elderly I would teach to pray, Our father, who art in Washington . . .

If I were the devil, Id soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and a nation at war with each other until each, in its turn, was consumed.

And with promises of higher ratings and circulation Id have a mesmerizing media fanning the flames.

If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellect but neglect to discipline emotions. Id tell administrators and teachers to let students run wild and before you knew it youd have metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

I would have prisons overflowing and I would evict God from the courts, schools and the halls of Congress.

In churches I would substitute psychology for religion.

If I were the devil, Id take from those who have and give it to those who want until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

Id convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that living together is more practical and what you see on television is the way to be.

I would lure you into a world of diseases for which there are no cures.

In other words, if I were the devil, Id just keep right on doing what hes doing.

When Harvey wrote this piece 55 years ago, newspapers reprinted it and television networks shared it in commentary. Despite our warts in this or ages past, thankfully we have not outgrown this kind of story.

Ted Buss is a former sports and business editor at the Times Record News.

Read or Share this story: https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/2020/05/03/harvey-if-were-prince-darkness-ted-buss-column/3046473001/

Read the rest here:

Harvey: If I were the prince of darkness - Times Record News

Charles H. Bradley III: Chinese Communists weaponized this virus and aimed it at us – The Laconia Daily Sun

To The Daily Sun,

As the Pandemic Pandemonium soon to be known as Virus Derangement Syndrome (VDS) recedes, a blessing is the exposure of the corrosive effect of the political correctness that has infringed our freedom of speech and our perception of political reality. A significant perception is Demolitioncrat and vampire media madness to denounce those of us who know beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Chinese Communist Party, if not intentionally, certainly in a criminally reckless manner manufactured a highly infectious virus; then intentionally allowed Wuhan residents to travel throughout the world, seeding Italy under its Belt & Road international strategy with thousands of Wuhan residents, while restricting travel in China. From Northern Italy, it spread to Western Europe and then the United States. The Chinese Communist Party weaponized this virus and targeted the United States. China lied, people died!

Has it occurred to anyone that the Pandemic Pandemonium occurred directly after the trade agreement President Trump negotiated with the Chinese criminals, not to mention the billions of dollars brought in by the Trump tariffs? Gordon Chang, an internationally recognized expert on the Chinese criminal conspiracy, reminds us that continental Europe repeatedly appeased criminally monstrous dictators, and failed to defend Western Civilization in the 20th century. The cowards of Europe are now kowtowing to China, Iran and Russia. China, according to Chang, has declared war on the U.S.

The above begs the question: what happened here? Rudy Giuliani reports that Dr. Doom and Gloom (Fauci) donated $3.7 million dollars to the Wuhan virus lab after Obama issued an order in 2014 prohibiting giving money to labs investigating viruses, including the United States. Doom and Gloom Fauci supported W.H.O., now known as the Wuhan Health Organization, in violation of the law. He really is Dr. Death.

After all else fails to get President Trump, including the FBI and DOJ planting spies in the White House, Dr. Death from the Deep State shows up with catastrophic fake epidemiological computer modeling predictions based on garbage in and garbage out information showing 1.2 million deaths to scare the country into an economic shutdown. In addition, our hospital system was forced to shut down elective surgery to treat the non-existent millions of Covid victims, causing near financial collapse, not to mention the near collapse of our food supply chain! Ladies and gentlemen, its the flu, as more and more doctors are telling us. The fatality rate will be less than 0.1 percent.

Dont believe me. Fine! Do you believe Senator Tom Scott, Senator Ted Cruz, Newt Gingrich, Joe DiGenova and Gordon Chang! Thank God Donald Trump is president of the United States.

As an aside, the dam is about to break on Spygate. Lt. General Mike Flynn will be exonerated soon because the Obama DOJ hid exculpatory evidence of his innocence. John Durham will indict Brennan and, probably, Comey and Clapper for the greatest crime in the history of our country. I know its hard to believe.

Nevertheless, it is time to STAND UP OR GET SHUT UP!

Charles H. Bradley III, JD

Laconia

Continued here:

Charles H. Bradley III: Chinese Communists weaponized this virus and aimed it at us - The Laconia Daily Sun

Waiting for the Punchline: There is nuance in who gets the power to tell what jokes – Daily Trojan Online

As Ive stated in this column many times before, stand up comedy, for many reasons, is a much different breed of cat than other art forms. Unlike film, music and visual art, comedy especially stand up comedy doesnt often get the same pretension of subjectivity that these forms do. For one, people tend to think of themselves as intuitively good judges of comedy because its the one art form they participate in every day by telling jokes, even when theyre not that funny.

However, there is another equally important factor for why stand up comedy can be so difficult as both a performer and consumer. The work of comedians is almost entirely judged by the audiences immediate, in-the-moment reaction to it. Audiences are the ultimate judge of whether or not a joke works because theyre who its meant for.

Sure, sometimes a comic might get a bad crowd that seems more inclined to judge than enjoy a performance, but for the most part, the consumer is always right. Its why the notion of political correctness has been such a hot-button issue in comedy its a perceived battle between the audience and the performer.

Still, as Ive discussed in earlier columns, the concept of political correctness means many different things to many different people. Why shouldnt comedians joke about marginalized communities? Why is it that some comedians are able to talk about certain things but others arent?

One of the most obvious, if sometimes unfortunate, rules in stand up comedy is that half of a jokes success depends upon who is telling it. Reputation plays a pivotal role in how well an audience receives a joke from a comedian in the moment. A live audience is much more predisposed to laugh hard at a half-baked joke from Whitney Cummings than a meticulously conceived joke from Joe Schmoe.

Theres no way some of Dave Chappelles material from his recent specials would be lauded as brilliant if he wasnt already grandfathered in as an all-time talent. Some of his jokes especially those about alleged rape victims and the LGBTQ+ community have received a fair amount of backlash from critics and viewers. Yet, audiences were overwhelmingly pleased with what Chappelle put out. Hell, he even won a couple of Grammys for it.

Would these jokes get the same kind of reception coming out of Shane Gillis mouth? Almost assuredly not. We know Chappelle; thats just the kind of humor hes always done and we continue to praise him for it. Audiences and critics obviously love him enough for him to receive the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor in 2019.

Are these jokes bad? Is someone a bad person for laughing at them? Thats certainly up for debate. Whats not debatable, at least to me, is that they definitely sound a lot funnier coming from Chappelle than they do from many other people.

In addition to reputation, context also matters in why we laugh at some jokes versus others. Its always been my belief that certain, darker types of comedy operate on a suspension of belief. When Anthony Jeselnik jokes about dropping a baby, the audience laughs because of their fundamental understanding that hes not being serious.

Its for this reason why I believe Louis C.K.s attempt to come back to stand up has been an ill-conceived dumpster fire to watch as a consumer. Some Louis C.K. diehards might claim that, no matter how he went about it, there was no avenue for him to convince certain audiences to forgive him and allow him to continue performing comedy, and theyre probably right. Many people would not forgive him after he admitted to sexual misconduct.

However, there was a large number of fans and nonfans willing to let the disgraced comic at least try to demonstrate that he had truly learned from his mistakes through his material, which is as dark and self-reflective as one can get.

Unfortunately, his comic response, which is included in his new special titled Sincerely Louis C.K., was so tonedeaf and irresponsible to not only his career but the notion of dark comedy in general.

Again, dark comedy thrives on the suspension of belief you know that the people joking about these subjects arent actually bad people. You wouldnt be laughing at Jeselniks dead baby jokes if he had a history of clumsiness around infants. Its the same reason why Louis C.K.s once-brilliant darkness seemed rebellious, groundbreaking and strangely comforting when he didnt have the reputation of being a real-life scumbag. Its strange that the man whose whole stage persona once revolved around his fragile self-esteem now seems so eager to protect it.

In the special, C.K. does pull out some classic Louis-isms, including one bit about how he understands how one could be attracted to teenage boys, but these jokes that once seemed unbelievably dark and hilarious now seem strange and sinister. His act used to be so effective because it seemed to be him talking earnestly about his worst demons, the ones you never act on and are scared to talk about.

The jokes hit differently when you know hes the type of person to actually act on some of the disturbing things he talks about. Add the fact that he wont apologize for the horrible things hes actually done, and it becomes difficult to still find his material all that funny.

These situations are obviously all very different, and I am not the ultimate judge of comedys moral line. If I was then Id be killing the open mics (in 2021). Though, if there was any purpose in writing this column, it was to spread one gospel that comedy is an incredibly nuanced and legitimate art form, and it must be treated as such. Its not just the jolt of haha that you get from consuming a funny TikTok (although it can definitely be that as well). Its an art form built upon analyzing the missteps of life and finding truth within them. When it is done well, comedy is as important of a reflection of our culture as any creative interpretation. When it is watered down and weaponized, it only corrodes the medium for everyone who wants to participate in and enjoy it. Its not that serious, but take it seriously ya know?

Matthew Philips is a senior writing about comedy. He is also the wellness & outreach director for the Daily Trojan. His column, Waiting for the Punchline, ran every other Thursday.

Go here to see the original:

Waiting for the Punchline: There is nuance in who gets the power to tell what jokes - Daily Trojan Online

As Brit cyber-spies drop ‘whitelist’ and ‘blacklist’, tech boss says: If youre thinking about getting in touch saying this is political correctness…

The British government's computer security gurus have announced they will stop using the terms whitelisting and blacklisting in their online documentation.

The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), part of GCHQ, said on Friday it would, following a request from a customer, eliminate the terms when describing including and excluding specific applications, websites, weak or leaked passwords, and so on.

Instead, it will use the terms "allow list" and "deny list" in material published on its website.

The aim, said NCSC head of advice and guidance Emma W, is to avoid linking "black" with bad and "white" with good, and the racial connotations they carry.

"From now on, the NCSC will use 'allow list' and 'deny list' in place of 'whitelist' and 'blacklist' on our website. Which, in fact, is clearer and less ambiguous," said Emma.

"So as well as being more inclusive of all, this is a net benefit to our web content. We are editing our guidance across the website to update the terms, but if you do spot any in the meantime then please do contact us."

The NCSC noted the policy change was only a small gesture in a much larger effort to drive prejudice from technology and cyber-security industries, but noted that every small step helps.

"You may not see why this matters. If you're not adversely affected by racial stereotyping yourself, then please count yourself lucky," Emma said. "For some of your colleagues (and potential future colleagues), this really is a change worth making."

The centre also shared an additional statement from technical director Ian Levy and the board of directors in anticipation of a knee-jerk internet backlash:

"If youre thinking about getting in touch saying this is political correctness gone mad, dont bother."

These aren't the first problematic terms to be deprecated in technical vocabularies. For instance, "master" and "slave" to describe storage drives, databases, and similar stuff have been dropped by organizations and companies in favor of "primary" and "secondary."

In response to the NCSC announcement, some asked if this will mean an end to "white hat" and "black hat" to describe those in defensive and offensive security roles, respectively.

Sponsored: Practical tips for Office 365 tenant-to-tenant migration

Read more here:

As Brit cyber-spies drop 'whitelist' and 'blacklist', tech boss says: If youre thinking about getting in touch saying this is political correctness...

Bound and Gagged by the Bugmen – American Greatness

Do you speak Bug? Do you know its diction and syntax? Do you recognize its cant, the clicks and stridulations?

If you are reading this, you almost certainly do. You are, more likely than not, well-versed in its rhetoric. Bug is a second language for you. The superstratum of the hyper-educated class to which you belong. It is a language you need to survive here, to effectuate your role in the knowledge economy. Bug is the lingua franca of globohomo.

Globohomo? Can I say such a word? Not in the boardroom or in the faculty lounge, that is for sure. Not at my TedTalk or the panel I will sit on at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Globohomo is not a Davos word. It is not a Bug word. Its connotations are much too vulgar. It does not, in fact, even matter that you understand precisely what it means. One can intuit its pejorative capacity, its intent to offend. It is a word with verve and weighta pulse. It is one of many such neologisms arising out of the anarchic ferment of the too-online subterranean world anons like me inhabit.

Here we do not speak Bug.

OK, so what is this Bug language exactly? What follows is a recent, prominent example via negativa. Just about any of Donald Trumps utterances would qualify as the opposite of Bug, but his letter to Recep Erdogan in October encouraging the Turkish leader to cooperate on the issue of the Kurds is especially instructive. This is what Bug is not.

You might remember the furor over this letter, these final lines in particular:

History will look upon you favorably if you get this done the right and humane way. It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things dont happen. Dont be a tough guy. Dont be a fool!

A conspicuously Trumpian ultimatum. The style is inimitable, Trumps alone. Brusque, temperamental, masterfully trollish, eschewing the usual niceties and mealy-mouthed platitudes of diplomacy which, to the ears of a swaggering, ersatz sultan would be rejected anyway.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, another man who does not speak Bug nor think within its constraints, praised the virtue of Trumps epistolary flair. He compared Trumps missive to the famous Zaphorian Cossacks Letter to Sultan Mehmed IV. Below, a sampling:

Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!

O sultan, Turkish devil . . . Thou shalt not, thou son of a whore, make subjects of Christian sons; we have no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck thy mother.

Thou Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria . . .

So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife . . . Now well conclude, for we dont know the date and dont own a calendar; the moons in the sky, the year with the Lord, the days the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!

Goat-fucker of Alexandria . . . Imagine!

Trumps own letter is so mild in comparison; and yet, what did our Bug-speaking class have to say about it?

It is hard when adjudicating anything Trump-related to disaggregate their reflexive contempt from a more substantive critique, but here we see their old point-and-sputter routine to dismiss what they cannot (or refuse to) comprehend. Bizarre, they say. Is this, like, even real? they wonder. Do a Twitter search for Erdogan on October 16th, 2019, the day the letter became news and you will see for yourself. The Bug class screeching in unison, performing ironic dramatic readings. The cringe is unbearable.

Forget the utility of the letter; they do not even bother to take aim at the question of whether or not Trump succeeded in deterring Erdogans aggression. Erdogan threw the letter in the trash, dont you know? As if that is the end of it, or tells us anything at all about the foreign policy matter at hand. No. What they most resist are the aesthetics of the letter. They resist its style.

Trump writes like a man wielding overwhelming power, held back only by generous restraint, says a Bug-speaking columnist at the Guardian. As if that is a bad thing! What matters is not that Trump did or did not persuade Erdogan. Trumps great sin, as one presidential historian and CNN contributor put it, was that he failed to look professional.

Much is revealed by this concern over professionalism. Much more than Trumps accuser intends, and it is not about Trump but about the function of the Bug language as perceived by the people who wield it and enforce its use. The appearance of professionalism is the overriding ethic. This is what the Bug language affords, a thin veneer of legitimacy. It is cosmetic, purely, a layering over of a much more sinister, much more repugnant creature underneath.

Let us go back to beginnings. Christopher Caldwells much-discussed Age of Entitlement makes the provocative claim that the origins of the modern American nation (and the death of the old one) can be traced to the Constitutional cataclysm of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He observes in this episode the hardening of a certain progressive legal and political impulse seeded in the suite of new laws, including Hart-Celler, that would come to dominate American life, and by proxy the Western world at large, in the decades to come.

Caldwell notes this wasnt merely a legalistic revolution, even if the courts supplied the arms, but also activated through social and cultural practice a much broader reorientation of the commonweal toward a coalition of minority interest groups and administrative state commissars, at the expense of a white working-class who under this new dispensation were obliged to take their ration of gruel with a smile.

One of the mechanisms Caldwell identifies for this social and political conquest is the old conservative bogeyman of political correctness. The dopey, ham-handed manner in which the term is so often criticized by the Right notwithstanding, an examination of P.C. provides an illustrative example of how languagethe Bug language, of which political correctness is a major idiomis used to enforce ideology on otherwise unwilling subjects.

Take the case of the nauseating term Latinx. Go ahead. Say it out loud to yourself. Latinx. Do you feel properly debased? You should. You are meant to. Your indignity is the point.

Bug language cannot be allowed to persist. And we must stomp it out with the heel of our boot.

Nevermind for a moment that the vast majority of people the term is ostensibly meant to assuage do not like it and would never use it themselves. Like so much else that might fall under the umbrella of P.C., the goal is not to empower the weak but to weaken the strong. And a term like Latinx does this firstly by extorting consent through moral blackmailyou are a bad and discourteous person for not using itand secondly by smuggling in with its adoption a whole matrix of ideological commitments from which the term is constructed, including commitments related not just to Latino ethnicity, but to gender, sexuality, immigration, and even American foreign policy. The Bugmen who invent this stuff say so themselves.

Reader, you might resist using the term. I suspect you do. Just as you might resist declaring your pronouns, or saying the equally nauseating term person of color, or examining your privilege, white or otherwise, or renouncing your toxic masculinity. At least for now. But where these terms fail to take root, others of their type will spread and claim the soil, and inexorably the ground from which we derive our understanding of the world and our place in it, becomes choked with these verbal weeds and the poisonous fruits they bear.

But this is not all that is going on. Lamenting the scourge of P.C. is by now prosaic culture-war sport and not really even the most interesting aspect of Bug speak. The civil rights revolution at the center of Caldwells thesis dovetails with another era-defining revolution of a subtler kind that perhaps better elucidates this subject.

For our purposes, it will suffice to give a potted history of the class divisions and alliances that emerge alongside Caldwells civil rights revolution. The trends are related and feed on one another but should be understood as separate phenomena. The story of the managerial class, the progenitors of Globohomo and the language he instantiates, opens with the financialization of the American economy in the 1970s.

In the cauldron of burgeoning American global economic hegemony, the witch doctor(ate)s in the academy and on Wall Street cooked up a new, more potent scheme to extract resources from firms and their labor. The finer details are better explained elsewhere.

Whats important to understand is the creation of new wealth under this scheme, if not the result of a casino economy exactly, depended less and less on the production, sale, and consumption of goods and more and more, as David Graeber puts it, [on] various forms of rent taking, that is, direct extraction, through semifeudal relations of extraction where financial interests work closely with state power (policy, as its euphemistically termed) to create conditions of mass indebtedness.

This is the neoliberal economy at the End of History: a shell game that coerces Peter, if not to steal, then to borrow beyond his earning capacity to pay Paul, where owner and worker, no longer adjoined by lifetime employment, a pension, a shared community where their respective children attend the same schools and might even (gasp!) marry, are instead cut off from one another, the owner having made common cause with financial interests and the public bureaucracies that dole out his gibs, while the worker is left to fend for himself against mass imported labor, in decaying, alienating cities and towns, his union busted, his pension depleted, and his sons subjected to the haradins and gremlins in the media and in the lecture halls who blame him for societys ills.

Melodramatic? Maybe. But only a little.

Into this milieu, a new antagonist emerges. The managerial class.

Broadly speaking, the upper quintile or so of highly educated, relatively well-paid paper pushers and desk jockeys whose primary duty is to keep the corporate-bureacratic machinery well-greased. Much, perhaps most, of it is not real work. Not in the traditional sense of value-added inputs. Instead, it is inflationary makeshift drudgery to justify the continuation of its own existence. Mandarins puttering about with a pair of meddling eyes over every shoulder. Needlessly convoluted procedures, rules, redundancies, instructions, prohibitions, and laws are the grist for the new corporate mill, serving, again, per Graeber, the flunkies, goons, box tickers, and task masters who populate the modern office.

Here, then, we get another condition out of which the Bug language is born. It is a do-nothing language for do-nothing people. Its flimsy abstractions and moralizing sentiments serve both to explain away the dispossession of the working class over whom the managers preside, and to substantiate their status that is increasingly decoupled from any actual merit. Hence, officespeak. HR drivel.

MBA Harvard. Forward Optimization Analyst. Delivering strategies to achieve excellence across domains. Advancing underrepresented managers within an Inclusion and Diversity capital and technological ecosystem.

You have seen this on Linkedin. I have. What does this Bugman do? What purpose could he possibly serve? It is a language to describe the clothes of a naked emperor. A profoundly deceptive, ever-permutating glossary of buzzwords and junk phrases to sustain the illusion that the professional degrees mean something, the six-figure salary is deserved, and their complicity in undercutting your grubby-handed countrymen nil, if such a thought might ever surface at all.

This verbal (self) deception, a discharge of pustulating insecurity, and the dim awareness of the hours, days, years wasted on endless busywork, relates to a third and final condition of Bug speak, elite overproduction. As more and more Harvard MBAs are minted, as well as college degrees across the board, especially graduate degreescollege loans being a necessary pillar of the financialized economys mass debt superstructurethe relative status value of the degree is proportionally deflated.

But the petty status games go on, and where the intrinsic value of the Bugmans credentials are debased, a Bug vernacular is constructed to prop it back up.

In its Platonic form:

One sees this more and more. The besieged, officious Bugman, demanding with increasing desperation her due respect and acknowledgment of her expertise. If this is not status anxiety, I dont know what is.

These self-proclaimed experts and their water carriers are perhaps the worst offenders. Every pronouncement begins with a declaration of their assumed authority. It goes something like this: Doctor here. I spent years training how to put on an N95 mask. It is impossible unless you have a degree like me. So dont even try, plebe.

They say this. In so many words.

The purpose, again, is always to weaken you, to subjugate you, to patronize and condescend. Without their help, or their degrees, you are not even fit to wipe your own ass. Do not better yourself, do not defend yourself. Submit.

That is the telos of the Bug language, to lead you into submission. Bound and gagged.

In writing this essay, I do not mean to suggest that Trumps too-often caricature-like bluster, for example, is what serious people ought to adopt to displace Bug language. Nor should we all begin speaking in memes and other obscure online jokes. Though we must maintain a sense of humor and a sense of play. Our sense of humor is one of our great advantages over the Bugmen. And our memes, and Trumps, certainly have a place, and at least provide a striking contrast to Bug language that can, and has, shaken many a soul out of their Bug-induced slumber.

But this is not merely a call for a coarsening of the discourse exactly, though some coarsening is in order. Rather, I want to insist that language is the vehicle through which its speakers material and spiritual needs are both defined and met, and to the extent Bug language has been adopted by our public and private elites, in the United States and around the world, we have been accordingly reduced to stuttering, impotent, homunculi of the mind and soul, estranged from our own humanity and that of our fellow man.

One must refuse their terms. One must not enter into their status games. One must not be held hostage by threat of moral extortion and declare of himself or of others what he does not believe to be true. One must not be debased. One must not get bogged down in legalistic hair-splitting or pedantic empiricism.

Well, akshually . . . Fuck off, akshually.

Richard Weaver (read him!), the mid-century conservative rhetorician, had much good to say on the topic of how we might communicate our ideas. Perhaps foreseeing the rise of the Bug language, Weaver warned of basing our claims too much on authority or the crude accounting of consequentialism. This was the way of the technocrat.

Instead, Weaver asserted, we must concern ourselves with principles, with essences. Rhetoric in its truest sense seeks to perfect men by showing them better versions of themselves, links in that chain extending up toward the idea.

Heady stuff, no doubt. But a language that allows us to think bigly, allows us to do bigly.

On the day I began writing this, Marc Andreesen wrote an impassioned plea that our nation start building again. It is a powerful statement, spoken from a place of deep longing, and I believe he means every word. I will leave it to Andreesen to sort out the financing, the tech, the coordination required to fulfill such a promise.

But I will suggest that none of this can be donenot the flying cars, or the space travel; there will be no fourtth Industrial Revolutionuntil and unless there is a common language with the capacity to inspire it. His declaration is a start. But Bug language will not allow it. It cannot support its vision. It can only pervert, and inevitably thwart all that dare to be heroic. Bug language cannot be allowed to persist. And we must stomp it out with the heel of our boot.

Read more from the original source:

Bound and Gagged by the Bugmen - American Greatness

Is Artist Jordan Wolfson Really So Offensive? A New Documentary Considers the Artists Persona – ARTnews

If Jordan Wolfson is an edgelord, our culture doesnt have much of an edge. Spit Earth: Who Is Jordan Wolfson?, a new documentary directed by James Crump, nods at its start to the artists offensiveness and his lack of deference to political correctness and virtue signaling. But since the putatively offended parties are mostly absent from the 55-minute film, one can only imagine what sensitivities might be triggered by Wolfsons vulgarity, scatology, violence, lust, and direct or sideways invocations of ethnicity, race, and racism. Maybe tweakings of these taboos count as offensive today, but not too long ago they were common currency.

So outside a certain bubble, Wolfson comes across less as a provocateur than as a sophisticated and entertaining nostalgia act, repackaging familiar transgressions in novel trappings like animatronics and virtual-reality headsets. Plenty of precursors beyond the two that Wolfson names (David Lynch and Jeff Koons) are obvious: Norman Mailer, R. Crumb, Al Goldstein, the Beastie Boys, Howard Stern. His 2014 breakout work (Female figure), an animatronic blonde who dances while looking in a mirror, channels 50s-era pinups through pre-2001 robotics and the perverted masquerade of Kubricks Eyes Wide Shut. His VR installation from the 2017 Whitney Biennial, Real Violence, replays the street beatdown scene from A Clockwork Orange in black goggles with an anti-Semitic twist. As for the animated aging Jewish man in a yarmulke and beard talking dirty in in the artists voice in Animation, masks (2011), Woody Allen made the same joke in Annie Hall. Call Wolfson a transgressive traditionalistand watch him drag such manchild signifiers as Pinocchio and Looney Toons into the piss and shit of a muddled 21st-century adulthood to a familiar pop score of Lady Gaga and Percy Sledge.

One function of virtue signaling is money laundering, since money has no virtue on its own and more often than not is born of vice (or worse). But if virtuous art pays out these days in return for the cover it provides to capital, it stands to reason that some money will flow to its opposite, especially if it comes in an ironic wrapping. If Wolfson were truly offensive, hed be kicked out of polite society. But his irony affirms the status quo even as it points up its hypocrisies and general flimsiness. And so Spit Earth takes us to Wolfsons farm house in upstate New York, where he enjoys the company of a couple of large dogs and keeps a pair of rescue horses in a big red barn. Wolfson cops that hes always been fortunate, and we see childhood photos of his upper-middle-class family. But as usual, his checking of privilege comes across as a form of autofellatio thinly disguised as self-deprecation.

The best scenes of the film transpire in the living room: Wolfson putting his phone on the mantel and FaceTiming with an animator, acting out the scene he wants her to put on the screen for his next piece. Hes laughing, hes dancing, hes appreciative of his collaboratorall with the sense of childlike fun that enchants many of his works. Such scenes are more illuminating than anything the talking heads in the film say about himthough theyre all entranced by his charismaor any of the vague things Wolfson says about his boyhood. It was hard, he tells us of growing up. Jordan had a learning disability, his mother explains. Theres a whiff of therapy to the proceedings, the couch no doubt being the source of a good deal of Wolfsons inspiration. No artist is comfortable in his own skin, adds Wolfsons aunt, the novelist Erica Jong. Am I allowed to say that?

Asking permission to utter a bromide nicely captures the tone of Spit Earth, but the supposed scandalousness of the art doesnt quite eclipse the art itself. The drama at play is mostly of the messy-breakup variety. Wolfsons ex-girlfriend Emma Fernberger, who is pictured nude in his embrace in one of his paintings, recalls how the picture hurt another ex-boyfriends feelings. She and Wolfson have since patched things up, and when Fernberger wonders aloud whether all of Wolfsons work amounts to an elaborate psychic self-portrait, shes stating the obvious.

Wolfsons most striking transgression was a series of posters in which he called out the Venice Biennale for not selecting him for competition (nothing is more offensive than a careerism that dares to speak its own name) while also criticizing other artists for not making work you love. The image behind the text on them is something Wolfson surely loves: himself.

Its hard to blame him. Wolfson has wit and energy. He does a funny impression of Jeff Koons. Hes clever and shrewdmaybe even too shrewd within an art world thats allowed him to thrive more as jester than gadfly. The glibbest of Wolfsons works is the new Artists, Friends, Racists (2020) in which the three words flicker alternately in neon read signage. To hear him explain the logic behind the piecethat any white person born in America might not be personally racist but is complicit in structural racismonly makes it drearier, since its conventional wisdom.

Wolfson could clearly use some competition as a satirist. But turning 40 this fall, his days as an enfant terrible are behind him. Spit Earth serves as a capstone to that phase. The table is set for a long midlife crisis.

Spit Earth: Who Is Jordan Wolfson? is now available online on Vimeo.

See the article here:

Is Artist Jordan Wolfson Really So Offensive? A New Documentary Considers the Artists Persona - ARTnews

‘Reno 911’ Makes A Seamless Transition To Quibi, Harkening Back To Funnier Times – The Federalist

They dont make television comedies like they used to, and few were ever made as brilliantly as Reno 911, the jewel of Comedy Centrals glorious mid-aughts lineup. But its back, and better than pretty much every new comedy on air right now, despite clocking in around seven minutes an episode.

In these trying times, happiness is an elusive sensation. The unbridled joy I felt one minute into the reboots premiere, having realized Reno 911 is returning to us in fine form, defies description. In Quibis hands, the show is back at its Bush-era peak, a relic from a time when few topics were off limits in comedy, and skillful humorists lampooned every one of them with equal vigor and delight. You cant fully understand the magnitude of this cultural loss until you see Jim Dangle work his way through a PSA on gender pronouns.

The PSAs are only of many gags from the shows original run that return in the reboot, which premieres on Monday, including Juniors universally ill-fated attempts to pull drivers over, and Dangles bicycle woes. Familiar faces like Patton Oswalt, Toby Huss (Big Mike), and Dave Holmes (Leslie Frost) make appearances as well, furthering the shows ability to channel its singular original spirit.

Speaking of which, Reno 911! left the air in 2009, but more than a decade later, its cultural commentaries hold up remarkably well. Revisit, for instance, the eighth episode of season five, presciently titled The Wall, for a taste of the shows lasting satirical value. Quibis reboot is similarly fearless, diving straight into the new politics of policing, transgenderism, paper straws, and gun control. Oswalts character is basically Alex Jones. With the exception, perhaps, of Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, another holdover from the mid-aughts, theres just nothing like this on television anymore.

Reno 911 is a good fit for Quibis experimental model, which is to produce series with episodes under 10 minutes long, in vertical and horizontal formats optimized for smartphone viewing. The show actually used to air hodgepodge episodes with no narrative string at all, basically just a collection of sketches. Theres continuity in the Quibi episodes, at least the three made available to press before launch day, which works well for breezy shows like Reno.

Theres something odd about watching Reno 911! in 2020, about seeing its unchanged crassness applied to a world where cultural pressures have reined in most satireeven most good satire. Everything is overproduced and overwritten, two qualities that could never be used to characterize Reno 911! Thank goodness for that. Its liberating to revisit comedys not-so-distance past, and actually kind of revealing as to how exhausting those overproduced and overwritten shows have started to become.

What makes the consequences of political correctness difficult to measure is that we cant fully know whats not being made. The Reno reboot actually functions as a glimpse into the magnitude of that loss. Of course, Quibis decision to bring the show back without sanding away of its edges indicates some in the industry are still willing to test those waters, convinced theres a market for genuinely controversial comedy. Between YouTube and the booming podcast industry, that should be abundantly clear.

Like Michael Scott, a character even Steve Carrell believes wouldnt fly in todays Hollywood, the bumbling idiots of the Reno Sheriffs Department are used to satirize the ugliness of racism and sexism and xenophobia. Our laughter reinforces societys intolerance for bigotry. Thats a worthy effort, and comedy is one of our best tools to tackle it.

I dont know how Reno will be perceived by critics in legacy media, who typically enforce the narrowing standards of acceptable discourse, even if they allow for a little more wiggle room than the lefts most humorless detractors. For 2020, the writing on Renos seventh season is bold. Its also great.

Ill close by acknowledging whats behind the shameless enthusiasm of this glowing review. Reno 911! and Strangers With Candy and The Sarah Silverman Program were what I watched when my parents werent home. They were what taught me the value of satire. They were what made me appreciate the intellectual freedom that comes with comedy. But nostalgia aside, the reboot is worth your time.

Besides, if you dont watch, you will never know what happened to Trudy Wiegels hamster. And trust me, youre going to want to know what happened to Trudy Wiegels hamster.

Read the original here:

'Reno 911' Makes A Seamless Transition To Quibi, Harkening Back To Funnier Times - The Federalist

In Defense of Intellectual Trumpism – The American Conservative

In his recent New York Times review of Andrew Bacevichs new anthology of conservative writings, columnist George Will tosses out a dig at self-described national conservatives, convinced that the thinking persons Trumpism is not an oxymoron. These poor souls, he adds, are struggling to infuse intellectual content into the simmering stew of economic nationalism, resentment of globalizations disruptions and nostalgia for the economy and communities of the 1950s.

Though Will issued his characterization merely in passing, part of a broader point about conservatisms ambiguous attitude toward modernity, it was meant to sting. In terms of intellectual content, he seems to be saying, Trump and Trumpism are the same thing.

But are they? Trumpism got Donald Trump elected in 2016. If he loses in 2020, as seems increasingly likely, it wont be because of Trumpism but because of his own severe limitations as a leader. As president, Trump has been a haphazard and largely hapless exponent of Trumpism.

Leaving aside Trump, what is Trumpism? And why is it inherently contradictory to the thoughts of thinking people? Of course, Trump himself is not a thinking person. He operates by instinct and viscera. But those attributes provided him with enough insight in 2016 to understand that a host of issues were agitating a substantial constituency that had been forgotten or dismissed by the political establishment. So he ran against the establishment and won. That doesnt reflect particularly well on the establishmenta habitat, of course, of thinking people.

If we confine ourselves to the general policy positions that Trump ran on in 2016 and leave aside his empty governance and his incapacity to build a governing coalition, we can distill the essence of Trumpism. And then we can assess whether it is worthy of thinking people. The component parts:

The World We Live In: One of Trumps sharpest insights was that we no longer live in the world that brought us Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan. Their conservatism was right for their time, and Reagan was the right man to carry it to national prominence. But the country and the world have changed since then. In 2016, Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders were the only politicians who pressed the view that the status quo was crumbling. And Trump, in capturing the Republican Party in the primaries, made clear he had little regard for the issue clusters and sensibilities that had guided the party since Goldwater.

Immigration: Nothing illustrates this more starkly than immigration, which likely was the single most powerful issue that propelled Trump into the White House. When Reagan ran for president in 1980, the proportion of foreign born persons in the country was 6.2 percent. In 2016, it was 13.5 percent. Today, it is approaching 15 percent. History tells us that, when this important metric approaches or exceeds 14 percent, as it did around the turn of the last century, political concerns emerge about the ability of the country to assimilate such immigration numbers smoothly. Smart politicians pay attention, but the establishment politicians of 2016 ignored it.

This no doubt was part of what George Will was talking about when he referred to those seeking to infuse intellectual content into the simmering stew ofglobalizations disruptions. But why is it smart to disdain those concerned about the disruptions wrought by immigration flows exceeding anything ever seen before in the country? Particularly when the last time they approached todays level, a century ago, the country became agitated and moved decisively to curb that inflow? To understand this political reality is an element of Trumpism, and to have a finger on the pulse of political sentiment would seem to be an example of a thinking persons Trumpism. Further, those who either missed it or ignored it dont look much like thinking people, and their ignorance or ideological zeal helped give us Donald Trump.

Trade: The Republican Party of Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan was a free-trade party (though Reagan was willing to stray from that doctrine in deft and often camouflaged ways when political pressures impinged upon him). Trump ripped away the free-trade label. Does this represent another of those disassociations of Trumpism from thinking people? Well, the Republican Party was consistently protectionist from its beginning in the 1850s right up until the end of World War II. One president during that time, William McKinley, sought to craft a new doctrine, called reciprocity, dedicated to multiple bilateral agreements in which two countries mutually reduced trade barriers. He didnt have a chance to demonstrate how well it could work before he was killed in 1901. His successor, Theodore Roosevelt, promptly abandoned the concept.

The Trump trade policy bears a serious resemblance to McKinleys reciprocity concept. Whatever one thinks of it, no one can deny that the free trade regimen wasnt working as advertised. Indeed, it helped hollow out Americas industrial base and devastated the blue-collar working class long considered the countrys brawn and backbone. Further, it became an invitation for other nations, particularly China, to game the system and undermine Americas ability to compete in the global marketplace. And where were our establishment politicians? Clinging to the status quo and refusing to see or address the devastation. Who were the thinking people in this tale?

Financialization of the Economy: Trump went after the big banks of Wall Street during his campaign but hasnt taken them on as president. He was right the first time. Today, $1 out of every $12 of GDP goes to the financial sector; in the 1950s, it was only $1 for every $40 of GDP. This represents a huge additional cut for people who dont make anything, dont create many jobs, and generally just move money around. The financial system we have now, wrote Matthew Stewart in The Atlantic a couple years ago, has been engineered, over decades, by powerful bankers for their own benefit and for that of their posterity. The federal government favors these elements of society further with lavish tax preferences and other juicy perks of crony capitalism. If Trumpism is what Trump campaigned on in 2016, then the big financial institutions would be under political pressure today, as they should be.

Foreign Policy: Before Trump, the Republican Party was thoroughly under the sway of internationalists bent on remaking the world in the American image, including through regime change wars and threats of war, and dedicated to preventing the emergence of regional powers allowed to pursue their own interests in their own neighborhoods. Trump ran against all this. As president, severely beleaguered by allegations of Russian collusion that turned out to be bogus, he has had to abandon his desire to forge better relations with Russia. He has avoided any new Mideast wars, though his bellicosity toward Iran could yield that result and he has been unable to get the country out of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. And his foreign policy rhetoric during the campaign clearly was popular with many voters and set new terms of debate both within the party and in the broader political environment.

Political Correctness: After the 2016 presidential campaign, mathematician Spencer Greenberg conducted a study indicating that anger over political correctness was the second most reliable predictor of Trump support, behind party affiliation and ahead of social conservatism, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiments. This provided a remarkable window on the frustrations and anger on the part of those who felt they were being dismissed and marginalized by the nations liberal elites. No serious presidential candidate had ever taken on the PC forces with Trumps brand of pugilism, often accompanied by his unsavory mode of expression. It was a brutal pushback against those seeking to silence conservatives by declaring their views to be outside the bounds of proper discourse. It turned out, based on Trumps forcing the issue onto the national stage, that many Americans were fed up with that political ploy.

These Trumpian positions of 2016 represent a repository of political sentiment in the country and constitute Trumps tightly formed political base, which has been and remains about 43 percent of the electorate. Could these positions also serve as bedrock for a broader political movement undergirding a governing coalition for the future? We dont know because Trump has proved himself incapable of building any such governing coalition. Besides, as he has proved recently, its tough to disguise buffoonery in a crisis. But not all of Trumpism is divorced from intelligent thinking, and some of it will still be out there, beckoning a politician, even perhaps a thinking politician, interested in building that coalition.

Robert W. Merry, former Wall Street Journal correspondent and Congressional Quarterly CEO, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).

Excerpt from:

In Defense of Intellectual Trumpism - The American Conservative