6 Books, Movies, and Shows to Bend Your Neocortex This Winter – NEO.LIFE

As we careen into another decade of bioengineering advances, questions about how, and how much, we ought to manipulate our own biology grow more urgent. Thankfully, the books, movies, and TV series exploring such questions have never been smarter. For proof, check out these underrated biohacking titles from the past few years.

A transhumanist entry in the recent surge of feminist reinterpretations of classics

If youve ever marveled at the timelessness of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelleys Frankenstein, at how forward-thinking and eternal the young (20-year-old!) writer was for her early-19th-century time, this novel from celebrated queer novelist Jeanette Winterson will delight you. It feels inaccurate to call Frankissstein a novel, thoughcall it more of an act of modernization, of revivification, a fitting ritual for a story that changed societys views about transcending the laws of nature.

The book jumps between two timelines, the first being a fictionalized diary of Mary Shelleys, from that one summer in which she wrote Frankenstein for husband Percy Shelley, stepsister Claire Claremont, and friends Lord Byron and John Polidori, all the way to her (imagined) meeting of computing godmother Ada Lovelace, the daughter abandoned by Lord Byron. The other is a retelling, of sorts, of both history and novel: in the near future, trans doctor Ry Shelley becomes involved with cis futurist Victor Stein, a Silicon Valley visionary seeking to recreate the brain of his mentor, a collaborator of Alan Turing. The two stories are elegantly similar; Winterson continues Shelleys line of philosophical inquiry and shows just how little weve figured out in the intervening two centuries.

The Hunger Games meets Orphan Black

If you want to get your kid thinking about the possibilities that await them, or if you are just a sucker for smart adventures, check out Emily Suvadas post-apocalyptic biohacking trilogy. In a future America where everyone is implanted with a panel in their forearm at birth, people are able to hack their own DNAor to be more precise, theyre able to wrap their own DNA in custom mods, as long as theyre proprietary apps made by Cartaxus, an Amazon/Apple-type megacorporation that ends up having just about as much ethical fortitude as youd expect from an Amazon/Apple-type megacorporation with a name like Cartaxus.

Not everyone sticks with out-of-the-box mods; fringe groups experiment with high-concept hacks like feathers (!) while people with debilitating diseases too rare to interest Cartaxus set out to design their own cures. Oh, also: A massive global pandemic is making people first hunger for human flesh, then explode into vapor, so Cartaxus is providing refuge to people in massive underground bunkersprovided they wipe their panels of any non-Cartaxus code first. The protagonist, 18-year-old Catarina Agatta, is the daughter of one of the worlds best gene hackers and has a disease that prevents her from accepting any mods; Cartaxus has re-requisitioned her father, allegedly to work on a cure for the explosion disease, and Cata biotech genius in her own rightis stuck out in the world working on a cure herself.

The series is meticulously researched without being weighed down by hard-sci-fi exposition; its exciting without being simple, and best of all, the technology, and the way it perpetuates inequality, feels plausible. Plus, youer, your kidwill learn something about the science of gene hacking along the way. The third installment, This Vicious Cure, will be released on January 21, so you(r kid) have a couple of weeks to get caught up.

Imagine Altered Carbon with a distinctly French malaise

People angry about the Gen Z retort OK, boomer dont know how good they have it. In the future imagined by this French series, the youths are literally killing themselves to escape the hellishness their parents have left for them. Its a future that might even seem desirable to the transhumanists of today: Biotechnology has uncovered a gene in jellyfish that has been reverse-engineered into a process allowing people to stay youthful, ostensibly forever. (Its not too far into the future; the oldest woman on earth is only 169.)

For the kids born into this world, however, its an eternal prison. Society has started treating childhood like a waiting room for the day one is able to start the anti-aging treatments, and even then, some people are ruled genetically incompatible and forced to live a normal life alongside immortals. So when a bunch of youths wash up dead on a beach, seemingly as a result of a mass suicide, one detective must track down the leaders of a death cult. He enlists the help of Christa Novak, a 20-year-old former member of the cult who has been institutionalized since the last mass suicide and has her own reasons to catch the leader. Where Altered Carbon thought about biohacked immortality through the lens of radical inequality, Ad Vitam presents a slightly tweaked view, in which the dangers of consumer biotech lie not just in the berpowerful demigods of the .00001%, but also in the more gradual, banal effects invited by everyone else.

Its like a super-feminist episode of Black Mirror

Jennifer Phangs film about a 40-something mother who runs out of options will haunt you for years to come. In a future in which women are becoming increasingly infertilelike right before Margaret Atwoods Gileadone biotech company has finally cracked the code on human consciousness transfers. A few weeks before the procedures commercial launch, the company lays off its spokeswoman, Gwen, implying that shes too old (and too Asian) to be the face of a product designed to eliminate aging altogether. Her daughter Juleswhose existence is itself a privilege only the rich can affordhas just been accepted to an expensive prep school; moreover, it quickly becomes clear that her former employer is railroading her into having the consciousness-transfer procedure done in exchange for having her job back.

With her daughters future on the line, Gwen makes a choice that, in reality, is no choice at all. Equal parts gorgeous and harrowing, the film is a reminder of the ways that purported biotech utopias can diminish human diversity.

A Black Mirror spin-off series about love and privacy

Look, the French are doing the most when it comes to transhumanist television. Osmosis is the most recent of the bunch. (See also: Transfers, about illegal consciousness transplantsbasically Travelers without all the time-travel insanity.) The Netflix original from showrunner Audrey Fouch imagines a near-future Paris where rising-star supergenius Esther Vanhove has developed Osmosis, a technology that uses nanobots that implant themselves in your brain; capture every fleeting desire youve ever had, conscious or subconscious; and sift through social networks to single out your soul mate. Once matched, even if youre separated by distance your respective implants link to create a virtual space where you can meet for some very sexy, emotional time together.

Together with her brother and business partner Paul, a sentient voice assistant Martin, and a few elite employees, she conducts a beta test with a handful of all-too-willing subjects, and it goes just about as smoothly as youd expect it to.

Think of the Spider-Man meme, but with two Paul Rudds

OK, so this Netflix series uses biohacking more as dark-comedy device than realistic concept. That doesnt mean its not delightful. Paul Rudds character Miles has hit a serious rough patch in his life: despite having the exact life he chose for himselfwith a high-paying job at an ad agency and a beautiful wife (Aisling Bea) and a gorgeous house in the suburbshes become depressed, listless, and close to losing it all.

Does he consider medication and therapy, you may ask? Of course not! When a colleague comes into the office one day with an entirely new, sparkling personality, Miles decides thats the kind of magical, extremely expensive fix he needs, so he gathers the savings he and his wife have collected for fertility treatments and goes to a spa, where instead of getting a really good massage (or, you know, Lexapro), he wakes up buried alive in the woods. Turns out the treatment facility is two dudes conducting a very illegal operation wherein they clone you but take out all the bad parts of your brain, leaving the best version of yourself to go back to your life none the wiser, while they kill the hard copy. Except it didnt take in Miles case, and now hes stuck fighting with a New Miles for control of a life the latter is easily better at leading. Its a light, funny snack of a series that gets at the heart of what we really mean when we say we want to use biotech to improve ourselves.

See the original post here:

6 Books, Movies, and Shows to Bend Your Neocortex This Winter - NEO.LIFE

Officials have been cleared of wrongdoing in the deaths of 2 migrant kids last year, an internal watchdog says – Business Insider

The Department of Homeland Security's internal watchdog has cleared officials 0f wrongdoing in the cases of two migrant children's deaths.

The inspector general released two separate reports after investigating the deaths of 7-year-old Jakelin Caal on December 8, 2018, and 8-year-old Felipe Gmez Alonzoon December 24, 2018.

The Associated Press reported that thewatchdog previously issued a report that criticized Border Patrol for "dangerous overcrowding" amid "an acute and worsening crisis" in its Rio Grande Valley detention facilities.

Photos and statements in the report detailed dangerously strained space and resources in the facility, piling on to the concerns months after the children died about the threats facing migrant families while in US custody.

Jakelin died at a hospital in El Paso, Texas, eight hours after Customs and Border Protection took her into custody.

According to a timeline released by CBP, agents first became aware of the girl's symptoms during a bus ride to a Border Patrol station after the girl was apprehended with a larger group of migrants.

By the time the group arrived at the station 90 minutes later, Jakelin had stopped breathing.

Border Patrol officials said agents did "everything in their power" to save the girl but that she had not had food or water for days. They added that an initial screening showed no evidence of health problems and that her father had signed a form indicating she was in good health.

In Felipe's case, he also died not long after crossing the border. He and his father arrived at a hospital in Alamogordo, New Mexico, where he was found to have a fever of 103 degrees. Staff diagnosed him with a common cold, and released him just before 3 p.m., according to the Associated Press. He was then reportedly prescribed the antibiotic Amoxicillin and the painkiller Ibuprofen before he was taken with his father to a holding facility.

By 10 p.m., his condition appeared to have worsened, and he died shortly before midnight.

The Jakelin and Felipe's deaths were just two of several reported child fatalities that prompted scrutiny over CBP's medical care for migrant children. The Trump administration noted at the time that there was a surge in border crossings that put immense pressure on the facilities and overwhelmed agents and staff.

President Donald Trump has since backed down on his daily claims of a "crisis" at the US-Mexico border, but immigration and conditions at the border have been ongoing headaches for the administration, and will likely get a renewed spotlight as the 2020 US presidential election draws closer.

Here is the original post:

Officials have been cleared of wrongdoing in the deaths of 2 migrant kids last year, an internal watchdog says - Business Insider

Costa Rica will ask for international help to assist migrant crisis – The Tico Times

The president of Costa Rica, Carlos Alvarado, will ask the international community for help in the face of an influx of migrants, the government said Sunday.

As you know, we are a country that receives migration and refugees, mainly from Nicaragua and also from Venezuela, as well as from other countries, said the president shortly before leaving for the World Forum on Refugees in Geneva, Switzerland.

The outbreak of the Nicaraguan political crisis due to the repression of the anti-government protests that began in April 2018 caused a wave of migration to Costa Rica from that country.

Costa Rica has received some 55,000 Nicaraguans of the 88,000 who left the country because of the crisis, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

Our participation (in Geneva) will aim to position the shared responsibility of the countries in the face of the phenomenon of refuge and the phenomena of migration, and obtain resources of international cooperation to address it, Alvarado said.

Central America is also a transit route for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, as well as African and Asian countries, seeking to reach the United States.

Costa Rica is one of the co-sponsors, along with Ethiopia, Turkey, Germany and Pakistan, of the migration forum that will begin Tuesday.

Alvarado plans to meet Monday with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, to discuss ways to address the flow of migration in Central America and Mexico.

The country already generates an important counterpart of support for the migrant population, but we need support from other countries to realize that shared responsibility, the Costa Rican president said.

Three former Costa Rican presidents, Miguel ngel Rodrguez, Laura Chinchilla and Luis Guillermo Sols, supported the call for international cooperation funds to assist migrants and refugees.

The three disseminated their message in a video prepared by the SOS Human Rights Nicaragua organization that warns of the deterioration of the Nicaraguan political situation.

We are, in our hemisphere, the country that has received the second-highest migrant population, after the United States. We estimate that by the end of this year we will have about 100,000 Nicaraguans and 30,000 Venezuelans living with us, President Chinchilla said in the video.

Original post:

Costa Rica will ask for international help to assist migrant crisis - The Tico Times

At least three migrant boats intercepted trying to cross Channel in horrific conditions – Express

BBC reporter Simon Jones has tweeted: "It's thought three more boats carrying migrants have crossed the Channel this morning - despite the cold and the rain. "Dover lifeboat is looking for a possible fourth migrant boat. Home Office confirms that Border Force is currently dealing with 'ongoing small boat incidents' off the Kent coast."

British and French coastguards have joined forces to intercept the suspected migrant boat, with at least 20 suspected migrants having been landed at Dover in the early hours of this morning.

The danger of the sea seems to be no deterrent for the desperate stranded near Calais and hoping to start a new life in the UK.

Migrants are traversing the channel in increasingly unsuitable crafts.

Since 2016 more security and fencing around Calais has made illegally boarding lorries much more difficult.

It is one of the reasons people are now taking to the sea and crossing the Channel on flimsy boats and rafts.

A UK Home Office spokesperson speaking to Sky news said that "anyone crossing the Channel in a small boat is taking a huge risk with their life and the lives of their children."

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has promised to tackle the issue of illegal immigration into the United Kingdom.

The Conservative Party leader has a large majority to pass policies to set out to abolish free movement.

He has promised to deport those who crossed the English Channel illegally.

READ MORE:France cancels controversial boat delivery to Libyas coastguard

There have been a significant increase in the number of migrants attempting to cross from France to the United Kingdom in boats such as the four small craft intercepted on 17 November by UK Border Force officials that had 39 Iranian migrants on board.

An asylum seeker now living in the West Midlands said he crossed the Channel in a canoe which he bought in Calais.

Mr Masoud Mohammadifar, a 39-year-old Iranian, used to run Iran's national boating team, but had to flee Iran after being accused of being a western spy he told Sky News.

His crime was that he swapped t-shirts with a competitor from the US at an international competition.

Excerpt from:

At least three migrant boats intercepted trying to cross Channel in horrific conditions - Express

Terrified boy found wandering alone on M6 is migrant who doesnt know where his parents are – The Sun

A TERRIFIED boy was found wandering alone on the M6 near Birmingham last night.

Cops say he is a migrant who has become separated from his parents and could be in the country without them.

1

The Central Motorway Police Group (CMPG) said they found the boy on Wednesday night after responding to reports of a pedestrian on the motorway.

"He was split up from his parents a few days ago, and doesn't know which country they're in," the CMPG said in a statement.

"It's impossible to imagine how scared someone would be, not knowing where they are, not knowing where their parents are, unable to speak the language.

"We've taken him to a place of safety with food and water until social services can come and take him to care."

It comes after 39 migrants were found dead in the back of a lorry in Essex.

The lorry driver accused of their deaths pleaded guilty to plotting to assist illegal immigration last month.

And earlier this year we showed the moment migrants scrambled onto a Kent beach amid a wave of more than 270 people descending onto Britain in just a week.

A staggering 1,451 migrants are thought to have crossed the Channel so far this year almost three times the number throughout the whole of 2018 -despite millions being spent on security measures to prevent crossings.

Exclusive

PUDDING ON A BRAVE FACE Prince George & Queen make Xmas pud as Philip recovers in hospital

ALL WHITE ON XMAS NIGHT White Christmas 'expected' with snow in parts amid -4C deep freeze

TWISTER TERROR Screaming family feared for their lives as 'crazy' TORNADO wrecked UK homes

MAC ATTACK McDonald's customer, 19, stabbed & has 'acid' thrown over him in brutal attack

Exclusive

NOT AMUSED The Queen was 'uncomfortable' when unmarried BoJo & Carrie stayed at Balmoral

'IS IT CONTAGIOUS?' Trolls urge mum to KILL baby over birthmark as priest refuses baptism

Of that figure, more than 200 have made it from France to Britain in August alone. Most of the migrants claim to be either Iran or Iraq nationals.

Only a handful of them 65 - have been deported back overseas since January.

Two migrants are known to have died trying to cross the Channel in August, with a 48-year-old Iraqi man found dead after trying to swim over.

Read more:

Terrified boy found wandering alone on M6 is migrant who doesnt know where his parents are - The Sun

How Lost Children Archive estranges the idea of aliens – The Guardian

Valeria Luiselli says that she began writing Lost Children Archive in July 2014, inspired by a road trip to the south-west of the US as the refugee crisis at the Mexican border was coming into visibility. It became impossible to ignore the reality around me, she said, and so she started writing.

But the project stalled. Perhaps not surprisingly, as Emma Brockes explained here at the start of the year, the book started out as an angry screed, overly didactic and too bogged down in politics. Luiselli told Brockes that she was using the book as a vehicle for my own rage, stuffing it with everything from childrens testimonies to the history of American interventionism in central America It just wasnt working. Theres a different way of assuming a political sense in fiction, I think.

So she paused. She wrote a book of essays that articulated some of her anger and then returned to her story in time for publication this year. The opening pages of the finished novel suggest that she found her way by focusing on the human and the personal: Mouths open to the sun, they sleep. Boy and girl, foreheads pearled with sweat, cheeks red and streaked white with dry spit. They occupy the entire space in the back of the car, spread out, limbs offering, heavy and placid.

This is one of several lovely (not to mention amusing) depictions of the narrators two sleeping children. Passages that help remind us that those lost little ones in the title are not statistics, or dots moving around the map, or bureaucratic expenses. They are beautiful innocent dreamers.

This bridge to the migrant crisis is strengthened as we follow the family on a road trip from New York to Arizona. Their intimate bickering, their jokes and their conversations about audiobooks make them feel close to exactly the kind of literate reader you might expect to pick up a book like this one.

Which makes it all the more jolting when Luiselli reminds us that there are also crucial differences. As the family go further south, they encounter increasing hostility and danger. People go silent when they learn that the narrator is Mexican. Police and authority figures start to exude menace.

We realise that these people who have become our intimates are equally close to the alien families who feature on the fringes of the novel. To those who have been trying to cross to the US, who have been interned, have lost their children, or encountered other forms of desperation. And so we realise that but for accidents of birth and fate, we too could be labelled as aliens.

Its effective and theres plenty more to admire in these early pages. There are, for instance, beautiful sentences: An old lady answered the phone, her voice like a distant fire, crackling its way into my ear.

There are also a few things to grumble about. Now and again the politics and big ideas feel shoehorned in. News about the migrant crisis comes a little too conveniently over the car radio. Overheard conversations can rather neatly sum up the books big themes. The narrator listens in on a book group in Asheville, who decide that the value of the novel they are discussing is that it is not a novel. That its fiction but also it is not. Aha!

I also had a few doubts in the early pages about the narrators youngest daughter. She is supposed to be five, but often feels much older. Would she really want to have a stake in a conversation about whether to listen to On the Road or Lord of the Flies on audiobook?

But soon I was won over. How not to love a girl who responds to one of her parents conversational tics by saying the point is, the point is, the point is always pointy? Theres also a fantastic running joke about Jesus Fucking Christ and who he may actually be. This deeply serious book can be very funny. I especially loved a passage in which the narrator tells someone who loves westerns: My favourite western is Bla Tarrs Sttang! This prompts a terrifying drunken idea. Why, asks the man, dont we rent it and watch it together in our house?

Well, I was roaring. Luiselli explains that the film is seven hours long, but perhaps the joke only really works if youve seen a Bla Tarr film? Or, more to the point, if youve stopped watching one in despair when youre three hours in but not even halfway and all thats happened is that its started raining.

While I was laughing, I was also feeling smug for getting the reference. In this way, Luiselli cleverly flatters us. Her narrator shares hundreds of similarly literate and smart allusions and ideas with the gentle ease of one talking to equals. She is never patronising. She always assumes shared values and understanding. She makes readers feel almost as clever as the family we are reading about.

Its a good trick and not just that. The intellectual amplitude and the moral seriousness are fortifying and instructive, wrote James Wood in the New Yorker. Id be tempted to go even further. In an age when experts and the intelligentsia are supposed to be the enemy, this celebration of shared culture feels vital. These are our people, we are reminded. And all people are potentially our people. We should hold them close. We should never listen to those who seek to divide them from us and to treat them like aliens.

Read the original here:

How Lost Children Archive estranges the idea of aliens - The Guardian

Church can’t keep up with rising refugee numbers, Archbishop says – Loop News Trinidad and Tobago

Archbishop Jason Gordon has called on the government to secure the country's borders to slow the influx of Venezuelan migrants into T&T.

This, as he says the numberof migrants turning up at the Living Water Community for assistance continues to increase dramatically.

The Archbishop made the comments on Friday during a media conference at Archbishop's House in St Clair.

He said the Catholic church is providing aid to refugees and migrants but if more continue to come it will put T&T in a difficult position.

Gordon said some 1100 new people are coming in for assistance each month and the church can only do so much.

Twenty parishes are doing incredible work but they are saying they cant keep up," Gordon noted.

"The numbers are escalating every single week.

He said this acceleration is "unprecedented".

Gordon added that much of the assistance provided to migrants has been funded through the generosity of the public and the business community. He said some international agencies have provided funding as well but it is not enough to deal with the number of Venezuelan migrants requiring food, shelter and other necessities.

We really are trying to work with resources that dont exist, he lamented.

He said the government has a responsibility to secure the nation's borders because the greater good of the country will be destroyed once a certain number of Venezuelans come in.

"I don't know what the number is but if we accepted a million Venezuelans, we will no longer be the country that we are."

However, Gordon said the Catholic church will continue to do what it can to help the migrants who arrive in T&T.

"Everybody who comes we have to find a way to welcome, protect, integrate and ensure they get what they need. We have to ensure that whoever comes is going to be treated like a human being with incredible dignity and given what they need to have a good life.

He said the migrant crisis cannot be ignored as some may feel they have no other choice but to turn to crime to survive.

As such, the Catholic church will continue to provide schooling for migrant children, he said.

Originally posted here:

Church can't keep up with rising refugee numbers, Archbishop says - Loop News Trinidad and Tobago

Awards Have Lost Their Luster Thanks to Political Correctness – Newsmax

Two events last week prove how worthless awards have become in recent years. Instead of recognizing actual accomplishments, they worship political correctness.

In one, Sports Illustrated honored USA Womens Soccer superstar Megan Rapinoe, by naming her its Sportsperson of the Year. But while accepting the award, she couldnt help biting the hand that honored her.

Is it truth that Im only the fourth woman deserving of this award? I dont think so, Rapinoe said.

Is it true so few writers of color deserve to be featured in this publication? No. Is it true so few womens voices deserve to be heard and deserve to be read in this publication? I dont think so.

As Sportsperson of the Year, Rapinoe joined the ranks of other luminaries, including NBA sensation Lebron James and tennis superstar Serena Williams.

But shes always lacked grace in victory. In late June when she was asked whether she would accept a White House visit, Rapinoe replied, "I'm not going to the f***ing White House," adding, "We're not gonna be invited. I doubt it."

After she was invited, she still refused to go.

Theres no question but that Rapinoe has talent, but there were far more talented athletes Sports Illustrated could have honored, like U.S. gymnast Simone Biles. She became the winningest female gymnast in world competition history this year.

Biles took home her fifth all-around world gymnastics title in Stuttgart, Germany, in October, despite being deducted points for performing routines that her competitors could not shes that good.

In another instance, last week Time magazine named climate activist Greta Thunberg its 2019 Person of the Year.

We cant just continue living as if there was no tomorrow, because there is a tomorrow, she told the publication. That is all we are saying.

Thunberg made waves in September by dressing down world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly.

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth, she said. How dare you.

The 16-year-old refuses to return to school until the rest of the world bows to her wishes.

No one doubts her sincerity, but shes long on talk and short on actual action "all show and no go" as the saying went back in the day.

If Time wanted to stick to an environmental theme, it might have named as its Person of the Year Irish teen Fionn Ferreira, who invented a method to clean microplastics from the worlds oceans.

Microplastics are plastic particles less than 5 millimeters in diameter.

Better yet, Time could have named the young people risking their lives each night by demonstrating for their own freedom in Hong Kong and Iran.

You can also throw Glamour into the mix. It named Caitlyn Jenner its Woman of the Year in 2015.

Its decision prompted the widower of 9/11 victim Moira Smith to return his wifes own 2001 posthumous Glamour Woman of the Year accolade to the magazine. He said he was shocked and saddened by Glamours decision, adding that the Jenner accolade was an insult to his wifes legacy.

Was there no woman in America, or the rest of the world, more deserving, asked James Smith, who referred to Jenner by the previous name Bruce.

As far as that goes, then-President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 the first year of his presidency. The committee didnt actually honor him for anything hed actually done, but rather for what they thought he might accomplish.

Before the end of Obamas second term, the Nobel Committees secretary, Geir Lundestad, regretted their decision.

"Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake," he told the BBC. "In that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for"

This odd journey down the rabbit hole by rewarding popularity over accomplishment began decades ago, innocently enough and with good intentions. It was an attempt to make everyone feel important by giving every participant a trophy.

Its since morphed into basing our highest accolades on whatever is politically correct at the moment Rapinoes lesbianism, Thunbergs extreme climate views, Jenners transgenderism over excellence. Given that, why should anyone bother to excel?

Weve finally found ourselves in a world where bad is good, left is right and, to quote the Jefferson Airplane classic White Rabbit, where logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports Click Here Now.

2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Link:

Awards Have Lost Their Luster Thanks to Political Correctness - Newsmax

Considering Darryl Pinckney and Authenticity – The New York Times

This week, Lauretta Charlton reviews Darryl Pinckneys collection of essays Busted in New York. In 1992, Edmund White wrote for the Book Review about High Cotton, Pinckneys debut novel about a young black man coming of age.

When an African-American writer or a gay writer or a Native American writer publishes a novel, its always read as somehow representative of the whole minority group. Its also regarded as a testimony of the writers own coming to terms with that minority status. This kind of attention automatically focused on such books explains the power they generate and the constraints that are imposed upon them.

Whereas Ralph Ellisons hero was an invisible man to the whites around him, Mr. Pinckneys seems unreal even to himself. He has acquaintances rather than friends, observations rather than passions, few resentments, guarded enthusiasms and no sex life. No wonder hes drawn back again and again to the authenticity of the old-timers he meets in Harlem bars or at family funerals.

At a time in our history when a puerile political correctness imposes hypocrisy on most writers dealing with sensitive topics, Darryl Pinckney has dared to treat his theme with excruciating honesty and the total freedom from restraint that Schiller said we find nowhere else but in authentic works of art.

Link:

Considering Darryl Pinckney and Authenticity - The New York Times

Nikki Haley On Flag Debate: People Aren’t Going To ‘Listen To You’ And ‘Work With You’ If You ‘Vilify’ Them – The Daily Wire

Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley recently appeared on PBS Firing Line with Margaret Hoover.

During the interview, which last nearly half an hour, Hoover and Haley discussed multiple topics, including Haleys time at the U.N., and the way in which the United States should deal with Iran and North Korea.

In the latter half of the interview, Hoover asked Haley about her decision as Governor of South Carolina to remove the Confederate flag from the position it held in front of the statehouse.

HOOVER: While you were governor, a white supremacist killed nine South Carolinians in the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina. It was really how you navigated the aftermath of that event that caught the attention of the country because the issue of the Confederate flag had been one that had been debated for a long time in South Carolina, but nobody had been able to remove it entirely until you were governor, and you were able to successfully bring together people from all sides of that debate in order to reach a conclusion that everybody agreed upon.

Hoover remarked on how the debate came up again recently, prompting Haley to pen an op-ed for The Washington Post. Help maybe clarify and answer this question about how the killer hijacked the flag from people who saw it as service and sacrifice, Hoover said.

Haley replied:

Well, I think its interesting, and it shows the times that Ive literally said the same things for all the years since, but now in the outrage of media and the sensitivity of political correctness, suddenly everybody has a problem with what Im saying.

What I said was, the reason this was so hard was, we needed a 2/3 vote to bring the flag down. I saw an opportunity to make something right. The Confederate flag, Ive said from from the very beginning, never should have been there in the first place, but because it was there, I saw the opportunity that maybe we could have a conversation about bringing it down. But in order to bring a compromise, you have to be able to respect the views of your people.

Haley then noted that there were two different sets of people. There were those for whom the flag represented pain and racism and slavery, and those for whom it represented heritage and sacrifice and service.

If I had gone and condemned those people that saw it that way, that flag never would have come down, Haley stated. Instead, I had to acknowledge the thoughts of both and say, But now its time for our state to move forward. And through those actions, I called for the Confederate flag to come down, and it came down.

It was here that Haley offered an important lesson for todays United States:

If you go around vilifying people for their views, theyre not gonna listen to you, much less work with you. I needed to let them know, I understand that thats how you feel. Not how I feel, but I understood thats how they felt. And we had to find a way for them to feel like they were part of this decision for the betterment of South Carolina.

Hoover pushed back, saying that the Confederate flag re-emerged as a widespread symbol in the 1960s just as a certain segment of the southern population were trying to resist the federal government forcing racial equality upon them.

As a woman of color who grew up in the aftermath of that, how do you square that with the heritage-not-hate messaging? Hoover asked.

Haley responded, saying it was hard, and that symbol being brought back into the southern mainstream during a resistance to racial equality is why the Confederate flag never shouldve been there in the first place.

What it came down to for Haley was that the heritage not hate crowd could respect the flag, as well as their notion of what it means, in the confines of a museum so that those who were truly disturbed by the Confederate flag wouldnt have to experience pain when walking or driving by the statehouse.

If someone if a child looks up at that flag and feels pain, were doing something wrong at the end of the day, [that] was to make sure that the pain I felt growing up as a brown girl in a black-and-white world shouldnt be the same pain of a child growing up today looking at that statehouse.

See more here:

Nikki Haley On Flag Debate: People Aren't Going To 'Listen To You' And 'Work With You' If You 'Vilify' Them - The Daily Wire

214’ers roll to victory over Frogs; it’s mascot mayhem – theday.com

In my high school, college and professional athletic career, I have played for the Lancers, Tigers, Matadors, Monarchs, Oilers, Cardinals, Redbirds, and the Magpies.

More and more we see mascot controversy in our country for a lot of politically correct reasons. One regional example surfaced last week and spurred debate in every bar and coffee house running along the Interstate 395 corridor. At issue? Whether the original Killingly High School Redmen nickname is racist and should be replaced with Red Hawks.

Actually, it wasreplaced by Red Hawks which was not a popular move. Officials, teachers, students, fans, Killingly residents, and school alumni are pointedly divided on the subject so much so that Killinglys football team played for a state championship last week without a nickname. No Red Hawks; no Redmen. Just the Killingly football team. Now thats bizarre.

Empowering local Boards of Education with the function of mascot life or death seems logical considering that members of these boards are elected to important decision-making responsibilities. In addition to establishing district policies, developing an annual budget for public approval, voting on the superintendent's recommendations on contracts, and the review of courses of study and textbooks, the BOE must now hold the full weight of public opinion and political correctness in deciding what mascot is appropriate.

Honestly, if enough people get together in a town and pressure the school for change, wouldnt the reasonable action be to come up with a new mascot? Mob must rule!

But before we cross over from the hypersensitive world of political correctness and jump straight off the cliff into insanity, can we all agree on mascot parameters moving forward? To wit:

Any mascot that refers to the color of someones skin should be forbidden. This would immediately eliminate Killingly Redmen and national franchises like the Washington Redskins.

Any reference to race or nationality should also be reason for disqualification. This terminates the Montville Indians and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

Any mascot that refers to a specific gender should be forbidden. This would erase, for a second reason,the Redmen from Killingly, but it also would call into doubt Woodstock's Academy's mascot, since a Centaur is a creature with the head, arms, and torso of a man and the body and legs of a horse. We must NOT be gender specific. Goodbye Syracuse Orangemen, unless they are willing to changeto the Syracuse Orange-persons.

Any nickname or mascot that attributes itself to religion should be banished as insulting to atheists and agnostics. This puts an end the St. Bernard Saints as well as the Providence Friars.

Any nickname derived from violence or the tools of death must be excluded. The Waterford Lancers, Ledyard Colonels and East Lyme Vikings are all nicknames bathed in blood and should be considered too menacing for mascot consideration.

Any mascot that may make anyone else remotely uncomfortable should be phased out. Personally, I am offended by the nickname "Whalers" since a whaler was a ship of death sailed upon by human whalers whose sole purpose was to catch and slaughter whales, processing the corpses into commodities. This must go!

The solution is straightforward. For the immediate future, mascots should only come from animals (preferably wild) and/or inanimate objects without human capacity for feelings or needs. Now, in the past, folks on social media have often accused me of overstating problems with no cogent conclusions. Well, since weve ascertained that the Eastern Connecticut Conference is littered with insensitive, racist mascots, here are a few replacements to consider:

Waterford Crystals; New London Magnets; Ledyard 214'ers (named after Route 214, which everyone cruises to get to Foxwoods); the Windham Frogs; the East Lyme Traffic Chaos Causers (sponsored in part by Costco); the St. Bernard Saint Bernards; the Putnam Noreasters; and the Killingly Rage (I actually like this last one).

The list of great mascot possibilities is wide open. Imagine an ECC Championship basketball game in a sold-out field house featuring the Montville Coffee Mugs vs. The Woodstock Academy Staplers.

Oh, and for clarity, allow me to reiterate: if a town or school finds their mascot racist, then change it. You have my full support. If you think a name like the Chicago Blackhawks or Washington Redskins or Killingly Redmen, for that matter is prejudiced, then try to replace that name and refuse to buy the teams products until change comes.

But just remember, we live in a world that has a hard time finding the middle of the road. If, or when, political correctness reigns supreme, the over-correction may make everything a mockery.

Lee Elci is the morning host for 94.9 News Now radio, a station that provides "Stimulating Talk" with a conservative bent.

Read the original post:

214'ers roll to victory over Frogs; it's mascot mayhem - theday.com

Arguing for Truth in the Anti-Culture | Carl R. Trueman – First Things

With the recent Tory triumph in the British parliamentary elections, it is clear that the old, predictable dynamics of politics and public life are gone, at least for the immediate future. As we approach the U.S. presidential election in 2020, it seems likely that, whoever wins, it will not be somebody of moderate views and mild personality.

One note repeatedly struck by pundits is that of the opposition between populists and liberal elites. Such an approach provides a partial explanation for what we see unfolding before us: The lefts failure to achieve popular appeal is surely connected to the fact that it has abandoned traditional economic concepts of oppression for the psychologized categories of identity politics. And so the left now finds itself out of step with traditional workers, for whom jobs are more important than gender-blind bathroom policies or drag queen reading hours. The concerns of the cocktail party set in Chelsea or Manhattan are not the concerns of workers in Huddersfield or West Virginia.

Yet I would suggest that the real division in the politics of the earthly city is not between populists and elites, or the New Left and Everybody Else. It is between those who believe that human nature is a given and those who believe it is merely a social construct. And that distinction cuts across the grain of traditional political taxonomy, given that the latter is as compatible with right-wing libertarianism as with critical theory.

The symptoms are all around us, most obviously in the arbitrary morality of the moment. The NBA boycotts North Carolina over its bathroom policy, yet plays the fawning sycophant to China, a nation with a catastrophic record on human rights. Money may be the key factor, but that rests on a deeper (anti)metaphysical point: It is not that the NBA hypocritically strains at a gnat while swallowing a camel; it is that there is no longer any objective scale beyond the immediate exigencies of the economy by which to judge which are the gnats and which the camels. And what we see on the world stage with corporations like the NBA and nations like China we can all observe in our own small worlds, from those who decry traditional use of pronouns yet glory in abortion rights, to those who vilify political correctness but who are perennially outraged at the smallest perceived linguistic slight directed at themselves.

Our culture is increasingly an anti-culture, marked only by relentless iconoclasm. That is why I write for, and support, First Things. For all of the differences among the writers, it remains committed to showing, by precept and example, that civil discourse and honest, open discussion of the most important issues in this earthly city are vitalbecause there is such a thing as human nature, and therefore there is such a thing as human flourishing, which is not for us simply to invent for ourselves.

Carl R. Trueman is a professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College.

Excerpt from:

Arguing for Truth in the Anti-Culture | Carl R. Trueman - First Things

Woke National Lampoon 2.0 is here to kill our fond memories – RT

Zachary Leeman

A new crew of comedians is attempting a reboot of National Lampoon in the age of political correctness, and its only going to tarnish the memory of something that was once unique and special.

The National Lampoon Radio Hour introduced the world to young brilliantly funny performers like John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Chevy Chase, Billy Murray, and Harold Ramis. It was a comedy sketch radio program broadcast to hundreds of stations. It contained everything from humorous tunes to fake satirical game shows.

Running from 1973 to 1974, with various albums following, the program was lightning in a bottle, a perfect chaotic blend of rebellious talents gathered at exactly the right time. The radio show itself was an offshoot of the popular National Lampoon magazine, which made its name by threatening to kill a dog if you didnt buy it.

Its hard to imagine National Lampoon existing today and having the magic it once did. The brand mostly petered out by the 1990s, and many hardcore fans had abandoned it before the 1980s even hit.

Well, National Lampoon is back sort of. Like most reboots and remakes this new age has brought us, its got the name, but it seems to have been shed of its edge which is sadly similar to what happened to the National Lampoon films over time. The Radio Show has returned in podcast form and it doesnt even have the right to be in the shadow of what once was National Lampoon.

There are still sketches performed by comedians, but theyre just so... safe. Theres a quick sketch of Second Lady Karen Pence walking through the rainforest confused, and another about a man travelling through history to play devils advocate for people like Hitler. Those sketches cant hold a candle to the ones presented in the 1970s, like Land a Million where a housewife is playing a life or death game show on a Boeing 747, or the 1974 dark parody of cult writer and notorious bad boy Hunter S. Thompson.

Gone are the boundary-pushing skits that challenged a culture in the 1970s. Its now like 'SNL,' but without the occasional chuckle.

Evan Shapiro, the man responsible for National Lampoon 2.0, has been making the press rounds emphasizing the diversity of the new program. He even managed to take a dig at the beginnings of National Lampoon in an interview with Varietys Strictly Business podcast this week.

'We took extra pains to include the people who were excluded last time. If you werent a cisgendered white dude from Harvard or white woman from that crowd then you were excluded. And not on purpose but systematic institutional bias,' he said of his new cast, compared to the old one.

Great. Diversity. Now can we talk about funny?

One of the troubles with Shapiro is that he seems to be a full-blown supporter of woke mobs and PC steam trains, railroading anyone who says a joke deemed offensive.

'This time, the same week Shane Gillis and Saturday Night Live got all that guff for the things [Gillis] said on a podcast we announced one of the most diverse casts and writers rooms in comedy,' Shapiro said in his interview. 'It wasnt hard to find talented people, of gender fluidity and color diversity and different types of backgrounds. There are more of them now than there ever has been.'

For those who dont remember, Gillis was a comedian hired by SNL, but quickly fired when comments deemed offensive to Asians were found on a years-old podcast. It would appear as though Shapiro has no problem with Gillis getting canned.

Shapiro also argues that there really is no political correctness problem today.

'Yes, its hard to be in comedy if youre not a good writer,' he argues. 'But if youre very inclusive in your point of view and youre very inclusive in the talent you hang out with, and you put yourself in situations where the biases you might have been taught as a young person are challenged on an ongoing basis, its not very difficult to be funny and not piss people off, not piss the wrong people off.'

Mind you, hes saying this in a world where Roseanne Barr was fired for a tweet, comedians like Jerry Seinfeld refuse to visit safe space college campuses, and Kevin Hart is pressured out of a gig after getting heat for old jokes hed already apologized for.

Even director Todd Phillips, the man behind The Hangover trilogy, said he turned to pitch-black content like Joker after seeing the cultural waters change and finding comedy a bit too much trouble to do today.

Imagine, if you will, that National Lampoon launched today instead of in the 1970s. Same cast, same writers. Just place them in a different period. Considering the rock and roll, countercultural, high-minded comedy that was being pushed through both the Radio Hour and the magazine, do you think theyd really be arguing in favor of political correctness? Or would they be going against the grain and doing everything they can to challenge a culture that is becoming more and more socially oppressive under the guise of inclusivity?

Maybe this is why National Lampoon should just be left alone. It was so special and unique and perfect for its time that maybe it cant thrive under todays rules. Instead of tarnishing the memory of what once was by trying to rebrand it, maybe we should study it and learn from it and try and create something new that pushes back against the culture in the same way that Lampoon did decades ago.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Originally posted here:

Woke National Lampoon 2.0 is here to kill our fond memories - RT

How Ivanka and Eric Trump conquered the world and rescued Christmas – The Guardian

Ivanka Trump has ended 2019 in the most Ivanka way possible: conducting a pretend interview with a friendly journalist at a conference that she was not fit to attend.

Over the weekend, the first daughter rounded off a year of tirelessly promoting herself with an appearance at the Doha Forum, which is one of those Davos-like conferences where the rich and powerful get together to hobnob and release huge amounts of hot air into the atmosphere. All in the name of solving the worlds most complex problems, of course.

As usual, Ivanka was one of the least qualified people in the room but also one of the most shameless. While government officials such as Turkeys foreign minister and Rwandas president fielded hard-hitting questions from journalists, Ivanka was interviewed by Morgan Ortagus, a US state department spokeswoman and former Fox News contributor. In other words, Ivanka basically sat down for an interview with her own PR person.

As you can imagine, the questions were brutal. Ortagus delivered sycophantic prompts such as: You were able to put womens prosperity into the national security strategy. That was so important to me that you did that and Id love for you to explain that. Obligingly, Ivanka waxed lyrical about how wonderful she is, while Ortagus oohed and aahed.

Ivankas extraordinarily softball interview raised some eyebrows. Even Vladimir Putin doesnt get interviewed by [the Kremlin press secretary] Dmitri Peskov, complained one Russian journalist. Poor Ivanka was immediately dismissed as Nepotism Barbie by the Twitterati, which was rather below the belt; Barbies daddy never gave her a high-ranking job in the government.

But that is enough snark. Whatever you think of Ivanka, she has achieved an astonishing amount this year. As her father announced recently to the Economic Club of New York, she single-handedly created 14m jobs which is truly remarkable when you consider that the entire US economy has added only 6m jobs under Trump.

Of course, Ivanka has done more than anyone to empower women. In February, she launched the Womens Global Development and Prosperity initiative to help 50 million female entrepreneurs globally. This would be great, were it not for the fact that her daddys government has made enormous cuts to foreign aid and reinstated the global gag rule that means international NGOs are barred from US government health funding if they perform or promote abortions. As Oxfam has noted, Ivankas initiatives wont even come close to making up for the damage done by the Trump administration.

The inspiring thing about Ivanka is that reality never gets in her way. She is blessed with the opposite of imposter syndrome. She is a motivational quote in high heels there is nothing Ivanka thinks she cant do. To be fair, there is little she hasnt done. This year alone, she rubbed shoulders with world leaders at the G20; sashayed into North Korea with her papa and declared the experience surreal; patronised women on a grand tour of Africa; and bought the worlds whitest dog.

It is easy to laugh at her. But if 2019 has taught us anything, it is that the Trump family is having the last laugh. They have weaponised exhaustion. From day one of Donalds presidency, they have eschewed established norms and acted shamelessly. Meanwhile, the rest of us have grown too tired to remain outraged. We have become used to Ivanka placing herself on the world stage. But beware: the woman is a wolf in chic clothing.

Sticking with the Trumps, sad news from the muddy trenches of Manhattan, where I have spent the better part of a decade fighting the war on Christmas. It has been a bloody battle and there have been times when my comrades in the PC army have come tantalisingly close to victory. Alas, our enemy triumphed. We must finally admit defeat: the war on Christmas has been lost. The Trumps and their allies have won. And by God are they smug about it.

We now dont have the political correctness we used to, crowed the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro during a recent interview with Eric Trump (the blond one who looks perpetually confused) and his wife, Lara. People are actually saying: Merry Christmas.

Lara joyously concurred. You can say Merry Christmas again! she exclaimed. Isnt that so nice, Jeanine? Eric agreed that it was just so nice, Jeanine. Its incredible, he enthused, as best his seventh-grade vocabulary would allow. It is nice to say Merry Christmas again This is what the American dream is all about We can sit there with a Santa Claus and with beautiful trees and eat ice-cream. Activities that, of course, were outlawed under Obama.

If you werent a footsoldier in the war, you could be forgiven for not knowing the conflict even existed. Of all the stealth battles that have been fought, the war on Christmas was truly the stealthiest. No one but the devout viewers of Fox knew it was happening. Indeed, according to a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University, watching Fox increased the likelihood someone would believe in the festive conflict by between 5% and 10%. It is almost as if the whole thing was a delusion dreamed up by the right.

But worry not, my friends: all is not lost. The war may be over, but there are plenty more battles to fight. I dont know about you, but I am going to spend the non-denominational holidays recharging my environmentally friendly batteries. And then I am off to fight in the war against men.

Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

More here:

How Ivanka and Eric Trump conquered the world and rescued Christmas - The Guardian

Obama Better Than George Washington? Americas Crisis in Civic Education – The Epoch Times

Commentary

Americas historical amnesia hit a new low this month with aMonmouth University pollshowing that one out of three of those polled believe Barack Obama was a better president than George Washington.

The news was significantly more horrifying when considering the evaluations of self-identified Democrats who consider Obama to be a better president than Washington by a whopping 63 percent to 29 percent.

Republicans showed more historical sanity by ranking the Father of our Country above both Obama and President Donald Trump, but not by enough to justify much solace.

Just a few decades ago, it was controversial that Abraham Lincoln and, in some polls even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had surpassed Washington as the best president as ranked by elite historians. Those results, mostly from surveys of liberal-leaning academics, were troubling enough. The results of the Monmouth poll, however, are significantly more so.

That a case for Washington has to be made at all speaks volumes about the state of our civic education in the United States today. But, lets make the case for Washingtons greatness in just a few sentences.

First, he was known as the Father of his Country for the very good reason that he was our foundings Indispensable Man. The United States itself is inconceivable without Washington as our first Commander-in-Chief and our first president.

Second, there would be no presidency at all without him, the office being created around the assumption that he would be its first occupant and would fill in the blanks of the Constitution.

Now also consider that Washington was asked to ascend to an office unlike anything that ever existed. In an age of monarchy, the Constitutional Convention had created a republican executive. The vague language of the Constitutions Article II and the lack of historical examples put Washington into a situation where he, quite literally, had to invent the office as he enacted it.

What does it mean to be Commander-in-Chief? What does it mean to faithfully execute the laws? What does it mean to work with the Senate to write and ratify treaties? No president ever faced such a daunting situation because they all inherited an office Washington himself created. They had his precedence to rely on as they faced the challenges of their own age.

Putting the challenges faced by Lincoln during the Civil War and FDR during the Great Depression aside for another day, theres simply no comparison at all between the challenges faced by our first president and those of his 44thand 45thsuccessors. The fact that the question was even dreamed up to be asked is, frankly, shocking in itself.

Through most of U.S. history, our fellow citizens would have been steeped in history enough to know that no contemporary president could surpass a man commonly recognized as one of the greatest men of modern times.

First, schools that once took citizen education as one of their core missions have largely abandoned the teaching of basic American history and civics under the pressure of relevance to the contemporary culture and the economy along with the worship of the subjects immortalized as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).

Second, many of our teachers today are trained in schools of education focusing on pedagogy and research and often dont have substantive degrees in history or a related discipline. Because civics and history are not as valued as they once were, even professional development opportunities for teachers in the field have been replaced by workshops on pedagogy, bullying, and literacy.

Third, slavery, the unforgivable sin of early America, now trumps every other consideration. Washington, no matter his virtues and centrality in the creation of the American political order, was a slaveholder and for that he cannot be forgiven in todays academy.

Washingtons reputation not only suffers from being a slaveholder but, more basically, from being yet another old white male. Political Correctness, by its very design, is an acid that spares no greatness that does not measure up to the latest value or fashion.

Fourth, the United States suffers from what C.S. Lewis diagnosed as chronological snobbery. Everything thats closer to us in time is, by the logic of evolution, progress, and technological advancement, better and more sophisticated than anything that came before.

The Monmouth University poll should worry all Americans and call us to action. If we care about the quality of our electorate and their historical knowledge, we should insist our schools value and reward the teaching of basic American history and civics. We should reform teacher education programs so that teachers in every state get degrees that focus on subject specialties more than pedagogical theories.

And we should support those organizations outside schools and the academy who focus on inspiring and educating teachers in professional development about American history and civics. Some of us have been toiling in these fields for decades but need more help from the public and buy-in from our school administrators.

If our students, and the general public, dont know American history and the foundations of our constitutional order enough to know that George Washingtons greatness is in a different category entirely than any recent politician, how can they be expected not to fall for the latest demagogue, political huckster, or fad?

Gary L. Gregg is the host of the podcastVital Remnantsand is author of a number of books on Americas founding principles.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Read more:

Obama Better Than George Washington? Americas Crisis in Civic Education - The Epoch Times

Bull Session: Remember the Alamo? And Wendy Davis? And That Peloton Ad? – Texas Monthly

Remembering the Alamo used to be fairly straightforward. The battle of 1836, Davy Crockett, John Wayneokay kids, back on the bus. But ever since 2014, this hallowed Texas monument has become the locus of a notably less cinematic war, all raging around the controversial plan to renovate and redesign it. At first blush, the Alamo master plan presented by Texas land commissioner George P. Bush seems pretty logical and perfectly reverent. Repair some cracks. Create a whole new museum to house the many artifacts that singer and Alamo buff Phil Collins donated, after growing bored of playing the In the Air Tonight drum solo with Jim Bowies knife. Close off the streets in front that have become home to carnivals, demonstrators, half-naked exhibitionists, and, occasionally, the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile.

But opponents quickly seized on the proposal to relocate the Alamo cenotaph to a new spotone closer to the funeral pyres where the bodies of the fallen Texas revolutionaries were burned, yet much farther away from the Alamo itself. This swelled into a controversy that grew even more complicated after San Antonio mayor Ron Nirenberg mused in a radio interview that he hoped the newly renovated Alamo would honor both sides. This seemingly throwaway platitudecoupled with some vague promise of healing on the renovation website and Nirenbergs recent removal of a Confederate war memorialhas sparked a raging battle of its own, aimed at the supposed scourge of political correctness thats out to erase Texas history. And that preemptive furor finally culminated last week in the wild accusations that Bush is so intent on telling everyones side of the story, he even wants to erect a statue of the Mexican tyrant Santa Anna, right there on the Alamo grounds.

The charge was leveled by a group that calls itself Save the Alamo and was launched by Bushs onetime political rival for the land commissioner job, Rick Range. And it likely would have remained there, swirling in the eternally screaming abyss of panicky Facebook shares, had Bush himself not brought attention to it through his own social media posts calling the rumor patently false, an outright lie, and quite frankly, flat-out racist.

And the fog of war has only thickened now that Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has blundered into this mess. This week, Patrick issued a statement criticizing Bush and his staff, saying theyve derided anyone who disagrees with the Alamo redesign as a small vocal minority who are liars and racists. This is offensive and inaccurate. This is, of course, a rather sweeping mischaracterization of what actually happened, as Bush pointed out in his own official response: Lt. Gov. Patrick has taken my statement out of context, much like the small group of protesters and activists, Bush wrote. To clarify, I stated the accusation that I was erecting a statue of Santa Anna at the Alamo, and protesters continually referring to me with slurs such as Santa Anna Bush online is racist. He then went on to say that Patrick was twisting my words, adding, It is a very dangerous mistake for an elected official with his power to make.

You might think it all would have ended there, with Bush having made it plain that only those specific rumormongers among the plans opponents are the racists. But Patrickthe immortal words of William Barret Travis no doubt ringing in his earsproudly declared he would never surrender or retreat, issuing yet another statement to aver that he did not twist words or float rumors. He also doubled down on his criticism of Bush and the General Land Office for even mentioning those racist attacks in its official statement, saying he was surprised and disappointed.

Patrick is right that not all opponents of the Alamo plan are racists or liars, and that they constitute more than the small, vocal minority named rather dismissively by the General Land Office. Plans to move the cenotaph have been met with numerous protests, public hearings, and last-ditch legislative proposals over the past few years; clearly, its the biggest controversy the monument has seen since that time Ozzy Osbourne peed on it. Still, Bush is right to condemn an outright lieone that was cooked up by the guy who lost an election to him, no less. Patricks attempt to spin that as Bush dismissing all critics is every bit as disingenuous, and a needlessly distracting addition to a debate thats already plenty contentious and confusing. (We havent even touched on the lawsuit filed by descendants of the Native Americans buried thereand who for Bushs sake, hopefully werent among the human remains that were newly unearthed this very week.) Texans want to remember the Alamo, but when this is all over, well be lucky to remember our own names.

With controversies such as the Alamo kerfuffle, its enough to make you wonder why anyone ever wants to run for office. But a new ad from Wendy Davis posits that campaigning can be its own reward, with the former state senator announcing her run for Congress in Texass Twenty-first Congressional District with the rather dubious slogan, Running for office is truly the Gift That Gives Back. Thats true in one regard, at least: its already given Davis plenty of attention, thanks to its topical-ish spoof of that Peloton commercial that briefly unleashed a storm of online mockery and actually tanked the companys stock. In her version of the ad, Davis tries to get back into campaign shape to run against Republican representative Chip Roy. She documents her journey, from 6 a.m. wake-up calls to go talk to voters to (in a fairly loose interpretation of parody) taking video selfies while astride her own Peloton bike.

Its all perfectly cute, in the self-aware way that all commercial spoofs and campaign ads are, though its certainly a muddled message. After all, most of the negative reaction to the Peloton ad was centered on the idea that the woman was something akin to a hostage. She didnt have to be doing this. She only seemed to be committing herself to this pointless slog to prove something to a manor, in the most charitable reading, out of some doing-it-for-the-Gram narcissism. Neither is perhaps the subtext her campaign intended for Daviss reintroduction to politics. Theres also something slightly desperate about the fact that Davis tagged her post with the accounts for both actor Ryan Reynolds and his Aviation Gin, acknowledging the companys own Peloton spoof, but also not-so-subtly asking for his help making it go virala plea that, adding to the overall cringe factor, Reynolds seems to have ignored. Hopefully Daviss team will offer something a little more substantive next time, and resist the urge to dress her up as Baby Yoda.

Also spinning his wheels this week, former presidential candidate Beto ORourke has lately retreated to the familiar, returning to the comforting bosom and lowered stakes of state politics, and concentrating on offering general support for local progressive candidates. So it comes as no surprise that hes wrapped his face in the security blanket of a scruffy unemployment beard, which ORourke seems to grow whenever he no longer has voters to answer to. Good thing, too, seeing as Betos beard tends to be as polarizing as his thoughts on gun control.

Much as it did when he grew it out last January, not long after ORourke lost to (a similarly freshly bearded) Senator Ted Cruz, Betos beard has once again divided the nation over whether its a sign of virility or of depression, a bold reclamation of his free-agent status or some form of post-breakup wallowing. (For his part, Cruz himself approves.) But even more troublinglyand metaphoricallyBetos beard just doesnt seem to be generating the same level of excitement this time around. Even the parody Twitter account @BeardBeto appears to have lost interest long ago, apparently growing disenchanted enough to switch allegiances to [Elizabeth] Warrens Unscented Deodorant. Maybe Betos beard should have stuck closer to his face for a while, until it achieved the fullness it needed before branching out.

While Beto ORourke is out there letting his beard down in the freaky, ramble-tamble of semi-post-political life, maybe hell cross paths with Rick Perry, whos been similarly cut loose to follow his heartno longer answering to The Man, or the people who want to know how he might have helped The Man exact certain political pressures on foreign countries. Indeed, after bidding a perfectly timed farewellto the Department of Energy, Perry seems to have found a new source of his own. Perrys apparently been burning, burning, burning, like a fabulously coiffed Roman candle, hurtling across some sort of mad, Kerouacian journey to the heart of the American dream, only to end up stranded somewhere outside of Cisco.

The setback seems to have been temporary, at least, as Perry says he soon found himself rescued by at least 5 good Texans and one very good dog, a menagerie that swept Perry off the side of the highway and gave him a lift to the airport for his next adventure.

Who knows where Perrys boho odyssey will take him next, or what fellow travelers will join his restless search for kicks? Nothing behind him but Ukrainian lawsuits, nothing before him but cozy rewards from the private sector, as is ever so on the road. Why, this time tomorrow he could be watching a bullfight down Mexico way, or appearing on Fox News, or splitting a can of beans with a railcar hobo, or appearing on Fox News. Heres to the next patch of stars Perry lays his head under. Hopefully its nowhere near Washington, D.C. Or the Alamo.

Read more:

Bull Session: Remember the Alamo? And Wendy Davis? And That Peloton Ad? - Texas Monthly

It’s a very bad week for Donald Trump but he remains a dangerous foe – Salon

On Wednesday, Donald Trump will likely be impeached by the House of Representatives for high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States Constitution, American democracy and the rule of law. Even though Trump will certainly be acquitted in the Senate by his Republican minions, his impeachment is long overdue and very much earned.

On Sunday night, the House Judiciary Committee released its 658-page impeachment report, summarizing Trump's crimes:

He has abused his power in soliciting and pressuring a vulnerable foreign nation to corrupt the next United States Presidential election by sabotaging a political opponent and endorsing a debunked conspiracy theory promoted by our adversary, Russia. He has engaged in a pattern of misconduct that will continue if left unchecked. Accordingly, President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

On Monday, Trump released a totally unhinged six-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, attacking her, the House Democratic majority and the entire impeachment process. It is a truly astonishing document, unlike anything ever previously written (or dictated) by an American president, a semi-literate display of false claims, victimology and grievance-mongering. As Daniel Dale and Tara Subramaniam of CNN have written,"It was on White House letterhead. It read like a string of President Donald Trump's tweets.And it was just as dishonest."

In total, Donald Trump is the nightmare scenario envisioned by the framers. He is precisely why they included impeachment and removal from office in the Constitution as a remedy for a tyrant or other usurper of democracy and the rule of law.

Historian Jeffrey Engel, co-author of Impeachment: An American History, explained this to Sky News:

Their primary examples of when a president would need to be removed from office all involved a president who worked with foreign powers, who came under the influence of foreign powers, and in particular who in some way lied or disseminated in order to achieve office, and then achieve office again, to keep their first commission of crimes from being found out. So I think this is the one that is the closest to what the founders actually feared.

Contrary to warnings by Beltway insiders and others that impeaching Donald Trump would lead to a backlash against the Democrats among voters, so far the opposite appears to have happened.

Since the Ukraine scandal first hit the news, opinion polls have shown a growing level of support for impeaching Trump. In fact, more Americans now support impeaching Donald Trump than supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon in 1974.

Even Fox News, which functions as Trump state-sponsored media, has been forced to admit that almost half of registered voters want to see Trump impeached and removed from office. Their result was very close to the average of 48 percent or so across a range of other polls.

In response, Donald Trump lashed out at Fox News on Twitter condemning their poll as [A]lways inaccurate, are heavily weighted toward Dems. So ridiculous same thing happened in 2016. They got it all wrong. Get a new pollster!"

Trumps opponents and critics have reason to feel ebullient: Even the network that is Trumps most stalwart defender and ally has evidence that the public mood has turned increasingly hostile toward him.

But Trump should perhaps be happier if he looked more closely. And his detractors should moderate their gloating.

A closer examination of the new Fox News poll shows that support for impeaching Donald Trump is largely a function of extreme political polarization and the power of the right-wing disinformation machine. The presidents Republican voters continue to support him in overwhelming and consistent numbers.

The Fox News poll also shows Trump being defeated by all of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, with Joe Biden leading Trump by seven points. But viewed in a broader context, that poll also indicates thatTrumps overall job approval has remained steady throughout the impeachment process and for most of three years in office.

Writing at the Atlantic, David Graham explores this phenomenon:

The lack of movement over the past few weeks, given the overwhelming evidence, is certainly disheartening. As Michael Tesler writes in The Washington Post, the most persuadable voters arent paying much attention to the impeachment. Most voters are likely following their party affiliation: A long line of social science research shows that when political elites are this sharply divided, the public follows their lead. Partisan messaging is so powerful that Americans tend to adopt their partys standpoint even when that position runs counter to science and objective facts.

Thus the paradox of impeachment politics: Supporting impeachment is anathema for Republicans. Supporting impeachment seems to be hurting vulnerable Democratic politicians, at least marginally. But support for impeachment remains remarkably strong, and also, Trumps approval remains as stable as ever.

Centrist Democrats and their allies in the news media who still insist on dispensing conventional wisdom about the enduring strength of Americas political institutions, and about the inherent decency of Trumps voters, are incapable of accepting a basic fact: Donald Trump is loved by his supporters and has the highest level of base support among any president in the history of modern polling largely because of his disregard and disdain for democracy, the rule of law and basic human decency. Impeachment will not change that fact. In the worst-case scenario, impeachment may make Trump more popular not less. This will happen because of Trump's shared "victim" narrative with his supporters and because Trump's criminality gives his supporters a deviant thrill.

For Trumpers and other conservatives, impeachment by the Democrats embodies the political correctness they pathologically rail against and obsess about.

Donald Trump lies now more than 15,000 times since taking office, as tallied by the Washington Post. His supporters do not care.

Trumps supporters have also told pollsters that they are concerned or wish that he would tone down his crude and other horrible behavior. Yet they also assure pollstersthat their support for Trump is unwavering. Research has shown that the most ardent Trump supporters and other followers of the global right are attracted to chaos and destruction. They view Donald Trump as a tool for advancing that goal.

Although Trump is an unrepentant and avowed sinner, a cruel and greedy man who puts babies and children in cages, and an abusive lecher who has been credibly accused by numerous women of sexual harassment and sexual assault, a recent poll by PRRI shows that white Christian evangelicals are near-unanimous in their support. These so-called Christians have twisted their own mythology to convince themselves that Trump is Gods tool or prophet and therefore fulfills divine purpose in America and around the world.

Trumps dangerous behavior is not some type of outlier or a special and unique case. In many ways, he is the distillation of todays Republican Party and conservative movement, which is dedicated tousing both quasi-legal and illegal means to keep nonwhites and other likely Democratic voters coalition from voting at all.

Social science research shows that many white Americans embrace authoritarianism as a way of maintaining absolute power as a group instead of sharing power with nonwhite Americans in a multiracial democracy. This echoes repeated findings that racism and racial animus overdetermined Trump support, rather than "economic anxiety" among the white working class. Other research shows that white Republicans, and especially Trump supporters, are much more likely to be racist than are white Democrats.

From the end of the civil rights movement forward, American conservatism has become increasingly allied with white supremacy. As such, todays conservatives view Americas multiracial democracy as an existential threat. The election of Barack Obama created a full-on state of white rage and racial paranoia about the browning of America." This victimology and white rage metastasized into the fascist Trump movement.

Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors of the bestselling book How Democracies Die,"explain this in their September New York Times op-ed, Why Republicans Play Dirty:

The growing diversity of the American electorate is making it harder for the Republican Party to win national majorities. Republicans have won the popular vote in presidential elections just once in the last 30 years.

The problem runs deeper than electoral math, however. Much of the Republican base views defeat as catastrophic. White Christians are losing more than an electoral majority; their once-dominant status in American society is eroding.

American democracy faces a Catch-22: Republicans wont abandon their white identity bunker strategy until they lose, but at the same time that strategy has made them so averse to losing they are willing to bend the rules to avoid this fate. There is no easy exit. Republican leaders must either stand up to their base and broaden their appeal or they must suffer an electoral thrashing so severe that they are compelled to do so.

In the Atlantic, George Packer summarizes the Republican Partys corruption and embrace of authoritarianism:

Todays Republican Party has cornered itself with a base of ever older, whiter, more male, more rural, more conservative voters. Demography can take a long time to change longer than in progressives dreams but it isnt on the Republicans side. They could have tried to expand; instead, theyve hardened and walled themselves off. This is why, while voter fraud knows no party, only the Republican Party wildly overstates the risk so that it can pass laws (including right now in Wisconsin, with a bill that reduces early voting) to limit the franchise in ways that have a disparate partisan impact. This is why, when some Democrats in the New Jersey legislature proposed to enshrine gerrymandering in the state constitution, other Democrats, in New Jersey and around the country, objected.

Taking away democratic rights extreme gerrymandering; blocking an elected president from nominating a Supreme Court justice; selectively paring voting rolls and polling places; creating spurious anti-fraud commissions; misusing the census to undercount the opposition; calling lame-duck legislative sessions to pass laws against the will of the voters is the Republican Partys main political strategy, and will be for years to come.

Republicans have chosen contraction and authoritarianism because, unlike the Democrats, their party isnt a coalition of interests in search of a majority. Its character is ideological.

Trump and the Republicans' embrace of authoritarianism and other anti-democratic behavior is a symptom of other, larger problems in Americas political culture as well.

Too many Americans treat politics as a team-sports contest instead of as a serious, important debate where the countrys future and present are being decided by responsible, reflective citizens. As demonstrated by Patrick Miller and Pamela Johnston Conover in their 2015 Political Science Quarterly article Red and Blue States of Mind," 41 percent of respondents who identified with the Democratic or Republican parties believe that winning is more important than policy goals or advancing a particular ideological agenda. Thirty-eight percent of respondents believed that their political parties should use all available means including cheating, censorship, and violence to win.

Given what is known about asymmetrical polarization in America, the sports team logic of the Republican Party, its media and supporters has repeatedly shown itself to be especially toxic to American democracy and society.

In the final analysis, President Donald Trump is being impeached because he is a political thug and a dreadful person. But these contemptible qualities and behaviors are exactly why so many of his followers are so attracted to him. What Democrats and other decent people see as sins, Trumpers instead see as virtues. This dynamic is a function of the political deviancy and moral inversion common to sick societies.

The way most Democrats and liberals understand the power and allure of Trumpism and what lies ahead, after impeachment and the 2020 election is hamstrung by an unwillingness to accept precisely why Trumps hold over his supporters is so absolute and powerful.

When they go low we go high! and other such high-minded incantations will not defeat authoritarians like Donald Trump. If Democrats want to win in 2020 and beyond, they mustfight both harder and smarterthan they have been willing to fight so far.

Read more from the original source:

It's a very bad week for Donald Trump but he remains a dangerous foe - Salon

What We Know About Andrew Yangs Base – FiveThirtyEight

Whether hes dancing the Cupid Shuffle or wearing a button pledging to Make Americans Think Harder, tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang has run anything but a normal presidential campaign. That seems fitting for a political novice whose background in law and technology has given his campaign an unusual top issue: a signature proposal for a universal basic income Yang calls it the Freedom Dividend to mitigate the effects of automation and job loss on the economy. At one debate, Yang even announced that his campaign would give 10 families $1,000 per month for the next year as a case study for his UBI proposal.

And although Yangs support continues to hover in the single digits about 3 percent nationally, on average he is one of seven candidates who made the December debate, and he is also the only candidate of color to make the cut. So heres a look at what we know about Yangs small, but loyal support the Yang Gang and what it can tell us about his presidential bid.

Yangs strength comes primarily from voters under the age of 45, especially those between the ages of 18-to-29. Take Morning Consults large-sample weekly tracking poll where they interviewed more than 13,000 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide from Dec. 9 to Dec. 15. In that survey, Yang received 9 percent support among 18-to-29 year olds, which put him fourth behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (44 percent), former Vice President Joe Biden (18 percent) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (12 percent). So even though Yang had far less overall support in the poll than Sanders (4 percent versus 22 percent), Yang actually had the largest share of supporters under the age of 45 (74 percent compared with Sanderss 69 percent).

Share of overall support for Democratic presidential candidates from primary voters younger than 45 vs. those 45 or older, according to Morning Consults weekly tracking survey

Data for Morning Consult weekly tracking poll conducted Dec. 9-15, with sample size of 13,384 respondents. Only candidates polling at 2 percent or higher were included. Calculations were made with data rounded to the tenths place.

Source: Morning Consult

Additionally, Yang enjoys less overall support among the older half of the 18-to-44 range, with the backing of about 5 percent of 30-to-44 year olds, putting him fifth behind Sanders, Biden, Warren, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

As for why Yang has an outsized appeal among younger voters given his overall standing, he has without question run an internet-savvy campaign, leaning into the meme culture popular among his supporters online. Hes also appeared on well-known podcasts, answered questions from users on Reddit and Quora and promised to give one Twitter user $1,000 per month just for retweeting him, which attracted over 100,000 retweets. But Yang also hasnt shied away from discussing the dark underbelly of technology. Thats an issue that resonates with many young people, who have grown up in an era where tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google have dominated the marketplace and are helping alter the future of work. Yang thinks a UBI is necessary to counteract this sort of economic disruption, especially as things continue to change in the coming years.

Yang, who has been called a doomer because of his outlook, believes President Trump won in 2016 because people were worried about losing their jobs in a fast-changing world. And as young people are most familiar with the ins and outs of new technology, its understandable why a candidate who is heavily engaged with technologys benefits and pitfalls may be so attractive to younger voters.

In addition to Yangs support trending young, it is also very male. For instance, in that Morning Consult survey, Yang earned 11 percent among 18-to-29 year-old men versus just 6 percent among women in that same age group. And according to The Economists polling with YouGov, his support among men in this age group is about 10 percent, while his support among women is in the low-to-mid single digits. Interestingly, differences between men and women largely disappear among older age groups.

Theres also evidence of Yangs appeal to younger male voters aside from the polls, however. For example, an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in November found that women were less likely than men to contribute to his campaign only 29 percent of Yangs itemized contributions have come from female donors so far. (Only Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has raised less among women donors 24 percent.) Another sign is Yangs share price in betting markets, whose participants are predominantly young men. As of publication, PredictIt prices Yangs shares around 8 cents for winning the Democratic nomination analogous to a slightly less than 10 percent chance despite polling at around 3 percent nationally.

Asian Americans are also a very important part of Yangs base. While Asian Americans will make up only around 5 percent of the primary electorate, Morning Consult found Yang at 19 percent among them, behind only Biden (24 percent) and Sanders (22 percent). And Yangs support among Asian Americans has consistently outdistanced his overall numbers. Back in September, for instance, Yang polled at 8 percent in a survey from AAPI Victory Fund/Change Research of just Asian American and Pacific Islander primary voters even though he was polling at about 2 percent nationally.

Part of this may be because so few Asian Americans have run for president. There were Asian American Hawaiians like Republican Sen. Hiram Fong, who got a handful of votes at the 1964 and 1968 GOP conventions, and Democratic Rep. Patsy Mink, who won a small number of votes in the 1972 primary, but their bids were a long time ago. Granted, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is Indian American, ran for the Republican presidential nomination last cycle, but he struggled to attract more than 1 percent in the polls and suspended his campaign in November 2015, well before any votes were cast. So in the 2020 primary, Yang, along with Sen. Kamala Harris (who is part Indian American but has since dropped out), have perhaps given Asian American voters at long last someone from their constituency to back, which can help explain why so many have rallied to Yangs side.

As a fellow outsider candidate, Yangs appeal also shares some traits with Gabbards in that Yang also broke through in part via nontraditional venues, including outlets that are considered part of the Intellectual Dark Web, a politically amorphous network that generally criticizes concepts such as political correctness and identity politics. Like Gabbard, Yang also hasnt shied away from going on conservative talk shows, doing interviews with Fox News personality Tucker Carlson and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, whereas some Democrats have refused to appear on Fox News. Yangs donor count also exploded after appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience, one of the most popular podcasts in the country, which also helped Gabbards campaign.

Still, for being an outsider candidate, Yang doesnt get as much support from Trump supporters or conservatives as Gabbard does. In last weeks poll from The Economist/YouGov, for instance, 25 percent of Trump voters who said they plan to vote in the 2020 Democratic primary said they intended to support Gabbard, versus just 2 percent who said they would support Yang. Similarly, in that Morning Consult poll, Gabbard received 5 percent among very conservative and conservative primary voters (and very little support among more liberal voters), whereas Yangs support was more ideologically balanced, ranging anywhere from 2 to 4 percent across all five ideological groups.

Nor does Yang get as much disproportionately liberal support as another outsider in the race: Sanders. Thats despite notable overlap between Sanderss supporters and Yangs supporters, according to Morning Consults second choice voter data. That Morning Consult survey found that 8 percent of Sanderss supporters picked Yang as their second choice, while a whopping 33 percent of Yangs backers said Sanders was their backup option. Yet in that same poll Sanders got the most support from very liberal and liberal voters (29 percent and 22 percent, respectively) and less from moderate and conservative voters as a whole, so his support was more weighted toward more liberal voters than Yangs.

However, one thing that all three candidates have in common is that all three attract higher levels of support from self-identified independents than Democrats. This isnt exactly a surprise for Sanders, considering he did better among independents than Democrats in the 2016 primary. But in that Morning Consult poll, the trend is obvious: Sanders earned 28 percent support among independents, compared with 21 percent among Democrats, while Yang earned 6 percent support from independents, compared with 3 percent among Democrats. Gabbard also picked up 4 percent among independents and only 1 percent among Democrats. This generally holds up across other polls, too, in which all three candidates get higher percentages among independents than Democrats, though obviously there be will more self-identified Democrats voting in the primary than independents.

With only seven candidates making the cut for Decembers debate, its fair to say that Yangs outsider candidacy has broken through in the Democratic primary in large part thanks to enthusiasm for him among younger voters and Asian Americans.

The question now is whether he can expand his appeal beyond 3 or 4 percent nationally. Raising nearly $10 million in the third quarter certainly helps his case thats real money he can use to build an on-the-ground campaign structure in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. And with an army of small donors, Yang may have a reliable source of money to broaden his reach. Still, the crowded group of four candidates at the top of the polls will make it tough for him to actually win the nomination.

Nonetheless, Yangs continued presence in the primary when other candidates with more traditional resumes have already dropped out speaks volumes to his appeal. Perhaps Thursday night will be an opportunity for him to gain real momentum. After all, despite speaking the fewest words in the last debate, Yangs net favorability improved the most of any candidate on stage in our polling with Ipsos. Maybe dont write Yang off just yet, even if a lot would have to go right for him to break into the top four.

See original here:

What We Know About Andrew Yangs Base - FiveThirtyEight

How a Government Censored an NSA Whistleblower – Common Dreams

A Better World Is Possible. We Will Only Get There If We Stick Together.

Our journalists work hard to inform by bringing you the news that matters - which is often about how the world is. But we think the most important part of our mission is to inspireand so we work hard to bring you the voices of visionaries who dream about how the world should be. Independent journalism and democracy itself have never been more needed yet more fragile and at risk than now. Pleaseno amount is too large or too smallpitch in to support our people-powered model and help Common Dreams start 2020 at full strength. Thank you. -- Craig Brown, Co-founder

Please select a donation method:

Support Independent Journalism. The only thing that keeps us going is support from readers like you. Every contribution makes a huge difference.Yes! I will support this work

Read more here:

How a Government Censored an NSA Whistleblower - Common Dreams

Posted in NSA

Federal judge rules US government is entitled to seize proceeds from Edward Snowden’s book sales and speaking fees – World Socialist Web Site

Federal judge rules US government is entitled to seize proceeds from Edward Snowdens book sales and speaking fees By Kevin Reed 20 December 2019

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the US government can legally seize proceeds from whistleblower Edward Snowdens memoir Permanent Record and his paid public speeches because he is in breach of his obligations for not submitting these materials to the CIA and NSA for prepublication review.

In a 14-page decision, Judge Liam OGrady of the US Eastern District of Virginia ruled against the defendants Edward Snowden and Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC and granted the US governments motion for summary judgement. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the US Justice Department against Snowden and his publisher on the same day that the former NSA contractors book was released last September.

In Permanent Record, Snowden tells the story of his life, how he became an intelligence officer and contractor and how it is that he came to realize that the CIA and NSA were engaged in a global electronic surveillance operation that was in violation of the constitutionally protected democratic rights of the public.

Snowden also explains in his book how he smuggled a massive trove of top-secret intelligence documents out of a secure facility in Hawaii and then handed them over to journalists from theGuardian in Hong Kong in May 2013. The whistleblower also recounts how he ended up gaining asylum in Moscowwhere he remains to this dayafter he was charged with violation of the Espionage Act and his passport was terminated by the US government.

The DOJ lawsuit and court ruling are predicated upon a series of six Secrecy Agreements that Edward Snowden signed between November 2005 and March 2013 while he was an employee or contractor with the CIA and NSA. According the to the ruling, these documents required Snowden to obtain prepublication review of any preparation, in any form, containing any mention of intelligence data or activities, or any other information or material which is or might be based on information that is marked classified, known to be classified, or known to be in a classification determination process.

The court ruling states, The terms of the CIA Secrecy Agreements further provide that Snowden forfeits any proceeds from disclosures that breach the Agreements. These terms continue to apply to Snowden. Although the ruling grants the government claim to Snowdens publishing earnings and speaking fees, it does not specify how or when the collection will be carried out.

As Snowden explained very clearly in Permanent Record, he acknowledges having signed the intelligence Secrecy Agreements. However, he also notes that he signed another agreement called an appointment affidavitsimilar to the Oath of Office for public officialsin which he swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and this oath supersedes any obligations contained in the intelligence agreements.

Along with the publication of his book, the ruling makes specific reference to several public speeches Snowden madeincluding at a Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) conference and an Internet security trade fairwhere he displayed and discussed, among other things, at least one slide which was marked classified at the Top Secret level, and other intelligence-related activities of the CIA and NSA.

Judge OGradys decision in favor of the governments lawsuit rejected all three arguments put forward by Snowdens lawyers: (1) that the government had itself breached its own agreement by stating ahead of time that it would refuse to review the book or speeches in good faith or within a reasonable time; (2) that the DOJ lawsuit was based on animus toward Snowden and his views and that the government selectively enforced its Secrecy Agreements; and (3) there is no basis within the Secrecy Agreements for the governments claim to seize proceeds from his book and speeches.

Brett Max Kaufman, an attorney for Snowden from the ACLUs Center for Democracy, said that the legal team disagrees with the courts decision and will review our options. Kaufman also said, Its farfetched to believe that the government would have reviewed Mr. Snowdens book or anything else he submitted in good faith. For that reason, Mr. Snowden preferred to risk his future royalties than to subject his experiences to improper government censorship.

Snowdens revelations in 2013 contributed enormously to the awareness of the public both within the US and internationally that the surveillance operations of the CIA and NSAwith the cooperation of the telecommunications corporationsare collecting data on every phone call, e-mail and text message of everyone in the world. Sparking the so-called Snowden Effect, the revelations have encouraged the widespread use of end-to-end encryption that hampers or prevents government surveillance of electronic communications.

Although the US government claims to have officially ended its secret surveillance programs with the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015 under the Obama administration, numerous media reports, leaks and data beaches have since have revealed that similar if not the exact same programs are ongoing.

The vendetta against Snowden by the US government and its military-intelligence establishment for revealing these truths to the public will never be forgotten or forgiven. Although the state has been unableup to this pointto rendition Snowden back to the US, the recent lawsuit and federal court ruling show that every effort is being made to silence and intimidate him and set an example for anyone else who might be thinking about exposing the criminal activities of the government.

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

See more here:

Federal judge rules US government is entitled to seize proceeds from Edward Snowden's book sales and speaking fees - World Socialist Web Site

Posted in NSA