Daily Archives: March 21, 2020

President Donald Trump reacts during a campaign rally in Charlotte, N.C., March 2, 2020.(Carlos Barria/Reuters)Despite dire predictions, he has united the GOP and governed as a centrist conservative.

Editors Note:The following is the second excerpt from the revised and updated edition ofThe Case for Trump, out Tuesday from Basic Books. You can read the first excerpt here.

So what had happened to the Democrats predicted blue wave that supposedly would rack up huge House majorities and win back the entire Congress? And why did not $1 billion in campaign spending and a 131 negative to positive ratio of NBC/MSNBC and CNN media coverage of the presidency neuter Trump or his party after two years of governance? Why did Muellers 22-month investigation and its epigones from the invocation of the 25th Amendment and the Emoluments clauses to the various circuses of Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, and Michael Avenatti all fail to derail the Trump presidency?

The answers to those questions are thematic throughout this book. Aside from popular anguish over the way that Democratic senators had savaged Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and worries over another larger immigration caravan of asylum seekers inching toward the southern border, voters in November 2018 and would-be voters in 2020 were and still are uncomfortable with progressive politics and happy with the Trump economic boom. In statewide races of 2018, almost all hard progressive gubernatorial and senatorial candidates, from Florida to Texas, lost, if often narrowly so.

First, Trumps economic and foreign-policy initiatives since 2017, if examined dispassionately, have been largely those of the centrist conservative agendas that have worked in the past, and have continued to do so in the present. Unlike other past flash-in-the-pan mavericks, such as former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or Minnesotas recent governor, Jesse Ventura, Trump adopted traditional conservative issues and learned, if belatedly, to work with the Republican Congress to enact them. In counterintuitive fashion, the provocative and often off-putting Trump proved to be a far more effective uniter of his party than had any prior elected populist maverick.

Second, Americans continued to defy pollsters and pundits, at least at the local and state levels. Even without Trump on the ballot, Americans still were far more likely to voice their anti-Trump sympathies than their pro-Trump affinities a lesson from 2016 that the media continued to ignore (or perhaps they dreamed it could not possibly occur twice in succession), despite their own habit of demonizing those who supported Trump and sanctifying those who despised him. As a result, many of the state and local pre-election polls in the key senatorial and gubernatorial races in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri proved inaccurate.

Finally, the public weariness with political correctness, the desire for pushback against the administrative state, and the turnoff from progressives 24/7 venom had not yet peaked. True, most of the country continued to see Trump as near-toxic chemotherapy, but half the nation also felt that such strong medicine was still necessary to deal with lethal tumors of the status quo.

As 2019 ended, the only mystery was whether the Democratic Party, after its failed rage of 2016 and its mixed midterm record of 2018, would learn from its errors. Again, many centrist Democratic House candidates, lots of them with military records, did well in the midterms, while solidifying the allegiances of minority and educated suburban women voters. In contrast, most blinkered Democrats in swing states who as radical progressives doubled down on abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, promoting Medicare for all, cancelling student debt, and impeaching Trump faltered.

Read the original:

Trump the Uniter? - National Review

U.S. Marines in Hue City, February 1968(Department of Defense / National Archives)

I have an Impromptus for you today, beginning with a story about Vladimir Horowitz, told by Bill Buckley. Thats a remarkable combination Horowitz and Buckley. (They knew each other.)

I also have items on working from home; journalists here and abroad; the occasionally Kafkaesque nature of collegiate life; worthwhile Canadian initiatives; the longevity of LeBron James; classic beer commercials; and more.

A while back, I had an item on boys and girls, and the blurring of that distinction the erasure of it, in some cases. (For the Impromptus in question, go here.)

I would like to share a letter from a reader, who writes,

1. Im amazed that boys and girls lasted as long as it did.

2. Even sadder has been the death of parents, which I saw during my career as a schoolteacher. At first, I thought this was political correctness, but I learned through experience that most kids did not live with two parents, and that the subject of parents brought up painful associations for many. From 1994 to 2017 I never had a homeroom where the majority of the kids lived with their biological parents.

3. I never had a group of boys in school that I could not control simply by growling, Listen, men . . .

4. In my younger and more vulnerable years, I often addressed formations of infantrymen with Quit your griping, ladies (or girls). That would no doubt be a court-martial offense today.

On Wednesday, I published a letter from a member of our Armed Forces, who has long served in faraway and dangerous places. It was a kind of cri de cur, expressing, among other things, great skepticism about the attitudes of Americans today.

The letter touched a nerve in many, and Id like to publish a couple of responses, beginning with...

I spent a bunch of time in the Middle East. My son, who was conceived after I got back, is there now. That in itself tells us something.

My prayer for him when he left was not that he return home safely, although I clearly want that, but rather that he not lose his humanity or become as cynical as I had.

When he called the other day, he was almost in tears, and we dont cry in my family. He has worked with various Iraqi groups and he keeps saying how, as individuals, they just want what we want. They want to take care of their children and they want them to have a better future. Its the leadership thats all effed up.

He was one of those pulled off the Syrian border, and his Iraqi counterpart helped him pack, gave him tea and a meal that probably cost this man his familys dinner, and kissed him on both cheeks, thanking him for trying to help his people.

They love Americans and the idea that is America more than most of our citizens do because they know what it means in a very personal way.

I dont have any answers or even any reasonable comments, except that I hope my grandchildren dont lose their humanity or become as cynical as I and my son have become.

One more, which will not be to everyones liking far from it but which has cri de cur elements itself:

Im a Vietnam veteran who served in the active Army and Army Reserve between 1966 and 1995 and I saw great changes take place in our military, but little change in the civilian population. Because of that, I understand how your anonymous soldier feels, as would my Vietnam brothers and sisters.

General Mattis said, in so many words, Forgive your civilian countrymen, who have no idea what youve done or what the stakes are. Frankly, why would everyday Americans understand when officials in our own government do not?...

I served in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969, and when I returned, I was treated as a pariah by many fellow Americans, even people with whom I had gone to high school and college. I was an outcast because the war was unpopular, because the media had painted the conflict and those fighting it as unjust and bad, and because our government did not stand up for the military and did not even have an end-game exit strategy.

Sound similar to today? What is our end game in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria? How do we know when, or if, weve won? How will we leave the civilian population when we pull out better or worse than when we arrived? Did all the sacrifices made by our troops and their families count for anything, or even make a difference to average Americans?

The anonymous soldier said, So few Americans have any idea what real political problems look like what it looks like when national politics actually affects ones day-to-day life. So few consider America an idea worth fighting for. That is as true a statement as can be said, and the saddest part of it is that it flows all the way uphill to the president of the United States....

In Vietnam, we did not fight for God, the flag, and democracy. We fought for each others survival on a day-to-day basis. We fought to ensure that we all came home. All did in the end, but many came home covered in the flag of our country.

So many families have sacrificed so much for so little. And so little has changed since my initial engagement outside Hue, Vietnam, in March 1968. The weapons have changed, the tactics have changed, even the uniforms have changed, but the most important things have not changed. Our government still doesnt plan or execute policy well, we dont prioritize our military goals because we very seldom have real goals, and we have not learned from the mistakes made since the end of the Korean War.

Until we do, what your anonymous soldier and this old soldier know and feel about our country and our countrymen will not change either.

To be continued...

Read this article:

Cries of the Heart - National Review

Let us be clear on this. This pandemic is Chinas fault.

China, this is on you! YOU are responsible for thousands of deaths across the world. YOU are responsible for the global economic crisis and recession which is coming. YOU are responsible for what could be hundreds of millions of people losing their livelihoods.

China had the first case on Nov 17. They didnt tell the world anything. They hid it all. By mid December, several Chinese labs had found evidence of a mystery virus. But China destroyed the samples, stopped the tests and covered up the news.

- article continues after ad -- article resumes -

Even when the news filtered to the world, China kept feeding us nonsense news. Here is the World Health Organization on Jan 14, reporting what they had been told by Chinese authorities.

No evidence of human to human transmission? Really?

Why do we need to keep repeating this is Chinas fault? Doesnteveryone know by now has heard that the virus began in Wuhan in Hubei province in China?

Well, yeah. But history is an ever changing thing. Public memory is short. China has hit the propaganda gamehardto stave off the PR nightmare.

Just two months ago, it was acceptable and totally commonplace to refer to this as the Chinese virus.

By mid-March, opinions published on CNN had shifted.

In fact, liberal media was now publicly challenging Trump on why he and other Republicans were calling it Chinese virus. Suddenly the term that everyone was using just two months ago had been declared racist.

You know whats coming. They will scrub it all clean. That tweet from CNN may disappear some day. Any website containing any reference to that term might be scrubbed clean. Algorithms of social media giants might start identifying the expression Chinese virus as hate speech and start auto deleting any post with those words.

Nothing is secure, except the thoughts in our head. They know human memory is perishable and they will work non stop to make us forget. See if you notice the game being played in this tweet.

That man is an Associate Professor of Government at Harvard University.

Did you catch that? Did you see how cleverly he framed the sentence? He tried to misdirect us like a street magician. The really relevant part of that sentence is in the first part (which you are likely to miss), not the second (which you are likely to remember). Cleverly and wickedly, Prof. Wang has sown the idea that there is some debate over where the virus came from!

Thats how it starts. Now they will say we must teach the controversy over where the virus came from.

Nothing is safe, except for the thoughts that we can hold on to in our heads. And the thoughts we can pass around to those we know. The future generations must know what the world suffered because of the fault of the Chinese government.

With the Chinese virus pandemic, we are seeing something new and terrifying. For decades now, the network of political correctness has been laid all across the free world. But like many tech startups that later became giants, the revenue model for this was not immediately obvious. A lot of liberals got highly paid jobs working for this startup.

But, ultimately, the funding was coming from something resembling venture capital. A vast network for manipulating public opinion was being created, but it was not immediately clear how it would be monetized.

Well, now we know who would be willing to pay big $$$ for access to this network. Right now, the Chinese government wants history wiped clean. And liberals can help. Liberals can use their vast network to declare this or that as politically incorrect. And once something is declared politically incorrect, it is as good as banned!

Thats exactly what China wants. Thats exactly what China is getting right now.

The Chinese govt does not want the world to remember that the pandemic is their fault. Liberals have declared the term Chinese virus as racist, thus effectively banning it.

We all suspected that political correctness was a veiled form of fascism. And for the first time, we are literally seeing political correctness being made into a tool for serving dictators. Be very certain that this tool will be used again and again.

Go here to read the rest:

With Wuhan virus, political correctness is being monetized for the first time ever - OpIndia

Mar 19th 2020

THE FOUNDER of this column, Stephen Hugh-Jones, died on February 28th. He was an extraordinary character at The Economistlong, lean, waspish, and a self-appointed menace to facile consensus. His theatrical interventions tended to come at Monday editorial meetings where, sitting on the floor with his back to the editors desk, he would uncurl his lanky frame to shout Phooey! Such exclamations (Ho hum, Baloney, Piffle) often found their way into copy, both his own and other peoples. His edits, during which he chanted and sometimes almost sang the lines aloud, were razor-sharp.

He was hired in the 1960s before leaving to run a magazine in Paris. He was lured back to oversee the business pages in 1974, and his first act was to buy calculators for his writers, which along with his force of personality made an immediate difference in quality. He huffed out in 1980 after an organisational dispute, but so admired was he that he was hired a third timeand given a language column from 1992 to 1999.

The column grew from Stephens love of the great dictionary-makers humanity, and of the original Johnsons hatred of cant. The Goths have already seized the airwaves. Do not expect young Johnson to encourage them, he wrote in high dudgeon in his opening manifesto. His exactitude showed up in columns on may v might. Hitler might have won the war is a counterfactual that wonders what would have happened had Stalingrad gone differently, he explained. Hitler may have won the war means the outcome remains unknown.

But he also knew (like the original Johnson) that though changes in language could be slowed, they could not be stopped: Lovers of English do well to resist until majority opinion overrules them. In the endless debate between...the pedantic view of language and the anyfink-goes one...the wise man expects no resolution. He could be shockingly old-fashioned. Parental love is seldom honoured in poetry, he opined; most mothers, perhaps, are too busy caring for their young to write poems about them, and men prefer their mistresses. Yet he knew this about himself, and welcomed change too: political correctness, at its silliest, has never done one-fiftieth as much harm as its reverse.

His column was global in its reach. Portuguese pronunciation, Indian languages and Chinese characters found a home alongside the more obvious German and French, Greek and Latin. Despite the odd potshot at the yoof and yobs, he wrote admiringly of Caribbean patois, black American vernacular and rural English dialects. Johnny Grimond, who wrote most of The Economists style guide, calls him a keen contributorbut mostly to suggest rules for deletion, not addition. His column (twice) quoted Churchill as saying the rule forbidding a preposition at the end of a sentence was the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put.

Alas, Churchill never said itthe kind of misstep Stephen would not have made in the age of Google. Indeed, he did not mention the internet until a Christmas piece in 1999. He drank in the worlds languages the old-fashioned way. He was born in Egypt, brought up in Scotland, and was variously an encyclopedia salesman in America, a soldier in Germany and a junior journalist in India. And he was a lifelong reader.

A stubborn legend pursued Stephenthat he threw a typewriter out of his office window in a rage. Or perhaps intended to, but failed to break through the glass. Or perhaps it was a phone, through a window in an internal door. No two versions of the story are the same; he himself denied it, in a history of The Economist published in 1993. But, he told the books author, he could understand why people might believe it.

Yet his frantic bursts of irascibility would be followed by graceful and kind conversation, as though nothing was untoward. Friends and colleagues remember surprising tendernesses. He collected glass artefacts. He lavished affection on children visiting the office. Perhaps his most lyrical piece for the paper was a tour of the English churchyards he cherished, finding poignant gravestones of both great and humble. And yes, he was in love with language.

He knew words could be weapons, but they were the best kind. His son David recalls a cover of The Economist that showed a Palestinian and Israeli shouting in each others faces, and his father saying What a hopeful picture that is. To his puzzled childs inevitable why? he replied: theyre talking to each other.

This article appeared in the Books and arts section of the print edition under the headline "Talking to the world"

Continue reading here:

A tribute to the original Johnson columnist - The Economist

The HuntDirector: Craig ZobelWriter: Jason Blum and Damon LindelofStarring: Betty Gilpin, Hillary Swank, Ike Barinholtz, Ethan Suplee, Emma Roberts, Glenn Howerton, Amy Madigan and Sturgill Simpson.Opens: On video on demand. (The Hunt is one of a number of films that was to earn a wide theatrical release but, in the wake of the coronavirus shutting down most theaters, has been pushed as an on-demand release instead.)

In this current political climate and era of social media, the should-be simple-enough act of even just going online has become a risky endeavor.

No matter where you look, theres a friend sharing a meme about political correctness or an uncle forwarding you a story about how #pizzagate is still relevant.

It can be exhausting trying to decipher the real from the fake, let alone trying to simply exist through ones screen without engaging in a heated political conversations.

The Hunt takes this current political climate and tries to flip it on its head.

A group of people wake up in a clearing, gagged and with no explanation as to how they got there. Eventually, they begin to be picked off one-by-one by sniper shots, arrows and booby traps that have been set for them.

They dont know what brought them to this fate, or how to escape.

Turns out, all of the hunted here all have a common thread of political ideals. They seem to lean more on the conservative spectrum they use terms like snowflake, defend the second amendment at the drop of a dime and yell about crisis actors.

Soon enough, its revealed that they were brought into this situation by a group of elite liberals who are ultra-PC people who use the word deplorables unironically, and get onto each other if theyre too gender-minded when addressing one another by saying Hey, guys! instead of Hey, people!

The Hunt is a bloody mess.

But its also surprisingly fun and dripping with satire.

The film tries really hard to issue a new social commentary about the current political tribalism in our country. It doesnt completely sticks the landing.

The film lacks any nuanced characters, and none of the ones it has boast unclear motivations. Its pretty cut-and-dry where they all stand. So theres not really anyone to root for here.

Well, except for Crystal.

Crystal (Betty Gilpin) is a tough cookie who clearly has survival skills far beyond any of the other hunted with whom shed been lumped. Shes a veteran unconcerned about anything except her survival. Even as we figure out the political stances of the her peers, she remains a bit of an enigma. She doesnt share any real expression when others rant and rave about refugees or conspiracy theories.

She just wants out.

Her journey is nothing short of action-packed. The Hunt is super bloody, and creative in its death and action sequences.

Dont buy into the hype that this film is one-sided with its political leanings it isnt. Here, each side is equally awful.

Granted, audience members might feel more sympathy toward one side or the other. But the film does a decent job showing the depravity of both parties.

Though The Hunt wants to be a cutting-edge political satire about modern-day politics, it falls short of that goal.

Its a fun film with lots of blood, gore and funny moments, and Gilpin does an amazing job carrying the film. It wont disappoint viewers as they watch the film but, without the current circumstances driving some to see this film out of boredom, it wouldt quite stand as a memorable bit of cinema.

Grade: C+

Follow this link:

[Review] The Hunt Aint As Smart As It Thinks It Is. - Central Track

If theres a performer for whom the word outspoken could be applied, Adam Darski is it. Better known as Nergal, the frontman of Behemoth is used to rattling cages in his homeland of Poland and beyond with his extremely blackened death metal, confrontational lyrics and personality. For instance, in 2012, he was the face of a Polish energy drink called Demon. In 2011, he served as a judge on the first season of The Voice of Poland, but his fellow judges and country looked down on his Satanic views, leading to a culture clash within and outside of the show that led to his limited time on it.

But Nergal willingly dances with the Polish mainstream. I like to do that, he declares. As long as I can piss people off, its awesome.

Keeping with this maverick spirit is New Man, New Songs, Same S--t, Vol. 1 (March 27, Napalm Records), the second album from his other band, Me and That Man, which is a musical 180 from Behemoth. Some call it a blues project, others country or folk. As Nergal points out, it is all of those things and more. While one can hear strains of Nick Cave and Tom Waits on both albums, he thinks the latest one is far more diverse than 2017 predecessor Songs of Love and Death.

Whereas that set featured him and blues guitarist-singer John Porter (who later departed), New Man, New Songs, Same S--t, Vol. 1 is a larger group effort. Nergal wrote about 60 percent of it, with the rest composed by the other band members -- Lukasz Kumanski (drums), Matteo Bassoli (bass, synths) and Sasha Boole (guitars, mouth harp, banjo) -- and guest performers.

Although he usually knows what he wants to do musically, Nergal remains open to other peoples ideas and the chance to redefine the band with outside influences. The guest list is impressive: Vocalists include Ihsahn (Emperor), Matt Heafy (Trivium) and Corey Taylor (Slipknot, Stone Sour), among many others, plus Brent Hinds (Mastodon) and Volbeats Rob Caggiano contribute guitar. Saxophonist-singer Jorgen Munkeby enlivens opening track Run With the Devil, which sounds like it could fit Behemoths catalog, but the bass-driven music is vastly different -- and fun.

Me and That Man has a lot of darkness in it, acknowledges Nergal. Sometimes its a darkness with a big wink, but sometimes its very serious. Its way more diverse than what Behemoth is. Behemoth is all-the-way serious, and there is a machine for humor and just goofing around, but only backstage. He says his music always has a link to the dark side, which is something thats in my DNA and I cant really cut out."

The lyrics certainly traverse dark topics. They also are more straightforward than those of Behemoth, which Nergal says are full of metaphors and deeper meanings that he isnt always aware of until he releases the music. It takes years for me to realize what I was trying to say, he admits, whereas Me and That Mans themes more overt.

Run With the Devil and Burning Churches are pretty self-explanatory and show how some metal topics easily transcend genre. (Nergal plays the title character in the video for the former.) Mestwo, with music by Kumanski and Polish lyrics by Piotr Gibner, excoriates sex abuse and rape within the Catholic church. Its the only track Nergal that sings on; its title translates as Bravery in English.

The message is that I am who I am and I know who I am, and Im going to stick to my codes and my ethics in a world that is full of slaves and opportunists, explains Nergal. It has a nature of confession in a way or a statement, Hey, this is who I am, and if you want to f--k with me, bring it on.

In comparison, the Boole composition You Will Be Mine is a twisted tale of an obsessed lover who turns homicidal. It will likely generate polarized responses -- for instance, when Nergal originally offered it to Seattles dark folkster King Dude, he turned it down because he wouldnt sing the lyrics.

I mean, Youre going to be mine, or Im going to f--king kill you. How more aggressive and violent and brutal you can get? observes Nergal. It is a bar song, basically. I love those ambiguities of what Me and That Man brings to the table because a lot of the stuff is brutal. Then again, just listen to Murder Ballads by Nick Cave, or Hank Williams and stuff like that. Its kind of similar. Its not politically correct, yet the music has the potential to make it to the radio. But probably because of the content, it never will.

There were no American tour plans prior to the coronavirus pandemic, so Me and That Man was promoting New Man, New Songs, Same S--t, Vol. 1 by releasing multiple singles. However, a launch partyshow in London slated for March 27 was canceled, and an April tour of Poland also has been nixed. (There is no word yet on new dates.)But the group has summer appearances planned for such festivals as Hellfest and Wacken Open Air.

A lifelong fan of heavy music, Nergal understands the reaction some metal fans might have to the album. But he recalls how the way that punk rockers The Clash flirted with reggae made that genre sound cool to him. He hopes that headbangers who dont like such styles as country will find his version acceptable. Maybe its wishful thinking, he muses, but maybe not.

He doesnt minding irritating the metal masses, though. There are plenty of artists out there, says Nergal. If you dont like what I do, unfollow. The world is really that simple these days. I just dont understand why people waste their time and go on my social media to comment and send some hate messages or to get offended so they can bring me to court because I did something last summer. Its f--king pathetic and weak. I really despise that kind of attitude.

Nergal considers himself very lefty on most of the departments, such as LGBTQ and human rights, but notes, I honestly think that political correctness is going way overboard and crossing the limit. Its just wrong. To me, its dangerous to rocknroll.

He feels an example of this was when Queens of the Stone Ages Josh Homme kicked photographer Chelsea Lauren's camera during a 2017 concert. The whole world was ready to crucify Josh Homme, recalls Nergal. Obviously, what he did was wrong. But then again, [people] like the Sex Pistols and Motley Crue and Led Zeppelin and those classic bands that no one f--ks with these days. But my question is, do you ever bother to read their biographies? Because if you do, from todays perspective, youd have to burn all of their discographies.

In the end, the metal icon feels it comes down to using discernment. The world is stupid, he asserts. People dont read anymore. People pay attention only to headlines. They never investigate. They never go any deeper than what they see in the headlines. Thats how they make their judgment, and then thats how they throw the stones. So at this very moment, Im going to shut up and not comment any further. If you have a brain, make up your mind and think for yourself. If you want to follow this stupid mass, just f--king do it.

See more here:

Behemoth's Nergal Returns With Second Me and That Man Album - Billboard

Joe Biden is running away with the Democratic nomination thanks to a full-court press by the party establishment. But he understands who really runs the party.

During the Sunday nights sleepy (and perhaps final) Democratic primary debate, Biden pledged both to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court and to pick a woman (race not specified) as his running mate.

A lot of normal people watching likely thought to themselves something like, Ah, theres that political correctness thing again, or, Ah, theres Biden pandering again.

But both of those statements get it wrong. This isn't just some trend toward the politically correct, or toward sensitivity and inclusion. This is the new prevailing ideology, and its called social justice. Its being taught in schools, on college campuses, in Hollywood, and in the news media.

Bidens foremost concern in picking a Supreme Court justice or a vice president will not be her job qualifications, but her claim to grievance, oppression, and victimhood.

Why a black woman for the Supreme Court? She will undoubtedly be selected based on having attended Yale or Harvard, just like every other justice. So what would differentiate her?

For the same reason that Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging and that she believed a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not [will] reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

They would have you believe that theres a unique, unobtainable lens through which they see the world and that by nature of it belonging to a marginalized (oppressed) person, it is therefore given extra moral authority.

Bernie Sanders understands the ideology just as well. Its why he declared at a separate debate earlier this month (back when he was performing much stronger) that the United States is a racist society from top to bottom.

Most of the Democratic Partys base is infected with this same type of thinking. The only thing that matters is elevating those who claim to have been oppressed, aggrieved, and victimized on account of their gender, race, or sexuality.

Bidens resurrection is framed as though its some triumph for the centrists in the party. Its not. He has since proven that hes governed by the same social justice rules as the rest.

See more here:

Joe Biden proves centrist Democrats have lost to the social justice mob - Washington Examiner

When Brexit and Trump sent transatlantic politics into a spin in 2016, many searched frantically for a handrail in the darkness. The times demanded fresh perspectives and they appeared in the shape of political podcasting. As a medium, the podcast was poised for adaptation, offering a range of furious, original, funny, marginalised and independent voices when the political going got weird.

Suddenly, everything was up for grabs: if Donald Trump could enter the Oval Office, surely nothing was off the table? Could a socialist become US president? The Bernie Sanders ultras on the self-proclaimed dirtbag left certainly thought so. Pods such as Chapo Trap House and Red Scare a mix of radical politics and irony found sizeable niches, using abrasive humour to tap into a disaffection not represented by mainstream broadcasters. In the centre, Pod Save America former insiders from Obamas White House horrified at Trumps rise was soon averaging 1.5 million listeners per episode. On the Republican side, Steve Bannon and Raheem Kassams War Room feels disconcertingly like being in Donald Trumps head, while John Zieglers Individual 1 vocalises anti-Trump conservatism.

In 2020, political podcasts have become increasingly important, and in the run-up to the US presidential election they are sure to be a significant battleground, with aspiring candidates lining up to be grilled on them. They are big business too: tours and book tie-ins underpin the business model of the likes of Chapo. Crowdfunding platforms such as Patreon, which enable fans to support their favourite pods and unlock extra tiers of content as a reward, have made independent profitability possible. Crooked Media, which hosts multiple shows alongside Pod Save America, is arguably becoming a new media empire.

The UK has followed suit. Pods ranging from Trashfuture (a response to the continuing psychic trauma of capitalism) to Novara Medias TyskySour have extolled the virtues of Corbynism. The Remainiacs podcast (centrists who suddenly found themselves on the outside looking in) and their second, less Brexit-focused spin-off The Bunker, have become the voice of despairing liberalism. On the right, there is the podcast arm of online magazine Spiked (which recently interviewed privilege-denying thesp Laurence Fox) and The Delingpod, in which journalist James Delingpole does his tendentious, climate crisis-sceptic thing in surround sound.

The much-mocked mainstream media has responded with pods of its own, in the process often making it clear why their competitors had to happen in the first place. The BBCs Political Thinking With Nick Robinson boasts titles suggesting the least appetising Friends episodes ever (The Nicky Morgan One; The What Does Boris Johnson Really Think One) and actually uses its extended duration as an excuse to get even cosier still with prominent politicians. These pods dont exactly go out of their way to dispel the notion that conventional political journalism is frequently a self-perpetuating Human Centipede of quid pro quo banality.

Conversely, the success of independent political podcasting is in large part due to the energy generated by outsiders grabbing a platform without permission. Political podcasts thrive on insurgency, on opposition to jaded official voices. Unmediated, unscripted, direct and authentic content is hugely appealing, says Dr Lance Dann, who co-wrote Podcasting: The Audio Media Revolution with fellow academic Dr Martin Spinelli. Its a raw energy and anger that people can express in the moment. The traditional media has struggled with balance, so in the face of the absurdity of Trump, Johnson and Brexit, these unguarded and incredulous voices have felt not just refreshing but necessary.

In fact, the unashamed lack of balance is part of the fun. In an era of correspondents parroting the briefings of anonymous government sources, they feel honest: vigorously and proudly partial. If you are starting to doubt official versions of the truth, it is thrilling to find youre not alone. The form itself is incredibly free, says Spinelli. There are no gatekeepers, there are no rules, the fear of defamation is virtually nonexistent, and podcasters have been experimenting in developing relationships with their audiences based on these attributes. Thats a key point: podcasting is really about a relationship rather than the spoken word.

But relationships can become too cosy, and insurgency can curdle into isolationism. Jessa Crispin, whose Public Intellectual podcast in the US explores a variety of outlooks, recently hosted an episode whose title suggested that You Can Talk to a Conservative Like a Normal Human Being. It was a reaction to a consensus in which, she says, audiences are mostly looking for a podcast that agrees with what they already believe. These podcasts hosts, she adds, try to turn everything into a punchline. Everyone is trying to follow the Chapo model; guys shouting over one another, eager to make the best joke. If I wanted to listen to men from privileged backgrounds who think they know best about everything, Id turn on the cable news.

In fact, one of the most notable problems with some of the dirtbag left pods is how light on policy discussion they have become. Rather than being a meaningful part of a battle of ideas, they can sometimes feel like hipsterism manifesting as political punditry, what Sigmund Freud called the narcissism of small differences rendered streamable. Some of the hard-left podcasts often seem more animated by their loathing of centrists than by adversaries on the right. Similarly, few liberal podcasts manage to hide their scorn for the Corbyn project. As Crispin puts it: Theres a lot of territorial behaviour. This is what I believe; if you dont believe it too, get the hell out. Theres very little bridge building. The thing I get from most of them is not just a lack of humility but a lack of curiosity. Theres the assumption that they have the right opinions.

With that in mind, it would be fascinating to see how the likes of Chapo might react to actually getting what they want. The shows host, Will Menaker, recently sparked controversy by pledging to refuse to vote for anyone but Sanders in November. But if Sanders were to win the Democratic nomination, Chapo would be forced to move on from thinking up insults for Pete Buttigieg (Ratfuck CIA operative, being a recent highlight) and on to discussing policy detail. They would move from the outer edges to the inside track.

For a glimpse of how tricky this mainstreaming process can be, it is worth considering the opposition. Take the pugnacious provocateurs over at The Spiked Podcast. A recent episode titled The Woke Stasi spoke volumes about their determination to continue obscuring dry policy issues with emotive cultural ones. But its shtick is now predictable to the point of tedium; straw men constructed for the sole purpose of presenting themselves as the contrarian opposition to what they term cultural Marxism.

However, the problem with evoking the Stasi is that the Stasi were the government. Their power was tangible and frightening. Whereas wokeness, political correctness or whatever other lazy identifier you might employ to avoid discussing systemic inequality, is currently under siege like never before. If Spiked ever offered an outsider perspective, those days are long gone; its viewpoint is now represented at the heart of the establishment. How much more culturally dominant would the performatively populist right have to be before its outriders accepted that they were policing the status quo?

And yet the medium retains vast potential. The best political podcasts boast wit and irreverence while allowing space for the informed deep dive too. With its generous tone, Ed Milibands Reasons to Be Cheerful pod is the sound of a man bringing a plastic picnic knife to a gunfight but it has established a niche, and it is set apart by its open-mindedness and emphasis on policy and ideas. Likewise, for his Getting Curious podcast, Queer Eyes Jonathan Van Ness conducted an impressive, humanising interview with Elizabeth Warren.

Fascinating material can emerge in unlikely places. Podcasting behemoth Joe Rogan (whose audience runs into millions per episode) is best known as a politically unaffiliated libertarian comedian; a weed-smoking, bench-pressing, deer-hunting avatar of red-blooded male America. And yet his conversation with Bernie Sanders was as thorough an interrogation of Sanderss actual policy as any of the radical left pods have managed, and will have reached parts of the electorate that previous Democratic candidates can only have dreamed about.

Novembers US presidential election may mark a turning point for political podcasts. Can they use their energy and large audiences to make a difference, and convince those outside of their echo chambers?

People listen to podcasts for a sense of community, for companionship and, in terms of politics, to have their views confirmed, says Dann. As such, podcasting has become the perfect embodiment of the dangers of social and web media bubbles. Audiences are listening in. They need to force themselves to listen out.

See the rest here:

Sound and fury: are political podcasts the future or just an echo chamber? - The Guardian

One of the arguments in support of the Affordable Care Act that Chief Justice John Roberts cited,when he sided with the courts majority to uphold the law as constitutional, was the idea that health care cannot be solely left to the states. A disease, after all, does not respect borders.

So far, everything about the coronavirus pandemic is playing out as predicted. If the United States only follows the limited guidance given by the Trump administration, then the current trajectory will likely lead to over 9 million people infected and nearly 1 million deaths. Traditionally public health has been left to individual states, but the fight against COVID-19 is a global crisis that calls for a coordinated effort. Instead, its the clearest case yet that the federal government, under President Trumps addled leadership, is tragically leading from behind.

In the absence of decisive national leadership, governors and mayors suddenly find themselves stepping into the void.

I wish, San Francisco Mayor London Breed said on Friday, the country had acted sooner.

At the top of the week, all six counties in the San Francisco Bay Areaissued a shelter-in-place order the first of its kind in the nation. The governors of Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania ordered all nonessential businesses temporarily close down. By Friday, even Floridas Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the subject of intense criticism for keeping the states crowded beaches open during spring break, had called for the statewide closure of restaurants, bars and nightclubs. By weeks end, more than 75 million Americans will be living under an order to remain indoors except for exerciseor grocery shopping.

We are not getting what we need, Breed said about assistance from the federal government in an interview with CNNs Wolf Blitzer, and so we have to take action ourselves to save lives.

After weeks of dismissing the impending pandemic as a hoax meant to hurt his presidency, Trump has slowly come around to acknowledge our grim new reality. Hes deployed familiar tropes to paint himself as a wartime leader, while simultaneously whining that he hasnt been given enough credit. So as the president keeps on failing spectacularly inthis historic moment of crisis, paralyzed by an overwhelming inability to act responsibly even withmillions of liveson the line, states have scrambled to provide crucial guidance.

The vagueness and lack ofdirection out of the White House has left it up to states to administer restrictions, applying what appearto be arbitrary deadlines and leaving local police departments to enforce public adherence. Even executives in red states, from Alabama to Texas to Idaho to South Carolina, have called for public restraint to slow the spread of the deadly pathogen a move experts have said is necessary to flatten the curve, but one Trump has written off as a course of action nationally. Democratic governors in Illinois, New York and Kentucky have appeared in front of cameras daily to offer updates meant to reassure their constituents. By contrast, Trump has recently dusted off the podium in the White House press briefing room only to pick fights with reporters about political correctness to distract from his failure. While his biggest sycophants on Fox News are finally treating the threat seriously, states are still waiting for tests more than a month after asking the federal government for help.

I watch a news conference and they tell us we have testing capacity, but I am telling you we dont have testing capacity. It is not out there yet, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, said on Wednesday. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, also a Democrat, ordered all private labs to send negative test results to the state, a move that matters because data on the number of positive tests without knowing how many were negative can paint a misleading picture.

I think its critical the feds move a lot faster on this stuff, MassachusettsGov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, complained this week.

For his part, Trump has praised governors handling of the chaotic situation even as he admits his administration has only made it harder for them.The federal government is not a shipping clerk, Trump told governors seeking assistance with the procurement of much needed medical supplies. After encouraging states to fend for themselves, he went on to acknowledge that the federal governments purchasing power dwarfs anything the statescan even attempt.

And not all states are equal, which hasonlyillustrated the depths of the problem.

States like Tennessee, where the number of positive cases jumped 57% this week, have so far refused to take executive action, deferring instead to local municipalities to set their own limitations. Even after the entire Georgia state legislature was shut down this week because a Republican member entered chambers while awaiting his test results, Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican,has so far refused to order any statewide closures. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, also a Republican, was still encouraging residents to frequent restaurants and bars this week.

Ohio and Louisiana announced their first cases of COVID-19 on the same day. Gov.Mike DeWine of Ohio, a Republican, responded swiftly and ordered schools closed and large events canceled. Now the Buckeye State, with a population of 11.6 million, has seen fewerthan 90 cases and reported no deaths. Louisiana, meanwhile, has issued no such closures and has reported more than500 cases and 14 deaths withonly4.6 million residents.

Our trajectory is basically the same as what they had in Italy, said Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards said, calling for help from federal officials. Italys COVID-19 death toll exceeds 3,400.

This patchwork response to a global pandemic is getting people killed. States and municipalities were abandoned for too long by the Trump administration. (New York State was finally deemed a federal disaster zone late Friday after reporting almost 8,000 cases, nearly half the U.S. total.) Still, many are doing heroic work and taking bold steps like pausing all debt repayment for residents and reclassifying grocery store employees as emergency workers so they qualify for access to state-sponsored child care.

Read the original:

Theres a massive leadership gap at the top on coronavirus and that absence is already deadly - Raw Story

The ability of the CBC to wound itself, to find ways to alienate its audience, reduce its impact, sometimes even drive viewers and listeners away from its services, is a fascinating subject. A subject, ironically, worthy of one of its multiple documentaries, which at one time were its hallmark.

We will never see such a documentary, for the CBC is constitutionally incapable of honestly assessing itself with any of the rigour and sometimes downright enthusiasm it turns its judgmental eye to on every subject but itself.

I refer to CBC managements fiat to close down all local supper-hour news shows. I have no idea what turns of mind or involutions of its internal bureaucracy and CBC has its bureaucracy can have led to such a decision. I would truly love to know how much consultation and dialogue and information-sharing processes that are lovingly highlighted in every Memo to Staff that CBC produces by the hundreds every day went on with the shows to be cancelled. How many on-air personnel or camera operators or sound technicians and editors, from P.E.I. or Newfoundland for example, were either brought to Toronto, or put on a live feed, to discuss with their sage management these cancellations?

The ability of the CBC to wound itself is a fascinating subject

The fatal ingenuity of the CBC is never more apparent than in the larger decisions of its senior management. With a full spread of plausible and sensible options politely knocking at their doors, they will send out, and only after establishing enough committees and study sessions to rival the Third International Congress, for the worst possible choice, and decree it down the line to the archipelago of what, in the Toronto emporium on Front Street, is known as the locals.

Hence, the strange nay, the eerie, the eldritch decision, now that the world is in pandemic mode, and reassurance is as much a part of news as information the bizarre choice, to bring the hammer down on all locally sourced and locally delivered supper-hour news shows across this truly broad and diverse country, with its decade of provinces and its trinity of territories. All the shows in other words that are closest to the pulse of the people they serve; are hosted by persons their audience actually meets and chats with going about their daily business.

Now instead of the double-band, nationalplus local, all news will come from the one over-lit and superfluously hosted national studio, as remote as remote can be from the wide, diverse and scattered regions of this great country.

When announcing the fiat, CBCs general manager of news, Susan Marjetti, offered this I would suggest bizarrely tendentious statement:As Canadians turn to us (CBC) for the latest developments during these unprecedented times, we are temporarily pooling our resources into one core news offering.

Theres more than a dollop of over-estimation and unjustified self-praise in that opening. What ratings I read suggest that Canadians are turning to many places, and CBC is not near the top of them. Secondly, if Canadians are turning to the CBC, is it not a very strange time to go dark, to shutter the screens on every local TV news show (save the North there, CBC wouldnt dare for obvious reasons)?

Thirdly, is it not curious and more, that in the early days of a national and international crisis whose proportions we have not seen in generations, that CBC management enter into one of their perpetual restructuring strategies? CBC has restructured so often even the buildings are dizzy, never mind the poor employees.

CBC has restructured so often even the buildings are dizzy

Just when local news in your own region (wherever that is) matters the most, CBC pulls it? Now more than ever, people need to hear whats going on in their own communities and provinces from the very people, on-air and technical, they have come to know.

Toronto-centric news transmission is not a solution for the CBC; it has always been the problem.

It is the Toronto centres distance, and lack of contact and genuine experience with life outside the centre, that leads to misjudgments on matters like the Alberta oil crisis, the plight of farmers, the facts of life in small towns, and just the general experience of common life in so many parts of Canada. That and an adhesion, which is almost perfect, to the nostrums of political correctness and the pieties of progressivism have made most national news a ghetto of received opinion and very tired social justice championship.

These causes, to be clear, do have their virtues. But the trendy is not everything. You cannot, as a broadcaster, be separate from the majority of your would-be viewers. And those who can most remedy the gaps in the CBCs centre-understood idea of Canada are the very local broadcasters the CBC is now in ignorance shutting off.

CBC is very comfortable with sensitivity-training for what it considers ill-behaviour.

There is only one sensitivity training session the CBC really needs, and that is sensitivity training for its executives and management, who are intellectually quarantined, and have been for years, to the ideas, opinions and daily conduct of allCanadians, just not those few under a chosen attitudinal umbrella.

The upper reaches of the CBC are strangers to more than half the land they purport to report upon. Their sensibility is a screen that bars them from the full range, and yes, the real diversity, of Canadian experience.

Here is the original post:

Rex Murphy: Just when the CBC could really help Canadians, it lets them down - National Post