Monthly Archives: September 2020

Natural Gas Now

Oil & Gas 360 Publishers Note: Robert Bradley, Jr, Founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research Principal, MasterRsource: A Free-Market Energy Blog, has put a great article together on Chevrons view on diversification into the Greenout. There is a right way to look at power generation Balanced. Use the lowest kWh to get power to the people to elevate everyone on the planet from poverty. Using the Greenout methodology is simply not a good Steward of our planet.

The loaded title: Chevrons Answer to Climate Change Is to Keep Drilling for Oil (August 13, 2020). The condemnatory subtitle from Bloomberg Greens Kevin Crowley and Bryan Gruley: The energy giant believes it can still wring years of profits from fossil fuels while its European rivals embrace renewables.

Go Chevron! The global and U.S. market share of fossil-fueled energy is84 percentand80 percent, respectively. And these percentages could wellincrease, not decrease, due to strong consumer demand for dense, reliable energiesand taxpayer fatigue for inferior substitutes (wind, solar, ethanol, batteries/EVs).

Fossil-fuel optimism is not only realistic but a great story. Speaking truth to Greenout Power demotes political correctness and promotes economic understanding.

TheBloombergarticle follows with my interspersedcomments:

Speaking to the Texas Oil & Gas Association in July,Chevron Corp.Chief Executive Officer Mike Wirth assured his audience that the global clamor for clean energy doesnt mean the end of oil and gas. On the contrary,Wirth said, the energy business is simply undergoing another of its natural transitions. Well find ways to make oil and gas more efficient, more environmentally benign, he said. And it will be a part of the mix, just as biomass and coal are still enormous parts of the mix today.

Comment:Quite true. Oil and gas remain dominant as they have been for a century or more. (Coal, when viewed globally, remains an energy powerhouse too.)

To activists alarmed at the urgency of the climate crisis, Wirths comments are as out of touch as they are predictable, coming from someone who profits from the status quo. For unlike its rivals in Europe, Chevron is betting its future less on renewable energies such as wind and solar and more on the subterranean stuff derived from hydrocarbons. Its a multibillion-dollar gamble that would have been even less surprising before the coronavirus reared its spiky head. By eviscerating demand for petroleum products when business and consumer activity suddenly slowed, Covid-19 has shown the worlds biggest oil and gas companies a vision of a bleak future in which theyre neither wanted nor needed.

Comment:Out of touch? Or just politically incorrect? Media bullying by climate alarmists and keep-it-in-the-ground obstructionists will come and go; a pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer company should not lose focus.

Tying Chevrons viability to what is going on in political hot-spots and pretending that Covid is a negative game changer for fossil fuels is disingenuous.

A chastenedBP Plcresponded on Aug. 4 by announcingdramatic steps to address climate change, including an unexpected vow to reduce oil and gas production 40% over the next decade; CEO Bernard Looney said the strategy was amplified by Covid. In sharp contrast,Exxon Mobil Corp.has reiterated its commitment to beingoils last man standingdecades from now. Chevron, for all of Wirths prognosticating about crudes bright future, is pursuing a more nuanced path that embraces something frequently alien to Big Oil: flexibility.

Comment:False. This is propaganda trying to get a free-market company to go political. Resist.

Wirth pointed to whales as a case in which oil companies were able to expand their traditional business while producing positive change for the environment. Back in the 19th century, the creatures were being whaled into extinction, Wirth said, because their oil was needed as fuel for lighting. Then crude oil companies came along with kerosene to replace it. Ironically, Save the whales is a catchphrase for saving the environment, he said. In fact, our industry helped save the whales. Whether sticking with fossil fuels will make endangered species of Chevron and its brethren remains to be seen.

Comment:Chevron CEO Wirth is right. Fossil fuels have beenand will begood for the environment, a story for another day.

For the full article please go to: Natural Gas Now

Robert Bradley, Jr.Founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy ResearchPrincipal, MasterResource: A Free-Market Energy Blog..

Here is the original post:
Chevron CEO Speaks Truth to Greenout Power: Oil and Gas Is the Future - EnerCom Inc.

Kapil Sibal, Shashi Tharoor et al are considered masters of Angrezi. They are masters of many other skill sets, too, but primarily, they have both built their formidable reputations on their inventive and original language skills. Calling them mere wordsmiths would be giving hardcore wordsmiths a terrible name.

Which is why it surprised the outside world when the outrageously valiant efforts of 23 loyalists (who temporarily forgot their auqaat), conveyed through a missive, which went viral after being mysteriously leaked to the media. Such himmat! After all, who dares question the mighty Queen Mother herself ? Tauba. Quelle horreur. I am surprised they still have their heads! We know what happens to the naughty ones who are bewaqoof enough to challenge the status quo. Think P V Narasimha Rao the poor brilliant soul whod made the monumental mistake of not prostrating at Madams feet. Such disrespect! Very few survive the wrath of the lady scorned. Watch out, you 23 dissenters!

If only these impassioned chaps had taken a different route to Sonias mind (I am leaving out the more arduous route to her missing organ the heart), their shabby state today could have been avoided. Forget how and who leaked the letter. The more important question is: why the hell was it written in the first place? Did they not know their boss? Has Madam G ever tolerated dissent? Ever? What motivated them to waste their time studiously penning that missive and creating such a drama? One tight thappad from the bosslady and they are back, licking their wounds and looking silly. Not only did the letter expose their own vanities, but the sharp and prompt response from the high command conclusively established who rules her! Them! Those three the triumvirate. Khatam. Take it or take a walk.

It is surprising that the universal charmer, Shashi Tharoor, chose to pen a reproachful letter when a prem patra would have done the trick. Pressing the right buttons generally works with egotistical people. So does flattery. Had that letter been gushy and effusive and fuzzy, things may have panned out differently. For example, had these brilliant fellows said, Your royal highness, we, your ever loyal subjects who adore and worship at your feet, humbly beseech you to sack your useless son and reclaim your throne The outcome would have been less humiliating for them.

As of now, the desired ouster of Rahul Gandhi as the next party president remains just that a collective desire. The word introspection has been officially banned, say sources. Mrs G holds all the cards, while Priyanka G, who is actually a Priyanka V, stands by to absorb and deflect the blows aimed at her brother, Rubberball Rahul G.

Meanwhile, the reckless Gang of 23 letter writers await punishment for, it will come with biblical fury and very soon. They are ready to do penance. And they no longer use potentially inflammable words like reform. Nor does any one of them (former chief ministers, central ministers) make even an oblique reference to electoral failure. These are all bad words that have been banned via a royal edict. If anything, the mood within the dysfunctional Congress party is exactly as Madam G wants it by the time the next AICC session comes up, there will be a lusty chorus for Rahul to get back and do his Rahul thing as party president. As of now, Mummyji is holding the fort as interim president, post the resignation natak.

This suits the BJP splendidly. No wonder we have been treated to an elaborately staged fashion shoot of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in new and wonderfully colour-coordinated costumes, as he hand-feeds a peacock and bonds with geese. Never has our tireless PM looked this relaxed and totally chilled out. As if Indias Covid crisis and the employment emergency, or the JEE-NEET examinations controversy, have nothing to do with him or his cabinet colleagues.

Can anybody really visualise the Congress party (one of the oldest political parties in the world), without a Gandhi heading it? No, na? Then why quibble? Imagine if one of those accused of insubordination were to impudently stake a claim to the job reserved in perpetuity for the Nehru-Gandhi clan. Imagine the confusion of voters if they had to cast the ballot for a party led by Kapil Sibal or Shashi Tharoor or Ghulam Nabi Azad! You gotta be kidding! Congress ka matlab Gandhi parivar. Nobody else exists or will be allowed to exist. Once the G-gang goes, the headquarters may as well shut shop. Forget fighting the next election. Forget a viable opposition to the BJP in 2024. Relax, folks. Its going to be a piece of barfi for the BJP. Its time to feed the peacocks and fatten the geese.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Go here to read the rest:
Lesson for Cong dissenters: Nothing but loyalty to Gandhis in letter and spirit - The Times of India Blog

The phenomenal rise of social media (SM) platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and others is proving to be a double-edged sword in the functioning of democracies. On the one hand, it has democratised access to information. On the other hand, it has concentrated power over that information with a handful of private companies, their billionaire owners, and certain ideologically committed activist groups.

Billions of netizens around the world now feel empowered to bypass traditional curators of information, such as journalists and editors, in searching for their choice of content. They have also become creators and disseminators of content, not just consumers of it. This is further accentuated by tech platforms directing more content at people similar to what they have already seen, thus creating echo chambers of like-minded groups.

This is already known. What is happening now, however, is the next stage of that transformation in how information is generated, disseminated, and consumed, and it is directly impacting how democracies function. There is a global war underway, involving the role of SM and freedom of expression, which is an extension of the culture wars between the Left and Right.

India is seeing the early skirmishes of the online version of this war, which has already progressed to a much higher intensity elsewhere, most notably the United States (US). In Americas bitterly polarised polity, the frontline of this war is a battle between Twitter and President Donald Trump. The formers flagging of a presidential tweet as fake news, and the latters executive order altering the liability of SM platforms who edit content, is worth understanding better.

One of the most stark aspects of the Wests culture wars has been its erosion of the right to freedom of expression, which had been a hallmark of its modern democracies. Especially since the early 20th century, US Supreme Court rulings by the legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, interpreting its Constitutions first amendment, had established what many considered a gold standard of free speech.

While those struggles for free speech had pushed for more freedom, even to say and write very unpleasant things, the intensification of the Wests culture wars in this century has seen a reversal of that trend. Curbs on hate speech became widely accepted and implemented. But, thereafter, there has been a relentless push by so-called woke activists for ever more curbs on speech, often implemented forcefully and without consensus, based solely on political correctness.

A key aspect of this has been the shift from earlier activism against governments clamping down on speech to a focus instead on pushing media, and especially SM, to impose curbs on politically incorrect speech.

The irony in this new activism for speech curbs is that it is being championed by those who call themselves liberals. Of course, this does not represent classical liberal philosophy, and is instead a reflection of the far-Left takeover of present-day liberalism. This is visible around the world, whether in the forced withdrawal of a US academics paper contradicting the zeitgeist about race relations, or in the unsavoury departures of senior staff at the once venerable New York Times, after they had dared to publish op-eds reflecting Centre-Right views. In India, this bullying has manifested itself in the ganging up by self-avowed liberal authors to stop the publication of a book contradicting their narrative on this years Delhi riots.

Such far-Left canons have now invaded the realm of big tech firms. That should hardly be a surprise, considering Silicon Valleys preference for recruiting liberal and woke employees. Books and articles by conservative authors such as Douglas Murray and business journalists such as George Anders have documented explicit hiring policies, practices and statistics to confirm Left-wing dominance among SM employees. It was, therefore, inevitable that employee activism would push these platforms into adopting leftist, illiberal policies.

The inconsistencies in those policies show up when SM platforms apply selective standards, such as when Twitter was accused of hypocrisy for not flagging or proscribing the aggressive, warlike tweet of a West Asian leader.

President Trumps executive order directly impacts this. In US law, SM had been protected against the kind of liabilities such as defamation that traditional news media are subject to, on the grounds that SM are simply platforms for others opinions and did not edit or otherwise shape that information. But now that they are, by flagging, shadow banning, or deleting posts and accounts, the Trump order echoes many voices that had been asking for SM to be treated on par with media outlets.

A similar battle is raging about SM giants abuse of their massive power by sourcing news from media companies without paying for it, and then disseminating and profiting from it. Despite a bitter legal struggle, Australia is likely to become the first nation to require Google to pay for such content.

These battles are relevant to India, which is both the largest democracy as well as one of the largest user bases for SM platforms. Some of these battles have already begun here, such as the recent Indian version of the Wests leftist pressure on Facebook to put curbs on Right-wing posts. It is time to broaden the dialogue here about how India ought to respond.

Baijayant Jay Panda is vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and a former Member of Parliament.

The views expressed personal

Read the original here:
Social media: The new theatre of Indias culture wars - Hindustan Times

Over the past 10 to 15 years, the cultural climate has been saturated with identity politics and the incessant clamour for recognition and respect for people of various identities sexual, racial and gender. This cultural climate has bred its own terminologies and hashtags. It has also bred an illiberal attitude that is often referred to as cancel culture.

Cancel culture stifles the free speech of anyone who does not conform to the new normal. The proponents of cancel culture claim that it curbs injurious statements against minority groups. In truth, cancel culture is symptomatic of an imminent illiberal hegemony that should worry us all.

The term cancel culture is ambiguous. Perhaps a straightforward way to summarise it is that it suggests that if your action or opinion is morally or politically incorrect (based on other peoples assessment), then you should lose your employment and your reputation. It is a form of discipline and punishment for your harbouring of allegedly wrong and damaging opinions.

The key aim is to encourage conformism to the supposedly woke ways of thinking. As Ross Douthat argues in the New York Times, The goal isnt to punish everyone, or even very many someones; its to shame or scare just enough people to make the rest conform.

In spite of their apparently liberal intention to create an atmosphere of respect for persons of all identities, the new identitarians have actually twisted the language of tolerance in order to create a culture of conformism around their own ideologies.

I am by no means suggesting we should disrespect anyone on the basis of their identity, be they men, women, gay, straight, transgender, queer, white, black or brown. On the contrary, everyone is entitled to respect. However, the logic of cancel culture is not to engender respect for people but rather to demonise people on the basis of their moral and political views.

There are two reasons why cancel culture is antithetical to our social and intellectual progress. These reasons derive from John Stuart Mill, a towering figure in the liberal tradition. In his On Liberty, Mill argued that the despotism of custom is a hindrance to human advancement. Conformism, he argued, stifles the human intellect and social progress itself.

Mill also said that we can never be sure of the verity of our opinions unless we discuss them openly and freely. Liberal democracy a deliberative system that ensures the exchange of ideas is one way that we can talk to and listen to each other and in the process improve our understanding of each other.

And what if an idea is false? Should it be stifled? Mill suggests it shouldnt. For two reasons. First, there is no guarantee that a silenced opinion does not contain some true and valid propositions. And secondly, it is through debate that individuals are compelled to re-examine their values and opinions and to comprehend why they should or should not hold certain beliefs. Indeed, for Mill, it is not simply enough to be opinionated; one must understand the substance of ones beliefs. Without the free exchange of ideas, that understanding becomes more difficult.

The Millian view seems irrelevant to identitarians. They seem uninterested in the culture of intellectual risk-taking, mistakes and experimentation that has been crucial to our moral progress including the progress that has been made in relation to respect for people of different identities.

Ironically, identitarians fail to appreciate that their ability to express themselves freely after years of various forms of racial and gender repression is a product of public arguments for greater tolerance and liberty.

Great minds such as William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano publicly marshalled arguments against the morally unconscionable practice of making profit from enslaved black people. The likes of John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft contended that women are not naturally inferior to men, and instead what set the sexes apart was the educational and cultural climate that deprived women of the liberty to realise their potential.

All these ideas were unconventional and challenging in their time. If these authors and their writings had been cancelled for going against the grain, we would not have made the kind of progress we have with regard to racial and gender equality.

Cancel culture is an illiberal nonsense that should be quickly discarded in order to salvage our liberal democratic culture of openness and tolerance. Many centuries ago, the Persian poet Rumi advised that rather than focusing on what is good or bad, we should pay attention to how things blend. In a world of many peoples, values, languages, colours and nations, perhaps our common future depends on how we allow truth and falsity, good and evil, black and white, to run free in a free marketplace of ideas, and trust individuals to make sense of all these things.

Promise Frank Ejiofor holds an MA in political science from the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest, Hungary. His research interests span constitutional politics, nationalism, moral and political theory. Follow him on Twitter: @ejioforpromise

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Go here to read the rest:
We need to end cancel culture - Spiked

whats-on, music-theatre-arts, What the Butler Saw, Canberra Rep, theatre

Seduction, blackmail, crossdressing, insanity - all these are part of What the Butler Saw. Joe Orton's dark farce is the next production in Canberra Rep's 2020 season. What the Butler Saw, Orton's third full-length play, was first produced in 1969, two years after the playwright was murdered by his jealous and frustrated lover, Kenneth Halliwell, who then committed suicide. Director Liz Bradley says of Orton, "I think he's a very astute observer of the human condition." Orton was writing in the Swinging 60s, a time of social upheaval and change - homosexuality was legalised, censorship was loosened, women's rights and youth culture were championed - and many people were uncomfortable with what was happening. For the playwright, who enjoyed cocking a snook at social proprieties - he and Halliwell had served prison sentences for their creative and surreal vandalising of the covers of library books - it was a golden opportunity. Orton gained fame and fortune using bad taste and the bizarre to confront and provoke. Farce was a theatrical staple and Bradley says What the Butler Saw is "a piss-take of the farce itself". Orton exploited its conventions to hold up a mirror to British society. "He had a go at everything in this thing," says Bradley, who directed the play once before for The Players Company as well as a CAT Award-winning production of Orton's Entertaining Mr Sloane. The new production of What the Butler Saw was postponed because of COVID-19 just as casting was about to begin but was given the go-ahead in July. Bradley and company have enjoyed exploring Orton's scathing view of society. Morals and mores, hypocrisy, the role of authority figures including the police and the medical profession, the social order - all these and more are held up to examination and ridicule in politically incorrect fashion and the action becomes increasingly chaotic. The play begins with psychiatrist Dr Prentice (played by David Cannell) in his clinic, interviewing and attempting to seduce would-be secretary Geraldine (Zoe Swan). When Dr Prentice's wife (Lainie Hart) arrives unexpectedly, he has to hide the girl. but worse is to come. A government inspector, Dr Rance (Peter Holland) also turns up, among other characters - and craziness, cross-dressing and chaos ensue as well as some bizarre revelations. Cannell says, "Nothing's really changed" in the more than 50 years since What the Butler Saw premiered, making it as relevant as ever. He says he had never been in an Orton play before and wasn't all that familiar with the man and his work but there was one connection. "My dad knew [married actors] Prunella Scales and Timothy West." The couple had been in a 1987 televised production of What the Butler Saw. "My parents told me about the show when I was about eight." Cannell was able to watch and enjoy the TV production on YouTube. During the rehearsal period, Cannell went to the coast and fell over headfirst onto a rock. "It ripped open my eyelid and eyebrow and my eye is half closed." He says "90 per cent of people" he saw afterwards thought he had simply been playing around with make-up effects. It's not hard to see why: Cannell is a performer at Questacon and has performed onstage in many stage musicals in Canberra. But that less than sympathetic reaction by many to a very real injury that could have been serious might have appealed to Joe Orton's dark sense of humour.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/3BUUzmFAhrhLyX9rFCubPq5/549846c3-40b8-433c-8b1f-d2d9f1b6b629.jpg/r0_146_2362_1481_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

September 1 2020 - 1:17PM

Seduction, blackmail, crossdressing, insanity - all these are part of What the Butler Saw. Joe Orton's dark farce is the next production in Canberra Rep's 2020 season.

What the Butler Saw, Orton's third full-length play, was first produced in 1969, two years after the playwright was murdered by his jealous and frustrated lover, Kenneth Halliwell, who then committed suicide.

Director Liz Bradley says of Orton, "I think he's a very astute observer of the human condition."

Orton was writing in the Swinging 60s, a time of social upheaval and change - homosexuality was legalised, censorship was loosened, women's rights and youth culture were championed - and many people were uncomfortable with what was happening.

For the playwright, who enjoyed cocking a snook at social proprieties - he and Halliwell had served prison sentences for their creative and surreal vandalising of the covers of library books - it was a golden opportunity.

Orton gained fame and fortune using bad taste and the bizarre to confront and provoke.

Farce was a theatrical staple and Bradley says What the Butler Saw is "a piss-take of the farce itself".

Orton exploited its conventions to hold up a mirror to British society.

"He had a go at everything in this thing," says Bradley, who directed the play once before for The Players Company as well as a CAT Award-winning production of Orton's Entertaining Mr Sloane.

The new production of What the Butler Saw was postponed because of COVID-19 just as casting was about to begin but was given the go-ahead in July. Bradley and company have enjoyed exploring Orton's scathing view of society.

Morals and mores, hypocrisy, the role of authority figures including the police and the medical profession, the social order - all these and more are held up to examination and ridicule in politically incorrect fashion and the action becomes increasingly chaotic.

The play begins with psychiatrist Dr Prentice (played by David Cannell) in his clinic, interviewing and attempting to seduce would-be secretary Geraldine (Zoe Swan).

When Dr Prentice's wife (Lainie Hart) arrives unexpectedly, he has to hide the girl. but worse is to come.

A government inspector, Dr Rance (Peter Holland) also turns up, among other characters - and craziness, cross-dressing and chaos ensue as well as some bizarre revelations.

Cannell says, "Nothing's really changed" in the more than 50 years since What the Butler Saw premiered, making it as relevant as ever.

He says he had never been in an Orton play before and wasn't all that familiar with the man and his work but there was one connection.

"My dad knew [married actors] Prunella Scales and Timothy West."

The couple had been in a 1987 televised production of What the Butler Saw.

"My parents told me about the show when I was about eight."

Cannell was able to watch and enjoy the TV production on YouTube.

During the rehearsal period, Cannell went to the coast and fell over headfirst onto a rock.

"It ripped open my eyelid and eyebrow and my eye is half closed."

He says "90 per cent of people" he saw afterwards thought he had simply been playing around with make-up effects.

It's not hard to see why: Cannell is a performer at Questacon and has performed onstage in many stage musicals in Canberra.

But that less than sympathetic reaction by many to a very real injury that could have been serious might have appealed to Joe Orton's dark sense of humour.

What the Butler Saw. By Joe Orton. Directed by Liz Bradley. Canberra Rep. Canberra Rep Theatre (Theatre 3), Ellery Crescent, Acton. September 10 to 26. Wednesday to Saturday at 8pm, with 2pm matinees on September 19, 20 and 26. Limited seating. Bookings by phone only: Monday to Friday 10am to 4pm on 6257 1950. canberrarep.org.au.

View post:
Joe Orton's What the Butler Saw is a dark farce presented by Canberra Rep - The Canberra Times

Since I announced publicly that I will be voting for Joe Biden in November, Ive received a few communications from puzzled readers. How can you, a supposedly pro-life woman, support someone who believes in killing babies?

I will try to respond for the sake of those who, like me, find themselves alienated from the Republican Party despite some policy agreements with the Trump administration.

I have been pro-life my entire adult life. I havent changed. I continue to find the practice abhorrent and will persist in trying to persuade others. While I would prefer to vote for someone who upholds the right to life, Ive never believed that electing presidents who agree with me will lead to dramatic changes in abortion law, nor is the law itself the only way to discourage abortion. The number of abortions has been declining steadily since 1981. It dropped during Republican presidencies and during Democratic presidencies, and now stands below the rate in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided and when abortion was illegal in 44 states.

Its wrong to take innocent life. But other things are immoral too. Its also wrong to swindle people, to degrade and demonize, to incite violence, to bully, and while were at it, to steal, to bear false witness, to commit adultery and to covet.

Donald Trump is a daily, even hourly, assault on the very idea of morality, even as he obliterates truth. His influence is like sulfuric acid on our civic bonds. His cruelty is contagious. Remember how he mocked a handicapped reporter in 2016? His defenders either denied the obvious facts, or insisted that, while Trump himself might be politically incorrect, his supporters wouldnt be influenced by that aspect of his character.

Alas, they are. Consider the incredibly moving moment during the Democratic National Convention when young Braydon Harrington, who struggles with stuttering, introduced Joe Biden. That night, an Atlantic editor with the same affliction tweeted: This is what stutterers face every day. Im in awe of Braydons courage and resolve. That prompted Austin Ruse, author of The Catholic Case for Trump, to tweet in response: W-w-w-w-w-w-what?

It isnt just a matter of style. At Donald Trumps order, thousands of children, including hundreds under the age of 4, were forcibly separated from their parents at the border. Pro-lifers are tender-hearted about the most vulnerable members of society. So, images like this must stir something. Separating children from their parents is a barbaric act. In the crush of outrages over the past three and a half years, it has gotten swallowed up, but the horror of what was done in our name should never be forgotten.

All of this is familiar to Trump supporters, but they will vote for him because they believe that the left is far worse.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., characteristically subtle, claimed at the RNC that Biden and Democrats will, disarm you, empty the prisons, lock you in your home, and invite MS-13 to live next door. And the defunded police arent on their way.

Funny, but I could have sworn that the Democratic Party nominated Joe Biden, not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Look, there are extremists on the left, and the Democratic Party has a weakness for not calling them out. Democrats do the truth and themselves no favors by attempting to gloss over the looting, arson and vandalism that have persisted in Portland, Chicago and other cities throughout the summer.

But its dishonest, and frankly, a bit hysterical, to attempt to hang every sin of the left around Joe Bidens neck. Hes no radical, and the party that nominated him showed that its centrist core was stronger than its extremist wing.

In the wake of renewed violence following yet another horrific police shooting, this time in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Biden issued a humane statement expressing deep sympathy for Jacob Blake and his family, outrage at what happened and also condemnation of violence, saying: burning down communities is not protest, its needless violence. ... Thats wrong. Biden struck exactly the right tone.

The argument that the left is worse doesnt persuade me. Strange as it is to write those words after 30-plus years as a conservative columnist, I have to say that when you compare the state of the two major parties today, the Republicans are more frightening.

It is the Republican Party that has officially become a personality cult, declaring that it will not adopt a platform but will simply follow whatever Trump dictates. And it is the Republican Party that now opens its arms to adherents of a deranged and dangerous new cult called QAnon. The FBI has designated QAnon a domestic terror threat, yet minority leader Kevin McCarthy has committed to providing committee assignments to Marjorie Taylor Greene, should she be elected in November.

There is putrefaction where the Republican Partys essence should be, and appointing pro-life judges cannot mask the stench. So, this conservative is voting for the Democrats. Will the GOP reform? I hope so. But my priority isnt trying to heal the Republican Party. Its trying to heal the country.

Continued here:
CHAREN: Why this pro-life conservative is voting for Biden - Odessa American

How does an AfricanIm first-generation Nigerian American, I wasnt born in Americawho hasnt experienced the same things that Black Americans face, how do you get involved in something from the inside that you dont feel you're a part of? But then you realize, Hey, youre as Black as the next person. It doesnt matter. And it goes to show that were all in this together. If I live in this country, I just have to be active.

The same day that George Floyd had passed, Dion Johnson here in Phoenix was shot by police officers. So I went to that vigil, and that was my first vigil and protest evereven when I did vote and I knew there were protests going on with Black Lives Matter and things of that nature. I just never put myself in that space.

I went to that vigil and my first protest. Im like, OK, how do I get involved? I had a friend who met me at another protest, and she introduced me to [someone] who is actually running for a legislative seat. I talked to him, and he connected me with a pastor who is very active in the community.

I spoke at my first city council meeting last Thursday, and I had a comment because they were trying to raise the police budget from $500 million to $745 million. Were still in Covid, theres homelessness, affordable living [and] mental health issues, and yet youre giving the police force more moneyfor what, I dont understandas people are dying.

Im a progressive Democrat, so Im on that side of the playing field. Im all for seeing change for everybodyBlack, indigenous, Hispanic, the LGBTQ community. We have a diverse America now, so we need new faces. So Im voting for Joe because obviously he makes more sense than Trump.

View post:
These Swing Voters Will Decide if Trump, Biden Wins 2020 Election in November - Bloomberg

Many US fans love British comedy - even if not every joke translates. These '90s classics are some must-watch... and some must-avoid.

Over the last 50 years, there have been a lot of iconic and memorable British sitcoms. The '80s provided the world with some comedy gold, with the likes ofOnly Fools and Horses, Blackadder,and 'Allo 'Allostill watched by millions today. The noughties also provided a lot of hilarious material too with the likes ofPeep Showand The Office (UK)achieving critical success. But what about the '90s?

RELATED:The 10 Best British Sitcoms Of All Time

The sitcoms that the public saw in the '90s were just as memorable as all the other decades. However, it was not always for the right reasons. In fact, a lot of them should have never been commissioned in the first place. Here are just a few examples of the best and worst British sitcoms in the '90s.

Starring Neil Morrisey and Martin Clunes,Men Behaving Badlyis a sitcom that isn't as fondly remembered now as it was in the '90s. Set in West London, the sitcom mainly follows the lives of Gary Strang (Clunes) and his flatmates who spend most of their time doing stereotypical "manly" things.

The show was also deemed to be politically incorrect by many fans, who believed that its portrayal of lad culture promoted irresponsible and invasive behavior (especially towards the women). It's one of those sitcoms that hasn't aged well.

One of the most iconic sitcoms in the 1990s wasThe League of Gentlemen, which starred and was written by Steve Pemberton, Mark Gatiss, and Reece Shearsmith. While dark comedies are not to everyone's taste, this sitcom did prove a hit with the British public as the viewers enjoyed the wickedly twisted humor.

A lot of fans also praised the writers for coming up with situations and characters that were quite innovative and inventive. Although the show would be deemed highly controversial if it was aired now, Pemberton, Gatiss, and Shearsmith style can be witnessed in Inside No. 9 and Psychoville...

Dinnerladiesis also another tv series that was prominent in the '90s. Starring Victoria Wood, Maxine Peake, and Julie Walters, the sitcom mainly focuses on the lives of the canteen workers who work at the fictional factory, HWD Components. As the show goes on, the viewers see friendships and romances blossom between the staff and grow stronger.

Unfortunately,there are mixed feelings on the sitcom. Those who weren't familiar with Wood's work didn't know what to make of the bittersweet humor that was littered throughout. Some also thought the characters were a little dull. It just depends on the viewers' taste...

Starring Paul Whitehouse, Mark Williams, and Caroline Aherne, the '90s found another hit series inThe Fast Show.Mainly containing a series of sketches, each episode provided a situation and character that depicted a stereotype of British society.

RELATED:10 Iconic British Sitcom Characters, Ranked By How Funny They Are

The series was an immediate hit with the public as the viewers managed to find the characters relatable in some form or another. The writing is funny, the execution of jokes is perfectly timed and the performances are quite memorable too. It's another must-see show...

One sitcom that hasn't been as popular as the other entries on the list isBirds of a Feather.Starring Linda Robson, Pauline Quirke, and Lesley Joseph, the show focused on the lives of two sisters, who are shocked to discover that their husbands have been arrested for armed robbery. They are then forced to move in together and adapt to their newfound lives.

While the show is still going presently, many people believe the magic went out of the show decades ago. Although the series' protagonists give strong performances, the show lacks in writing and storylines. The jokes are also very predictable too. It would have been more iconic if it ended in its prime...

Goodnight Sweetheartis also another sitcom that proved to be a hit in the '90s. Starring Nicholas Lyndhurst, the show followed the life of Gary Sparrow, a time-traveler who finds himself living a double life when he stumbles upon a portal leading to 1940s London.

In both time-periods, the viewers get to meet some iconic characters and duos. Viewers loved watching Ron and Yvonne butt-heads, and the friendship blossomed between Reg and Gary. Despite hating his adulterous nature, viewers did look forward to seeing what adventures Gary got up to as well. It's worth a watch if someone hasn't seen it yet...

Although Lyndhurst found success withGoodnight Sweetheart,he did feature in another 90s sitcom that wasn't as successful. Set in the early 1990s, the show focuses on Peter Chapman (Lyndhurst), who finds himself recruited by MI5 after they ask him to join their technology division. Since he had lost his job, Peter jumps on the opportunity.

RELATED:The Worst Episode Of 10 Great British Sitcoms, According To IMDb

The only problem was that he had to hide his new job from his wife. Unfortunately, the sitcom didn't last very long as many thought the writing was dull and dry. To this day, not many people remember it particularly well.

Another sitcom that was a hit in the '90s wasKnowing Me, Knowing You with Alan Partridge.Starring Steven Coogan, the series follows the life of verbose talk show host Alan Partridge, who often gets himself into awkward and troublesome situations.

Scripts, which were written by Coogan too, received a lot of praise amongst the public, who thoroughly enjoyed the dry and cringe humor. It was also well received with critics, withThe Austin Chroniclecalling it "the most hilarious satirical comedies in recent memory."The show was so popular that Coogan went on to create several more series with Alan Partridge at the center.

Most people will agree thatHeil Honey, I'm Homewas the worst sitcom to come out of the '90s. Starring Neil McCaul and Denica Fairman, the show centered on the lives of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun, who find themselves living next door to a Jewish couple.

Already, one would be able to tell that the controversial show wasn't well-received among the British public, who rightfully deemed it "distasteful and offensive." The public outcry would have got even bigger if one looks up what was planned in the future episodes. It wasn't surprising that the network executives decided to cancel it altogether. How this got commissioned in the first place is anyone's guess...

By far, the best sitcom of the '90s has to beThe Royle Family.Set in Manchester, the sitcom mainly focused on the Royles, who spend most of their time watching television and discussing everyday events. Starringthe likes of Ricky Tomlinson, Susan Johnston, and Caroline Aherne, the series rose to fame due to its relatable characters and humorous storylines.

The show also accrued critical fame due to the chemistry between actors, particularly the rivalry between Jim (Tomlinson) and Nana, which had audiences in tears most of the time. This show is still just as popular with the viewers in the U.K. as it was in the '90s.

NEXT:10 Hilarious British Sitcoms That You Absolutely Need To Watch

Next 10 Most Cringeworthy Characters On Full House

A writer, reader and tv fanatic, Kayleigh enjoys reading movie news and your film reviews. She has attained an Undergraduate degree in Creative Writing and is also the creator of the film and television blog 'The Critics' Corner'.

Read more:
5 Best (& 5 Worst) British Sitcoms Of The '90s | ScreenRant - Screen Rant

Immigration New Zealand has apologised after it told an Egyptian student his country's political instability was a reason for denying him a visa.

(file photo) Photo: 123rf.com

Immigration statistics show at least half of all student applications from Egypt had been declined in each of the last six calendar years.

Mohamed Mansour, who works in marketing in Saudi Arabia, applied for immigration approval to attend a business management course last year.

In a rejection letter, an officer said, "As Egypt is currently politically unstable and it is known people are attempting to leave Egypt I am concerned this may discourage you from returning to your home country on completion of study."

Mansour said although Immigration New Zealand (INZ) had apologised, its reassessment of his application was inadequate.

"I need to tell you that students who applied for a student visa from Egypt their applications [in the past] were processed in Mumbai and many students got an interview call from the immigration officer to discuss with them the application, but recently all Egyptians application were reallocated to Palmerston North office and no immigration officers had any interview with any Egyptian students.

"I hope in the near future INZ stop their discrimination to my people and I share regularly my case via social media to show the other face of New Zealand. Don't trust any New Zealand immigration officers, I tell them they have hidden reasons to decline the visas."

In a statement, Immigration New Zealand said it rejected claims of discrimination.

"Mr Mansour lodged a formal complaint on 25 November 2019 in relation to a reference to political instability in Egypt," said Steve McGill, the acting general manager for border and visa operations.

"INZ acknowledged this reference was incorrect and apologised to Mr Mansour.

"INZ also offered to reassess Mr Mansour's application, which was lodged on 12 December 2019. Based on additional information provided in this application, INZ was satisfied with Mr Mansour's evidence of funds but still did not have enough evidence demonstrating he was a bona fide student. As a result, Mr Mansour's application was declined on 24 December 2019."

It said officers were trained to apply fairness in decision-making and to avoid bias, ensuring that each application was decided on its own merits.

"INZ refutes claims of discrimination," McGill said. "Each application is decided on a case-by-case basis against the relevant immigration instructions. Officers are supervised while in training, their work is regularly checked and reviewed when they are out of training, and INZ has a quality assurance programme that continues to monitor work on a regular basis."

INZ said it did not decline visa applicants based on their country of origin or race.

In the year ended July 2020, 129 student visas were issued to Egyptian nationals, with 33 applications declined.

Visit link:
Immigration NZ apologises after rejecting student for 'political instability' in Egypt - RNZ