Monthly Archives: January 2022

EXCLUSIVE: Bill Maher is back and ready to rumble.

I feel like Covid is still the dominant issue of our lives right now and it should not be anymore, the Real Time with Bill Maher host says as the HBO series prepares to kick off its 20th season tonight. And I think the big discussion on our show Friday night when we go on, is should we continue with the Covid policies weve had in the past?

Set to feature a one-on-one interview with On Tyranny Graphic Edition: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century author Timothy Snyder and panelists Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and Honestly podcasts Barri Weiss, the Real Time 20th season debut will undoubtedly see professional contrarian Maher also tackle the legacy and possible future of Donald Trump. Even with a tendency to lapse into grumpy old white man mode and false equivalencies when it comes to the culture wars, Maher has proven an unsparing Cicero of sorts against the tyranny of Trumpism and the frequent ineptitude of American liberals.

In that vein, the multi-Emmy nominated satirist spoke with me about his 2024 fears and the progress, or lack thereof, in the fight against the pandemic. Looking back over the years, currently longest running late-night host on the air, Maher also noted the shifts hes observed in the increasingly ravaged body politic since Real Time premiered in 2003 when George W Bush was in the White House.

DEADLINE: Years ago I saw a documentary about the Rolling Stones and they interviewed the late great Charlie Watts outside some airplane hangar or something on a video shoot. And theyre asking the clearly unimpressed drummer about his career and the band, and at one point Watts looks at the camera and says, Work five years and 20 years hanging around, f*cking around or something like that. So, I wanted to ask you, looking back now, what does 20 seasons of Real Time feel like to you?

BILL MAHER: Not bad. Because theres never any just doing f*ck all on my show, I mean, I work really hard on it. I like the grind. You know Im just coming off a vacation so it kind of lands with a thud like, wow, I forgot this takes a lot of work every week. But you know it keeps me off the streets, and Ive always enjoyed the process of putting a show together over a whole week to be able to make it the best possible show.

As opposed to my first show in the 90s, Politically Incorrect, which was an everyday show. And when you do an everyday show its a different animal. Youre just kind of throwing sh*t up against the wall and seeing what sticks. I mean, thats sort of the beauty of it too, you know, its a little less polished and that can be great too.

DEADLINE: One thing I always loved about Politically Incorrect was it always felt like you were a little bit on the knifes edge, as was the show itself.

MAHER: Yeah, like I say, theres some virtue in both of them. Just like to continue with your music analogy with the Rolling Stones thats a raw sound, you know, theyre not overproduced, whereas like the Beatles most of their stuff is like very perfectly completed in the studio. With the Rolling Stones, youre just going to feel like theyre letting it rip. Theres good in both.

DEADLINE: Its an understatement to say there hasnt been a lot of good news the past couple of months around the ongoing pandemic with the rapid spread of the Omicron variant. Covid saw Real Time filming from your backyard for a while in 2020 and even go dark last year for a spell when you tested positive. So, heading back to a new season this week, whats your feeling about the pandemic in 2022?

MAHER: Im over Covid.

DEADLINE: Really?

MAHER: I was never scared of it. I was always scared of the reaction to it, and as this has played out that only proved to be more true for me. Im sure many people feel different, but thats me. It was never that virulent a threat, I thought, to people who were in good health.

Now, some people cant help that theyre not in good health. We should, of course, protect the vulnerable, but it was mostly a disease of the very old, which every disease is a threat to, and people who have comorbidities, which mostly is due to lifestyle.

DEADLINE: Yeah, youve always been quite strong about that in terms of people taking care of their health and the way they can do it.

MAHER: Right. I mean, 78%, this is just the CDC fact, 78% of the people who died or went to the hospital were obese. Now, Im not saying they deserved to die. Dont twist my words, please. Im just saying that is a lifestyle, you know? So, the fact that America, the medical establishment, never even attempted to get people to live a healthier lifestyle as a response to this pandemic is a giant scandal to me. [Editors note: The CDC study from March 2021 that Maher seems to be citing actually says among 148,494 adults who received a Covid-19 diagnosis during an emergency department or inpatient visit at 238 U.S. hospitals during MarchDecember 2020, 28.3% had overweight and 50.8% had obesity.]

Its not a rarefied or weird point of view to say that if people would up their vitamin D levels, up their zinc levels, stop eating sugar, get a proper amount of sleep, stop overeating and day drinking, which is what went on during this pandemic, they would have a much better chance. The people who didnt do that have blood on their hands. Theres no other way to put it.

I understand that the Western medical establishment is rather cozy with the pharmaceutical industry, so I understand that their only idea about solving this is a pharmaceutical response. And Im glad there is a vaccine because many people need a vaccine. It does stop you from dying. But shouldnt we also have at least mentioned this other way to deal with it?

DEADLINE: In terms of mentioning another way, you attracted a lot of attention last fall in your Slow-Moving Coup segment when you warned against Donald Trump declaring himself the winner of the 2024 election regardless of the outcome, the vote count consequences of the stooges he is installing right now and the threat of violence that will make January 6 look like a training session. It was a stark assessment that not a lot of people wanted to hear

MAHER: I dont know anyone who didnt want to hear that except Trumpers, but maybe I missed it. Actually, what I mostly heard the reaction from that was you scared the sh*t out of us and Im glad you did. And since I said it, Ive noticed basically that theme being put out there in dozens of places. Its now like part of the dialogue in America and thats exactly what my show is meant to do, is to put ideas in the water that other people are ignoring or too afraid to say.

And you know that is certainly what Im going to be doing about Covid also, as you mention that.

DEADLINE: How so?

MAHER: I mean, were in a very different place with Covid than we were just when I was on the air last time, and that is the vaccines, we know, do not prevent you from either transmitting it or getting the disease. We know that. Thats a fact now. They just prevent you from dying, which is a great part of it, lets not undercount that. But if they dont prevent you from transmitting it and they dont prevent you from getting it why are we still treating this disease the way we always have? And what the f*ck is the use of a booster shot? Because I will never get a booster shot.

DEADLINE: Because you think its useless?

MAHER: Its not only useless, but this is a very, very new vaccine. Okay, I didnt want the first vaccine. We should not treat people unfairly who want to allow their own immune system to take care of the situation. But okay, I took one for the team. Now, theyre giving a fourth one in Israel with the booster shots. Now, this I read in the front page of the New York Times, which is a very pro-vaccine publication, and even they printed that many scientists in Israel were against this, scientists and doctors, because they said it might have a reverse effect, something called immune system fatigue.

Well, I dont want that, do you? So, now youre not protected by the vaccine or your immune system? I dont think so.

DEADLINE: One of the emerging realities over the past few months is that many are simply exhausted by the pandemic now and what feels like ever-changing standards from governments and scientists changing regulations, requirement and edicts, like the recent move to quarantine now for just five days if you test positive for Covid. Listening to you, it sounds like you really dont think Dr. Anthony Fauci or the medical establishment really know what they are doing, that this is more whack-a-mole?

MAHER: They dont know a lot about anything.

Thats not a criticism of them like theyre being corrupt although there certainly is plenty of corruption in the medical establishment. But Ive always maintained that the big overarching theme should be that people look back and say, oh, look how far weve come medically. Yes, thats true. Were not putting wooden teeth in our mouth like in the George Washington era, and of course we have antibiotics and lots of vaccines and lots of other things that have been miraculous. But in general, we still dont understand too much about how the human body works.

So, dont sit there in your white coat and tell me just do what we say. When have we ever been wrong? A lot is my answer. A lot. They drilled mercury into my teeth when I was a child. Now, of course, we dont do that anymore, but do you really think in 50 years people will look back and say, oh, yeah, we had it all figured out in 2022? No, they will be appalled at things were doing right now.

Medical error is still the third leading cause of death in America and thats just based on what we know now and what we know in the future will certainly make that number rise. [Editors note: According to the CDCs most recent report from December 2021, Covid-19 was the third leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2020 after heart disease and cancer. The fourth leading cause was unintentional injuries, which include car accidents, poisoning and falls, followed by stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, Alzheimer disease, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia.]

DEADLINE: Flipping that look forward, looking back over the history of Real Time, theres obviously been a lot of change in this country since 2003, a lot of change in this industry. For you, what has changed in terms of the show itself and the way you put it together, and what you emphasize?

MAHER: I think the politics around me have changed. In other words, the first years George W. Bush was president and the liberal half of the country was, I thought, pretty sane. Now, since about I dont know 2015 or so theres been a real sea change in whats going on, on the left.

Now I always will maintain that the right is the more dangerous faction in this country, especially since they dont believe in elections I mean you have to keep that in perspective. One side does not believe in the form of government we have. What do you do about people who are in the government who dont believe in your form of government?

I mean, the peaceful transfer of power was always the feather in our cap as America. It was always the jewel in our crown. It was the thing that other countries, so many other countries, had a problem with. They could not peacefully transfer from one guy to the next. We had that figured out. And now these people on the right have broken that and God knows whats going to happen in the future. But on the left, you know, I mean a big problem is that they strike too many people in this country, for good reason, as the party of no common sense.

DEADLINE: How so?

MAHER: They have inverted so much of traditional liberalism, I mean, traditional liberalism was all about creating a colorblind society as opposed to so much of what goes on now is insisting on seeing race everywhere, things like that.

So, whereas before what I was doing was, almost always, making fun only of the conservatives. Now, I have to, if Im an honest broker, if Im going to just call things as I see them, Im doing it for both sides. I mean, again, with the perspective that the right is worse, but that is a big change. And by the way, it has been embraced by the audience. Everywhere I go people tell me they appreciate this and Im talking about mostly liberal people. You know they are not okay with what has gone on with that faction of the left.

DEADLINE: Well

MAHER: Excuse me let me finish my thought. They want someone to call it out.

DEADLINE: So, at the beginning of your 20th season, where do you see America at?

MAHER: Not a great place. It couldve been worse if the election went the other way.

And I, again, per the prediction you were talking about, think the real day of reckoning is going to be between election day 2024 and Inauguration Day 2025, because thats when the rubber really hits the road.

Trump, who, as Ive said before, will definitely be running and definitely be the candidate for the Republican Party. Hes already running if you saw that display this weekend, and this time like last time hes not going to concede. But this next time, hes going to have people in place who will back him up on his lie that he won the election whether he did or not. And then what do you do when those people are much more powerful and there are two claimants to the throne? I mean, weve seen this play out in other countries and its not pretty. And I dont know what will happen, but it frightens me a great deal.

DEADLINE: And in terms of the show itself?

MAHER: Oh, I mean, Ill say this, we dont live in dull times. Its frightening in many ways, sometimes depressing, but not uninteresting.

I feel like Covid is still the dominate issue of our lives right now and it should not be anymore. And I think the big discussion on our show Friday night when we go on, is that is should we continue with the Covid policies weve had in the past? Or do we have to do a reset, and just say this thing is never going away and we cant always be living in a state of emergency? And of course the other thing is, as weve been talking about also, Trump and whats going to happen with our democracy.

Read the original:
Bill Maher On Real Times 20th Season, Being Over Covid & Americas Upcoming Real Day Of Reckoning - Deadline

Earlier this week, a pair of right-libertarian journalists announced the launch of their new site, BASEDPolitics. All hell promptly broke loose on right-wing Twitter.In the first editorial for their new site, co-founders Brad Polumbo and Hannah Cox define 'based' as 'upfront, on point, or rooted in true principles.' That fits pretty well with my understanding of the term, but it leaves something out.

That 'something' accounts for the pushback they received from the post-liberal, national conservative crowd. According to them, libertarians like Polumbo and Cox are nothing more than Koch-funded shills who fight for tax cuts and weaker antitrust laws while drag queens read to our children. They are not 'based' and have no right to refer to themselves as such.

'Our culture is not your costume,' one popular right-wing Twitter personality quipped. Sohrab Ahmari, an American Conservative editor who advocates for 'political Catholicism,'tweeted'Im never using based again, now that these corporate schmucks have appropriated it.'

Ahmari also threw in some disparaging comments about Polumbos 'gigantic' head and Coxs 'tackily overspilling dcolletage' as they appeared in the announcement graphic.

I asked Polumbo (full disclosure: he and I are both affiliated with Young Voices) whether he expected this kind of reaction. Heres what he had to say:

Oh yeah, we anticipated pushback from the very-online nationalist crowd. Im not particularly bothered by it, although some of it has been ad-hominem and juvenile, and thats pretty pathetic, fan behaviour. We wont stoop to that. But the pushback is kind of the point. The nationalists want to redefine what it means to be conservative so that it resembles big government, socially conservative Elizabeth Warren economics more than Ronald Reagan. We still believe the future of the Right should be rooted in free markets, individual liberty, the Constitution, (and)limited government.

The term 'based' originated as slang for being high on crack. Perhaps theres some connection with 'freebasing', or smoking cocaine. From there, the terms definition expanded to cover all the strange and erratic behaviours typically associated with 'crackheads'. A modern equivalent might be to say someone is 'trippin' or 'tweakin'. These dont necessarily mean the person is under the influence of psychedelics or meth, only that theyre acting like it. 'Youre crazy,' spoken either with total dismissiveness or with a hint of admiration, would convey the same meaning.

'Based' began to take on its current connotation with rapper Lil B the Based God, who released his first album, Based Boys, in 2007. According to Lil B, 'Based means being yourself. Not being scared of what people think about you. Not being afraid to do what you wanna do.'

According to one online dictionary, the term, now a 'signal of power and swagger,' became associated with the online right in the 2010s as a synonym for 'politically incorrect'. Donald Trump was 'based' because he was willing to say things that annoyed the libs and then laugh at their outrage.

'Can you believe OrangeMan said X?!' the outraged soycuck shrieks. 'Lol, based,' the gigachad responds.

It seems to me that at this point, an earlier definition of 'based' unrelated to West Coast drug culture began to influence the terms use by the new right. 'Based' retained its sense of the manic, un-self-conscious energy of Trumps Twitter, but it also took on the the sense of being 'based on' or 'based in' something older and sturdier than the endless flux of liquid modernity. ric Zemmour is based. So is Viktor Orbn. Jailing pornographers, seizing the assets of the Ford Foundation, and going to Latin Mass with your nine kids and tradwife are all based. On the darker corners of right-wing Twitter, Rhodesia, Mussolini and overt expressions of sexism are also 'based'.

The prevailing definition of 'based' sits somewhere near the intersection of troll and trad.

Polumbo told me hes fully aware that hes going against the usual meaning of the term:

'While not our only mission, a crucial part of our project is to explicitly combat the nationalist conservative movement in a substantive and ideas-based way. We are redefining what it means to be based, whether they like it or not. Freedom is based. Catholic integralism and other forms of lite-theocracy are authoritarian and un-American.'

The post-liberal response, of course, would be that right-libertarianism, like progressivism, is a dominant ideology masquerading as a scrappy resistance. They are two faces of the same beast called liberalism. They divide the world between them: freedom in the boardroom and freedom in the bedroom.

Im not nearly the libertarian Polumbo is, but Im not a fully convinced post-liberal yet either. I think wokeness is a far greater threat than socialism. At the same time, I worry that any sort of post-liberal political project could lead to tyranny. The levels of social conservatism and, frankly, religiosity it demands simply dont have enough buy-in to win national elections.

Imagine the average Joe Rogan listener. Not the alt-right white nationalist monster sketched out in thinkpiece after thinkpiece, but the representative of the American median, the 'barstool conservative'.Hes economically agnostic, an admirer of entrepreneurship who distrusts large corporations. Socially, hes slightly to the left of centre. The idea of giving puberty blockers to kids freaks him out, but he has no interest in outlawing gay marriage or no-fault divorce. Hed be more likely than Polumbo to support trade protectionism and breaking up big tech, but Ahmari would have a hard time selling him on porn bans and blue laws.

Polumbo and Cox are betting that this voting bloc will be more open to Friedrich Hayek than to Thomas Aquinas. Their plan seems to be to stan capitalism while casting wokeness as a collectivist distortion of individual liberty rather than its natural outgrowth. Its possible, they promise, to combat the excesses of progressivism to be 'based' without throwing out many of the fundamental assumptions of American politics and culture.

It might work. If their attempt to reclaim 'based' succeeds, well know it has.

Link:
Who will win the battle for 'based'? - Spectator.co.uk

By Ariana Ceballos

Every year, Hollywood stars are invited to sit through award ceremonies to praise one another for their various accomplishments. Ceremonies for televised events like the Golden Globes and the Oscars invite audiences to witness these special occasions celebrating the accomplishments of beloved actors, actresses, and movies of the year from the comfort of their homes. While spectators are given a window view into the world of elites, associations that host these events have largely ignored the people outside their exclusive circles.

In recent years, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) that runs the Golden Globes and the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) that runs the Oscars have experienced a steep decline in viewership for their shows, because they neglected to reflect on connecting to ordinary audience members.

The pandemic pushed many issues to the forefront of the media, especially those of racial inequality and class disparity. These are issues that cannot be dismissed and should be addressed by any platform with great power. Award shows are entertaining, but they need to address these inequalities within their systems before attempting to show allyship.

This years Golden Globes ceremony took place on a different platform. Rather than being shown on television, winners of the award were posted on social media. The decision to move the award show from its established televised event to social media was a reaction to the recent issues with the HFPA.

Many issues have surrounded the HFPA, like a lack of diversity within its members and past winners. People look forward to seeing the ceremony for many reasons including hoping to see a winner that may resemble their gender, religion, race, or identity. With a majority white members in the association, theres no one appealing to POC, and others who are out of the organizations perception as the common audience.

Ann Hornaday for The Washington Post states, The Globes are looking like what the Oscars used to be, and might benefit from becoming, at least for the time being, meaning a private event. Hornaday says that the HFPA (Hollywood Foreign Press Association) has inner work to undertake before it can gain a wider audience.

Given the reception of the Golden Globes this year, not much is expected of the Oscars, whose viewership has been in a steady decline. Brooks Barnes and John Koblin note in their New York Times article that the 2021 Oscars ceremony failed to garner 10 million viewers.

The production of the show has also changed, such as the absence of a host for three years. 2022 should mark the return of a yet unannounced host. AMPAS is trying to fix their production to resonate with a larger audience. Recent years have shown first-time winners for POC communities, such as Parasites Best Picture win in 2020, becoming the first Korean film to receive the award.

In 2021, Yuh-jung-Youn became the first Korean to win an Oscar in an acting category and Chlo Zhao became the first Chinese winner of the best director award as well as being the second woman to win. These are monumental wins that should be celebrated, and one cant help but think why it took so long for POC communities to receive such awards.

Award associations can no longer shut down non-elites or turn a blind eye to societal issues. Even if it means promoting a foreign movie dealing with such issues, the associations should attempt to discuss them. In order to capture a wider audience, the associations need to have awareness when approaching diverse communities. Not only will this appeal to a wider audience, but it will uphold values that are fundamental to our overall social welfare and prosperity.

View post:
Student Opinion: Are Award Shows for Us Ordinary Folks? - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis