Monthly Archives: June 2022

In summary

The deterioration of city life in San Francisco and Los Angeles motivated voters to voice their disgust in Tuesdays election.

It may be tempting to make too much of what happened Tuesday in Californias two most prominent cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Right-wing media are screaming that the overwhelming recall of San Franciscos uber-progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin, and businessman Rick Carusos top finish in a field of 12 candidates for mayor bodes well for a Republican comeback in this deep blue state.

Thats not going to happen.

However, its also tempting to make too little of Tuesdays voting patterns in those two cities. Progressives rationalize Boudins ouster and Carusos strong finish as attempts by the Trumpian right to seize control. In fact Boudin tried, and failed, to make that case to his citys voters.

Rather, both outcomes reflect legitimate concerns by voters, including those who consider themselves to be left-of-center Democrats, that the quality of life in both cities has deteriorated and that their elected leaders have failed to recognize and confront that fact.

Deterioration is especially stark in San Francisco with rampant drug use that is taking a heavy toll on human life, squalid camps of the homeless dominating city sidewalks and a wave of burglaries and smash-and-grab robberies that goes unpunished.

Writer Nellie Bowles vividly captures the San Francisco crisis and why ordinarily progressive San Franciscans became disgusted in a lengthy article that Atlantic magazine published today.

They did it because (Boudin) didnt seem to care that he was making the citizens of our city miserable in service of an ideology that made sense everywhere but in reality, Bowles wrote. Its not just about Boudin, though. There is a sense that, on everything from housing to schools, San Francisco has lost the plot that progressive leaders here have been LARPing left-wing values instead of working to create a livable city. And many San Franciscans have had enough.

Bowles noted that Boudins recall was foretold by the recall of San Francisco school board members who were preoccupied with symbolic acts of political correctness, such as changing the names on school buildings while ignoring the effects of school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I used to tell myself that San Franciscos politics were wacky but the city was trying really trying to be good, she wrote. But the reality is that with the smartest minds and so much money and the very best of intentions, San Francisco became a cruel city. It became so dogmatically progressive that maintaining the purity of the politics required accepting or at least ignoring devastating results.

Boudin himself came close to acknowledging why he lost, albeit with a tinge of rationalization, telling the San Francisco Chronicle, Voters were not given an opportunity to choose between criminal justice reform and something else. They were given an opportunity to voice their frustrations and their outrage and they took that opportunity.

What about Los Angeles?

It has suffered from the same chronic problems that plague San Francisco and a political leadership that has been equally ineffective in dealing with them. Caruso, a very wealthy shopping center developer, tapped into widespread frustration, particularly about crime, in a deluge of self-financed media ads.

Los Angeles notoriously low voter turnout also helped Caruso garner more than 40% of Tuesdays vote, topping Congresswoman Karen Bass, the candidate of the citys Democratic leadership, by several points.

However, with neither getting a majority, they are headed for a runoff in the November election, when turnout will be higher. That will be a truer test of whether Angelenos are ready for the change that Republican-turned-Democrat Caruso promises but Bass and her supporters shouldnt ignore the quality-of-life backlash.

CalMatters is a nonprofit newsroom and your tax-deductible donations help us keep bringing you and every Californian essential, nonpartisan information.

I was filling out my ballot and realized that I use CalMatters every time I vote. Everything else is behind paywalls. I also appreciate that CalMatters is one of the more objective news sources in California.

Featured CalMatters Member

Read more here:

Voters in SF and LA voice their disgust - CalMatters

Last nights premiere of the Congressional January 6 Committee was reminiscent of one of those flashy old Sixty Minute exposes presided over by the long-discredited Dan Rather: lots of gut-wrenching shock footage, artfully-edited sound bites taken out of context, and an attempt to build a big, sinister picture of criminal conspiracy at the highest levels out of a smattering of evidence involving a handful obscure, fringe loonies.

Democratic chairman Bennie Thompson, a dignified old gentleman from the Mississippi Delta, and Republican representative Liz Cheney, a fiercely ambitious former rising GOP Congressional star who seems to have bet on the wrong horse, both did their best lend a bipartisan tone to what is really a brazenly partisan political exercise. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the real puppeteer behind the show, had tossed Republicans selected by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to sit on the committee. The GOP caucus reacted by boycotting the committee. As a result, Pelosi had to settle for two GOP mavericks, Cheney and Illinois representative Adam Kinzinger, to lend the panel a spurious whiff of legitimacy.

Now we are told that the committee has unearthed a sprawling conspiracy that was hatched and plotted from a Trump war room in the Willard Hotel. Donald Trump is accused of having spurred on a mob to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. But the law-abiding crowd that he addressed on the Mall that morning was still there, listening to the Donald, when a separate, much smaller band of a couple hundred raunchy Proud Boys set off for the Hill and triggered the violent assault on the Capitol. Absolutely no evidence was produced proving a command link or shared conspiracy between even the wackiest of Trumps inner circle and the actual riotersthough Thompson told Jake Tapper last night that he does possess such evidence and that it will be revealed in future hearings. The sprawling conspiracy seems to have been limited to a handful of Proud Boys and Oath Keepersshould that be Oaf Keepers?who had boasted among themselves of a plot to seize key federal buildings that never materialized.

Yes, Donald Trump, who can usually be counted on to behave outrageously, did so on January 6. So far, there is no formal evidence that he behaved illegally or was directly complicit in the violence. Nor could that violence have succeeded if the Speaker of the House, who controls the Capitol Police, had taken prudent security measures in expectation of the protests. Instead, a handful of unprepared officers, relying on a flimsy barricade of bicycle racks, was overrun. Some of them, like Officer Caroline Edwards, an impressive young woman who testified briefly, were attacked.

It was an awful day. But, in the end, the system worked. Order was restored. The official certification of election results, basically a symbolic formality, took place. Life went on. Since then, a number of the perpetrators of the violence have pleaded guilty or been convicted. Case closed. But the problems of declining respect for the law, and fragmenting social cohesion, are still with us. Thats because their roots go back a long way into the pre-Trumpian past.

Being a native Washingtonian born in 1944, Ive witnessed my share of local riots. As a young Congressional staffer in 1968, I can remember seeing the Capitol Dome silhouetted in a fiery, smoky haze as thousands of rioters burned and looted downtown Washington while the local police and federal authorities stood by and watched, ordered to stand down by President Lyndon Johnson. During the 2020 Summer of Love I walked past smashed windows and ransacked shopsmostly drug and liquor stores for some mysterious reasonin my own peaceful residential neighborhood while, downtown, screaming mobs looted, vandalized, attacked the police, and even tried to burn down an historic church just one block away from the White House.

It was all inexcusably bad. But even worse was the way the mainstream media bent over backwards to make excuses for it. Again and again, violent criminal behavior was equated with legitimate peaceful protest, lending a moral sanction to lawlessness when carried out in the name of political correctness. At the height of the urban violence that swept America that summer, the standard mantra for reporters covering scenes of arson, pillage and rapine was that the protests were mainly peaceful.

All that changed on January 6, 2021. What happened that day in Washington was a disgrace. In fact, I was one of the first to denounce it in this space. As I said at the time, I am opposed to lawless violence whether it is committed by the Left or the Right.

In many ways, what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was predictable: the result of pent-up resentment by rightist loonies who had long suffered in silence while the lawlessness of leftist loonies was excused and even glorified by mainstream politicians, media and popular culture. Nothing the January 6 Committee showed us on its opening night addresses this underlying problem.

Instead, as even New York Times columnist David Brooks has suggested, a Democratic-controlled tribunal is desperately trying to distract American voters from the pressing concerns about runaway inflation, voters remorse with the Biden administration, and a litany of other real and current woes. As Brooks concluded, these goals are pathetic. And if Thursday nights premiere was any indicator, theyre bound to fail.

Aram Bakshian, Jr. served as an aide to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and has written extensively on politics, history, gastronomy, and the arts for American and overseas publications.

Image: Reuters.

Read more:

The Real Goal of the January 6th Committee - The National Interest Online

Over the past decade, liberal democratic societies have witnessed an illiberal, undemocratic phenomenon that increasingly has permeated public discourse. This refers to intimidation of those holding contrary opinions on political, ideological, social, academic and other weighty topics. The ferocity of mob outrage vented on social media so-called trolling is a high-profile example, but there are other examples of intolerant wilding. This article explores the general phenomenon and those perpetrating such aggressive tactics, as well as considering the current trajectory of academic, political, and public debate in a polarized climate, one increasingly dominated by stridently expressed extreme opinions.

Well before the 21st century, a steady-state tradition had built up in democracies whereby freedom of speech was often passionate, but nevertheless generally respectful, even when opponents evoked vehement disagreement. Such popular periodicals as Private Eye, Le Canard Enchain and Charlie Hebdo continue the tradition of satirically speaking truth to power, as do many newspapers, while academics continue to expound their theories and opinions in a variety of academic channels, and sometimes in the popular press. While often controversial, vigorous, and even barbed and whether impartial or partisan, measured or polemical the essence of this tradition has been the principle of engaging, debating, analyzing, weighing, informing, and coexisting. This is all in the public interest, so as to develop and promulgate the most powerful arguments rather than the arguments of the most powerful.

This social contract of normative behavior started to break down noticeably towards the end of the first decade of this century, coinciding with the rise of social media. It has degenerated to such an extent that by now this civil standard is regarded by a significant minority as a contemptible relic that must be abandoned. Increasingly, respect for opposing world-views and opinions has been jettisoned in favor of a shrill determination to crush anyone whose ideas challenge ones own preconceptions.

The arguments of the most overbearing and shouty now swamp the most powerful arguments with their disproportionate noise and impact. In essence, it is a bullying and bellicose win at all costs approach, which might have been taken out of an imaginary Megalomanic Dictators Guide to Advancement and Self-Preservation. According to Ukrainian academic, Anton Shekhovtsov, the claim that Putin is a real and arguably fascist dictator is a case in point. Individuals and groups at all levels in society may display remarkably similar characteristics to Putins ruthless determination to dominate others with little or no concern about the resulting harm. As Ignazio Silones 1930s semi-autobiographies Fontamara and The Seed Beneath the Snow chronicling survival in a fascist society reveal, fascism both in the popular sense of overbearing nastiness and as a political ideology is characterized in daily life by such mundane personality flaws as envy, greed, vanity, resentment, inadequacy, entitlement, sociopathy, criminality etc.

The following cases exemplify the new intolerance, including the much abused weaponisation of the terms fascist and anti-fascist by countervailing interests.

The extreme statements by Donald Trump during his 2016-2020 US presidency are infamous. Trump was an avid user of his Twitter social media account and had few qualms about issuing personal rants in undiplomatic and certainly un-presidential language against a wide range of individuals and groups that he decried. These included senior US politicians, government officials, judges, war heroes, foreign politicians and heads of state, as well as journalists, film stars, sportspersons, and celebrities, but also Mexicans, Muslims, Iranians, disabled persons, refugees and many other objects of his disdain.

In Trumps narcissistic world-view, there is a dichotomy between winners/predators like himself and losers/victims who deserve all their problems and suffering and who, moreover, may be dismissed as unpatriotic, socialist (i.e. crypto-communist) agitators. To him, a loser is anyone lacking his personality and world-view or daring to challenge or criticize his ideas or policies, even constructively. Such Trumpian abuses have been widely discussed, for example by Roger Paxman, Kevern Verney, and Alan Waring in The New Authoritarianism Vol 1 and Denis Fischbacher-Smith, Clive Smallman, Antony Vass, and Alan Waring in Vol 3. As Smallman noted, such toxic leadership is not luck of the draw.

Trumps combative style has helped to polarize political debate in the US and encourage partisan non-cooperation between the Republican (GOP) and Democratic parties. This has continued into the subsequent Biden administration. Moreover, Trumps attitude and conduct (most notoriously his dog-whistle priming of a radical-right mob to attack the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021) gave a further green light to an expanding group of radical-right GOP Congress members.

A growing caucus of such GOP politicians including Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Ted Cruz, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Ron Johnson, Ron Paul, and Marjorie Taylor-Greene has done so, to the extent that the GOP is no longer seen as a one-nation conservative party. Instead, it has become a populist radical-right (and potentially far-right) party in which mainstream Republican politicians are increasingly intimidated and marginalized by their more outspokenly extreme colleagues. The cases of Kinzinger and Cheney are especially instructive here.

Trump (an outspoken fan of Putin and his aggressive nationalism, with a notable ambivalence towards his Ukraine invasion) and his GOP allies have been joined in their intolerant statements by a bandwagon of like-minded fringe political commentators and agitators. They have been adept at using their media spaces to vilify naysayers and stridently promulgate radical-right opinions even extreme ones as well as absurd conspiracy theories (such as QAnon). Among these are Ann Coulter, Alex Jones and, at Fox News, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham.

Until recently, the gigantic and belligerent radical-right megaphone system in the US has not been mirrored by anything similar on the radical left.

In recent years, there has been a trend for some university students to demand that their lecturers must not include any content that these students may find objectionable, and that university authorities should ban lecturers or speakers whose intellectual views they may not like . Students taking part in such cancel culture have become known derisively as snowflakes. In some instances, protests have turned violent.

Student cancel culture runs counter to the primary purpose of university education, which traditionally aimed at developing constructively critical analysis rather than prejudicial rejection. Indeed, experiencing intellectual challenge and discomfort is a necessary part of university education as a means of developing understanding and sharpening evaluative skills.

In considering how to shape academic freedom, especially in the digital age, we have seen undue pressure applied to individual academics who have published opinion pieces causing offense to some readers. Noting that an opinion is typically a subjective and biased view of an issue even when given by an acknowledged expert, since no ones world-view is value-free or experience-free researcher Jaime da Silva warned: Pressure-induced retractions of opinions not only stifle academic debate, they also send the message that opinions need to be moderated and standardized to meet a publishing market that is being increasingly driven by legal parameters, political correctness, as well as business and commercial values rather than academic ones. Yangyang Cheng writing for The Atlantic also highlights concomitant business, commercial and, occasionally, political pressures. Da Silva continued, noting that the way things are said, tone, and the sensitivity of those that might be affected are given greater weight than the message itself. By cherry-picking parts of the message that detractors or critics might disagree with, the original message may be drowned out by the noise of the objectors. The requirement for universities to show proper integrity and firmness against such pressures has never been more urgent.

A stout rejection of fascism could be assumed to be a sine qua non for any member of a body comprising doctoral and post-doctoral fellows dedicated to the analysis of the radical right and countering any associated extremism. Indeed, one such body that for years had been proud of such credentials was what I shall call the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Research Group (hereafter RWARG), a pseudonym used here to save any possible embarrassment. All members were required to contribute non-peer reviewed opinion pieces regularly to the RWARGs flagship online blog. One such member, Dr. Smith (another pseudonym), had been doing so for some years without controversy when unexpectedly his latest article received a blitz of vituperative reaction online from some fellow members.

Their ire had been provoked, it seems, by his observation that whereas most attention was deservedly focused on the radical right, and the latters propensity for the use of threats and even violence to achieve their aims, some radical-left supporters were also now advocating similar tactics against the far right. Although he referenced some specific US examples of violent actions, and articles implying, if not specifically advocating, violence from so-called Antifa groups, the RWARGs online blog editorial policy did not require opinion-piece authors to meet the standards of a double-blind peer reviewed academic paper in order to justify every statement. After all, as da Silva observed, an expressed opinion is typically a subjective and biased view of an issue, and blog articles are intended to provoke thought rather than necessarily to inform impartially or, indeed, comprehensively. Moreover, this example validates da Silvas observation that the sensitivity of those that might be affected [is] given greater weight than the message itself.

The thrust of Dr. Smiths piece was thus to challenge the notion that it is ever acceptable to use or advocate violence as a political policy, strategy or tactic, and cited the well-worn heuristic that violence begets violence. He was debunking the sophistry that it is morally acceptable for anti-fascists (of any hue) to resort to violent tactics, whether reactive or pre-emptive, against radical-right extremists simply because the latter may have a violent predisposition.

The hysterical reaction to Dr. Smiths piece was orchestrated by a cabal of members and like-minded academics who went on the offensive first by circulating a strident denunciation of the author,signed by over twenty individuals and demanding a radical reorganization to prevent far-right members from joining and subverting the organization. After each signatorys name, the designation anti-fascist was added, presumably for the avoidance of doubt.

The cabal then hastily organized an online fellows conference in order to discuss Dr. Smith and his article, as well as to present demands for an overhaul of the RWARGs editorial policy and a radical reform of the Group. Their apparent objective was to (a) prevent any further opinion pieces criticizing anti-fascist aggression, (b) prevent anyone gaining membership whose views did not fully meet the cabals concepts of fascism and anti-fascism, and (c) expel any member who transgressed the cabals new criteria. Partisan censorship of articles that offended the cabal had now become a high risk.

To this author an attendee of the online meeting the exercise resembled a Stalinist show trial. Apparently, Dr. Smith was neither invited to attend nor informed that he was, in effect, on trial. Not only was his offending article canceled but so too was his membership.

A further circular from the cabal continued the professional and character assassination of Dr. Smith. However, it also vilified Professor Jones (another pseudonym), the co-founding Director of RWARG, accusing him of complicity in Dr. Smiths crime for defending the rights of members to hold different viewpoints, as well as attacking his personality and character. Unsurprisingly, the Director and a number of members resigned. This cabal thus achieved a successful insurgent coup led by self-righteous and self-validating anti-fascist zealots. Although continuing to proclaim its broad church membership, the new RWARG would only be tolerating those closely allied to the new illiberal orthodoxy. Those with a liberal or centrist abhorrence of fascism would not be welcome since, like Dr. Smith and Prof. Jones, they would no longer be considered anti-fascist enough.

For the new RWARG elite, fascist is primarily an all-embracing term for anyone in the radical-right spectrum outside and to the right of mainstream conservatism, whether or not a true, revolutionary, fascist as traditionally defined. However, their use of the term now apparently also encompasses liberals, centrists and mainstream conservatives. To them, a fascist is anyone who is not 100% anti-fascist by their standards i.e. not as anti-fascist as the RWARG cabal claims to be. Such widespread overuse and misuse of the fascist and anti-fascist labels has devalued them to near junk status, whether used by academics-turned-frustrated-anti-fascist-warriors or by audacious hegemons such as Putin using fascist tactics against his enemies while accusing them of being the real fascists.

Politics and the media share with academia an overriding responsibility to identify and promulgate the most powerful arguments, not those of the most overbearing and ruthless. Nor should counter-extremism be hijacked either by zealots or by those more interested in their self-promotion, intellectual vanity, or performative feelings of superiority. Regrettably, this standard is being increasingly ignored by those who should know better.

Politicization and ruthless pursuit of intolerant ideology are replacing civil dialogue, precluding any engagement with or understanding of other world-views. Audiences are subjected to unsolicited rants and intimidating toxic messaging, while individuals singled out as ideological enemies are treated to aggressive wilding. Subversive freedom of speech defenses are thereby exposed as little more than an excuse by zealots to obliterate other peoples freedom of expression.The ugly tactics of some extreme politicians, activists, commentators and snowflake students, as well as some self-styled anti-extremists, all reveal an essential illiberalism and a corrupted spirit. The relentless outpouring of vile invective against anyone expressing a contrary opinion is indicative of a deep-seated paranoia and possibly some level of personality disorder. While there is no magic antidote to all this wickedness, sociologist and democracy activist Moshe ben Asher suggests as an essential starting point the radical revitalization of democracy (especially in the US) through popular assemblies. Moreover, there is a desperate need for greater humanity and mindfulness in our dealings with others, friends and adversaries alike.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observers editorial policy.

See more here:

Thought Crimes: the Shameful Undemocratic Wilding of Contrary Opinion - Fair Observer

The caterpillar of the sponge moth has distinctive markings, including a pattern of five blue and six red dots along their backs.

This season has been a particularly challenging one for local gardeners particularly for those who love apples, oaks, larches, cherries, hazels, willows, and elms. It became apparent about a month ago that European sponge moths, or Lymantria dispar as they are scientifically known., would be bad this year. Small black hairy caterpillars seemed to be raining down from the sky, landing on people, houses, and the surrounding landscape. As they matured, the caterpillars developed a mottled yellow to gray pattern with tufts of hairs and a pattern of five blue and six red dots along their backs. For many years, this species was commonly known as gypsy moths until the North American Entomological Association decided this year to give them the more politically correct common name of sponge moth, due to the spongy appearance of the egg cases which they lay on the trunks of trees. Evidence of their eating habits is not difficult to spot, as these moths literally defoliate, virtually overnight, the trees and shrubs that comprise their diet.

The name change may be motivated by political correctness, but the other end of the political spectrum can hardly co-opt the story of these moths as one of unwanted illegal immigrants coming to this country and consuming more than their share of the bounty of our landscape. Unlike birch borers and sawflies, sponge (nee gypsy) moths did not stow away on materials from other countries and slip underneath the radar of the immigration and customs services; rather they were invited into this country by a few Massachusetts entrepreneurs in the 19th century. These businessmen hoped these moths could replace the silkworm species that was succumbing to disease and that their silken threads could be used to produce fabric to rival the silks of Asia. In essence, it was a form of legal immigration not unlike the importation of skilled workers often espoused by the far right as the only form of immigration that our country should allow. I guess you do not always get what you expect when it comes to importing labor.

And, just like many of us whose families immigrated to America and comprise so much of our populace, they are here to stay. So how do we learn to peaceably coexist? After more than a century of cyclical infestations, we have several approaches to help minimize the damage from hungry masses of sponge moths. Some people apply BtK, a form of Bacillus thuringesis that naturally occurs on leaves and in soil. It is easily administered and is effective in killing young caterpillars who consume it within a week of spraying, Unfortunately, it may also kill caterpillars of other moths and butterflies. (Research claims BtK does not impact other beneficials such as ladybugs and pollinators such as honeybees.) This policy has its merits but also significant drawbacks to the broader population.

At this same stage, the caterpillars can be handpicked and put in soapy water, which can feel empowering, but numerically speaking this approach may not be effective (and as some people are allergic to the caterpillars, using gloves is recommended). This approach seems at once ineffective and punitive, but I must admit I have participated in such activities. Others have banded trees and tried to prevent the caterpillars from climbing up to their food source with some success, though others claim this has not proven very effective. This to me, seems like the entomological equivalent of moving to a gated community, but who am I to judge?

As one watches these insects eating more than their share of leafy greens, a gardener can start to be concerned about living in a leafless world. Perhaps one of the most effective strategies for dealing with these insects is eradicating their egg cases by either removing them from tree trunks or by spraying horticultural oil on the trunks of trees and shrubs in the off season. But that does little to alleviate the current situation and the panic it inspires. And depending on your politics or religion, this approach may not match your belief in the sanctity of life and procreation. For me, this approach seems the most reasonable measure, but I understand there is a population that does not believe in birth control and, for this group, such a solution may be problematic.

As hard as it is for gardeners to believe, it is true that most healthy trees and shrubs will refoliate and push forth new leaves after the cycles of the sponge moth have run their course. And after a few seasons, nature will create a pandemic in the moth universe and diseases will reduce the population after a few seasons of high birth rates.

As we live through our own pandemic, this last concept raises an essential question: Does the world right itself if we work towards balance and peaceful coexistence with our fellow inhabitants on Earth? Do not let this last statement make you think that I am innocent of efforts to control sponge moths in my own gardenbut I am changing course on when and how I go into battle and hope we all work to find policies that match both our needs and our values.

____________________________________A gardener grows through observation, experimentation, and learning from the failures, triumphs, and hard work of oneself and others. In this sense, all gardeners are self-taught, while at the same time intrinsically connected to a tradition and a community that finds satisfaction through working the soil and sharing their experiences with one another. This column explores those relationships and how we learn about the world around us from plants and our fellow gardeners.

Go here to see the original:

THE SELF-TAUGHT GARDENER: Immigration policy and the moth formerly known as gypsy - theberkshireedge.com

These are dark times in America right now. The slaughter in Uvalde has thrust us deeper into a churning storm with little in the forecast to show calmer skies ahead.

And the world is watching. They see a violent society that solves conflicts with more violence. Or, as The Onion so satirically and accurately puts it, No Way to Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

Our political leaders on both sides of the aisle choose to do nothing with GOP strategists and the NRA advising members to Stay quiet. Do nothing. This will blow over. It always does. Offer thoughts and prayers. And move on. Indeed, we are embroiled in a policy war where the GOP is obsessed with controlling what women do with their bodies yet will do NOTHING about gun-related carnage.

And the far left is just as complicit, spending too much capital on political correctness, cancel culture, defunding the police, wokeness and pronouns when they should be marshaling their forces against the religious right and the GOP, a movement led by demagogues that would create a national theocracy with a pregnant woman holding a gun in every house if it could.

Can we do ANYTHING? Well, the first step in treating a problem is admitting you have one. We are failing as a country. We wake up to these disasters, shake off the drunken stupor and promise ourselves we wont let it happen again. And then it happens again.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I want to be wrong about all this. I want to find hope in the midst of chaos. But I dont think its there. And, that scares me.

Im Wester Wuori and thats my depressing Perspective.

See the original post here:

Perspective: What can we do after Uvalde? And will we do anything? - Northern Public Radio (WNIJ)

Time is ticking, and political commentators are starting to wonder about the presidents inaction on cannabis reforman issue with high support among Democrats. And since Democrats are currently in control of the White House and Congress, its on them to push a bill to the finish line.

During a June 3 Overtime segment on YouTube, the Real Time with Bill Maher host read an audience-submitted question to his guest, former Attorney General Eric Holder, about why President Joe Biden hasnt pushed for the federal legalization of pot. After all, decriminalization of cannabis at the federal level was one of President Bidens promises on the election trail.

Maherwho denies alignment with any partysaid that dealing with the issue would be dealing with reality, and it would also bring political benefit. But if Democrats continue to fail to legalize cannabis at the federal level, Maher thinks Republicans will take up the slack.

Republicans are gonna steal the issue. I think eventually, Maher told Holder. I mean, someone like John Boehner works for a marijuana company now. I mean, it could be one of those freedom issues. And, of course, Republicans smoke lots of pot too.

Not enough, Holder said to instant laughter in the audience. They need to mellow out just a little more.

Some Republicans have used cannabis as a freedom issue. Politico reported on leaders who are joining the fold, viewing cannabis through the prism of states rights, personal freedom, job creation and tax revenue.

In a survey, conducted by Pew Research Center from April 5-11, 2021, the majority72%of Democrats said cannabis should be legal for medical and recreational purposes versus 47% of Republicans. Only among conservative Republicans, the majority of people surveyed said they arent in favor of legalizing cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes. While its less popular among Republicans, there are some leaders launching their own bills such as Congresswoman Nancy Mace, with her States Reform Act.

Maher pointed out the recent push for social equity measures transforming the industry slowly, but it is an issue Republicans arent onboard with. Its the social equity provisions that are one of the few dividing points when it comes to cannabis bills. On the other hand, leaders like Senator Cory Booker believe social equity provisions are critical for any cannabis reform bill.

Now I understand the impetus to want to, like, for example, if youre gonna have new businesses that are legal in the marijuana field, yeah, they probably should go to the people who suffered the most during the drug war, Maher said. Republicans, of course, are saying this is a deal-breaker.

Maher acknowledged that leaders are not aligning with certain details on the issue, but didnt exactly provide a full solution.

What do you want, half a loaf? If they said okay, no equity, is it better to have the law passed or changed or is it better to hold out for equity? Maher asked.

Its better to have the law changed, Holder responded. And as I said, deal with the societal reality that we have and, you know, and try to make it as equitable as you possibly can, but I wouldnt want to stop the movement that I think makes sense for the sake of equity.

Maher serves on the advisory board with NORML and is a longtime known advocate for cannabis, and is known for slamming religion and political correctness in general. Maher was in the same room as High Times this past May, when the political talk show host made an appearance at Woody Harrelsons grand opening of The Woods in West Hollywood.

More here:

Bill Maher Thinks Republicans Will 'Steal' Pot Legalization - High Times

GUEST COMMENTARY - Even theNew York Timeshas toadmitunpleasant realities, like the departure of people from California and other deep blue states.

But one thing the paper, and other similarly-minded reporters based here, will never admit: the connection between the California economy and regulation and the rising out-migrations.

TheTimesaccepts that people are leaving in part due to costs, but puts much emphasis on other factors, like the decline in immigration under the monstrous Trump, Covid deaths and falling birthrates. Yet these factors have occurred across the country, and other regions, notably in the sunbelt and the South, have experienced rapid population growth. It turns out that policy choices that California has made seems the likely prime cause for the states shocking demographic decline.

This net out-migration, as theTimesadmits, has been going on for decades. Some people, particularly in academia and the mainstream media, continue to label claims of an exodus as essentiallyfalse; theLA Times, a good barometer of political correctness on the West Coast, called it a myth reflective of the political bias of haters. But as we show in our recentChapmanUniversity report, since 2000, California has lost 2.6 million net domestic migrants more than the current combined population of San Diego, San Francisco, and Anaheim (the cities).

In 2020, California accounted for 28% of all net domestic out-migration in the nation about 50% more than its share of the US population (19%).

Totally ignored by theTimes, and their cheaper imitators, is a possible connection betweenout-migration and an economy where, over the last decade,80% of all new jobspaidless than the median income. On a per-capita basis over the last 30 years, California had lower per-capita job growth in virtually every industry sector than its prime competitor states, and does particularly poorly in higher wage blue collar sectors like construction and manufacturing. Amid some of the great concentrations of wealth in the world, upwards ofa third or more ofthe populationis either poor or a pay cheque away from it.

Critically, those leaving are not primarily old folks or the poor without prospects, butincreasingly, peoplewho are middle classand in the family years between 34 and 54.This accountsin part for Californias now-below average birth rate, with San Francisco and Los Angeles competing for the lowest fertility rate among the major urban centres.

Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, the decline in immigration during the Trump years didnot affect other places as much as California. In a report forHeartland Forward, we could show that while the foreign-born population actually dropped in Los Angeles during the past decade, it grew rapidly in other places like Austin, Dallas, Houston Miami, Nashville as well as some Midwestern hotspots like Columbus, Indianapolis, and Des Moines.

Ultimately the prime causes lie outside the factors focused on by theTimes,but are rootedin policies that have made the state among the most expensive. That includes sky-high energy costs, outrageously priced housing markets, as well as the one-party regimes inability toaddress surging crime and widespread homelessness.

Unless progressives begin to address the shortcomings of their own policy agenda, they will continue to be bedevilled by the reasons why people would leave this most blessed of blue states.

(Joel Kotkin is a writer for UnHerd andRoger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author ofThe City: A Global HistoryandThe Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent book is The New Class Conflict. Joel Kotkin lives in Orange County.)

Read the original here:

What the New York Times Won't Admit About California - City Watch

Former University of Toronto Professor of Clinical Psychology Jordan Peterson recently received a flurry of condemnation for a tweet in which he criticizedSports Illustrated's choice to put plus-size model Yumi Nu on the magazine's cover. His tweet (below) not only criticized her looks, but also suggested that her appearance was an authoritarian attempt by the left to force people like him to appreciate her beauty.

The backlash to Peterson's comments was swift and broad, and included social media influencers; online political commentators (likeHasan Piker andVaush); independent news outlets (like The Young Turks); mainstream news sources (NBC News, New York Post); and even international news outlets (The Independent, and Toronto Sun). In America's current political climate, incidents like the one caused by the aforementioned tweet are becoming more common as culture war issues are at the forefront of the public mind. Popular intellectual figures like Peterson have built their careers off of stoking these hot-button issues and then claiming that they are being persecuted when others disagree with them.

Interestingly, much of the blowback ignored Peterson's follow up tweet (above), in which he justifies his position by linking to scientific articles that purportedly validate his opinion. Peterson raises an interesting question: Can science be used to measure whether or not someone is attractive? While some recent studies have tried to do just that, far more studies refute these claims.

The sociology of human sexuality and race has long held that concepts like beauty and race are social constructions determined by a range of cultural, biological, and other complex social factors. On some innate level, just about everyone recognizes this truism; famously, it was embodied in the classic The Twilight Zone episode "Eye of the Beholder," whose lesson is that beauty is a local characteristic rather than a universal one. Yet, the intellectual dark web (of which Peterson is an adherent) and practitioners of this kind of "science" try to apply their model to nearly everything linking and reducing all kinds of aspects of human behavior as serving an evolutionary function.

The crowd that engages in this type of oft-sophistic debate over beauty should be familiar to anyone who follows the machinations of this latest iteration of the culture wars. Sometimes dubbed the Intellectual Dark Web (or IDW for short), they constitute a group of disgraced academics and other pseudo intellectuals (including podcaster Joe Rogan, and conservative commentator Dave Rubin) who claim that their voices are being silenced by traditional institutions who have become overly concerned with political correctness or "wokeness."

Peterson's claims run the full spectrum of biological determinism, from justifying social hierarchies as natural to claiming patriarchy should be the preferred organizing principle in societies.

However, researchers in the field of evolutionary studies (an area which focuses on how much of our behavior is a product of our biology) whose work is well-regarded tend to be far more cautious than Peterson and his ilk in their claims as to what we can definitely say about the so-called science of beauty. Against the overly deterministic model posed by the IDW, current consensus among scholars in this field is that human "nature" is a complex combination of biology and other social factors. These researchers are quick to note that they can't tell us with any great deal of precision what their findings necessarily mean for society at large.

The kind of model advocated by the IDW more closely resembles that of the 18th and 19th century biological determinism the kind that served as the basis for eugenics programs in Nazi Germany and even here in the United States. Peterson's claims run the full spectrum of biological determinism, from justifying social hierarchies as natural to claiming patriarchy should be the preferred organizing principle in societies. He also appears, at points in his book, to vindicate violent men like the Buffalo shooter or the Uvalde shooter by asserting that young men have to endure an unfair burden. To say that the ideas espoused by Peterson and the IDW connect to white supremacist ideology is more than just conjecture, as their ideas are observably trickling down from academia to far-right groups online.

RELATED:How the far right co-opted science

Indeed, the parallels between the rhetoric of the Buffalo shooter, and of the rhetoric espoused by Peterson and the like, are eerily similar. Far-right groups rejoice in Peterson's claims that hierarchies are natural and good for society, as they serve as a "legitimate" scientific basis for promoting racist ideologies. Laced throughout the manuscript left behind by the Buffalo shooter are references to a range of claims espoused by race scientists. These include tweets, memes, and links to prominent thinkers in this field like Steven Pinker and his colleagues who have published and espoused flawed literature directly cited by the shooter. The most infamous of these models is Charles Murray's book "The Bell Curve," in which he argues that intelligence and race are correlated the implication being that most people of color are "naturally" somehow less intelligent.These models continue to be invoked by prominent academics like Stanley Goldfarb, a former Dean of Medicine and current faculty at the University of Pennsylvania's medical school, who also opposes anti-racist efforts in medicine.

Taken together, these events suggest that biological determinism has permeated the ivory tower of academia more than many realize. While some of the examples mentioned here are explicit in their bigotry, there are far more cases of miscommunicated or poorly communicated scientific research being co-opted by far-right groups.

Some anti-racist academics in genetics have criticized their colleagues (above) and called for change from within. They emphasize that scientists can and should protect against the exploitation of their work in recognizing the importance of clearly communicating their findings.

When scientists fail to consider the ways their ideas might be used, for good and for bad, the results can be disastrous. Such was the case when some sociologistslevied a social constructionist critique of the use of the psychiatric system, which was subsequently used by conservatives to justify dismantling the state public health system in the United States. Scientists must use caution when trying to convey their ideas lest they be used to justify heinous acts, including terrorism.

The radicalization of the Buffalo shooter should serve as a warning to other scholars, as he was one in a long line of domestic terrorists who relied heavily upon "race science" to justify their actions.

The radicalization of the Buffalo shooter should serve as a warning to other scholars, as he was one in a long line of domestic terrorists who relied heavily upon "race science" to justify their actions. The same kinds of logic have also motivated people to commit heinous attacks against the LGBTQ+ community.

While the Buffalo shooter may have lacked the scientific literacy necessary to understand the studies he cites, researchers must work to not be complicit in this process. Whether it be scientific racism to justify one's beliefs, or a lack of full consideration as to the larger impact of one's findings, scientists need to better understand how working in science is a social activity. Science itself is a powerful tool when used in pursuit of helping lead the way towards the betterment of society, and it is equally a tool for harm when used to naturalize hierarchies and inequality found throughout society.

Frankfurt School philosopher Max Horkheimer famously wrote a critique of instrumental reason, in which Horkheimer argued that science could be co-opted if it was not consciously guided by those practicing it. This was the focus of his classic work, "The Eclipse of Reason," in which he showed how the Nazi party weaponized science by treating it as an end to itself, rather than a tool to be harnessed in pursuit of an goal. Today we face the same issues and problems in science, and for our collective good we must decide to what ends these tools are used and what we as a society wish to prioritize.

Read more on race and pseudoscience:

See the article here:

Discriminating tastes: Why academia must tackle its "race science" problem - Salon