Mediaboss Marketing

Theres a high-level, widespread, and persistent fantasy that a President Joe Biden will calm this country down.

High-level, in that liberal moderate writers like The Atlantics Yascha Mounk believe it, writing in a Nov. 7 column titled America Won that Biden will assume it as a kindly grandfather who seems nostalgic for a calmer past.

Widespread, in that suburban Republicans longing for the days of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney repeatedly voiced hope the culture war would end and order would return to our streets if President Donald Trump would just leave the White House.

Persistent, because no matter how many hard-left personnel and policies Biden promotes and pursues over a term as president, the century-old political pipe dream of a Return to Normalcy will continue, propped up by the kind of media outlets and politicians who work to fashion President Barack Obama as a great American uniter.

Biden made just such a move to the hard left this week, naming California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as his intended secretary of Health and Human Services the kind of position most Americans could not name before President Barack Obama nominated Secretary Kathleen Sibelius to lead the largest expansion of government power into private lives since the Great Society. Its also the kind of position that todays Democratic Party will use to close churches, shutter businesses, and separate families in the name of Science.

Far from playing the kindly grandfather of high-minded fairytales, Bidens pick has worked hard to establish a 33-year record on abortion, where he stands for taxpayer-funded child dismemberment until the moment of birth. His disdain for the lives of the unborn extends so far as to oppose punishing those who injure a pregnant womans child while committing a crime, and hes been rated 100 percent by abortion extremists.

After 24 years in Congress, he continued his war as attorney general of California, The Federalists Madeline Orr reports, charging the activist who exposed Planned Parenthoods disgusting organ negotiations, vying to force pro-life volunteers to promote abortion, and even targeting the long-suffering Little Sisters of the Poor.

What sort of culture war calming is this? Well, it isnt any at all, and none should ever been expected by serious people. So why did anyone?

Essentially, a failure to comprehend the culture, its sacred importance to the American working class especially, and the very real war being waged on both that culture and those who hold it dear.Its the same failure that caused so many to think Trump started the culture war when he simply dove right in.

Take, for example, the bald-faced lie that Obama was a unifying American figure. During his eight years in office, the left undercut the rights of the accused at colleges, promoted racial strife through Black Lives Matter mobs, assaulted trust in the police through the same, routed thousands of years of marriage law in the courts, targeted nuns in health policy, championed mens access to womens locker rooms with transgender policies, neutered the legislative branch through extra-congressional treaties and amnesty, and challenged the very idea of American citizenship as a privilege that must be legally earned. Is this unity?

Never forget that the same Obama so many seek to lionize as soaring above the viciousness of todays politics chastised Christians at our National Prayer Breakfast for riding a high horse while churches burned in the Middle East, and finished his presidency with illegal aliens heckling him while somehow his guests at the White House. Is this soaring above?

So why did Trumps four years seem so marked by cultural fighting? In short, because he actually pushed back on every front the left opened on Americans. While the Romneys and Ryans of the world wished to stick to entitlements, taxes, and the military, Trump didnt flinch from battle in our sports, schools, churches and streets. No longer was the fight relegated to internet complaints about Christmas Starbucks cups. What for over a decade had been a one-way march against American culture was finally resisted and became a real fight.

Finally, while the past year has truly exposed Democratic Party leaders view that religion is simply a traditional pastime, for many Americans, our culture and religion entwine with our families and patriotism at the center of our lives. And if Trumps contribution to our defense can be cited on one more ground, its giving an example of fighting courage in the fray. This courage wont be quickly lost.

Trump was elected president of the United States because he tapped into a growing rage building in the hearts of Americans who knew the political elites of both parties disrespect, resent, and even loathe them. In the years since, Antifa and Black Lives Matter have gotten a lot of energy out of their systems attacking civilians and police, but does anyone feel like that pressure building on the right has let off one bit?

No, Trump didnt start the culture wars. And if it wasnt understood before, let it be now: Joe Biden will not end them.

Read the original post:
Biden Nominee Proves He Comes Bringing A Sword To The Culture War - The Federalist

Should Cambridge University academics and students tolerate or respect the views of others with which they might disagree? Should we tolerate Millwall fans booing players taking the knee? Should gender-critical feminists who argue for the importance of female biology and reproduction in defining a woman be tolerated, or are such views themselves intolerant of trans women?

These are all very different discussions and debates. Underlying all of them, however, is the question of how we should understand tolerance and respect, issues that run through virtually all free speech and culture wars discussions. Too often, though, we fail to recognise how far their meanings have changed in recent years.

Tolerance as a concept has a long history and many slippery meanings. But, from 17th-century debates about religious freedom to recent discussions about mass immigration, a key understanding of tolerance is the willingness to accept ideas or practices that we might despise or disagree with but recognise are important to others. These might include the right to practise a minority faith or to possess beliefs contrary to the social consensus.

Today, however, many regard tolerance not as the willingness to allow views that some may find offensive but the restraining of unacceptable views so as to protect people from being outraged. Its an approach visible in everything from the claim that Charlie Hebdo should not publish cartoons offensive to Muslims to Twitters suspension last week of prominent Indian journalist Salil Tripathi for violating its abusive behaviour policy after he published a poem challenging Hindu nationalism. Regarding tolerance as the demand of those who might be offended, rather than as a permission for those who might offend is to turn the idea on its head.

The notion of respect is even more complex and multifaceted than that of tolerance. Originally, it was overlaid with a sense of deference, as something accorded to ones superiors, a sense that still survives today. Respect also denotes merit; I respect a person or an act because I value them.

And then there is a meaning of respect that has become highly significant in modern, more egalitarian societies: as regard for other people as human beings, as an acknowledgment that every individual possesses an equal standing in the moral community. Respect and tolerance here are complementary notions, one tolerating ideas, but not necessarily respecting them, the other respecting the person as an equal being, whatever their religion, culture, race, gender or sexuality, but not necessarily their beliefs or acts.

But as with tolerance, this aspect of respect has also shifted in meaning. Many now demand that we should respect not just the individual but also his or her beliefs. Since human beings are culturally embedded, the political philosopher Bhikhu Parekh argues, so equal respect for persons entails respect for their cultures and ways of life.

This conflation of people, cultures and beliefs is a dangerous move. It is what racists do in refusing, for example, to recognise the difference between criticism of Islam and hostility to Muslims. Drawing a distinction between people and ideas is essential both for the equal treatment of people and for the capacity to challenge and change ideas.

All of which explains why Cambridge University was right to tolerate differing ideas rather than being respectful of them. It explains, too, why we should tolerate the Millwall booing without indulging the boo-boys. Taking the knee is important to many footballers but its not a sacred cause that cannot be challenged. There is, however, a difference between the kinds of criticisms raised by QPRs director of football, Les Ferdinand, who worries that it has become a ritual without meaning, and last weeks chorus of boos. To pretend that the booing had nothing to do with racism but was some kind of pushback against Marxism is to be blind to the context. One can tolerate something while also challenging it.

We should respect trans women and men as individuals, acknowledge the ways in which they identify themselves, recognise the hostility they face, and defend their right to equal treatment. We should equally recognise that many feminists identify what it is to be a woman differently, and that their arguments are important to hear, rather than being summarily dismissed as transphobic, and the debate closed down. Being tolerant of disagreement is not the same as being tolerant of hatred.

Tolerance and respect in their older meanings were notions crucial to the creation of more open, more egalitarian societies, and key to furthering the rights of minority groups, often denied their humanity, whether black people, women or transgender. They still are. We should not so easily discard such principles.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

See the original post:
Ideas can be tolerated without being respected. The distinction is key - The Guardian

When Boris Johnson swept to victory in 2019, the whirlwind brought with it nearly 100 new Conservative MPs, the biggest new intake since 2010. Many from the northern red wall did not expect to be elected and none could have predicted the first year they would experience.

Is there anything good about being an MP? Ill let you know when Covid finishes, joked Christian Wakeford, the MP for Bury South, who has one of the slimmest majorities of the new intake. My daughter is two and shes old enough to know that I am not there and its hard when I get back from London at the end of the week and am completely knackered.

Conservative whips have found the new intake difficult to contain. Commentators have been struck by their strong feelings about public spending in left-behind towns as well as an appetite to wade into the so-called culture wars.

And Boris Johnson is known to be particularly keen to please them, spending time giving them personal briefings at key votes and calling them directly if there is a sign they will rebel a source of consternation for some of the longer-serving Tories.

James Grundy, the MP for Leigh and the first Conservative MP to represent the constituency, is among those who was surprised to find himself in Westminster. I thought wed have a good go of it and Id happily return to being a local councillor the week after the general election, he said.

And before we could draw breath, we launched into this massive crisis, which has taken up the rest of the year. It feels simultaneously gruelling and never-ending and also feels like five minutes ago I was elected.

A third of the new MPs are from the so-called red wall seats gained from Labour, but there are some who are ex-remainers, or self-described one nation Tories.

One of the new names in that tradition is Laura Farris, the MP for Newbury, who previously worked for Hillary Clinton. I actually hated the place that that Brexit debate took us, I hated what had become of politics and society more generally. I do actually feel that this year has, I suppose, in a way brought us together, she said.

The 2019 election saw the retirement of a number of very high-profile Conservative MPs, many of whom had been key opponents of Boris Johnsons Brexit strategy. Among those leaving parliament was the father of the house, Ken Clarke. His successor, Ruth Edwards, has had to battle with getting to know a new constituency of Rushcliffe, which her predecessorhad held for five decades, while being unable to meet many people in person. I knew I passed muster when he described me in the Times as not a rightwing fire-breathing loon, Edwards said.

She said her predecessor had to assure her that not all years were like the first 12 months. Weve had floods, we had a three-day fire, we had a pandemic, you know, I mean, we havent quite seen the four horsemen of the apocalypse, but sometimes its felt like it hasnt been far off, she said.

New MPs had only been in parliament for less than four months when the pandemic struck. I think our caseload went up by about three fold, Edwards said. And in this case, everything was urgent, and everything was important. Were talking about livelihoods, access to essential supplies.

Apart from coping with an unprecedented pandemic and restrictions on normal life, the MPs have had to address extremely controversial issues which many found bruising, including the row over free school meals, the A-levels debacle and the misdemeanours of the PMs former aide Dominic Cummings.

Wakeford abstained on the Labour motion to provide free school meals over half-term though there was a protest outside his office. The protesters were all from Momentum and the Peoples Assembly. Trying to explain to a year 9 class in my constituency why I had abstained was a much trickier one, he said.

Grundy, who voted with the government, said he was prepared to defend that position. I actually got fewer emails and letters about it than I did about Dominic Cummings, he said. To some degree the abuse and the obnoxiousness is kind of like a low-level background radiation when youre in public office. It shouldnt be, but it is.

Fewer new MPs have rebelled on the coronavirus restrictions, but many new members, particularly in northern towns, are starting to feel the strain of the restrictions on local businesses, with their areas having been under tougher curbs for longer periods than other places in the south.

Wakeford is among those who has rebelled on Covid restrictions, the first time on the 10pm curfew. That prompted a bollocking from the whips along the lines of: We worry you are going to become a serial rebel. Tell us, what are your concerns? he said. My concern was that we werent following the science, but sarcasm doesnt go down well.

Simon Fell, a former cyber-crime expert who won a 5,789 majority on a huge swing from Labour in the Cumbrian town of Barrow, said he had not yet rebelled but had to be talked down off a window ledge to vote for the post-lockdown restrictions last week. I just wasnt happy with the data on it.

Fell said that on the whole, people in Barrow seemed willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt on its handling of Covid, but less so on Cummings and free school meals: Its a delicate job weve got now as and I hate the phrase red wall MPs. Weve got to sound different, talk different and do different than people would expect the Tories to do. The Cummings situation was the perfect example of one rule for us.

Many MPs, particularly those in traditional Labour seats, said the opposition was not making much of an impression. I dont know if I would win if there was a general election tomorrow, Wakeford said. Obviously Keir Starmer is doing better in the polls. but thats mainly because hes not Corbyn.

Farris said she believed even MPs in safe seats were determined to secure the constituencies won in 2019 because of the historic resonance they had. It is obviously quite an amazing thing to sit next to MPs from, you know, Wakefield and Darlington and Grimsby.

Read more here:
'It feels gruelling': new Tories reflect on difficult year - The Guardian

Try to remember that kind of December when you shopped for gifts in a store, not on a computer. Try to remember when you wrapped those gifts after you got home and dashed back to the mall for something you forgot.

Try to remember that kind of December when your house was full of visitors and their houses were, too. The glittery Christmas party invitations on the hall table shone like stars in a winter sky. Church services featured the old familiar Christmas carols. Children dressed up to walk down the aisle as Nike-wearing shepherds or gauzy-winged angels or cardboard-crowned kings, bumping into each other and waving wildly to their parents in the pews.

Try to remember the cool of the eggnog sliding down your throat and the heat of the fireplace warming your back. Its not so hard. It was only last year, before the coronavirus shut down the usual way we celebrate the holidays. Try to remember the kind of December when nobody politicized the way people celebrate the holiday.

But there are some people politicians and news anchors and a few tv preachers who declare that Christmas is being stolen, as though you could harness a spirit, a tradition, a belief and celebration that goes back thousands of years and haul it out the door like so much used up wrapping paper and ribbon.

They started whining about the war on Christmas five years ago when someone attacked Starbucks for serving hot coffee in plain red cups instead of Christmas-themed ones. My grandson and I went there for an after school treat while this skirmish was going on. While he sipped his hot chocolate and I drank my latte, I looked around for signs of war, but I didnt see any. There were college students loading up on caffeine so they could ace their upcoming mid-term exams.

There were hospital workers just off their shift or maybe just starting. Their uniforms were crisp and clean. Nobody in the coffee line groused to the barista about the color of the cups bright red or yelled that they wanted a cup with angels or stars or Christmas trees on it. They just drank their coffee.

This years War on Christmas complaint comes at a time when families want to be together, but cant. When flying is probably a bad idea, even though airlines are trying to keep the virus from infecting passengers. Nobodys stealing the Christmas spirit by suggesting that families visit grandmother next year, whether she lives across the country or across the street.

Grandmother will still love you if you stand on her back porch, a smile behind your mask, and give her an elbow bump instead of a full-body hug. Family ties arent broken just because we cant be together physically. Theyre stronger than that.

The other complaint in the Christmas culture wars is the one about saying Merry Christmas when youre out and about if youre still going out and about. Go ahead and say it if thats what you want to do. If a store clerk answers back, Happy holidays, you can chose to be offended or not. Its up to you.

Christmas comes at the same time each year, just like Hanukkah and New Years Eve and the 4th of July. You cant stop it by declaring theres a war. The real wars being fought in hospital wards and emergency rooms, and the soldiers are the medical workers trying to save lives. By all accounts, theyre battle-fatigued by now. Maybe we should all buy them a cup of coffee at the drive thru and thank them for their service.

Read the original here:
The war on COVID doesnt mean theres a war on Christmas - al.com

Just after eight oclock on Thursday night, with the Hobart sky powder blue above the lights, umpire Paul Wilson began to whirl his right arm in the familiar PowerPlay gesture, before abruptly switching to three full rotations of his left, stern-faced but still jaunty, like a policeman forced to dance at the Notting Hill carnival.

In that moment history was made. This was crickets first Power Surge.

The surge is one of three much-trailed innovations in this years Big Bash tournament. It was an OK surge, as it happened. Tim David clumped some boundaries off Steve OKeefes left-arm spin, bowled from such a low trajectory these days he runs to the wicket like a man hailing a late-night taxi. Jordan Silk produced the most astoundingly brilliant piece of fielding youll ever see, a one-handed full-levitation over-the-rope grab plus high-precision Superman flick-back.

And yet for all the build-up, the talk of brash and punkish changes, nothing much really happened. Without the crunchy logo you might have missed it, or mistaken the Power Surge for just a normal surge. In fact, watching all this red-hot innovation from a rain-shadowed London, there was time to think about the fact you dont hear much about Shingy these days.

Shingy was a well-known figure a few years back, a modern-day seer, media guru, and really annoying guy. His job title at AOL was literally digital prophet, a role that involved reading the tea-leaves of the internet, thought-facing the tides of the global techno-verse, and appearing on TV panel shows looking like a malfunctioning cyborg pretending to be a witch.

Shingys real skill was talking seductive tech babble to middle-aged executives who have begun to feel the world had become new and strange; but that a slice of this pie could still be grabbed if you only listen to Shingy enough. This is how things work with prophets and rainmakers. Guru-ism feeds on insecurity, on a sense of needing to catch up, a search for shortcuts and magic spells.

Perhaps this is also a good way of thinking about those rather overhyped new rules, products of a flourishing guru-culture in Big T20, and the work in this case of Trent Woodhill, coach-slash-6-D strategist to the stars.

Woodhill holds, or has held, similar roles in both the Hundred and the Big Bash. He coached Steve Smith, Virat Kohli and Kane Williamson, whom he refers to, excitingly, not as batsmen but as problem-solvers. He is, from an oblique starting point, one of the more influential people in world cricket right now.

But influential how, and to what end? Certainly the Big Bash rules seem disappointingly un-sensational in action. The Surge is a two-over spell of fielding restrictions. The X-Factor means you can make a substitution. The Bash Boost is an extra point awarded in the second innings, a sensational innovation so boring its impossible to even remember what it is for more than five seconds at a time (youve already forgotten it).

And yet the response to this has been angrily polarised of course, because nobody, no inanimate regulation tweak, is a civilian in the culture wars. Woodhill is convinced his changes will blow up the dominant paradigm. Various other people seem angry about it. You cant just tinker with T20 cricket, was Brad Hoggs verdict, a funny thing to say of something that is, essentially, a massive tinker.

There are some points worth making. First, its genuinely reassuring how quickly we can become attached to things, to the extent a rule change in a competition where people wear gold helmets and banter microphones is suddenly two steps from physically defiling the baggy green. Without this protective affection cricket would have faded away decades ago.

Second, Woodhill himself is fascinating, and someone English cricket fans need to get to know. His hand will be felt across the centrepiece of the English summer when the game returns. And yes, he is a bit Shingy.

Woodhill has been around all the major T20 leagues, doing bits. Hes a bespoke high-end batting strategist. Hes into analytics and data mining. He likes the decimalisation of the hundred balls, and cares nothing for the sanctity of overs. Balls is the language of T20, he has said, which is probably true on several levels.

I like him because he comes from the outside, isnt a former great, exists on his own talent alone and has upset Proper Cricket Men with his grooviness. Also because he talks about energy and hope and so on.

What is startling is how much trust both Cricket Australia and the England and Wales Cricket Board are willing to place in some largely untried ideas, how much money, energy and eyeball-time is being coloured by one quite convincing bloke.

But then, guru-ism flourishes in times of uncertainty. The one clear shift in the months of lockdown is how honest cricket has had to be about the power of T20 and the financial pull of franchise leagues.

The fact the Indian Premier League final was able to pull in 200 million viewers at a time when, without it, the sport would have been totally invisible will be seen as a crowning moment in the location of power in the Indian subcontinent. Little wonder there is anxiety elsewhere, a search for a magic spell, a way of altering that gravity.

Back in Hobart the summer game seemed in pretty good health. James Vince played some beautiful, futile shots in a losing cause. The terrifying Riley Meredith bowled throat-ripping 95.5mph bouncers, then laughed about it. Nobody used an X Factor sub. The surge-power seemed more or less regulation.

Woodhill may or may not be the Shingy we need right now. But watching that cheerful flush of green (they even have fans now), it was hard to avoid the feeling the Hundred, whatever its final form, might also turn out to be a much-needed blast.

Read the original post:
Gurus, Power Surges and problem-solvers: Big Bash bids to be T20's biggest hitter - The Guardian