Mediaboss Marketing

New York Times

In Ann Coulter's Speech Battle, Signs That Conservatives Are Emboldened New York Times And coupled with a realization by many conservatives that the culture wars on issues like same-sex marriage may have forever turned against them, the belief that their right of expression is under assault is acutely threatening. The First Amendment, Mr. Ann Coulter Cancels Berkeley Speech, Citing Withdrawal of SupportHeat Street Ann Coulter Says She Will Pull Out of Speech at BerkeleyNew York Times all 769 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:
In Ann Coulter's Speech Battle, Signs That Conservatives Are Emboldened - New York Times

Ilyse Hogue knows best. The president of NARAL Pro-Choice America tore into Sen. Bernie Sanders for joining in a rally for Democratic mayoral candidate Heath Mello in Omaha, Nebraska. The rally was part of the "Unity Tour" sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, featuring Sanders and new DNC chair Tom Perez, although Perez did not attend the actual rally in Omaha.

"The actions today by the DNC to embrace and support a candidate for office who will strip women one of the most critical constituencies for the party of our basic rights and freedom is not only disappointing, it is politically stupid," said Ms. Hogue. If the Democrats are to be unified, it will be on her terms, and her terms are that the Democratic Party impose a litmus test on the issue of abortion rights. And, Sen. Sanders, whose voting record is 100 percent-approved by Hogue's organization, had best toe her line.

Actually, that is not exactly correct. Mr. Mello has stated publicly that he supports a woman's legal right to procure an abortion, but that he is personally opposed to abortion. Whatever you think of the distinction Mello draws, and I think it is very weak, it is hard to square his actual position with Hogue's characterization of his position.

The sin against the abortion rights' canon that Mello committed was to support a law in the Nebraska legislature that required doctors to inform women seeking an abortion that they had a right to receive an ultrasound beforehand. How is that not "pro-choice"? The law did not compel women to get an ultrasound as a condition for getting an abortion. It simply gave them information that an ultrasound was available. For this, Mello is accused of supporting efforts to "strip women" of the right to an abortion.

Hogue is a proponent of a more aggressive stance by the pro-choice activists. She took to the stage at the Democratic National Convention last summer and spoke openly about having procured an abortion. Like Katha Pollitt in her book, Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights, Hogue's strategy is to demonize anyone who does not support the abortions rights agenda 100 percent and to insist that women stop buying into the idea that the decision to get an abortion is so fraught, and that the Democrats drop the "rare" in Bill Clinton's triptych: Abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." Hillary Clinton echoed that phrase during her 2008 race, but she dropped the "rare" last year, showing the influence of those arguing for a more aggressive posture.

To give you some idea of just how myopic Hogue is, compare her comments about Mello and the DNC support for him with her own comments in an article in TeenVogue. There, she wrote of her decision to get an abortion:

My best and closest friend at the time and still today is Catholic. And I thought she would think I was going to hell if I told her. But when I did tell her, she was absolutely nothing but supportive so that shattered another myth. Even though at the time she thought she would never do the same thing herself, she had empathy. I feel like the complexity of human relationships gets lost in the abortion debate. People do understand this to be a very personal decision, and their own thoughts about what they would do and what they see as right or wrong aren't things they would actually impose on other people.

She appreciated the empathy she received, but is unwilling to offer any such empathy to the good Democrats of Omaha: They must either side with her agenda in toto, or she will divide the Democratic Party.

Compare her dogmatism with Sen. Sanders' explanation of his support for Mello. Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Sanders said, "If you have a rally in which you have the labor movement and environmentalists and Native Americans and the African American community and the Latino community coming together saying, 'We want this guy to become our next mayor,' should I reject going there to Omaha? I don't think so. It was a great rally, and I hope very much he wins."

No one comes off looking worse from his episode than Mr. Perez. He echoed Sanders' sentiments at first and then, in a series of subsequent statements, pulled back and started mimicking Hogue's intransigence. "Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health," Perez said in a statement. "That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state." Perez looked weak, like he was caving to a special interest, which only feeds the narrative that the Democrats are beholden to pro-choice activists. And, there goes the 50-state strategy to which Perez if pledged. In large swaths of the country, pro-life Democrats are the only Democrats who can win.

There are times when a party can and should take an absolute stand on an issue. In 1948, the Democratic National Convention adopted a strong civil rights plank and the delegation from Mississippi, and half the delegation from Alabama, walked out. (Check out the whole video, which includes Harry Truman's great opening in his acceptance speech.) But abortion is simply not like other issues. Sen. Sanders understands that what unites Democrats fundamentally must be a commitment to a different, and more just, economic system. That unity must not be thrown overboard because Hogue insists on doctrinal purity on abortion.

Democrats lost the White House precisely because the smart people in the Beltway and in Brooklyn forgot that many people outside those precincts do not think the way they do. For many of us, abortion is an infamy, as the Second Vatican Council stated. We are not anti-women. We are not unsympathetic to the plight of women facing a crisis pregnancy. According to Hogue and, sadly, now Perez, there appears to be no room for us in the Democratic Party. That means the Democrats will continue fighting the culture wars. It is a recipe for remaining a minority party.

[Michael Sean Winters isNCRWashington columnist and a visiting fellow at Catholic University's Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies.]

Read more here:
Abortion litmus test: Democrats slide back into culture-war politics - National Catholic Reporter (blog)

The March for Science in Washington DC. You dont have to be anti-science to see that there is an inevitability about its difficult relationship with politics. Photograph: Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images

There is an old joke about being able to tell an extroverted scientist: instead of staring at their shoes when they talk to you, they stare at yours. This is no longer true. Scientists are the new rock stars. Tonight Einstein gets the full soft-focus Crown-style treatment as National Geographic launches a 10-part series about the man described by the actor Geoffrey Rush, who portrays him in Genius, as a stud-muffin theoretical physicist.

The scientist as hero is familiar enough. Whats less familiar is scientists demonstrating, thousands of them around the world, with placards and banners declaring Science improves decisions and other inflammatory assertions, such as Science belongs to no country because knowledge belongs to humanity. Evidence not arrogance, they demanded.

But you dont have to be anti-science to see that there is an inevitability about its difficult relationship with politics. It is the point where knowledge and belief collide, which is why it is now the crucible of the culture wars.

Scientists cant but be the villains of the Brexit narrative. They are highly educated in the ultimate transferrable skills. They are the quintessential citizens of the world, people who keep their passports in their back pockets, and often work not just in towns where they were not born but in countries their parents never imagined visiting. They might dream of a Nobel prize, but they may also have an eye on a job in Silicon Valley. Intellectual property is the new alchemy.

More challenging than their lifestyles, however, is their insistence on the sanctity of evidence and the importance of making decisions based on established fact. Expert-deniers trade on the natural resistance to uncomfortable truth by asserting that the truth is a negotiable quality. Donald Trump thinks windfarms are bad for your health, and low-energy lightbulbs give you cancer. He has linked childhood immunisation with autism. Although he tweeted yesterday that rigorous science is critical to my administration, he has yet to appoint a scientific policy adviser.

In one way, this is an argument that was already well rehearsed when Pope Paul V took on Galileo 400 years ago. Science and belief have always rubbed up against each other. They find compromise positions. Popes die. In the end, science emerges victorious.

Yet there are differences. Trump is not arguing from some alternative, God-centred perspective. He is not defending a belief system subscribed to by most of the known world. He just doesnt like facts that contradict what he wants to say. The expert-deniers rest their case on experts sometimes being wrong. They refuse to recognise that to know something properly, it must be capable of being proved wrong. If it is, that in fact constitutes the advancement of knowledge.

There is another reason science is at the heart of this argument. Scientists are all very well when they are discovering penicillin and working out how to transfer great quantities of data instantaneously. Science is good when it makes life longer, easier, richer and more comfortable and convenient. It is also wonderful when it is makes discoveries concerning the metabolism of naked mole rats, or negative-mass fluids mind-boggling discoveries that are basically irrelevant to most peoples lives.

It is a harder sell when it points to unacceptable realities. Its disagreeable to stop smoking or to drink less alcohol or to avoid sugary drinks. The people who make cigarettes, booze and fizzy drinks are often unscrupulous in defence of their products and their profits. Accepting that our way of life threatens the sustainability of the planet was never going to be easy. Donald Trump is not a new version of a 17th-century pope, but there are millions of US voters who believe he can preserve their world: a world that depends on coal and cars.

There was plenty to admire about the scientists protest. But its increasingly clear that their greatest skill unearthing the truth is not enough to win a culture war.

Link:
Scientists are armed with the truth. But it won't win them the culture war - The Guardian

**Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign uphere.**

On the roster: Death penalty returns to culture wars- Time Out: When seconds matter - GOP infighting could cost them Prices Atlanta seat - Trumps taxes, your taxes and a pair of deadlines - Thats Professor Toilet Cleaner to you, sir

DEATH PENALTY RETURNS TO CULTURE WARS One of the most remarkable things about the current uproar over anunprecedented series of seven executions set to take place in Arkansas over the next ten days is how unusual the discussion of the death penalty is itself.

After decades as the front-line issue of Americas culture wars, capital punishment has faded both as a flash point and also in practice.

The trend among states that reinstituted the death penalty following the Supreme Courts 1972 decision allowing the practice to resume has been decidedly against its use either in principle or in practice.

Ten of the 31 states that reemployed capital punishment following the courts decision in Furman v. Georgiahave not had a single execution in the past decade. And, in the past five years, 26 states that still have the death penalty on the books have killed no one.

But thats not to say that there arent still plenty of executions taking place, its just that the practice has become increasingly geographically isolated.

Since 2013, 120 of 128 executions have taken place in six states: Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, Missouri and Alabama. Texas alone was responsible for 50 of those.

You may or may not remember how different this issue looked 20 years ago when approval for the death penalty was at an all-time high. Elections, even on the presidential level, sometimes turned on the issue, an unmistakable pendulum swing against what was perceived as the namby-pambyism of theMiranda-era coddling of criminals.

In 1988, hapless Democratic nomineeMichael Dukakissaw his hopes fade amid a sustained effort by then Vice PresidentGeorge H.W. Bushto paint the Massachusetts governor soft on crime. That came not only in the form of arguably the most effective attack adin American political history about Dukakiss prison furlough program, but also Dukakiss own jaw-dropping response to a debate question.

Asked by moderatorBernard Shawwhether Dukakis would support the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife,Kitty, the Democrat was unmoved, talking about deterrents and his track record of opposition, with no expression of spousal outrage or emotion. It still ranks as one of the most damaging debate answers in history.

Four years later, DemocratBill Clintonwas sure to avoid a similar mistake, famously leaving the campaign trail to race back to Arkansas, coincidentally the scene of the current controversy, to preside over the execution ofRicky Ray Rector. Rectors developmental disabilities and mental impairment had led to calls for his sentence to be reduced to life in prison, but Clinton was not going to be branded soft on crime.

But the polling looked different then than it does now. According toGallup, support for the death penalty reached its high-water mark at 80 percent in 1996. That number has steadily fallen now to its most-recent low of 60 percent. Opposition to capital punishment has been steadily climbing, with opponents now at the highest level since the early 1960s.

After a huge battle 44 years ago and the broad reimplementation of the practice in the 1980s and 1990s, the death penalty is sharply waning in practice.

Declining crime rates are a factor, as are concerns about the irrevocable nature of the punishment in the wake of the revelation of faked or mistaken forensic evidence used to obtain convictions. So too is the growing number of pro-life conservatives who object on the grounds of conscience.

A series of botched executions further discouraged those promoting capital punishment. Lethal injection, once seen as a painless and humane alternative to electrocution, now sounds like the stuff of nightmares.

But whatever its cause, the trend is unmistakable. What was once the main battle of America's culture war, is now hardly a skirmish.

THE RULEBOOK:THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. John Jay,Federalist Papers No. 2 TIME OUT: WHEN SECONDS MATTER A great read by National Geographic recounting a military mission so daring that it almost seems too far-fetched. Readthe story of Lt. Col.Jimmy Doolittleand his fearless flyers: Following the Pearl Harbor attack, PresidentFranklin Rooseveltfuriously pressed the chiefs of the armed services to find a way to retaliate against the Japanese homeland, but no one knew how to overcome the logistical challenges. Warplanes based on aircraft carriers were too small to inflict significant damage, and they didnt hold enough fuel to make the mission feasible. Then one cold January day someone got the idea that the B-25 Mitchell, a relatively new, twin-engine, medium bomber, might be able to take off from a flattop deck. Landing one of the planes on a carrier was out of the question, but after bombing Japan it would have just enough fuel to make it to friendly fields in China.

Flag on the play? -Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COMwith your tips, comments or questions.

GOP INFIGHTING COULD COST THEM PRICES ATLANTA SEAT AJC:Fractious Georgia Republicans tried to unite behind a stopJon Ossoff movement ahead of Tuesdays special election to represent a suburban Atlanta district, with party leaders urging voters to stream to the polls and prevent an upset victory by the Democrat. Republicans face a daunting enthusiasm gap in the 18-candidate race to represent the 6th District, and the leading GOP contenders have spent the final days feuding with each other. Ossoff, one of five Democrats in the race, is leading in the polls and aiming for an outright victory in Tuesdays vote. At a GOP voter drive in the districts western flank of Marietta, about 30 volunteers and officials turned out to make calls and listen to several likely Republican statewide candidates. This is personal, said Attorney GeneralChris Carr, who lives in Dunwoody. We have great candidates. But whoever you support is better than the other side. They are trying to embarrass us, but lets show them this district is Republican red.

Meanwhile Dems get a jump on fundraising -WSJ:Riding a wave of grass-roots enthusiasm, several Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2018 posted strong fundraising takes in the first quarter, amassing big war chests of campaign cash. Democratic candidates in Virginia, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota reported large fundraising hauls rarely seen so early in an election cycle. The pickup in donations is dramatic. Democratic incumbents in 14 Senate seats that had released their fundraising totals by Friday afternoon had raised more than $30 million in the first quarter of the year, about three times as much as those same candidates raised in the same period six years ago.

TRUMPS TAXES, YOUR TAXES AND A PAIR OF DEADLINES LA Times:In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and the byzantine nature of the tax code. As the deadline to file your taxes creeps up Tuesday, its been three decades sinceRonald Reagan, riding an Electoral College landslide of 49 out of 50 states, was able to overhaul the tax system.President Trumpdoesnt have that kind of support, nor has a proposal been unveiled. And, as seen in the attempt to remake healthcare, he shuns the political trade-offs that are usually needed for remaking tax laws. Over the weekend, protesters took to the streets to demand the release of Trumps returns, and Trump responded by tweeting that someone should look into who paid for the small organized rallies.

Republicans consider a sweets-only menu on taxes -Axios: As full-blown tax reform looks more and more like an unreachable stretch, there's increasing conversation on the Hill about what's being called a candy option all the goodies, with none of the pain. That would mean lower personal and corporate rates, plus some limited repatriation, funded largely by deficit spending.

PLAY-BY-PLAY White House hides ethics conflicts with waivers-NYT James Hohmannexplores the White House war on transparency, including keeping visitor logs closed-WaPo

Trump targets EPA after business complaints-WaPo

Poll:Voters skeptical of Trump promises-Gallup Dont you need some bunny to love? Trumps host first Easter Egg Roll-WaPo

MeetMike Conaway, the man replacingDevin Nuneson Russia probe-NYT Jeff Sessionsoverhaul of Justice Department takes hold-The Hill

Dem anxiety as govt. union dues return to SupCo with Gorsuchon the bench-Wash Ex Gov.Chris Christietries for another comeback with Trump in his corner-Politico

Report: Trumprequests the royal treatment for upcoming trip to London-The Hill

AUDIBLE:PERSONNEL IS POLICY What would be transformative would be if [Steve Bannon] quits or is fired. I think that would be an indication that it will be somewhere closer to a Republican establishment administration. That will change a lot of people's attitudes. Eliot Cohen, a State Department counselor during the Bush administration, said toPoliticoregarding Bush alumni joining Team Trump.

FROM THE BLEACHERS I have been following your newsletter for quite some time. I got into a commentary [with] a liberal or two. One made a statement that the republicans won't get anything done and will be replaced. I said who is he kidding democrats obstruct so nothing will get done and republicans get blamed and republicans do that when out of power as well. Honestly in congress it is every person for themselves and nothing gets done. Why their rating is tanking as a whole we all agree I guess we're moderates and on suggested term limits. If not we will see a banana republic in our lifetime. I grew up [with] Reagan in office and congress actually made deals w the other side. Are we so hateful now? Chris Johnston, Waco, Texas

[Ed note:Thank you for your readership, Mr. Johnston! And if you have been with us for any length of time, you know that this space has many times been given over to the debate on term limits. The argument that you are making here is essentially that increasing the number of lame ducks in the House and Senate will create an atmosphere more conducive to deal making since members in their final terms will be beyond the reach of voters. You may be right, but I think I have a better solution, and one that also preserves the concept of direct representation in the House: repeal the 17thAmendment. Direct election of U.S. senators has not made the Senate better nor has it really made it more responsive to voters, except for in the enthusiasm of its members pandering. If we return the responsibility to selecting senators to state legislatures, we not only return to the vision of the founders and the concept of an upper chamber in the truest sense, but we would also probably get less partisanship, less pandering and, interestingly, more direct attention to the needs and demands of each state. Just a thought]

I was thinking about how the government could come up with free money. Possibly to pay for health care, infrastructure or our debt to China, etc.What would it take for the federal government to make marijuana recreational legal for all of the United States? I know there is a lot of hoops to jump through. Could you be so kind as to maybe explain a little of the legality of the process? Would it not be beneficial to the federal government to collect the tax revenue? I could see a ton of uses. Maybe all DEA agents that battle marijuana could be utilized at the boarder or fight the opioid epidemic. Jails would be freed up. Restaurants would get more business (*munchies, but I'm sure you W.V. boys know about that) and overall people might just be a little happier.J.S. Marks, Indianapolis

[Ed note:Mr. Marks, I can neither confirm nor deny that the Elm Grove location of the DiCarlos Pizza has benefitted from the herbal appetite enhancer you mention But as to the practical matter of legalizing and taxing revenue from cannabis, in some ways America is closer than ever, but in other ways, getting farther from that result. As you know, more states continue to allow the recreational use of cannabis, with California and Massachusetts expected to come online next year. One would expect that in a country where a majority now supports at least decriminalizing pot, that trend will continue. Some states will assuredly hold out, but its not hard to imagine that in another decade the majority of Americans will live in marijuana-friendly jurisdictions. BUT, the Trump Justice Department may have some different thoughts about that. UnderPresident Obama, the Justice Department essentially announced that it would not enforce federal statutes against marijuana or banks that deposited the proceeds from its sale. If the Justice Department, in fact, changes course and imposes those superseding federal restrictions, it will scare off investors and potential proprietors. But in the long run, given the attitudes of Baby Boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials, its hard to think that any crackdown would out live the current administration.] Although I was pretty sure before today, after reading your list of The Mother of All Newsdumps, I have to admit: Chris, you are indeed, terribly entertaining. Mark Hoffman, Des Moines, Iowa

[Ed. note: Better to be terribly entertaining than entertaining terribly, I suppose! Thanks to you and all our readers who shared their enjoyment at Fridays note and what I thought was a needed moment of levity in the face of what often seems to be a grim news cycle.]

Share your color commentary:Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COMand please make sure to include your name and hometown.

THATS PROFESSOR TOILET CLEANER TO YOU, SIR AP:A Montana State University professor is suing Wal-Mart for libel after he says an employee at the Bozeman store listed his occupation on a fishing license as a toilet cleaner.Gilbert Kalonde, assistant professor of technology education at MSU, filed the suit this past week in Gallatin County District Court. Kalonde is seeking unspecified damages. Wal-Mart spokesmanRagan Dickenstold The Associated Press: To our knowledge an administrative process to resolve this with Dr. Kalonde is ongoing. We've not been served with the lawsuit, but we take the claims seriously and will respond appropriately with the court. According to the complaint, Kalonde bought a state fishing license in April 2015, showing the Wal-Mart employee identification of his employment at MSU. But the Wal-Mart employee entered clean toilets into the state database as Kalonde's occupation. The suit contends Wal-Mart exposed Kalonde to hatred, contempt, ridicule through the incident. Chris Stirewaltis the politics editor for Fox News.Brianna McClellandcontributed to this report. Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign uphere.

Chris Stirewalt joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in July of 2010 and serves as politics editor based in Washington, D.C. Additionally, he authors the daily Fox News Halftime Report political news note and co-hosts the hit podcast, Perino & Stirewalt: I'll Tell You What. He also is the host of Power Play, a feature video series on FoxNews.com. Stirewalt makes frequent appearances on network programs, including Americas Newsroom, Special Report with Bret Baier and Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He also provides expert political analysis for FNCs coverage of state, congressional and presidential elections.

See the original post here:
Death penalty returns to culture wars - Fox News

Austins Culture Wars is a young band about to release their debut EP and they sport a fully-formed, radio-ready sound that blends heavy chugging guitars with foot stomping electronic beats. Frontman Alex Dugan is a charismatic singer with a distinctive rock voice that could fill stadiums. Imagine the Prodigy blended with Aerosmith and you get close to what Culture Wars is all about. Today, we are bringing you the first single from the Culture Wars EP releasing June 9th. Entitled Money (Gimmie, Gimmie), its anthemic slice of electrorock that serves as a statement of purpose for a young group seeking success and also grapples with identity issues. The song is instantly memorable as is Culture Wars. Dugan tells PopMatters that like the song itself, the whole video is all about identity not really knowing who you are, not knowing whats expected of you, and not really knowing anyones true intentions. Thats something I grapple with quite heavily. Trying to figure out who I really am and figure out what that person sounds like. Jeremi Mattern and I co-directed the video and wanted to do the whole thing with heavy gel (colored) lights on a big soundstage out in South Austin. His team built out a set, and we even filled a bathtub up with black sludge. We shot the whole thing in a 14-hour day, and Jeremi did a fantastic job editing it all together afterward.

Sarah Zupko founded PopMatters, one of the largest independent cultural criticism magazines on the web, back in the Internet's early days of 1999. Zupko is a former Executive Producer for Tribune Media Services, the media syndication arm of the Tribune Company, and a 10-year veteran of Tribune. Her other pursuits involve writing historical fiction and research in the fields of Slavic and German history, as well as general European cultural and intellectual history. Zupko studied musicology, film, and drama at the University of Chicago and media theory at the University of Texas, where she received her M.A.

Read more:
Culture Wars - "Money (Gimmie, Gimmie)" (video) (premiere ... - PopMatters