Mediaboss Marketing

FILE - Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies to a House Committee on Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies hearing, about the budget request for the National Institutes of Health, May 11, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert who became a household name, and the subject of partisan attacks, during the COVID-19 pandemic, announced Monday he will depart the federal government in December after more than 5 decades of service. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci announced yesterday that he will step down in December as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to President Joe Biden.

President Biden praised Dr. Faucis unwavering commitment to his work as well as his unparalleled spirit, energy, and scientific integrity. He added: Because of Dr. Faucis many contributions to public health, lives here in the United States and around the world have been saved.

Conversely, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Az., tweeted: Dr. Fauci is conveniently resigning from his position in December before House Republicans have an opportunity to hold him accountable for destroying our country over these past three years. Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Banks added, Republicans must remain committed to holding Fauci accountable even after he steps down to make sure no one in his position ever abuses the public trust again.

Criticism of Americas political leaders goes back to our first contested election in 1800, but condemning their followers is something different. I dont live in the same neighborhood as my president or governor, but I do live in the same neighborhood as some of their supporters. When we begin rejecting not just our leaders but each other on political, moral, or ideological grounds, our ability to flourish or even function as the United States of America is imperiled.

Yesterday I made the claim that civility is vital to a healthy democracy and an attribute that should especially be evident among Christians. I want to expand on that claim today by giving attention to those who disagree.

As I note in my book The Coming Tsunami, a growing tide of secularists consider religion not just outdated and irrelevant but dangerous to society. During hearings on the so-called Equality Act, for example, some senators compared those opposing the Act on religious grounds to the Ku Klux Klans burning crosses and the Confederacys biblical justifications for slavery.

On the other side, Sohrab Ahmari wrote in First Things: Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral.

This approach to the culture wars is clearly winning hearts and minds: A majority of second-year college students said they would not date someone who supported a different presidential candidate than they did in 2020. Almost half said they would not room with someone who voted differently; nearly two-thirds said they would not marry someone who backed a different political candidate two years ago.

Cultural issues are more binary and more divisive than ever before in my lifetime. Is abortion the death of a child, or is it the healthcare right of a woman? Is same-sex marriage (and LGBTQ advocacy) an imposition of unbiblical morality on religious freedom, or is it the civil rights cause of our day?

In a democracy, we settle our differences through elections and elected officials. However, abortion and same-sex marriage were settled by unelected Supreme Court justices, then the former was overturned by unelected Supreme Court justices. In addition, many see those on the other side as deeply immoral and thus undeserving of representation by the media and the protection of our governance.

Commercial media amplifies our differences for audience share; social media amplifies them through personal megaphones. We curate our news into echo chambers that reinforce our biases. Our mobile society and workforce allow us to live and work with those who share our opinions while avoiding those who do not.

And the increasing secularism of our culture makes our culture wars especially urgent. George Clooney speaks for many: I dont believe in heaven and hell. I dont know if I believe in God. All I know is that as an individual, I wont allow this lifethe only thing I know to existto be wasted.

What makes Christians different? Or at least, what should make us different?

Heres what we know that secularists dont:

Each of these principles is vital for empowering a democracy in which those who disagree fervently on major issues can nonetheless live and work together for the common good.

In addition, Christians know the path to moral transformation lies not through politics or human governance but through the work of Gods Spirit:

Each of these principles is vital for empowering Christians to be salt and light in a decaying, ever-darkening culture.

Justin Martyr (AD 100165) assured the Roman emperor, We are your helpers and allies in promoting peace.

Now its our turn.

The rest is here:
Dr. Fauci announces his retirement, response is what you'd expect - Denison Forum

Noise and pollution concerns

Exhaust noise enforcement, The Beach Reporter, 8/11/22

I want to express my agreement with Kelly Charles letter in the August 11 edition. Im glad to see that a digital sign has been placed in other intersections as well, and would like to know if citations have been issued. I would like to add to the list the poisoning smog from those noisy vehicles. In these times of viruses, masks, and awareness about climate change and environmental pollution, how is it that we silently accept being poisoned this way by being forced to breathe those toxic gases?

I also want to add to the list the disturbing and polluting gardeners machines, and dogs that bark continuously to their owners total disregard for their neighbors. I live in North Redondo and drive the beach cities area daily due to my job, and so suffer those disturbances on a daily basis. Education, kindness, respect for others and our communities should render these letters unnecessary. However, here we are writing them in despair.

As Kelly said, please help.

Cesar Adatto, Redondo Beach

Re: Plans to replace power site submitted, The Beach Reporter, 8/18/22

It is with alarm I that I read the plans for the AES Power Site. Heres some history. In 2002, against the wishes of the citizens, the Redondo Beach council sold out to developers and approved 3000 low-rise units. The citizens reaction came in the form of collecting over 6,000 signatures in 2-1/2 weeks, to put this to a vote. The council then saw the light and withdrew the approval.

This action is what caused the park people (those wanting the majority of the site to be parkland), to be elected. So much so, that when a very moderate project was placed on the ballot for 600 large homes, a hotel, and some commercial to be built, the plan did not pass. So, for the past 20 years there has been lots of talk but nothing approved for this site.

Now, this insane plan is submitted. It certainly makes the plan that was voted down for 600 large homes and a hotel look great. The plan calls for the huge, view-blocking power plant building to be retained. In addition, 2,300 housing units, a hotel and lots of commercial. Nowhere are heights mentioned other than stating there are view towers. These, of course will come at the expense of the current citizens losing our views due to these high-rise buildings.

Its time to compromise; a compromise that protects residents views, doesnt impact schools or traffic, and is an asset to current residents, not just the developers balance sheet.

Bill Lippert, Redondo Beach

District 4 voters have only one alternative in recall election, The Beach Reporter, 11/18/22

The Cannabis Initiative had been voted by Redondo Beach City Council in February 2022, to be held on the March 7, 2023 local election. Councilmember Zein Obagis recall would have been on the November 8, 2022 General Election at a cost of $36,000. Meanwhile,Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim made a non-agendized motion, violating the Brown Act, to have a special election on October 19, 2022 for the Cannabis Initiative and include Obagis recall. The cost for the city is between $217,000 to $297,000 for a special election, instead of $36,000.

Obagi may have committed an ethics violation by voting for his own special election and the cannabis Initiative. Hed been conflicted in the past, recusing himself regarding cannabis discussions and voting. Why did he want his recall to be separate from Nov. 8?

Obagi has not held District 4 and the city as his primary concern. Obagi votes with Nehrenheim and Loewenstein their all the time, to the detriment of allowing a huge amount of housing required by the state to be put into North Redondo, and spending more than $217,000 on a special election including his recall.

Council candidate Tonya McKenzie will listen, and represent District 4 while working to enhance RB shared community and commerce. She understands residents and their needs. Go to redondobeachfortonya.com to find out more, and why to vote yes for McKenzie as District 4 City Council Member.

Vicky Oetzell, Redondo Beach

Students are walking, skateboarding and bicycling back to school while cars run rampant in the streets. Time for distracted drivers to take some of the Yap out of your Giddy-Yap and pay more attention to the road, especially the unmarked crosswalk: When any pathway, whether street, sidewalk, or dirt trail, intersects a street at something like a right angle, there is a crosswalk; whether it is painted or not.

New York City rules pedestrians are fair game though cars may not accelerate or change lanes to hit them do not apply here. Pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks are legally protected. California Vehicle Code section 21954 codifies such protection. It specifically says that all drivers must yield the right of way to pedestrians within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk.

But righteous walkers, beware oblivious drivers and righty-turners. Its no good being dead-right. Survival depends on looking both ways for all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard

Tom Wooge, Redondo Beach

Ive lived in Manhattan Beach for 25 years and have been active in supporting our schools, even after my daughter graduated from Mira Costa in 2008. Im a participant in the MBEF Wine Auction and also help with MBEF information technology needs. Im writing to heartily endorse Amy Howorth for Manhattan Beach City Council.

Our city is facing some dark times ahead: the post-COVID confusion, the fiscal challenges in our schools, inflation and recession challenging our local businesses, culture wars polarizing us; while critical issues of water conservation and development are on our citys docket.

Fortunately, Howorth is running for council. She has the experience and character we need to consider opposing views, compromise, and then reach consensus to cut through inaction.

John Oshiro, Manhattan Beach

More:
LETTERS to the Editor: Week of August 25 - Daily Breeze

Nebraska Public Media reported earlier this month on another emerging culture war: Rural Republican governors in the Intermountain West and Great Plains statesled by Nebraskas Pete Rickets and including Montanas Greg Gianforteequating President Bidens conservation agenda with a federal government land grab.

It seems that Biden had the audacity in his first month in office to direct the Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to develop a program to conserve at least 30 percent of all lands and waters in the United States by 2030. The America the Beautiful plan, or 30 by 30 as it is now known, is a national call to action to conserve the countrys natural resources.

Currently, only 12% of Americas land and water are conserved, according to the Department of the Interior, most of which is federal land (wilderness, national parks and monuments, wildlife refuges). Much of the other conserved lands are under permanent conservation easements voluntarily entered into by private land owners, primarily farmers and ranchers, keeping agricultural land from being developed. Other farm and ranch lands have been conserved by private landowners voluntary participation in federal programs designed to protect natural resources, dating back to the New Deal of the 1930s. These federal programs have been successful at significantly reducing soil erosion and protecting water and wildlife.

But according to Gov. Rickets and his co-conspirators, We are deeply concerned about any effort to enlarge the federal estate(and) we oppose any increase in land-use restrictions on lands under our state jurisdiction (or) infringing on the private property rights of our citizens (from a letter by the Governors to the President, April 21, 2022).

The only problem is, of course, that none of these fever dreams are real. Its just another effort to convince rural communities that the federal government is out to steal their land or trick them into doing something that is contrary to their property rights.

These Republican governors are lying to farmers and ranchers. Its not working, yet. In deep-red Nebraska, at least, 95% of Democrats and Republicans, according to polling done by New Bridge Strategies, a Republican research and polling firm, agree that they support private landowners ability to conserve land through voluntary programs.

According to Dean Fedde, a farmer in southeast Nebraska quoted in the Nebraska Public Media report, There is no land grab. The government is not going to take your farm. Theyre here to help protect that ground. They want to see working farms continue to be working farms. Its just the opposite of whats being told.

But that wont stop the grifters from grifting.

These governors will escalate their campaign to confuse farmers and ranchers when President Biden signs the Inflation Reduction Act this week. The Act, among other provisions to address the climate crisis, contains $20 billion to boost voluntary land conservation in farm and ranch country.

In Nebraska, Rickets will step up his campaign to get county commissioners to adopt resolutions to oppose the creation of conservation easements on farmland. Already half the counties in the state have complied with this government overreach, and conservation easement applications in the Sand Hills have already been denied.

In Montana, expect the campaign to be led by the United Property Owners of Montana (UPOM), an astroturf public relations campaign waged by The Montana Group, a Helena-based political consulting firm of former Republican Party electeds and professional grifters who are known for hawking their Save the Cowboy yard signs (only $35!).

UPOM is opposed to the American Prairies land grab to establish a 3-million acre reserve for bison on public and private land in central Montana (and for several hundred years the home of the Blackfeet, among other indigenous peoples).

These grifters will undoubtedly be joined by Gianforte and Attorney General Austin Knudsen, both of whom have opposed the Reserve. American Prairie and other conservation organizations in Montana are simply using all of the tools developed by conservationists in and out of government for the last century to protect both the land and property rights. What they are doing is working for the benefit of all Montanans.

Like Nebraskans, lets tell the grifters that their culture war is not welcome in Montana.

Marshall Mayer, based in Helena, takes notes with a camera at take-note.com.

See the original post here:
The next front in the culture wars? Conservation of rural land and water Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan

Home / Section: Editorial cartooning CSotD: Culture Wars and Food Fights

Well start off the day with a really stupid idea and then you can judge whether we are moving up or down the scale.

Constant Readers will know that First Dog on the Moon is an avid climate change warrior, but will also know that he has no objection to shining a light on stupid ideas, such as a proposal to reanimate the Tasmanian Tiger. I was going to just add a link for those who dont know about Tasmanian Tigers, but the article is interesting enough that you really should read it.

Howsoever, the animals impressive stature in both Tasmanian culture and native imagery doesnt make reanimation a good idea. Some years ago, when proposals to reanimate the Wooly Mammoth were rife, one of my young writers interviewed a geneticist at the Denver Museum of Natural History who reminded her that mammoths went extinct for a reason and would not likely be able to live in the current world.

First Dog hints at this in that bottom left panel, and comes to the same conclusion my reporter did: We might better put some of that energy into preserving what weve got, given that the Earth isnt becoming any more welcoming for them than it was for Tasmanian Tigers or Wooly Mammoths.

Though, if you could insert a gene to make the de-extinctified Thylacine eat only rabbits, foxes, cane toads and feral cats, you might be onto something.

(Pat Bagley)

(Paul Berge)

The old question What are little girls made of? has clearly entered the world of bigotry and ignorance, if those two terms are not entirely redundant.

The issue of gender dysphoria has become a magnet for hatemongers, to the extent where you have to wonder if politicians who wage war on transexual children are honestly that viciously ignorant or are simply ringing a bell they know will summon the pigs.

Call it the Sooey Strategy, a bookend to the Southern Strategy once employed to attract the votes of bigots.

Those flames, however, reach beyond the voting booth. Bagley cites a case in which parents whose daughters had been bested by another girl complained to the school that the winner must surely be a transgender boy.

The school, as indicated in this coverage, handled the complaints well, checking the childs records and confirming that she had been enrolled as a girl since kindergarten. They didnt confirm the childs identity, sport or grade level to the press and certainly didnt share her personal records with the accusing jackasses.

Still, its a chilling indicator of the kind of witch hunts we can expect, as political opportunists use fear and ignorance as a tool to get elected.

The however part of this is in Paul Berges cartoon and accompanying commentary, where he notes that Amazon Primes TV version of A League of Their Own is not, as the 1992 movie did, avoiding the fact that several of the women in the All-American Girls Professional League were lesbians. (Duh.)

Nor is the new adaptation avoiding what was only hinted at in the movie, that the team was, by choice, all white, as were the mens teams in Major League Baseball.

His full essay is thoughtful and worth reading, and I agree with him that they should raise the issues without altering history. As it happens, the modernization of M*A*S*H got me to quit watching, and I could do an entire rant on the topic of fake-but-reassuring history in movies and television.

But Berges got the history covered, and Bagley is addressing the stupid bigotry issue, so well move on.

Ive differed with Steve Kelley enough times that its a relief to point out when we agree on something. Granted, his turning against Mehmet Oz would be more impressive if the Republican werent flailing and almost certain to lose.

Its less a matter of speaking truth to power than one of bayoneting the wounded.

Still, if nominating a person from New Jersey for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania werent tone-deaf enough, having the candidate maintain dual citizenship in a Muslim country seemed unlikely to attract the MAGAts, and whatever disadvantages he had to start with, Oz doubled with a breathtakingly foolish campaign.

The capstone was his ridiculous fake shopping trip for what he calls crudits and everyone with an income less than a cabillion dollars a year calls a vegetable tray, in which he not only seems to recommend dipping raw asparagus in salsa but claims to be shopping at Wegners.

I dont know how many people dip their asparagus in salsa, but there are 107 Wegman grocery stores and none of them are named Wegners.

Oz has explained that he was exhausted when he made that video.

Maybe he should eat more coffee beans.

As it happens, Im also in rare agreement with Gary Varvel (Creators), because however we may all differ about what should be taught in schools, the fact of the school lunch (and often breakfast) is one good people should agree on.

My support of breakfast programs goes back to when we used to buy the Panther Press not because we wanted to read it but because it helped fund free breakfasts and food banks in poor neighborhoods. Like the meals at rescue missions in those days, the recipients got preaching along with the food, but the food mattered and that was where you could find it.

The town where I walk my dog has, in recent years, extended the school meals program throughout summer and made it available for anyone who needs it. And why not? Feeding kids seems it would be a fundamental principle in a civilized nation.

But the same political hacks who insist kids be born are equally sure they dont need to be fed and so have cut the program.

Where are Huey and Bobby now that we need them?

We havent quite gotten to the point where being able to buy food is a luxury for the ultrarich, but Morten Morland tempers his hyperbole beautifully, with the difference being that we normal folks can only cautiously fill a basket while the rich guy can toss things willy-nilly into a brimming cart.

Including both asparagus and salsa. Cant have one without the other!

Like Loading...

Related

Read the original here:
CSotD: Culture Wars and Food Fights The Daily Cartoonist - The Daily Cartoonist

Political certainties are rare these days, but the zero chance that Grant Shapps ideas about mandatory insurance and registration plates for cyclists are ever enacted is about as close as you can get.

The transport secretary floated the idea of compulsory insurance for all bikes on the road and number plates for cyclists in an interview with the Daily Mail that made the front pagetoday: How are you going to recognise the cyclist, do you need registration plates? he asked. He then said the opposite in an interview with the Times: Im not attracted to the bureaucracy of registration plates. That would go too far. His confused interventions would have been news to his junior ministers at the Department for Transport, too, whose longtime view has been that such schemes are a waste of time.

It is not just his own political staffers more or less every official within the Department for Transport, and any expert outside it, would tell Shapps, if asked, that such plans have been mooted many times in numerous places, but have been very rarely implemented. When they have, it has never been with success. Switzerland had a try for a period. Argentina once tried, as have several US cities. But the only place to stick with the idea has been North Korea.

The argument for registering bikes can seem initially tempting. Cyclists, like cars, are road users, they can and sometimes do break laws, and they can also cause serious harm to others. Why should they be exempt from identification and enforcement? The reason is very simple: practically, it would be enormously difficult to enforce and evidence shows it would deliver very little benefit.

First, the logistical hurdles of registering and identifying cyclists: a number plate needs to be big enough to be legible, which is tricky on its own. It would also only identify the bike itself, not the person on it. Some advocates have mooted the idea of rider-specific numbered tabards. But again, something big enough to be seen would be hugely impractical sweaty to wear in summer, and impossible to get over a coat in the wet or cold.

And what about children? No one has seriously suggested that a 12-year-old cycling to school needs to face such administrative hurdles. But if the under-18s are exempt, would 16- and 17-year-olds need to start carrying ID to prove their age?

Even if some half-workable administrative fudge could be found, you run into the other glaring drawback of such schemes: there is very strong evidence that they bring no net benefit either to road safety or to overall national wellbeing. In fact, they do the opposite.

Identifying road users does not eliminate danger. The UK has an estimated one million uninsured drivers, according to the Motor Insurers Bureau, and about 70 people a day are either killed on the roads or experience potentially life-changing injuries.

Almost all road casualties are caused by cars. Focusing finite police resources on bikes would be to concentrate on a group that kills an average of two a year, against around the 1,700 lives lost each year in car accidents.

All you would get from these draconian measures is, most likely, fewer cyclists. Mandatory helmet laws in places such as Australia a far less onerous administrative barrier have been shown to suppress cyclist numbers. And if you get people switching from bikes to cars you get worse public health, more pollution, more congestion and more road deaths.

So why did Shapps venture so far off piste? Probably because with discipline evaporating in the last weeks of Boris Johnsons government, he felt he could. Before now, cycle policy had largely been imposed on Shapps by No 10, with Johnson giving his longtime adviser, Andrew Gilligan, the lead on the issue.

Shapps is by no means the only incumbent minister showing off in the hope he might land a ministerial role if a Truss government becomes a reality. Within his brief, cyclists are an easy target that will score well with members who support a more populist candidate such as Truss. Cyclists remain in the minority despite a boom in numbers during the pandemic, only about 1% of all mileage on Britains roads is from cyclists. So cyclists are a conveniently small population for Shapps to take aim at.

Overall, the media treatment of cyclists has deteriorated recently. The Mail has routinely run scare stories about bikes for years but the previously bike-positive Times declared in January that it now supported registration plates.

This media coverage matters. Some studies have linked anti-cycling media coverage to drivers being more aggressive towards cyclists on the roads. So while its tempting to write off Shapps comments given how unlikely his ideas are to be implemented the consequences for cyclists on roads could be much more serious.

Read more:
Cyclists, welcome, you have just become the latest target in the culture wars - The Guardian