Mediaboss Marketing

Bill Maher Real Time June 16

When Bill Maher spoke one on one to Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow at the top of Fridays episode of Real Time, they had plenty of agreement on the Public Theaters Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar featuring the graphic assassination of a Trump-like title character with ridiculous yellow wig and an over-long red tie.

Maher brought up the furor while talking about attacks on free speech, but in a twist, he seemed to agree with those who say the play went too far. Now Im fond of saying to Republicans all the time now if Obama did it but really, Maher said, if Obama was Julius Caesar and he got stabbed, I think liberals would be angry about that.

Oh absolutely, Marlow agreed. It would be bedlam in the media.

I dont think they should have Trump playing Julius Caesar, I dont, Maher added.

Also Read: 'Julius Caesar' Theater Review: Trump and the Bard Both Assassinated in Bloody Debacle

Theres just one problem with Mahers statement: You dont have to imagine a production of Julius Caesar featuring a President Obama version of the title character.

It happened in 2012, at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, in collaboration with the Acting Company. So, how angry did liberals get over that production?

Not even a little bit.

Also Read: Donald Trump Once Donated to Public Theater's New York Shakespeare Festival

The reaction was instead mainly a collective shrug. Critics werent blown away, but they by and large liked the idea in theory.

For one example, heres what MSPMag said about portraying Caesar as a lanky Black man. It fits, sort of. Like Caesar, Obama rose to power on a tide of public goodwill; like Caesar, there were many in government who doubted Obamas leadership abilities; and now that Obamas first term has failed to live up to the messianic hype, there are plenty of people who for the good of the country, you understand, not their own glory want to take Obama down.

Few conservative groups commented on the production at the time, but those that did praised it, like The American Conservative.

Also Read: Delta Airlines, Bank of America Dump NYC's Public Theater Over 'Graphic' Trumpified 'Julius Caesar'

And while high-profile sponsors of New York Citys Public Theater including Delta Airlines and Bank of America withdrew their support and condemned the Trumpified Julius Caesar the Guthrie production faced no such blowback.

And as The Washington Post noted earlier this weekin 2012 Delta was a sponsor of the Guthrie Theater in 2012, and as of today remains on the list of the Theaters corporate sponsors, credited with giving hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

As for liberals, you guessed it there was no outrage to speak of, and certainly none we were able to locate via Google searches today.

There was certainly no national uproar. Liberal groups did not call for the theater to lose funding, or accuse the producers of implying threats against the President. Critics didnt slam the play. And the production didnt become a national controversy condemned by citizens, pundits, and politicians, whilebleeding sponsors.

Andnow we know how liberals would have reacted to an Obama version of Julius Caesar.

Since becoming president, Donald Trump has had a lot more occasion to talk about American history. He likes to remind people that "you know, I'm, like, a smart person," but he doesn't always seem to get it right. Here are 11 instances of Trump and his surrogates giving weirdo history lessons.

1. On Frederick Douglass During a Black History Month breakfast in February, after mentioning several African American historical figures Trump said, "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice." We're not saying Trump didn't know who Douglass was, but despite his remarks, the famed abolitionist died in 1895.

2. On Trumps Civil War Battle Golf Course Trumps Virginia golf course on the Potomac River includes a plaque stating the location was the site of a Civil War battle. Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot, the inscription reads. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as The River of Blood. Historians say nothing significant took place at the site.

3. On Abraham Lincolns Political Party Trump brought up Abraham Lincoln at the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner in March. "Great president. Most people don't even know he was a Republican," Trump said. "Does anyone know? Lot of people don't know that."

Lincoln, of course, is famously the first Republican president, although the party has changed significantly, both geographically and ideologically, from when it was started in 1854. Trump went on to suggest, Let's take an ad, let's use one of those PACs, to educate people about Lincolns link to the party. He apparently was unaware the GOP very often refers to itself as the Party of Lincoln.

4. On His Electoral College Victory Since winning the 2016 presidential election, Trump and his team have repeatedly called the win the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. It wasnt. In fact, only two presidents have received fewer than Trumps 304 electoral votes since 1972 Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. And Trumps 304 is less than both of Barack Obamas wins, at 365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012.

5. On His Inauguration Crowd Trump and his surrogates have maintained he had the biggest inauguration crowd in history, citing both the people on the ground at the National Mall in Washington D.C., and watching on TV and online. When I looked at the numbers that have come in from all of the various sources, we had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches, Trump told ABC News. Going by the crowd and TV numbers, though, Trumps inauguration crowd was definitely not the biggest ever.

Nielsen ratings for the inauguration put TV viewership at about 31 million, or 19 percent fewer than the number who tuned in for Obamas inauguration in 2009, The Independent reports. And a PBS timelapse video shows the National Mall was never full during the entire event, while shots of Obamas inaugurations show the mall packed. Trumps inauguration might make up the difference with online streaming viewers, but those numbers arent known to the public or the media.

6. On Andrew Jackson and the Civil War In a Sirius XM interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, Trump said President Andrew Jackson would have stopped the Civil War. I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn't have had the Civil War," Trump said. "He was a very tough person but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw with regard to the Civil War, he said 'There's no reason for this.'" Jackson, of course, died in 1845 16 years before the Civil War began.

Trump took to Twitterto clarify his comments on Jackson. President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen! In fact, Jackson, a slave owner, probably would have fallen on the Confederacys pro-slavery side.

7. On the Civil War, Why People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? Trump continued during the same interview. People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out? Of course, plenty of people have asked the Civil War, why? The answer: slavery.

8. On Medieval Times (Not the Restaurant) In February 2016, Trump explained his view of torture and terrorism in an interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. We are living in a time that's as evil as any time that there has ever been, Trump said. You know, when I was a young man, I studied Medieval times. That's what they did, they chopped off heads. Trump went on to say he would authorize measures beyond waterboarding when asked if the US would chop off heads under Trump.

9. On Sweden and What Happened There Trump brought up immigration in Europe during a rally in February 2017. He appeared to mention some immigration-related event last night in Sweden that hadnt actually happened. "We've got to keep our country safe," he said. "You look at what's happening in Germany. You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible.

Trump later clarified the statement, yet again on Twitter. He said he wasnt referring to a news event that happened last night in Sweden, but rather, a Fox News story. My statement as to what's happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden, he wrote.

10. On being treated the most unfairly Delivering a speech to the graduating class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Trump said, "No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly." That apparently includes politicians whohave actually been assassinated, which seemslike it should count for being treated "unfairly." Maybe he means he's been "unfairly" given more passes on bad behavior, like admitting sexual assault, than any other politician.

12. On the Panama Canal In a meeting with Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela, Trump seemed to kind of, sort of take credit for the Panama Canal. "The Panama Canal is doing quite well. I think we did a good job building it, right a very good job," Trump said, to which Varela answered, "Yeah, about 100 years ago." While what Trump meant by "we" was probably "the United States," as Varela's comment suggests, there's still an air of Trump glomming on to past accomplishments that had nothing to do with him.

13. Kellyanne Conway On the Bowling Green Massacre Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway invented a terrorist attack that never happened when she mentioned the Bowling Green Massacre in a February interview with MSNBCs Chris Matthews. Conway was attempting to justify Trumps ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, and claimed the media hadnt covered the attack. As the Washington Post reports, Conway also mentioned the massacre, which never took place, in two other interviews.

14. Sean Spicer On the Holocaust White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer got into trouble when he compared Syrias Bashar al-Assad and Adolf Hitler when discussing Trumps decision to bomb a Syrian airfield in response to a gas attack against civilians. ...Someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons, Spicer said during a daily press briefing. Of course, the use of gas to murder millions of German Jews and other minority groups from within Germany and Europe was central to the Holocaust.

Spicer went on to clarify that he did, in fact, know about the Holocaust. "I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no -- he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing," Spicer said. "I mean, there was clearly, I understand your point, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that. There was not in the, he brought them into the Holocaust center, I understand that." The historically accurate term for "Holocaust center" is "concentration camp," and at least 200,000 people killed in them were Jewish German citizens.

From the Bowling Green Massacre to the Civil War, you might call it alternative history

Since becoming president, Donald Trump has had a lot more occasion to talk about American history. He likes to remind people that "you know, I'm, like, a smart person," but he doesn't always seem to get it right. Here are 11 instances of Trump and his surrogates giving weirdo history lessons.

Read more:
'Real Time' Fact Check: How Liberals Really Reacted to Obama ...

Kevin DrumJun. 21, 2017 10:51 PM

Over at the Atlantic, Peter Beinart laments that liberals have become too doctrinaire over the past decade in their defense of illegal immigration:

Prominent liberals didnt oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to Americas economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained Americas welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, immigration is an intensely painful topic because it places basic principles in conflict.

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platformreferred three times to people entering the country illegally. The immigration section of the 2016 platform didnt use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.

Why did the left move even further left on immigration? Beinart chalks it up to politics: Democrats began to believe theyd dominate elections forever if they could sew up the Hispanic vote, and that motivated them to become ever less compromising on issues important to their Hispanic base.

I suppose thats part of it, but Im surprised that Beinart doesnt mention the obvious: there have been two big attempts in the past decade to pass a moderate, compromise immigration bill. The first time was in 2006, when both the House and Senate passed bills by large margins. But thanks to a backlash from talk radio and social conservatives, the bills never went to conference and the effort died.

The second time was in 2013. A bill passed the Senate by a large, bipartisan majority, but once again it hit a backlash from the tea-party wing of the Republican Party. John Boehner never allowed the bill to come up for a vote in the House, and the effort died again.

UPDATE: My initial post used the wrong numbers for the effect of immigration on wages. The estimates below, along with the chart, have been corrected. Thanks to Jason Richwine for pointing out the error.

These two episodes have made it clear that compromise on immigration is pointless. That being the case, why bother playing Hamlet about the effect of illegal immigration on the wages of low-skilled natives? Especially since its largely a red herring anyway: its true that undocumented immigrants have an impact on the wages of low-skill native workers, but the effect is pretty moderate. Beinart repeatedly mentions the findings of a National Academies of Sciences report on immigration and the economy, but never mentions the precise number it comes up with: for low-skill native workers, an average of all studies suggests that an influx of even a million immigrants would only lower wages about 4.6 percent in the short run.1

The same is true for state and local spending. The NAS report estimates that new immigrants cost states a net of about $1,600 per year.2 This means that an influx of a million immigrants would create a net burden of $1.6 billion. Thats less than one-tenth of one percent of all state and local spending. Its a rounding error.

These numbers are small, and are used mostly as intellectual cover by opponents of illegal immigration. They are not even remotely the reason for opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, which comes mostly from educated native whites whose wages and taxes arent impacted more than a hair by illegal immigration. The real reason is almost purely cultural: dislike of non-English speakers, an inchoate fear of crime, and a vague sense that white America is fading away. But hardly anyone wants to admit that these are the real terms of the argument.

Quite a bit of new research has been done over the past decade, and the result has been, if anything, a reduction in the perceived economic effects of illegal immigration. The wage effects are roughly zero overall, and even for low-skill workers are fairly small in the short runand get smaller over time. The fiscal effects are even smaller, and become zero over the long run. Given all this, its hardly a surprise that supporters of comprehensive immigration reform no longer give economic arguments much attention.3

1This is the average of all studies in Table 5-2 that focus on high school dropouts. The mean result was a wage effect of -0.56 percent for an increase in the low-skill labor supply of 1 percent, which amounts to about 120,000 workers. That comes to -4.66 percent per million new immigrants.

2Table 9-6.

3This is not the post I intended to write when I started out. But after reading the NAS report, its the one I ended up with. Maybe tomorrow Ill write the post I originally had in mind.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals Haven't Lost Their Way On Immigration - Mother Jones

Full Frontal host Samantha Beewishes summer could be carefree, but she says conservatives efforts to demonize liberals are making it difficult.

Case in point: A PAC ad supporting Republican Karen Handel in her ultimately victorious Georgia congressional campaignagainst Democrat Jon Ossoff exploited last weeks shooting at GOP Congress members during a baseball practice. The incident left Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.)with serious injuries.

The commercial warned that the unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans and theyre the same ones backing Ossoff.

Bee had enough of that noise.

Oh! That must be why he lost. The cheering-last-weeks-shooting demographic is basically zero, she said on her show Wednesday. The unhinged left is even less powerful than the hinged left, which is saying a lot.

Bee didnt stop there. She explained how conservatives are also framing art as a bogeyman.

Watch her full monologue above.

See the rest here:
Sam Bee Shuts Down Conservatives' Attempts To Demonize Liberals - HuffPost

NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Liberals FREAK OUT as MSNBC Gives Conservative Hugh Hewitt a Show NewsBusters (press release) (blog) MSNBC is giving a show to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt and liberals are predictably freaking out. The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday explained that Hewitt's first show will air on Saturday, June 24. Writer Jeremy Barr added, In giving Hewitt ... and more »

See the rest here:
Liberals FREAK OUT as MSNBC Gives Conservative Hugh Hewitt a Show - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Kelowna-Mission MLA has been chosen as the new speaker for the B.C. legislature. (Hansard)

Speaker to resign if government defeated by NDP and B.C. Greens

B.C. Liberal MLA Steve Thomson of Kelowna-Mission was elected Speaker of the B.C. legislature Thursday to begin a historic session that will determine whether the NDP and B.C. Green Party take over as government or whether voters head back to the polls.

Thomson resigned as forests minister Wednesday evening to take on the new role. Aboriginal Relations Minister John Rustad has added responsibility for forests, lands and natural resource operations to his cabinet duties.

Premier Christy Clark has said the B.C. Liberals will put forward one of their 43 MLAs to stand as speaker, but if the 44 opposition MLA join forces to vote non-confidence in Thursdays throne speech, it will be up to the new government to name its own speaker.

Elections to the speaker position, the referee of the legislature, are a secret ballot vote by all MLAs. In practice there is rarely more than one candidate put forward.

The throne speech sets out the governments goals for a new session, and Clark has disclosed most of its highlights in advance, adopting main elements of the B.C. NDP platform. Wednesday she announced that the B.C. Liberals pre-election budget will be amended to include a $1 billion boost to child care, and the intention to create an anti-poverty plan, after a decade of she and former premier Gordon Campbell maintaining that the best anti-poverty plan is job creation.

On Monday Clark announced she wants to meet another key NDP demand, to ban corporate and union donations to political parties.

Social Development Minister Michelle Stilwell then announced a $100-a-month increase in temporary income assistance payments, another measure taken from the NDP platform in the May 9 election.

Whether the B.C. Liberal government survives long enough to implement any of these measures remains to be seen. Rules of the house require four days of debate before a confidence vote can begin, and the B.C. Liberals may extend that period by introducing legislation for debate.

View original post here:
BC Liberals elect speaker to begin historic session - Surrey Now-Leader