Mediaboss Marketing

What the hell is The New York Times doing employing a climate-denying goon?

Last week, The New York Times ran the debut of columnist Bret Stephens, whose skepticism of Donald Trump was apparently enough for him to qualify as One of the Good Conservatives that the Times loves to showcase on their op-ed page. Anyway, Stephens is also a skeptic of global warming, and his opening salvo was filled with the kind of junk science and No one can really predict the future! claptrap that climate deniers love to deploy when smoothing out a worldview that is undeniably wrong. He even used Hillary Clintons election loss as an example of the fallacy of relying on science because well, because no right-wing argument is complete without sticking a shiv into Hillarys corpse.

This column was met with a great deal of negativity, and for good reason. Here we have august New York Times, positing themselves as defenders of truth in a post-truth political era, but deciding to give prominent space to a fancy imbecile. The blowback was so strong that the Timess public editor, Liz Spayd, weighed in today. Now, the obvious lesson that Spayd should have taken from this whole episode was DONT HIRE A FUCKING CLIMATE DENIER. But no. Spayds takeaway was that perhaps liberals were too harsh on Stephens. Maybe we were all too harsh on each other, guys!

Readers, on the other hand, face the serious test of whether they can show tolerance for views they dont like, even those they fear are dangerous.

Read that again and tell me it makes a lick of sense. Im supposed to be tolerant of dangerous views? Is that really as big of a problem as the dangerous view itself? Readers, on the other hand, face a SERIOUS TEST of whether or not they can be open to the idea of destroying the moon. This whole episode is a perfect example of The New York Timess steadfast dedication to the Some people say X, while others say Y! form of analysis, and its a grim reminder that the Times exists not to make readers smarter, but to make readers FEEL like theyre smarter, and that goes for liberal and conservative readers alike.

This is how they end up trotting out a prudish bozo like Ross Douthat to be like, Hey, the French lady who wants to ban yarmulkes might have some good ideas, maybe? And its how they trot out another bozo like Stephens presenting a view on climate change that isnt a view at all, but rather a categorical untruth, and then allow him to buff and shine that view until it satisfies whatever niche audience wants their awful worldview to be legitimized by the paper of record. The Times wants to report the news, but they also want to be polite, and fair, which means indulging those who do not deserve to be indulged. This is especially true of Stephens.

Did all this negative criticism teach Stephens that he was, you know, wrong? Of course not. No, what Stephens learned was that liberals can begasp!nasty!

And, true to any standard Professional Right Wing Yakker, he displays a perverse pride in upsetting readers who have ample reason to be upset. Every feather ruffled is a prize to be treasured:

The idea that liberals are intolerant of dissenting opinion has been a hobbyhorse of the right for decades. Every time conservatives are faced with rational blowback, they go, OH WOW, LOOK HOW HYSTERICAL THESE LIBERALS ARE! YOU GUYS ARE COMING OFF A LITTLE HOSTILE HERE! Rush Limbaugh brings up liberal anger on the hour every hour, and its a funny complaint coming from the kind of people who just won an election riding on the back of Nazi Frog Twitter, and who tend to react with outrage at, for example, the sight of two black people hosting SportsCenter together. I really dont need their criticism of liberal manners validated by the Times when its so old and tired.

More important, I have every right to be a complete dick about all this. I have every right to lay into Stephens for being a preening asshat and promoting ideasand I hate even calling his bullshit an ideathat will literally destroy the planet. I have every right to be intolerant and strident toward people who are wrong, and toward people like Spayd who coddle the Bret Stephens of the world and think they can politely stammer their way through American democracy committing suicide. Her whole response to this fiasco is Lets all just agree to disagree and go have ice cream! and its disgraceful coming from that papers public editor.

How has being nice helped liberals thus far, anyway? Conservatives just took over every branch of government with one of the most hateful men on Earth as their standard-bearer. Republicans have already legalized river pollution, allowed Internet companies to violate your privacy, and are hell-bent on taking your grandmas penicillin away from her. And yet, over and over again, its liberals who are the intolerant ones, and its liberals who are supposed to play nice and reach out to the white voters who will HAPPILY reject them so long as Republicans are offering a platform of guilt-free racism as an alternative.

Fuck all that. I want you to watch something that youve probably seen already: Its the video of Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings going off on Oregon Rep. Greg Walden:

I dont have to be nice for nobody when youre being nasty to poor people. See now, theres a man who gets it. Theres a man who understands that the proper and logical response to the Republican agendawith all its climate denial and repression and open corruptionis FUCCCCCKKKKK YOUUUUUUUU. It is not, Hey, lets hear out this fella who wants to rob us blind! Did we not just come out of an election season that highlighted the dangers of softening the edges of dangerous people? Did it not take the Times AGES to finally point out that the presidentwho is a liaris a liar? The Stephens episode shows that they still havent really learned their lesson. Above all, it shows that meekness is not a boon to liberalism, especially when shitbags like Stephens are demanding it.

MORE STORIES LIKE THIS ONE

More here:
Bret Stephens Is Why Liberals Have Every Right to Be Dicks - GQ Magazine

There were registered lobbyists who signed up and paid to attend a fundraiser featuring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Montreal, but the Liberal party says they have since been removed from the guest list.

"Individuals who were registered to lobby the special guest were informed they would not be able to attend this event, in line with the party's commitment regarding such checks in advance of ticketed fundraising events," spokesman Braeden Caley wrote in an email Thursday.

Trudeau promised political donors would not get preferential access to his government, and now the Liberals are trying to show they mean it as they revive their high-profile fundraising efforts, including an appearance by Trudeau at the Museum of Fine Arts in Montreal for Thursday's party fundraiser.

Anyone can go, so long as they have up to $250 to spare for a ticket, want to give that money to the Liberal Party of Canada, and are not registered to lobby the Prime Minister's Office.

Caley confirmed fewer than five individuals who were registered to lobby the PMO had bought tickets.

It is a chance for Liberal supporters to get a word or a selfie with the party leader, but it will also be a time when the Liberals can once again rely on their surest bet for topping up the party war chest as they prepare for the next election.

The Liberals brought in a moratorium on fundraising events featuring Trudeau and other ministers earlier this year as they worked to develop new rules in the wake of accusations they were providing preferential access to the prime minister and his cabinet in exchange for dollars from wealthy donors in private homes.

"There was a pause on national fundraising events throughout the first quarter while stronger standards for open and transparent fundraising events were being prepared," Caley said.

Nathan Cullen uses unparliamentary language1:08

The new system involves holding fundraisers featuring Trudeau or ministers only in public places, announcing them in advance, allowing the media to attend and disclosing the guest list within the following 45 days.

Those measures are new, but the process of vetting fundraising lists to ensure no one registered to lobby the department of the "special guest" at the events is not.

Last November, as the stories about cash-for-access fundraising practices were piling up, Christina Topp, who was then interim national director of the party, detailed what the Liberal party avoids the perception it is giving preferential access to cabinet ministers, or placing them in a conflict of interest.

In a letter to cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries obtained by The Canadian Press, Topp said the Liberal party vets guest lists for fundraising events to "determine if any individuals are registered lobbyists with active files associated with the relevant department and, if necessary, take steps so that the individual does not attend the event."

The Liberals are calling on the opposition parties to bring in their own transparency measures.

"No other party has made a similar commitment and we challenge them to do so," said Caley.

Soon, they might not have a choice.

The Liberal government promised legislation that would require similar disclosure for events involving party leaders and leadership candidates.

"It's always possible to raise the bar and we will continue to work hard to make the government more transparent," Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould said Thursday during question period.

John O'Leary, her spokesman, said the government aims to introduce the legislation this spring.

One Liberal source said the legislation will be essentially the same as the measures the party brought in, which would prevent the party having to once again change the way they are doing things.

One significant difference, according to two Liberal sources, will likely be the lack of a requirement to open the events up to the media.

The Conservatives and New Democrats say they do not plan on taking any lessons from the Liberals.

"The reality is they weren't able to follow their own set of rules the first time," said Conservative MP Blaine Calkins.

New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen said his skepticism stems from the fact the Liberals deserted their promise to change how Canadians vote. "I have very, very low trust with this government when it comes to democratic reform."

Some Liberals are pointing to that as one reason for lacklustre fundraising figures in the first three months of this year, when the Conservatives raised nearly twice as much money from a larger pool of contributors, even though they are in the midst of a leadership race that ought to be siphoning would-be donations to the party.

"There's a small connection," Caley said when asked whether the lower profile played a role.

See more here:
Liberals removed lobbyists who signed up for Montreal fundraiser with Justin Trudeau - CBC.ca

Franklinton, N.C. A sign in a Granville County yard urging people to "kill liberals" is the latest in a string of fiery political messages posted by the homeowner, according to people in the area, who say they mostly ignore the rhetoric and the man behind it.

The sign, at the corner of Bruce Garner Road and Pocomoke Drive 2 in the southeast corner of the county reads "Civil War 'Now' Kill Liberals." The man who posted it wasn't home Wednesday when a WRAL News crew stopped by.

"This is quite offensive, and before the election, he had other offensive signs, too," said Ravinder Bindra, who runs a country store about a quarter-mile away on Bruce Garner Road. "I dont pay, most of the time, any attention."

Bindra said the sign's owner stops by his store almost daily, but the Sikh immigrant from India said the man never bothers him.

"He has not been any trouble to me so far," he said. "I dont know what his name is. See, nobody cares about him."

Some neighbors said the man, who also flies a Confederate flag, a "Don't Tread On Me" flag and a U.S. flag with only 13 stars, causes no trouble other than firing off guns in his yard and lighting bonfires with his buddies.

"That mans posted all types of (stuff) out there in his yard," said Ronnie Keith, who lives up the road from the sign's owner. "Its probably just for entertainment."

Keith said most people have an attitude similar to Bindra's when it comes to the man and his signs.

"They dont care. Its their opinion, and they know they have the right to say it," he said. "Me, myself, personally, I dont really do politics."

Bindra said the signs don't signal local sentiment.

"(If it) was of a majority of the people, then Id be worried, but a single person like him, Im not worried about any mishappening or anything," he said.

View post:
Granville neighbors call man's 'kill liberals' sign hyperbole - WRAL.com

Rex Features via AP Images

Former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden walk through the the Capitol for Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony.

On Monday in this space, our columnist and colleague Paul Waldman addressed the subject of why liberals are upset about Barack Obama taking a $400,000 speaking fee from a Wall Street firm, Cantor-Fitzgerald, for a speech scheduled for September.

Waldman opined, You'd almost think Obama had begun lobbying for the repeal of Dodd-Frank, or maybe gone on a seal-clubbing expedition. He continued, in an affectionate reminiscence about the Obama presidency, that a lot of the liberal disappointment or anger reflected upset at the contrast between Obama and Trump.

I cant speak for other liberals or progressives, but here are some thoughts about my own disappointment.

As the contrast with Trump vividly reinforces, Barack Obama was one of the most principled, thoughtful, and honorable people ever to serve as president. He was a model of dignity and probity.

His biggest mistakeand in my view anyway, a mistake that undermined his presidencywas to turn to the very people who had deregulated Wall Street as his senior economic team. These were the protgs of former Citibank and Goldman chieftain and top Clinton economic official Robert Rubin, many of whom had led the parade to let Wall Street run wild.

These included Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke (a carryover Bush appointee reappointed by Obama), but also other denizens of the Wall Street-Washington revolving door who not only supported deregulation but also austerity, and deregulation disguised as trade, such as Peter Orszag and Michael Froman.

When Obama took office, Paul Volcker was sidelined by this crowd, as too radical on the subject of regulation. That noted Bolshevik, Paul Volcker!

This team was basically in place before the November election, when the banking system collapsed in September 2008. Obamas program was so closely associated with a politics of propping the financial system up rather than cleaning it out, that when a CNBC agitator, Rick Santelli, ranting from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (!), called for a Tea Party revolt, Santelli had more credibility as a populist than Obama did. This prefigured Donald Trump.

And when the Obama austerity team prematurely projected a recovery summer for 2010, killed legislation for a second stimulus, and warmly supported the Wall Street-inspired Bowles-Simpson Commission, Obama helped set himself up for the epic Democratic congressional defeat in the 2010 midterm elections.

Thus Wall Streets gift to Obama and the Democrats: a team of Rubins, austerity economics, and a Democratic Party that looked to Middle America like it represented somebody else.

So when Obama accepts a $400,000 Wall Street gig, this produces not just disappointment but a deep concern about a tactical tin ear and a continuing association that is politically toxic for a progressive reconnection with working people who turned to Trump. It reminds us of another leading Democratic figure with an even tinnier ear, one Hillary Clinton.

Obama, of course, has a perfect right to take the money. Thats not the question. The question is whether this is a good idea, both for Obama and for the Democrats.

Obama is now a wealthy man. His net worth is estimated around $13 million and rapidly rising. He will become much wealthier, from his books and from plenty of speaking engagements that will produce an annual income well into seven figures.

I dont object to the occasional high dollar speech, but lets see more speeches to groups seeking racial reconciliation, or to groups pursuing better job opportunities for working America, or to any venue other than Wall Street.

Obama taking that kind of money from Wall Street reinforces the impression that the very rich really do control it all; that maybe there is not so much difference between a thug billionaire former developer president and a polished former law professor ex-presidentthey are both too comfortable with the moneyed class.

One could understand and even condone Obamas walking on eggshells on the fraught subjects of race and class while he was president. But now he is free at lastfree to exercise constructive influence on the public debate. Free to personify a salutary contrast with Donald Trumpand with Wall Street.

So thats why this particular liberal thought it sadand sadly emblematicthat Obama takes a sum from Wall Street for one speech that is about ten times what the average American makes in a year. It had nothing to do with nostalgia, except maybe for FDR.

Read the original:
Liberals, Obama, and that Wall Street Speaking Fee - The American Prospect

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

"Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

Like many generalizations, this "fundamental law" of American politics, as outlined by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer some 15 years ago, is overly broad. But it nonetheless captures something important and true about our world. Let's focus on the latter half of this maxim. It's true that liberal writers, journalists, and policy intellectuals have long expressed a level of moral outrage and even disgust about their ideological opponents that rivals and often surpasses what one typically encounters on the other side. (At the grassroots, the reverse has tended to be true, with conservatives often directing greater animosity at their ideological opponents.)

As President Trump has moved the Republican Party away from conservatism and in the direction of right-wing populism, nationalism, and anti-globalism, the liberal tendency toward moral denunciation hasn't diminished. On the contrary, it's only intensified, leading progressives to double down on their longstanding habit of seeking wherever possible to excommunicate the right from the realm of democratic argument and debate.

If liberals hope to regain the ground they've lost in recent years, they really need to change these tactics, which as often as not are self-defeating.

As I've argued on previous occasions, declaring opponents unacceptable, illegitimate, and out of bounds is a perennial temptation. That's because politics always takes place on two distinct levels. On one level is the back and forth of partisan conflict, involving persuasion, argument, electoral battles, triumphs, and defeats. On this level, pretty much anything goes as long as it abides by the rules of the political game. But there's also a second, more fundamental level of politics that involves a competition over who gets to set those rules, the boundaries of what is publicly acceptable and precisely where those boundaries will be positioned.

Far more than conservatives, liberals love to rule certain positions out of bounds in this second-order sense. They do this by appealing to the courts the branch of government that reviews, alters, and overturns the rules of the political game. They also do it in the important institutions they control within civil society such as mainstream media outlets, universities, corporations, movie studios, and other arms of the entertainment industry. When these institutions informally decide that an issue, or a specific position on an issue, is simply unacceptable because it crosses a moral line that leading members of these institutions consider inviolable, they render it beyond the pale. As I wrote in a previous column on the subject, "Over the past several decades, a range of positions on immigration, crime, gender, and the costs and benefits of some forms of diversity have been relegated to the categories of 'racism,' 'sexism,' 'homophobia,' 'white supremacy,' or 'white nationalism,' and therefore excluded from first-order political debate."

Trump's presidential campaign succeeded in part because the candidate challenged these second-order taboos (especially as they show themselves in the phenomenon of political correctness) and liberals have responded in part by attempting to reinforce the taboos, mostly through name-calling that boils down to the assertion, "You can't say that!"

Sometimes this assertion is merely rhetorical. But at other times, in the statements of various courts that have blocked Trump's policies on immigration and sanctuary cities, it's backed up by the force of the judiciary. (In France, Marine Le Pen faces a similar dynamic, with nearly the entirety of the French political establishment closing ranks against her to convey the message to the electorate that voting for the National Front is simply unacceptable.)

The problem with telling people that they're not allowed to get their way on certain issues is two-fold. First, as we've seen with the Trump phenomenon, controversial opinions don't just disappear when members of the establishment rule them out of bounds. They often reassert themselves later, more powerful and more radicalized than before. And second, the excommunicators may become fond of the tactic and apply it to an ever-expanding range of issues.

For a vivid recent example of what can happen to political thinking and debate when one side becomes wedded to upholding rigid and exceedingly narrow strictures on permissible opinion, take a look at the blistering (and bizarrely disproportionate) reaction of liberals to Bret Stephens' debut column in The New York Times. Now, I was no fan of Stephens' writing in The Wall Street Journal, where he recently resigned, especially when it came to foreign policy. Neither did I appreciate his stance on environmental issues, which struck me as overly dismissive of evidence for climate change.

But in his first Times column, Stephens came right out and described global warming, along with evidence of "human influence on that warming," as "indisputable." That sounded unobjectionable to me as did his overarching point, which was that those who favor policies to combat climate change would convince more people to go along if they sounded somewhat less absolutely, positively, unwaveringly, indisputably certain in their predictions about what is always, after all, an all-too-uncertain future.

Stephens himself predicted in the column that his humble case for humility would cause heads to explode, and sure enough they did. Liberals on Twitter sputtered in indignation, as did several center-left news sites. The Times had hired an apologist for climate change "denialism," proclaimed Slate. According to Vox, he was a "climate change bullsh--ter." (The Week, too, was not immune.) No wonder climate scientists and many others lined up to cancel their subscriptions to the newspaper in protest.

Except that none of it was true. Stephens didn't deny the reality of climate change. He merely dared to advocate a slight rhetorical adjustment to the way environmental activists and their cheering sections at websites like Slate and Vox, and newspapers like the Times, go about making their case to the wider public. What followed was not a reasoned debate about the rhetorical effectiveness of claims to modesty and certainty, dispassionate concern and outright alarmism. Instead, there was simple, pure, satisfying, but politically impotent condemnation: "You can't say that!"

But of course he can. And he will.

Which means the all-important question for liberals remains: What then?

Here is the original post:
Liberalism's self-defeating howl - The Week - The Week Magazine