Mediaboss Marketing

As Democrats make their case to voters around the country this fall, one challenge is that some of the bluest parts of the country cities on the West Coast are a mess.

Centrist voters can reasonably ask: Why put liberals in charge nationally when the places where they have greatest control are plagued by homelessness, crime and dysfunction?

Ill try to answer that question in a moment, but liberals like me do need to face the painful fact that something has gone badly wrong where were in charge, from San Diego to Seattle. Im an Oregonian who bores people at cocktail parties by singing the praises of the West, but the truth is that too often we offer a version of progressivism that doesnt result in progress.

We are more likely to believe that housing is a human right than conservatives in Florida or Texas, but less likely to actually get people housed. We accept a yawning gulf between our values and our outcomes.

Conservatives argue that the problem is simply the left. Michael Shellenberger wrote a tough book denouncing what he called San Fransicko with the subtitle Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Yet that doesnt ring true to me.

Democratic states enjoy a life expectancy two years longer than Republican states. Per capita G.D.P. in Democratic states is 29 percent higher than in G.O.P. states, and child poverty is lower. Education is generally better in blue states, with more kids graduating from high school and college. The gulf in well-being between blue states and red states is growing wider, not narrower.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Originally posted here:
Opinion | What Have We Liberals Done to the West Coast? - The New York Times

For young, secular, politically progressive men and women, having children has become something of an afterthought. Liberal conventional wisdom encourages people to spend their 20s on journeys of personal and professional self-discovery and self-fulfillment. Children are treated as a bonus round, something to get to only after completing a long list of achievements: getting a degree, forging a satisfying and well-established career, buying a house, cultivating the ideal romantic partnership.

The standards of readiness for family are at once so high and so vague that its hardly a surprise when people fail to reach them. Indeed, the data suggest that people are having children later than they used to and are having fewer than theyd like.

For progressives, waiting to have children has also become a kind of ethical imperative. Gender equality and female empowerment demand that womens self-advancement not be sacrificed on the altar of motherhood. Securing female autonomy means that under no circumstances should a woman be rushed into a reproductive decision whether by an eager partner or tone-deaf chatter about ticking biological clocks. Unreserved enthusiasm for having children can come across as essentially reactionary.

Over the past four years, weve conducted interviews and surveys with hundreds of young Americans about their attitudes toward having children. These conversations revealed that the success narratives of modern liberal life leave little room for having a family. Women who want kids often come to that realization belatedly, at some point in their early 30s the so-called panic years. If they are lucky, their partner (if they have one) will fall in line. If they are not, they face a choice of returning to the dating pool, freezing their eggs (if they havent done so already), single parenting or giving up their hope of having kids of their own.

In this way, the logic of postponement that has been promoted by liberals and progressives and bolstered by overblown optimism about reproductive technologies robs young people of their agency. How many children they have, and even whether they have them at all, is increasingly a decision made for them by circumstance and cultural convention.

This is not just a recipe for unhappiness; it also reflects a deep confusion. There is nothing inherently unprogressive about embracing the prospect of children. Even Simone de Beauvoir, the philosopher who was among the first to critique reproduction and family as instruments for the oppression of women, acknowledged that shaping the character and intellect of another human being was the most delicate and the most serious undertaking of all. While certain conservative visions of family life such as trad wives and Silicon Valley pronatalism no doubt have little to offer those on the left, our fellow progressives need to stop thinking of having children as a conservative hobbyhorse and reclaim it for what it is: a fundamental human concern.

Read more:
Opinion | Whats Stopping Liberals From Having Kids? - The New York Times

Its hard to imagine a clearer violation of journalistic ethics than pretending to hold beliefs you dont, asking Supreme Court justices if they agree, and surreptitiously recording their answers at a no-media dinner. The novelty of the stunt, however, shouldnt distract us from the real takeaway, which is precisely that the recordings yielded nothing we didnt already know.

The key conclusions are that Justice Samuel Alito is a religious man; his wife Martha-Ann likes political flags; and Chief Justice John Roberts is genuinely committed to the (somewhat unrealistic) idea that only elected officials not judges should make moral decisions.

The recording was obtained by liberal documentarian Lauren Windsor at the annual dinner of the Supreme Court Historical Society, itself a rather misunderstood event. As someone whos been to the dinner (I was the speaker one year after writing a book on Supreme Court history) let me try to set the scene.

The dinner is a reasonably accessible way for a non-billionaire to hobnob with the justices: Anyone who buys a $500 ticket can attend, which is how Windsor got in. That might sound like a lot of money, but its much less than many non-rich people pay to go to sporting events or Taylor Swift concerts.

Yet the dinner feels elite. The dress code is black tie. The cause supporting the societys work on the history of the court is worthy, but niche. And the dinner, which is supposed to be off the record, takes place in the great hall of the Supreme Court building, all marble and very grand.

The key point is that, at the dinner, the justices are comfortably at home (its their office, after all). They are also, to a degree, the effective hosts of the event. They seem relaxed and friendly, and they get to be real people. Or at least, they used to now they will have to know they can be recorded by their guests.

Windsor got Justice Alito to say that in contemporary America, there can be a way of living together peacefully, but its difficult because there are differences on fundamental things that really cant be compromised. Um, yes? That statement seems incontrovertibly true.

The false-flag journalist then insisted that people who believe in God must keep fighting to return our country to a place of godliness. Alito agreed. Although godliness here is left vague, its hard to imagine a genuinely God-fearing person answering otherwise.

As for Mrs. Alito, she of the scores of flags flown at two homes, the most the provocateur could get was that she had been considering flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag to respond to a Pride flag in her neighborhood during June but that her husband had asked her Oh please, dont put up a flag. The exchange appeared to confirm Alitos letter to two senators in which he essentially said that his wife likes flying flags and all he can do is ask her not to.

As for Roberts, the chief responded to Windsors prompts by giving his patented mini-lecture about how justices are just lawyers who shouldnt take moral right and wrong into account. He also firmly rejected the suggestion that the US is a Christian nation and that the justices should be guided by that idea.

Its hard to see how a court could make decisions about racial equality or abortion rights or gun control without taking some kind of moral stand. Justices Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were great, morally driven advocates for equality who carried their moral values into their Supreme Court service. Even Justice Neil Gorsuch, a non-moral textualist by his own account, is clearly morally motivated in Indian law cases by the profound injustices done to the tribes over centuries. That seems praiseworthy, at least to me.

Justices are human beings, not machines. We should allow them to be humans, even at social events. And we should grow out of the fantasy of justices as perfectly impartial automatons free of human fallibility.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.

View original post here:
Column: Secret audio of Alito isn't the smoking gun liberals think - The Virginian-Pilot

Premier Jeremy Rockliff has done nothing to ease very serious concerns about Tasmania's future as the gateway to the Antarctic, placing thousands of jobs and hundreds-of-millions dollars' worth of economic opportunity at risk.

A letter from the Federal Government to the Premier has revealed that government business TasPorts is "determined to stand in the way" of critical infrastructure at Macquarie Wharf, by not only failing to progress the upgrades needed to berth the new icebreaker, but also attempting to increase charges to the Antarctic Division by more than 14 times what is currently paid.

The Premier was asked by the Federal Government earlier this year to intervene on this critical issue, but he did nothing.

Today the Premier revealed his head was still firmly stuck in the sand, and that he would continue to let TasPorts hold our economy to ransom.

The situation is a perfect example of two major failings of this Liberal government - their failure to deliver on key infrastructure projects, and their failure to recognise that government business enterprises are key economic drivers not just cash cows, just like we've seen with Hydro.

Dean Winter MP

Labor Leader

Link:
Antarctic Jobs Threatened by Liberals' Delivery Failure - Mirage News

I started this summer as I normally do binge-watching a classic American program while chipping away at other projects. How I Met Your Mother was the sitcom of choice. Rewatching the familiar escapades of Ted Mosby and his friends at McLarens Pub, I didnt expect to confront the harsh reality of political grandstanding in todays partisan climate.

Let me explain. I am a generally Democratic voter in Virginias 5th Congressional District. Although it includes four urban/suburban areas Lynchburg, Charlottesville, Danville and the western fringes of Richmond it is a comfortably Republican stronghold that is geographically dominated by the states rural, Southside region. It has been represented by the GOP since 2011 and is recognized by experts as safe(ly) or solid(ly) red. Needless to say, Im not on the winning side of district-wide electoral contests too often.

Even so, I participate in every election. A few weeks ago, I researched the Democratic primary candidates, picked the one I liked best, and sent in my absentee ballot. But I didnt see much need to follow the Republican primary. I fully intended to vote against the incumbent Bob Good in the general, not to mention that November was still six months away.

What does any of this have to do with How I Met Your Mother? Virtually nothing. It was the ads that brought me to this point.

They were everywhere. Everywhere. There are Good/Trump signs along every highway. There are fliers in the mail almost every day. Every break in my binge-watching is punctured by some doomsday warning about the woke, liberal agenda. The messaging was consistent with previous Bob Good campaigns, but it was oddly persistent for a safe district. Going against my nature, I started paying attention to the commercial breaks.

One 30-second spot funded by the Conservative Outsider PAC appeared time and again. On its face, there was nothing special about it. It was your standard fearmongering attack piece, the red meat of GOP campaigning. Fiery, orange text warned voters about Goods challenger, state Sen. John McGuire, from Goochland County. According to the ad, McGuire rewarded lawbreakers and tried to give them our money by supporting handouts and taxpayer funded tuition for illegals. All the while, the requisite, intense voice-over threatened that liberals like him think Virginia is for illegals.

Liberals like him. Odd. Id voted in the Democratic primary, and McGuire wasnt on the list. Could he be a Republican challenger? That seemed unlikely.

Then I received a flier in the mail paid for by American Patriots PAC cautioning me that Good was Bad for Virginia. But why was Good bad? Lets assume for a minute that I didnt already know. According to the flier, he was anti-police, supported higher taxes and favored open borders. He also wanted to make you PAY MORE FOR EVERYTHING from gas to groceries! and repeatedly voted AGAINST funding that would keep our brave men and women in blue safe. No, not my Congressman Good! Not the chair of the House Freedom Caucus. Not the man who helped organize the ouster of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

State Sen. John McGuire, R-Goochland, left, is challenging Rep. Bob Good, R-5th, in a Republican primary.

What the heck was going on?

It was only at this point that I Googled John McGuire. The first two pictures that flashed across my screen showed an unassuming man attending the Jan. 6 rally in Washington, D.C., and cheesing with Donald Trump. The next two articles I clicked on revealed that Trump not only endorsed McGuire but also sent a cease-and-desist order to Good demanding that he stop campaigning using the former presidents name. It was clear that Trump wanted McGuire not Good in Washington. McGuire would be more loyal. Other than that, however, there was very little difference between the two candidates. They would vote the same way on the issues.

These advertisements the ad spot and the mailer revealed something frightening, yet ingenious, about the GOPs political strategy. On one hand, closing ranks and running to the right are clearly the only viable options left for GOP office seekers. Republicans in my district were not given the choice between candidates at different points on the political spectrum. Instead, they were presented with two doctrinaire conservatives trying to out-conform each other. Any divergent opinion that could be advantageously construed as liberal became radical and dangerous, an enemy to be destroyed.

What was much more jarring was the realization that all this mudslinging, all this fearmongering, all this controversy wouldnt make a bit of difference come November. It doesnt matter if Good or McGuire loses on June 18. The ideology they share has already won, at least in my district. That is the brilliance of these campaigns. Two men with stunningly similar views can shore up their base and tear each other apart by crying liberal.

In light of this, we all have to be more careful. If we dont pay attention and dont stay informed, we might just believe them and sit by while they send these liberals to Congress. Please, I ask you to explore all the candidates. We really ought to know what were actually getting.

Mar 6, 1975 Cloverleaf Mall

Nov 21, 1987 Cloverleaf Mall

Feb 4, 1973 Cloverleaf Mall

Cloverleaf Mall, Nov. 21, 1987

08-19-1972 (cutline): Chesterfield County policeman aids shoppers at Cloverleaf Mall to avoid tie-ups.

04-04-1976: Cloverleaf Mall

08-08-1972 (cutline): Theater executive Symour Hoffman in projection booth of Cloverleaf Mall Twin Cinema

08-15-1972 (cutline): Workers put finishing touches on the mall area of the Cloverleaf Mall Regional Center. The first phase of the 780,000 square foot center will open tomorrow at 9:30 am.

11-19-1972 (cutline): Sears Store in Cloverleaf Mall reflects new plush look, furs included.

Zachary Clary is a historian of American political history completing a Ph.D. at Vanderbilt University and a voter in Virginias 5th Congressional District. Contact Clary at zachary.clary@vanderbilt.edu.

Original post:
Commentary: Slinging 'liberal' in 5th District GOP primary - Richmond Times-Dispatch