Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 1003
August 26, 2015
“Mr. Robot” finale postponed because of graphic scene similar to Virginia TV journalist killings
The season finale of "Mr. Robot," which was slated to air tonight on USA, has been postponed. The network pushed back the air date of the episode to next Wednesday because of a scene that is similar to the shooting deaths today of two television journalists in Virginia. The network released a statement this afternoon: "The previously filmed season finale of Mr. Robot contains a graphic scene similar in nature to today’s tragic events in Virginia. Out of respect to the victims, their families and colleagues, and our viewers, we are postponing tonight’s episode. Our thoughts go out to all those affected during this difficult time." The finale will air as planned, "in its entirety," according to the network, next Wednesday, Sept. 2. Tonight, USA will re-run last week's episode instead.
Father of slain TV reporter Alison Parker responds: “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul”
An hour after 24-year-old Alison Parker was fatally shot during a live WDBJ (Channel 7) segment, her father, Andy Parker, received a phone call from the station confirming his worst suspicions. Speaking with the Washington Post, Parker said that he'd remained hopeful for his daughter's survival, but as minutes turned to hours and he still hadn't received a phone call from Alison, the reality began to sink in. “My grief is unbearable,” Parker told the Post. “Is this real? Am I going to wake up? I am crying my eyes out. I don’t know if there’s anybody in this world or another father who could be more proud of their daughter.” Park said that he was horror-stricken to learn that the murder had been captured in video and posted on social media, a phenomenon he likened to the broadcasting of ISIS beheadings. He said he had no interest in watching the footage. “It’s like showing those beheadings,” he said. “I am not going to watch it. I can’t watch it. I can’t watch any news. All it would do is rip out my heart further than it already it is.” “Some journalists want to be right out there covering ISIL. She did not want that,” Parker continued. “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul.” Read the full interview courtesy of the Washington Post here.An hour after 24-year-old Alison Parker was fatally shot during a live WDBJ (Channel 7) segment, her father, Andy Parker, received a phone call from the station confirming his worst suspicions. Speaking with the Washington Post, Parker said that he'd remained hopeful for his daughter's survival, but as minutes turned to hours and he still hadn't received a phone call from Alison, the reality began to sink in. “My grief is unbearable,” Parker told the Post. “Is this real? Am I going to wake up? I am crying my eyes out. I don’t know if there’s anybody in this world or another father who could be more proud of their daughter.” Park said that he was horror-stricken to learn that the murder had been captured in video and posted on social media, a phenomenon he likened to the broadcasting of ISIS beheadings. He said he had no interest in watching the footage. “It’s like showing those beheadings,” he said. “I am not going to watch it. I can’t watch it. I can’t watch any news. All it would do is rip out my heart further than it already it is.” “Some journalists want to be right out there covering ISIL. She did not want that,” Parker continued. “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul.” Read the full interview courtesy of the Washington Post here.An hour after 24-year-old Alison Parker was fatally shot during a live WDBJ (Channel 7) segment, her father, Andy Parker, received a phone call from the station confirming his worst suspicions. Speaking with the Washington Post, Parker said that he'd remained hopeful for his daughter's survival, but as minutes turned to hours and he still hadn't received a phone call from Alison, the reality began to sink in. “My grief is unbearable,” Parker told the Post. “Is this real? Am I going to wake up? I am crying my eyes out. I don’t know if there’s anybody in this world or another father who could be more proud of their daughter.” Park said that he was horror-stricken to learn that the murder had been captured in video and posted on social media, a phenomenon he likened to the broadcasting of ISIS beheadings. He said he had no interest in watching the footage. “It’s like showing those beheadings,” he said. “I am not going to watch it. I can’t watch it. I can’t watch any news. All it would do is rip out my heart further than it already it is.” “Some journalists want to be right out there covering ISIL. She did not want that,” Parker continued. “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul.” Read the full interview courtesy of the Washington Post here.An hour after 24-year-old Alison Parker was fatally shot during a live WDBJ (Channel 7) segment, her father, Andy Parker, received a phone call from the station confirming his worst suspicions. Speaking with the Washington Post, Parker said that he'd remained hopeful for his daughter's survival, but as minutes turned to hours and he still hadn't received a phone call from Alison, the reality began to sink in. “My grief is unbearable,” Parker told the Post. “Is this real? Am I going to wake up? I am crying my eyes out. I don’t know if there’s anybody in this world or another father who could be more proud of their daughter.” Park said that he was horror-stricken to learn that the murder had been captured in video and posted on social media, a phenomenon he likened to the broadcasting of ISIS beheadings. He said he had no interest in watching the footage. “It’s like showing those beheadings,” he said. “I am not going to watch it. I can’t watch it. I can’t watch any news. All it would do is rip out my heart further than it already it is.” “Some journalists want to be right out there covering ISIL. She did not want that,” Parker continued. “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul.” Read the full interview courtesy of the Washington Post here.
Alleged manifesto from Virginia TV journalists’ killer cites Charleston church massacre
At 8:26 am Wednesday, ABC News received a fax from the man who later was identified as the gunman who killed two young Virginia journalists as they reported live on location earlier that morning. The 23-page documented came nearly two hours after the shooting, which killed reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, and appeared to have come from the shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan, also known as Bryce Williams. “MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS,” ABC reports the document read. Hours later, at around 10am, while a massive manhunt for Flanagan was under way, a man who identified himself as Bryce Williams called ABC News, confessing to the shooting. Flanagan was known to use the pseudonym while reporting on-air. The cops are “after me” and “all over the place,” Flanagan is reported to have told ABC reporters before hurriedly hanging up the phone. This afternoon, after handing over the entire document to law enforcement, ABC News released portions of what has been called Flanagan's manifesto. In the excerpts, it is evident that Flanagan sought the notoriety of past mass shooters, positively citing Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho as an inspiration and suggesting he was motivated by this summer's shooting of a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina:
“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…” “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them." It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.ABC reported that the manifesto also claimed Flangagn "suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work," and that "he has been attacked by black men and white females." In the "rambling" document," Flanagan claimed "he was attacked for being a gay, black man." According to court documents, Flanagan sued a Tallahassee, Florida, news station in 2000, alleging racial discrimination by co-workers and supervisors. He said he was called a “monkey” by a producer in 1999, and claimed that another black journalist was told to “stop talking ebonics.” WDBJ General Manager Jeff Marks described Flanagan, who was fired from the station in 2013 due to anger issues, as "being difficult to work with." Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint after being fired by WDBJ, seeking $15,000 in damages. The case was later dismissed. Before shooting and killing himself in the midst of a police chase, Flanagan live-tweeted his supposed motive for the shooting. “Adam went to HR with me after working with me one time!!!” one tweet read while another alleged that Parker had made “racist comments.” Flanagan died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound Wednesday afternoon.At 8:26 am Wednesday, ABC News received a fax from the man who later was identified as the gunman who killed two young Virginia journalists as they reported live on location earlier that morning. The 23-page documented came nearly two hours after the shooting, which killed reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, and appeared to have come from the shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan, also known as Bryce Williams. “MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS,” ABC reports the document read. Hours later, at around 10am, while a massive manhunt for Flanagan was under way, a man who identified himself as Bryce Williams called ABC News, confessing to the shooting. Flanagan was known to use the pseudonym while reporting on-air. The cops are “after me” and “all over the place,” Flanagan is reported to have told ABC reporters before hurriedly hanging up the phone. This afternoon, after handing over the entire document to law enforcement, ABC News released portions of what has been called Flanagan's manifesto. In the excerpts, it is evident that Flanagan sought the notoriety of past mass shooters, positively citing Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho as an inspiration and suggesting he was motivated by this summer's shooting of a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina:
“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…” “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them." It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.ABC reported that the manifesto also claimed Flangagn "suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work," and that "he has been attacked by black men and white females." In the "rambling" document," Flanagan claimed "he was attacked for being a gay, black man." According to court documents, Flanagan sued a Tallahassee, Florida, news station in 2000, alleging racial discrimination by co-workers and supervisors. He said he was called a “monkey” by a producer in 1999, and claimed that another black journalist was told to “stop talking ebonics.” WDBJ General Manager Jeff Marks described Flanagan, who was fired from the station in 2013 due to anger issues, as "being difficult to work with." Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint after being fired by WDBJ, seeking $15,000 in damages. The case was later dismissed. Before shooting and killing himself in the midst of a police chase, Flanagan live-tweeted his supposed motive for the shooting. “Adam went to HR with me after working with me one time!!!” one tweet read while another alleged that Parker had made “racist comments.” Flanagan died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound Wednesday afternoon.At 8:26 am Wednesday, ABC News received a fax from the man who later was identified as the gunman who killed two young Virginia journalists as they reported live on location earlier that morning. The 23-page documented came nearly two hours after the shooting, which killed reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, and appeared to have come from the shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan, also known as Bryce Williams. “MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS,” ABC reports the document read. Hours later, at around 10am, while a massive manhunt for Flanagan was under way, a man who identified himself as Bryce Williams called ABC News, confessing to the shooting. Flanagan was known to use the pseudonym while reporting on-air. The cops are “after me” and “all over the place,” Flanagan is reported to have told ABC reporters before hurriedly hanging up the phone. This afternoon, after handing over the entire document to law enforcement, ABC News released portions of what has been called Flanagan's manifesto. In the excerpts, it is evident that Flanagan sought the notoriety of past mass shooters, positively citing Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho as an inspiration and suggesting he was motivated by this summer's shooting of a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina:
“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…” “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them." It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.ABC reported that the manifesto also claimed Flangagn "suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work," and that "he has been attacked by black men and white females." In the "rambling" document," Flanagan claimed "he was attacked for being a gay, black man." According to court documents, Flanagan sued a Tallahassee, Florida, news station in 2000, alleging racial discrimination by co-workers and supervisors. He said he was called a “monkey” by a producer in 1999, and claimed that another black journalist was told to “stop talking ebonics.” WDBJ General Manager Jeff Marks described Flanagan, who was fired from the station in 2013 due to anger issues, as "being difficult to work with." Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint after being fired by WDBJ, seeking $15,000 in damages. The case was later dismissed. Before shooting and killing himself in the midst of a police chase, Flanagan live-tweeted his supposed motive for the shooting. “Adam went to HR with me after working with me one time!!!” one tweet read while another alleged that Parker had made “racist comments.” Flanagan died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound Wednesday afternoon.
Morrissey takes yet another bizarre swipe at Obama’s race: “He doesn’t look overly African black”
Last week, the world thought it'd seen "peak Morrissey" when the outspoken Smiths frontman talked Ferguson, Trump and at one point called President Obama's "blackness" into question, asking, "Obama, is he white inside?" during an appearance on "Larry King Now." Viewers who tuned into the interview were baffled. The Daily Beast reached out to Morrissey for clarification on this controversial comment -- and, indeed, received some clarification. He meant exactly what he said. Responding to Daily Beast's request for comment, Morrissey used the opportunity to take yet another swipe at Obama's race, explaining that Obama isn't doing "anything for the black community" and that "he doesn’t look overly African black." "I can’t see him doing anything at all for the black community except warning them that they must respect the security forces. This is ludicrous because the so-called security forces are the Ku Klux Klan to most black Americans," Morrissey said. "It seems evident to me that black males are being deliberately murdered throughout America as a closing message to Obama, telling him that his presidency has meant nothing and that the division of color is now bigger than ever." He continued:
"Obama doesn’t see this, but if a white cop shot one of his daughters I don’t imagine he’d be willing to accept the exoneration of that white cop… I am wryly amused by all of these tough cop reality programs on American TV because it’s always white cops arresting the black or Hispanic poor, yet you don’t ever see the cops frisking a crooked lawyer or chasing a middle-class accountant who’s robbed millions from clients. It’s always the extreme poor who are targeted by the cops because the poor have no influential friends and therefore can’t retaliate, and the cops know that they can play about with poor people… The final point about Obama is that he doesn’t look overly African black. He’s as close to soft, whiteness as someone who isn’t white could get, and I often wonder if he would have been elected if he had a stronger, more African-black face? It’s a point."Read the full statement via Daily Beast here.
Thanks be to Kanye — the VMAs just got a whole lot more exciting
The presentation of the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard award at the Video Music Awards last year yielded one of the ceremony’s most indelible images: Beyoncé, performing a show-stopping 15-minute medley, with the word FEMINIST emblazoned behind her in bold block letters. Yesterday, it was announced that this year’s recipient of the VMAs iconic lifetime achievement award would be none other than Beyoncé’s number one advocate: Yeezus himself, Mr. Kanye West. And while we can’t say for sure, we’ll pretty sure that this year’s recipient will be able to rival (if not exceed) Bey's flair for drama.
Get More: 2015 VMA, Artists.MTV, Music, Kanye West
As fans may remember, West has provided some of the VMA’s most-talked-about moments in recent years, most notably in 2009, when he grabbed the mic from best female video award winner Taylor Swift and famously yelled “I’mma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time!" (not to mention slyly referencing the gag with Beck at the Grammys earlier this year, too). This time, fortunately, West will be invited on the stage instead of storming it, but knowing Kanye’s bombastic approach to showmanship, we’ll be sure to have our tweeting/gif-ing fingers read either way.The presentation of the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard award at the Video Music Awards last year yielded one of the ceremony’s most indelible images: Beyoncé, performing a show-stopping 15-minute medley, with the word FEMINIST emblazoned behind her in bold block letters. Yesterday, it was announced that this year’s recipient of the VMAs iconic lifetime achievement award would be none other than Beyoncé’s number one advocate: Yeezus himself, Mr. Kanye West. And while we can’t say for sure, we’ll pretty sure that this year’s recipient will be able to rival (if not exceed) Bey's flair for drama.Get More: 2015 VMA, Artists.MTV, Music, Kanye West
As fans may remember, West has provided some of the VMA’s most-talked-about moments in recent years, most notably in 2009, when he grabbed the mic from best female video award winner Taylor Swift and famously yelled “I’mma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time!" (not to mention slyly referencing the gag with Beck at the Grammys earlier this year, too). This time, fortunately, West will be invited on the stage instead of storming it, but knowing Kanye’s bombastic approach to showmanship, we’ll be sure to have our tweeting/gif-ing fingers read either way.
The empire strikes back: The media-political elite’s campaign to destroy Bernie (and Trump) and restore order
Last week the New York Times deigned to notice that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is running for president – have you heard about this? – and even by the Gray Lady’s usual standard of treating everyone to the left of the Obama-Clinton Democratic center as a two-headed, kazoo-playing talking dog, it was quite a piece of work. Times reporter Jason Horowitz’s dispatch from a recent Sanders rally in Dubuque, Iowa, barely even pretended to be a news article. It emanated tangible hostility from beginning to end – sometimes veering toward distaste, sometimes toward mockery -- and was loaded with scare quotes and attack adjectives. Sanders was described as grumpy, angry, disengaged, uncharismatic, judgmental and suspicious “of all things ‘feel good,’” yet also, despite those unappealing qualities, as a cult figure surrounded by a “circle of believers.” Sanders’ references to the “corporate media” were enclosed in ironical quotes – what a ridiculous thing to say about the New York Times! – and his refusal to engage with questions about Hillary Clinton’s perceived political liabilities was described, twice within two paragraphs, as disdainful. Toward the end of the article, Horowitz finally expends a single paragraph outlining Sanders’ proposals for single-payer health care, expanded Social Security, free college tuition and breaking up the banking cartel. Without quoting anyone or citing any sources, Horowitz then introduces “the critique that none of these proposals is remotely plausible given the political realities in Washington,” and describes the political future envisioned by the Sanders campaign as a “fantasy scenario.” Now, there are valid reasons to be skeptical that Sanders will end up as the Democratic nominee, still less our next president. Hillary Clinton’s strategists seem well prepared for the likelihood that Iowa and New Hampshire will be close, and that Sanders could conceivably win one or both states. Clinton remains far ahead in national polls of likely Democratic voters, and is well positioned in many Southern and heartland states where Sanders is unlikely to compete effectively. She has huge amounts of conventional campaign funding plus super PAC zillions up her sleeve, and controls much of the local and state Democratic Party apparatus through her nationwide army of robot ninja assassins. (I exaggerate for effect: They aren’t technically robots.) But that sneering Sanders character assassination in the Times, which sought not just to demean the candidate but his supporters and the entire American progressive tradition he represents, went far beyond that kind of conventional horse-race analysis. It felt less like an effort to report the news than an effort to shape the news. I’m not saying that Horowitz was sent to Dubuque with specific instructions to rip Sanders apart with his glittering aperçus -- in the print edition, the article’s pull quote read “A call for an uprising comes with little belief that it will occur” (oh, SNAP) – because that wasn’t necessary. Those instructions were undetectably but unmistakably present in the oxygen of the Times newsroom. One might argue that this season of topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass politics, which continues to defy conventional expectations and deliver unexpected twists and turns, offers the political and media establishment a chance for some badly needed reflection and humility. I mean, none of us saw this coming, pretty much. It's a moment to listen and learn, no? No one predicted that Donald Trump would surge to the front of the Republican field and stay there; no one predicted that a socialist septuagenarian from one of the smallest and whitest states in the nation would galvanize college-age crowds from coast to coast and emerge as a credible alternative to the Clinton coronation. Across the pond, almost nobody noticed when 66-year-old left-wing renegade Jeremy Corbyn threw his hat into the British Labour Party’s leadership race, in defiance of the apparent consensus that the party needed to tack rightward after its recent electoral defeat. Barring some unforeseen and nearly unimaginable turn of events, it now appears that Corbyn will take the reins as leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition on Sept. 12, despite overwhelming opposition from Labour insiders and elected officials. While the Corbyn surprise is a peculiar artifact of British party politics (as I discussed a week or so ago), it illustrates the fact that the political future remains unwritten and that we cannot rely on conventional wisdom to tell us what will happen next. That is a fact the political and media establishment desperately wants us not to notice -- so instead of humility or reflection, we get full-on panic. For once, the Times, Fox News, CNN, the Bush and Clinton dynasties and the leadership caste of both major parties are united by a common cause: The destabilizing populist insurgencies of 2015 must be stamped out by any means necessary, and rightful order restored. (In Britain, Labour Party centrists and Guardian columnists have already moved on to plotting the anti-Corbyn coup of 2017.) In what you might want to call a striking coincidence, Friday’s edition of the Times also carried a report from Jeb Bush’s floundering campaign that was not just more neutral in tone than the Sanders article, but positively glowing. Bush has resorted to what he hopes is the nuclear weapon in his anti-Trump arsenal by accusing the real estate billionaire of being a closet Democrat who is squishy on abortion and healthcare policy. Reporter Ashley Parker did not observe, for instance, that one could interpret this as a thoroughly cynical gambit from a candidate who has no discernible principles and who campaigns by tacking in all directions simultaneously. (In the course of one speech, Bush veered hard right against Trump, swung back to the middle on the “birthright citizenship” issue, and not so subtly reminded everybody that Ted Cruz was born in Canada.) Instead she described Bush as entering “a new, more combative phase of his campaign,” speaking in a “machine-gun burst” and exhibiting a “scrappy” demeanor that delighted his New Hampshire audience. A follow-up story on Monday, by another reporter, characterized the reborn Bush as "vigorous" and a "street fighter." Also on Friday, Huffington Post editorial director Danny Shea appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to defend his decision to consign coverage of Trump’s presidential campaign to the site’s entertainment section. That was a funny news blip for about half a second, but Shea is wrong about this in so many ways I can’t count them, and despite theoretically good intentions he just wound up signing on with the media-wide Emergency Commission to Restore Political Reality. First of all, as someone who has spent most of my journalism career in the arts section, I need to call Shea out for the philistine implication that cultural reporting and criticism is not “real news,” and is inherently inferior to the serious stuff the grownups read. Maybe that’s the way you guys roll over at HuffPo, Danny, but if you see me after class I can recommend some extracurricular reading that will set you straight. If anything, in contemporary consumer society the distinction is largely artificial: Electoral politics and show business have been inextricably intertwined since the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. As Joan Didion observed many cycles ago, it would be more accurate to say that politics is a subset of culture than the other way around. Secondly, to claim that Trump is not a serious candidate imposes a bizarre and highly dubious value judgment on the campaign. I’m sure Shea and the HuffPo team were surprised and chagrined to see Trump emerge as the Republican frontrunner, but that’s not even the central point. By what standard is Trump a more specious or ridiculous presidential candidate than Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee or Bobby Jindal, all of whom Shea is happy to cover with articles in the “politics” section, written by men with neckties? If anything, Trump reveals the true nature of the Republican electorate with none of the weasel words and artifice those guys employ, which may be the problem. (The other day I had a moment of missing Rick Santorum, a decent person who is deeply committed to his appalling, retrograde convictions. Then I realized that he’s actually running again this time, but no one cares.) We don’t have enough time between now and the heat death of the universe to figure out all the reasons behind the media and political elite’s collective freakout of 2015. I think we can say a couple of things: Some of the reasons are obvious and some are less so, and no matter what happens in the short term, this shock to the system is a critically important moment for democracy. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is not entirely a bad thing. Liberals who get the vapors, Danny Shea style, about what a national embarrassment Trump is are missing the point. We need a national embarrassment right now, or at least we need politics that break free of the tepid safety zone of bipartisan paralysis, dysfunction and apathy. Of course I don’t actually want Trump to be president, but he serves a number of useful purposes and the forces trying to shut him down are the same ones seeking to shut Bernie Sanders down, the forces that long to ensure a boring, safe and utterly substance-free general election between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Through a confluence of material and ideological interests, the Western world’s financial powers and political parties and media organizations, along with the interlocking permanent governments sometimes called the “deep state,” have come together around a conception of political reality they describe as the only reality. This is the “Washington consensus,” a blend of postwar American foreign policy and Reagan-Thatcher economics: Globalized free trade and venture capitalism, government austerity, widespread privatization and “developing markets,” with the money flowing upward and cheap consumer goods for the so-called middle class. All of this enforced and policed, of course, by the behemoth blundering superpower that cannot understand why nobody loves it the way they used to. Some of the people who constantly assure us that this reality is the only reality are just being cynical bastards and small-minded ideologues. (I don’t know why this surprised me, but R.J. Cutler’s 2013 documentary “The World According to Dick Cheney” revealed the former vice president, one of the most influential Americans of our time, as deeply incapable of introspection.) But there are plenty of other intelligent and reasonably well-meaning people who have been tube-fed the Kool-Aid of neoliberal economics and the Washington consensus since infancy, who are thoroughly convinced that center-right politics are the only viable politics, and who have effectively embraced a post-9/11 update of Francis Fukuyama’s famous pronouncement that history ended with the Cold War. It is profoundly troubling and disorienting for the media and political elite to have its core conception of political reality challenged, especially by an emerging younger generation that is more energized and more activist than anyone expected, and that is too young to have been subjected to the ideological shock therapy of the Reagan and Thatcher years. As New Statesman columnist Laurie Penny wrote this weekend, “The ultimate triumph of the political right in the 1980s was that its actions eventually forced the left to sell its soul for power – but many of today’s young voters neither remember nor care quite why it did so.” She is specifically describing the forces that drove young British leftists by the thousands to Corbyn’s campaign, but she's well aware the same thing is happening on this side of the Atlantic. Both in Europe and the United States, Penny continues, “professional politicians of the center left have one idea about what politics should look like and the people they claim to represent increasingly have another.” For a political class that chose power over principle “without once asking itself whether power without principles is worth having,” insurgents like Sanders or Corbyn (or Trump, after his own distorted-mirror fashion) are terrifying specters. Both the Labour centrists in Britain and the Clinton Democrats in America will soberly assure us that such dissident candidates are not “electable,” and can only doom their parties to irrelevance. One might respond by asking what is meant by “electable,” and what relevance those parties possess now. As Penny wryly puts it in the British context, the argument that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable has been put forward by the anointed Labour moderates, “three candidates who can’t even win an election against Jeremy Corbyn.” Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away – by which I mean the 2004 presidential campaign – I remember a left-wing rebel saying something about electability that has stuck with me ever since. It was Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio congressman who was basically Bernie Sanders before being Bernie Sanders was cool. During a candidate debate or forum before the Iowa caucuses, someone stood up and told Kucinich that many Democratic voters were sympathetic to his proposals to push for single-payer healthcare, abolish the death penalty, end the war on drugs and cut defense spending, but didn’t think he was electable. Kucinich shrugged. “I’m electable if you’ll vote for me,” he said drily. Kucinich was not in fact electable, in the sense that hardly anyone voted for him. He was competitive in a few outlier states like Maine, Minnesota and Oregon, but the only county in the United States he actually won in his two presidential campaigns was the island of Maui in Hawaii. That’s a joke that writes its own punchline, and since Kucinich’s candidacy served to confirm the ingrained prejudices of the political class about what was realistic and who was electable, he was tolerated as a lovable but irrelevant Democratic mascot. But his one-sentence response was almost a Zen koan of politics, self-evident on its surface but full of radical possibility. What happens when people vote for the candidate who is “unelectable”? One of these days we may find out.
Ted Cruz is the true GOP dark horse: How he’s winning over the fanatical right at exactly the right time
While Donald Trump continues to inspire what he calls "the silent majority" (and everyone else calls the racist rump of the GOP) and the other assumed front-runners Walker, Rubio and Bush flounder and flop around, another candidate is quietly gathering support from a discrete, but powerful, GOP constituency. As Peter Montgomery of Right Wing watch pointed out earlier this week, Ted Cruz is making a huge play for the religious right. And they like what they're seeing. Montgomery notes that influential conservative Christian leaders have been getting progressively more anxious about the fact that they've been asked to pony up for less-than-devout candidates like McCain and somewhat alien religious observers like Mitt Romney when they are the reliable foot-soldiers for the Republican party who deliver votes year in and year out. With this year's massive field from which to choose including hardcore true-believers Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum, these religious leaders are looking closely at all the candidates, but are homing in on Cruz. Montgomery writes:
One big sign came late last month, when news that broke that Farris and Dan Wilks had given $15 million to Keep the Promise, a pro-Cruz super PAC. Not coincidentally, David Lane told NBC News last year that, “With Citizens United…you can have somebody who gives $15 or $20 million into a super PAC and that changes the game.” The billionaire Wilks brothers from Texas have become sugar daddies to right-wing groups generally, and to David Lane’s Pastors and Pews events specifically.
A couple weeks later, Cruz stopped by the headquarters of the American Family Association. Lane’s American Renewal Project operates under the AFA’s umbrella, and Cruz sounded like he was reading Lane’s talking points. Cruz told AFA President Tim Wildmon that mobilizing evangelical Christian voters is the key to saving America, saying, “Nothing is more important in the next 18 months than that the body of Christ rise up and that Christians stand up, that pastors stand up and lead.”Cruz held a "Rally for Religious Liberty" in Iowa last week that had the influential Christian right radio host Steve Deace swooning with admiration as Cruz carried on about Christian persecution. He thundered, “You want to know what this election is about? We are one justice away from the Supreme Court saying ‘every image of God shall be torn down!" to massive applause from the audience. The religious right feels battered after their massive loss on marriage equality. And they expect their candidates to do something about it. It appears they've decided the destruction of Planned Parenthood is that crusade and Cruz is only too willing to play to the crowd. According to the Washington Post:
Sen. Ted Cruz, who has assiduously courted evangelicals throughout his presidential run, will take a lead role in the launch this week of an ambitious 50-state campaign to end taxpayer support for Planned Parenthood — a move that is likely to give the GOP candidate a major primary-season boost in the fierce battle for social-conservative and evangelical voters. More than 100,000 pastors received e-mail invitations over the weekend to participate in conference calls with Cruz on Tuesday in which they will learn details of the plan to mobilize churchgoers in every congressional district beginning Aug. 30. The requests were sent on the heels of the Texas Republican’s “Rally for Religious Liberty,” which drew 2,500 people to a Des Moines ballroom Friday. “The recent exposure of Planned Parenthood’s barbaric practices . . . has brought about a pressing need to end taxpayer support of this institution,” Cruz said in the e-mail call to action distributed by the American Renewal Project, an organization of conservative pastors.Not to put too fine a point on it, Cruz says he plans to shut down the government this fall unless Congress agrees to stop all funding of Planned Parenthood. And he's making a big bet that his campaign will benefit from it:
Cruz implored more than a thousand pastors and religious leaders on Tuesday to "preach from the pulpit" against Planned Parenthood and rally public support for an amendment defunding the family provider in the must-pass federal budget bill in November. If Congress attaches the defunding amendment to the budget instead of holding a vote on the standalone bill, it cannot keep funding Planned Parenthood without shutting down the whole federal government. "Here is the challenge," the presidential hopeful explained on the national conference call. "The leadership of both parties, both the Democrats and Republicans, want an empty show vote. They want a vote on Planned Parenthood that has no teeth or no consequence, which allows Republicans to vote for defunding, Democrats to vote for continuing funding, and nothing to change. But the leadership of both parties have publicly said they do not want the vote tied to any legislation that must pass." "It will be a decision of the president's and the president's alone whether he would veto funding for the federal government because of a commitment to ensuring taxpayer dollars continue to flow to what appears to be a national criminal organization," Cruz said.As I said, the religious right is bursting to reassert its clout in the GOP and this is where they've decided to stand their ground. Cruz is going to lead them into battle. That's not to say that he's running solely as a religious right candidate. Byron York reports that at a GOP candidate event last Monday in South Carolina featuring Cruz, Ben Carson and Scott Walker, Cruz received the most thunderous ovation. His speech wasn't solely focused on the Christian persecution angle but he delivered what York called "an almost martial address" beating his chest about Iran and railing against sanctuary cities with the same fervor he delivered his put-away line: "No man who doesn't begin every day on his knees is fit to stand in the Oval Office!" York asked 53 people afterwards who did the best and 44 said Cruz, 6 said Carson and 3 said Walker. (Poor Walker is so dizzy from his immigration flip-flops that he's stopped talking about it altogether, which the crowd did not like one little bit.) Cruz, on the other hand, has a way of making everything from EPA standards to the debt ceiling sound like a religious war which pretty much reflects the GOP base's worldview as well. Cruz is a true believer, but he's also a political strategist. He has said repeatedly that his base is Tea Party voters and religious conservatives. In key Republican primaries like Iowa and South Carolina nearly 50 percent of the voters define themselves as conservative evangelicals. Cruz is betting that he can turn them out to vote for him. Nobody knows what's going to happen in this crazy GOP race. If Trump flames out, his voters will scatter and it will matter who has lined up the other institutional factions in the party. While everyone else spars with Trump and tries to out-immigrant bash each other, Ted Cruz is quietly working the egos and the passions of the millions of bruised conservative Christians who are desperate for a hero. When all the smoke has cleared the field he may very well be one of the last men standing.
Trump v. Ramos in perspective: What really matters in The Donald’s latest media feud
The defining feature of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is that it isn’t so much a “campaign” as it is a rolling series of feuds and petty disagreements provoked or nurtured by the candidate. The list of politicians, reporters, celebrities, and publications Trump has traded insults with over the last two months is long and forever growing, and its most recent addition is Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, whom Trump ejected from a press conference yesterday after Ramos tried to pin him down on his immigration plan. Because everything about Trump has to be about the spectacle, the discussion turned immediately to the clash of personalities and attempts to figure out which party merited our outrage: Ramos for speaking out of turn at the press conference, or Trump for having him thrown out. Dopes like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Ramos – the most prominent Spanish-language journalist in the country and perhaps the world – was “looking for his 15 minutes of fame.” Erick Erickson, who made a big show of disinviting Trump from his GOP 2016 for insulting Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, sided with the Donald completely in his fight with Ramos. “What is really amazing,” Erickson opined, “is that the media is more outraged with Trump throwing Ramos out of the press conference than they are at Barack Obama sending the Department of Justice after reporters.” If you want to ding Ramos for creating a scene and speaking out of turn, fine. Whatever. The outrage you muster over Ramos should be tempered by the fact that he was trying to nail down the Republican frontrunner on the details of his immigration plan – a plan that is obviously illegal, is in flagrant violation of international norms, and would condemn a broad swath of people to a nightmare of stateless existence. Just to refresh everyone on what we’re talking about here, Trump’s plan for immigration is to deport every single undocumented immigrant in the country, deport their children who are U.S. citizens by birth, and then revoke birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. He’s had plentiful opportunities to explain precisely how this plan would work, but instead of providing details he talks about how dangerous immigrant criminals are. The notion that we’re going to round up people who were born citizens of this country, deny them their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and expel them from their native land because of the actions of their parents is morally indefensible and legally unjustifiable. The fact that this is the position of the front-running Republican candidate for the presidency should be treated more scandalously than it is. In calling for mass deportation and ending birthright citizenship, Trump is creating the conditions for a massive humanitarian crisis in which huge numbers of people inside and outside the United States find themselves unbound to any state or government. “Stateless individuals cannot participate in any political process anywhere,” Mother Jones’ Bryan Schatz explained this morning. “They're often subject to arbitrary detention. They have limited access to health care and education. They are especially vulnerable to crime and have little legal recourse if they are victimized. They have no economic rights and few job prospects.” Trump’s plan essentially calls for the existence of a stateless underclass within the country, a whole segment of the population condemned to disenfranchisement and victimization by the accident of their parentage. This is what Jorge Ramos was trying to get Trump to elaborate on when he spoke up at that press conference yesterday. Instead of answering Ramos’ questions, Trump threw him out. When Ramos came back and was given the opportunity to ask about Trump’s immigration plan, Trump offered his usual mix of bluster and evasiveness. On revoking the citizenship of children of immigrants, Trump said “great legal scholars” agree with him. Asked how he’d deport every single undocumented immigrant, Trump offered that he’d “do it in a very humane fashion.” He didn’t even pretend to provide a coherent rationale for all the horrible things he wants to do to immigrants and their families. If you’re upset by Ramos’ tactics or offended that he wasn’t respectful enough towards Trump, you’re very much missing the larger picture.The defining feature of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is that it isn’t so much a “campaign” as it is a rolling series of feuds and petty disagreements provoked or nurtured by the candidate. The list of politicians, reporters, celebrities, and publications Trump has traded insults with over the last two months is long and forever growing, and its most recent addition is Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, whom Trump ejected from a press conference yesterday after Ramos tried to pin him down on his immigration plan. Because everything about Trump has to be about the spectacle, the discussion turned immediately to the clash of personalities and attempts to figure out which party merited our outrage: Ramos for speaking out of turn at the press conference, or Trump for having him thrown out. Dopes like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Ramos – the most prominent Spanish-language journalist in the country and perhaps the world – was “looking for his 15 minutes of fame.” Erick Erickson, who made a big show of disinviting Trump from his GOP 2016 for insulting Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, sided with the Donald completely in his fight with Ramos. “What is really amazing,” Erickson opined, “is that the media is more outraged with Trump throwing Ramos out of the press conference than they are at Barack Obama sending the Department of Justice after reporters.” If you want to ding Ramos for creating a scene and speaking out of turn, fine. Whatever. The outrage you muster over Ramos should be tempered by the fact that he was trying to nail down the Republican frontrunner on the details of his immigration plan – a plan that is obviously illegal, is in flagrant violation of international norms, and would condemn a broad swath of people to a nightmare of stateless existence. Just to refresh everyone on what we’re talking about here, Trump’s plan for immigration is to deport every single undocumented immigrant in the country, deport their children who are U.S. citizens by birth, and then revoke birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. He’s had plentiful opportunities to explain precisely how this plan would work, but instead of providing details he talks about how dangerous immigrant criminals are. The notion that we’re going to round up people who were born citizens of this country, deny them their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and expel them from their native land because of the actions of their parents is morally indefensible and legally unjustifiable. The fact that this is the position of the front-running Republican candidate for the presidency should be treated more scandalously than it is. In calling for mass deportation and ending birthright citizenship, Trump is creating the conditions for a massive humanitarian crisis in which huge numbers of people inside and outside the United States find themselves unbound to any state or government. “Stateless individuals cannot participate in any political process anywhere,” Mother Jones’ Bryan Schatz explained this morning. “They're often subject to arbitrary detention. They have limited access to health care and education. They are especially vulnerable to crime and have little legal recourse if they are victimized. They have no economic rights and few job prospects.” Trump’s plan essentially calls for the existence of a stateless underclass within the country, a whole segment of the population condemned to disenfranchisement and victimization by the accident of their parentage. This is what Jorge Ramos was trying to get Trump to elaborate on when he spoke up at that press conference yesterday. Instead of answering Ramos’ questions, Trump threw him out. When Ramos came back and was given the opportunity to ask about Trump’s immigration plan, Trump offered his usual mix of bluster and evasiveness. On revoking the citizenship of children of immigrants, Trump said “great legal scholars” agree with him. Asked how he’d deport every single undocumented immigrant, Trump offered that he’d “do it in a very humane fashion.” He didn’t even pretend to provide a coherent rationale for all the horrible things he wants to do to immigrants and their families. If you’re upset by Ramos’ tactics or offended that he wasn’t respectful enough towards Trump, you’re very much missing the larger picture.
Exposed: Shameless climate denial, brought to you by Big Coal
The Koch-affiliated groups Americans for Prosperity and the Institute for Energy Research, known for spreading lies about climate change in order to influence policy. The American Legislative Exchange Council and the Heartland Institute, also known as America's preeminent climate deniers. A secretive, Karl Rove-linked operation that spent millions on ads supporting Mitch McConnell in his Kentucky Senate race against Alison Grimes and President Obama's purported "War on Coal." And an attorney known for making life hell for the scientists conducting important research on climate change. What they all -- and many others -- have in common, according to a searing investigative report from the Intercept: they all received funding from Alpha Natural Resources, the country's second-largest coal company. This information shouldn't be surprising. But until the company filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, it was nonetheless withheld from the public. That's because, as the Intercept explains, many of these nonprofits, despite the outsized role they play in politics, are not required to reporting information about their donors. Even now, there's no way to determine how much money Alpha Natural Resources allocated to fund these groups. Given the hard work they put into undermining everything from EPA regulations for coal-fired power plants to the very science of climate change, though, it's easy to imagine that the company felt that it's contribution was well worth the expense. Christopher Horner, the attorney exposed as being on Alpha Natural Resource's payroll, has been particularly effective toward those ends. His harassment of climate scientists stretch back to Climategate, the 2009 scandal-that-wasn't, to the present day, the Intercept reports:
Horner has filed numerous records requests for personal emails from climate scientists and litigated to force universities to comply with his requests. Horner continued his investigations of climate scientists earlier this year by filing a records request with John Byrne, distinguished professor of energy climate policy at the University of Delaware. The request was made on behalf of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic and the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, where Horner is a senior fellow. “He has been instrumental in orchestrating the attacks on climate scientists over the past decade in the form of vexatious and frivolous FOIA demands, efforts to force scientists to turn over all of their personal email,” says Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist targeted by Horner. Horner has also often cast scientists as villains. He claimed on Alex Jones’ program “Infowars” that climate science is a backdoor strategy for enacting “global governance.” On Fox News, Horner mysteriously claimed that White House science adviser John Holdren is “if not borderline communist — communist.”Horner's published two books detailing the global warming "fraud;" he has not published any peer-reviewed research on climate science. He was, that is to say, a dubious source to begin with. But if this "rare window into the subterranean world of money in politics" proves (or reaffirms) anything, it's just how much influence Big Coal has on the decisions that affect not just its own future, but our entire planet's -- by paying third parties that can feign disinterest to do its dirty work.
Josh Duggar has checked into rehab: “A long journey toward wholeness and recovery”
Josh Duggar, the disgraced star of "19 Kids and Counting," has checked into rehab, a statement posted to the official "Duggar Family" blog confirms. This news comes just weeks after a massive Ashley Madison data dump unearthed his past infidelity and led to the confession that he'd long-struggled with a "secret" pornography addiction. "As parents we are so deeply grieved by our son’s decisions and actions," Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar wrote on their blog. "His wrong choices have deeply hurt his precious wife and children and have negatively affected so many others. He has also brought great insult to the values and faith we hold dear." Jim Bob and Michelle explained that the move to check their 27-year-old into a long-term treatment center would be "a long journey toward wholeness and recovery." You can read the full statement here.Josh Duggar, the disgraced star of "19 Kids and Counting," has checked into rehab, a statement posted to the official "Duggar Family" blog confirms. This news comes just weeks after a massive Ashley Madison data dump unearthed his past infidelity and led to the confession that he'd long-struggled with a "secret" pornography addiction. "As parents we are so deeply grieved by our son’s decisions and actions," Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar wrote on their blog. "His wrong choices have deeply hurt his precious wife and children and have negatively affected so many others. He has also brought great insult to the values and faith we hold dear." Jim Bob and Michelle explained that the move to check their 27-year-old into a long-term treatment center would be "a long journey toward wholeness and recovery." You can read the full statement here.
