Daily Archives: January 28, 2022

ChumbawambaScreenshot: Chumbawamba

Everyone remembers where they were when they learned that Chumbawamba was more than a 90s one-hit-wonder and actually a long-running anarcho-communist punk band with a loyal following in jolly ol England; it may even be happening to you right now! Mel Magazine is marking the 25th anniversary of 1997 and wrote about the alcohol-propelled Trojan horse that was Tubthumping, a song that brought the bands subversive politics to the top of the Billboard Alternative charts and provided the pop culture zeitgeist with one of the most memorable choruses of the decade.

Its a rock n roll tale as old as time: a band that has been working at it for years decides their next album needs to be hit theyve been searching for or theyre packing it in. And then, through the grace of A&Ror maybe just luckthey finally score the chartbuster of their career with a tune that steps outside of their comfort zone and might even alienate their long-time fans.

Chumbawamba had experimented in punk, ska, folk, and electronica, but Tubthumping was pure pop from the songwriting to the production with horns, hooks, and an anthemic chorus quite literally meant to be sung at the top of your lungs in a crowded bar. But underneath the surface, the band remained true to its roots with lyrics conveying a deeper message of the workers surviving the daily grind as explained by band member Alice Nutter to CNN 1997. Tubthumping would debut at #2 on the UK Singles Chart in August of 1997 and would overtake the states over the following months, hitting #6 on the Billboard Hot 100 that November.

We decided to use the situation to our own ends. At that time, we thought, What can we do with this, explains lead vocalist Dunstan Bruce. The song itself is evidence of the fact that if you can find ways to invade your way into cultureyou can use that as a kind of smokescreen to say the other stuff that you want to say.

Chumbawamba did just that, like a merry gang of anarchist pranksters, they weaponized their success to bring to light their political and social beliefs and take on major corporations through the power of pop music.

The band replaced the lyrics of Tubthumping to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal on a Late Show performance, encouraged people to steal their album from Virgin Megastores on Politically Incorrect, and (this writers personal favorite) allowed General Motors to play a song of theirs in a car commercial and then donated all their profits to anti-GM groups. They were incredibly subversive, but they also were trolls, explains Chumbawamba enthusiast and Eve 6 singer, Max Collins. Not all trolls are bad.

Chumbawamba called it quits in 2012, performing their final show at Leeds City Varieties on Halloween night and Bruce is currently in production on a documentary on the band due out later this year.

These days, countless copies of Tubthumper line used CD stores across the country while the real message of Tubthumping is still lost on nostalgic 40-somethings on their fifth or sixth whiskey drink, vodka drink, lager drink, or cider drink.

[via Mel Magazine]

Read more:
Read this: 25 years ago, Chumbawamba smuggled anarchist ideals onto the U.S. pop charts - The A.V. Club

According to a number of polls and surveys, significant majorities of Republican-aligned voters seem to believe the big lie that Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 US presidential election and, consequently, the Biden administration is illegitimate.

Taking these data at face value, a growing chorus insists that were living in a post-truth era, where members of one political party, the Republican party, can no longer tell facts from falsehood. As a result of the Republican party becoming unmoored from reality, the narratives typically continue, America is drifting headlong into a fascist takeover or a civil war.

Fortunately for all of us, these dire predictions are almost certainly overblown. We are not living in a post-truth world. We are not on the brink of a civil war. The perception that we are is almost purely an artifact of people taking poll and survey data at face value despite overwhelming evidence that we probably shouldnt.

For instance, in the wake of the 2016 election, Trump claimed to have had higher turnout at his inauguration than Barack Obama did. Subsequent polls and surveys presented people with pictures of Obama and Trumps inauguration crowds and asked which was bigger. Republicans consistently identified the visibly smaller (Trump) crowd as being larger than the other. A narrative quickly emerged that Trump supporters literally couldnt identify the correct answer; they were so brainwashed that they actually believed that the obviously smaller crowd was, in fact, larger.

Of course, a far more obvious and empirically plausible explanation is that respondents knew perfectly well what the correct answer was. However, they also had a sense of how that answer would be used in the media (Even Trumps supporters dont believe his nonsense!), so they simply declined to give pollsters the response they seemed to be looking for.

As a matter of fact, respondents regularly troll researchers in polling and surveys especially when they are asked whether or not they subscribe to absurd or fringe beliefs, such as birtherism (a conspiracy that held that Barack Obama was born outside of the US and was legally ineligible to serve as president of the United States).

However, many academics and pundits do not seem to be in on the joke. Instead, post-2016, a consensus quickly emerged from credulous readings of polls and surveys that America is facing an epidemic of fake news, which was leading people to believe things that were obviously false, and to vote for unsavory political candidates. Some of the initial studies on this topic were blatantly prejudicial in their design; other widely shared studies were ultimately retracted.

As more reliable data began to emerge, it turned out that, contrary to the initial hysteria, fake news stories were viewed by a relatively small number of voters, and infrequently at that. Most of those served pro-Trump or anti-Clinton fake news by social media sites already seemed firmly committed to voting for Trump, or intractably resolved against voting for Clinton (which is why the algorithms served them this niche content to begin with). That is, fake news is unlikely to have changed many, if any, votes. It is not a plausible explanation for the 2016 electoral outcome nor Trumps support more broadly.

Even people who share fake news stories typically never read (or even click on) them. That is, people are not sharing the content because they read the stories, grew convinced of their factual accuracy, and are genuinely trying to inform others. Instead, people typically share these stories based on their headlines, for a whole host of social reasons, while recognizing them to be of questionable accuracy (see here, here, here, here and here for more on this).

It should not be surprising, then, that correcting misinformation seems to have virtually no effect on political preferences or voting behavior; misperceptions are generally not driving political alignments to begin with nor are they driving political polarization.

Contrary to narratives that have grown especially ubiquitous in recent years, Americans are actually not very far apart in terms of most empirical facts. We do not live in separate realities. Instead, people begin to polarize on their public positions on factual matters only after those issues have become politicized. And even then, polarized answers on polls and surveys often fail to reflect participants genuine views. Indeed, when respondents are provided with incentives to answer questions accurately (instead of engaging in partisan cheerleading), the difference between Democrats and Republicans on factual matters often collapses.

In other cases, apparent disagreements about factual matters often turn out to be, at bottom, debates about how various facts are framed and interpreted, or disputes about the policies that are held to flow from the facts. That is, even in cases of genuine disagreement, there is typically less dispute about the facts themselves than about what the facts mean morally or practically speaking.

All said, measuring misperceptions is a fraught enterprise even when it comes to banal and politically uncontested facts. Attempting to draw inferences about incorrect views on matters tied political, moral and/or identity struggles is a far more complicated endeavor. These are not data that lend themselves to being taken at face value.

Similar realities hold for the data that purportedly show were on the brink of a new civil war.

There is strong evidence that many of the surveys and polls indicating support for, or openness towards, political violence hugely overstate actual levels of support in the American public. Likewise, data that purport to show high levels of partisan vitriol may be misleading.

In general, behaviors are often a stronger indicator than attitudinal data for understanding how sincere or committed people are to a cause or idea. The number of people who are willing to rhetorically endorse some extraordinary belief tends to be much, much higher than the subset who meaningfully behave as if that claim is true. The number of people who profess commitment to some cause tends to be much, much higher than the share who are willing to make sacrifices or life adjustments in order to advance that cause.

The big lie is no exception. Both the low levels of turnout and the relatively low levels of violence are extraordinary if we take the polls and surveys at face value.

Event organizers were expecting, hundreds of thousands, if not millions to take part in the January 6 uprising. This would be reasonable to expect in a world where tens of millions of Americans literally believed that an apparently high-stakes election was stolen out from under them. Even if just 1% of those who purportedly believe in the big lie had bothered to show up, the demonstrations would have been hundreds of thousands strong. Instead, they only mustered 2,500 participants (according to US government estimates).

The lack of casualties was also striking, even when one considers injuries and indirect fatalities. After all, the former president also enjoyed strong support among people who are armed and formally trained in combat, such as active duty and veteran military and law enforcement. A large number of other Trump supporters participate in militias, or are private gun owners.

Yet most January 6 participants did not bring firearms, and those who were armed did not discharge their weapons not even in the heat of the violence that broke out. The only person shot in the entire uprising, Ashli Babbitt, was killed by a law enforcement officer. In fact, Babbitt was actually the only homicide to occur on that day.

Two other rioters died from heart problems, another from a drug overdose. Police officer Brian Sicknick died from strokes on 7 January; the medical examiner ultimately concluded that this was unrelated to any injuries sustained during January 6. In the months that followed, four other police officers would perish by suicide. All said, then, a total of nine deaths have been associated with the events of January 6 (directly or indirectly). Not one person, however, was actually killed by the rioters. Nor is a single bullet alleged to have been fired by the rioters, despite many participants allegedly possessing guns.

In a world where 74 million voted for Trump, and more than two-thirds of these (ie more than 50 million people, roughly one out of every five adults in the US) actually believed that the other party had illegally seized power and now plan to use that power to harm people like themselves, the events of January 6 would likely have played out much, much differently.

Indeed, had even the 2,500 people who assembled on the Capitol arrived armed to the hilt, with a plan to seize power by force, committed to violence as needed to achieve their goals things would have gone much, much differently.

Instead, most participants showed up expecting Trump would provide them with definitive evidence for his claims of electoral malfeasance, and then unveil some master plan to take the country back. This didnt happen. Those gathered seemed to have no idea what to do after that. Most of what followed was spontaneous, not planned. Even when they breached the Capitol, most had no information about the layout of the building, little knowledge about the proceedings they were ostensibly striving to disrupt, and no clear agenda of what to do once they got inside.

There was a small number, dozens perhaps, who showed up to the Capitol with a clear intent to forcibly overturn the election who equipped themselves for violence, researched the congressional proceedings and the layout of the building, developed and executed a plan, etc. These are behaviors consistent with a sincere belief in the big lie, and a strong commitment to doing something about it.

Yet, critically, even these actors were operating independently of Trump, motivated in part by frustration with the former presidents apparent inaction. In their telling, Trump himself wasnt acting like he believed his own rhetoric. There was no urgency. There was no fire. There was no focus. There was no plan. The Oath Keepers hoped to engage in a radical act that would push the president to actually behave as if the election was stolen and the republic was on the line. As their leader (currently arrested on sedition charges) put it:

All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. Theyve had enough. Were going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country.

Of course, even tiny numbers of genuine extremists like these can be extremely destabilizing under the right circumstances. Had Oath Keepers breached the Capitol instead of being repelled (even as Q-Shaman, Confederate Flag Guy et al wandered the building aimlessly) January 6 could have played out much differently.

Nonetheless, there is a huge difference in talking about identifying and disrupting small numbers of highly committed individuals willing to engage in revolutionary political violence v tens of millions of Americans genuinely believing the election was fraudulent and being open to violence as a means of rectifying the situation. Those are very different problems. Orders of magnitude different.

The good news is that the second problem, the tens-of-millions-of-Americans problem, is not real. It is an artifact of politicized polling design and survey responses, followed by overly credulous interpretations of those results by academics and pundits who are committed to a narrative that half the electorate is evil, ignorant, stupid, deranged and otherwise dangerous.

In fact, rather than January 6 serving as a prelude to a civil war, the US saw lower levels of death from political violence in 2021 than in any other year since the turn of the century. Even as violent crime approached record highs across much of the country, fatalities from political violence dropped. This is not an outcome that seems consistent with large and growing shares of the population supposedly leaning towards settling the culture wars with bullets instead of ballots. This turn of events does not seem consistent with the notion that tens of millions of Americans including large numbers of military, law enforcement and militia members literally believe the presidency was stolen, elections can no longer be trusted, and the fate of the country is on the line.

Indeed, far from giving up on elections, Republican voters are reveling in the prospect of taking back one or both chambers of Congress at the end of this year; they are eagerly awaiting the midterms (likely for good reason).

In truth, most Republican voters likely dont believe in the big lie. But many would nonetheless profess to believe it in polls and surveys just as theyd support politicians who make similar professions (according to one estimate, Republican candidates who embrace the big lie enjoy a 6 percentage point electoral boost as compared to Republicans who publicly affirm the 2020 electoral results).

Within contemporary rightwing circles, a rhetorical embrace of the big lie is perceived as an act of defiance against prevailing elites. It is recognized as a surefire means to trigger people on the other team. A demonstrated willingness to endure blowback (from Democrats, media, academics, social media companies et al) for publicly striking this defiant position is interpreted as evidence of solidarity with, and commitment to, the people instead of special interests; its taken as a sign that one is not beholden to the Establishment and its rules. That is, the big lie seems to be more about social posturing than making sincere truth claims.

For many reasons, this situation is also far from ideal. But its a very different (and much smaller) problem than partisans actually inhabiting different epistemic worlds and lurching towards a civil war. Glass half full.

Continued here:
No, America is not on the brink of a civil war - The Guardian

Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX,Davenport IA

FilmScene,Iowa City IA

Marcus Sycamore Cinema,Iowa City IA

Putnam Museum & Science Center, Davenport IA

Regal Moline,Moline IL

(Hyperlinked titles take you to Readerreviews; IMDb hyperlinks take you to the films Internet Movie Database pages.)

***

The 355(PG-13; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline, Marcus Sycamore Cinema)- Even though Simon Kinberg's direction is resolutely bland, and even though his and Theresa Rebeck's screenplay is perfunctory at best and groan-worthy at worst, it's not at all difficult to enjoy yourself at this hodgepodge tale of espionage, betrayal, and hastily procured designer gowns.IMDb listing.

American Underdog(PG; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline, Marcus Sycamore Cinema)- While this football bio-picmight not offer much in the way of narrative surprise, especially if you're familiar with the Kurt Warner legend, it makes up for its formulaic predictability with sincerity and endearing performances.IMDb listing.

Back from the Brink: Saved from Extinction(not rated; Putnam Museum & Science Center)- This edu-docwould be recommended solely for the chance, for 40 minutes, to actually feel momentarily great about the state of the human race.IMDb listing.

Crypt of the Living Dead(R; FilmScene at the Chauncey: Wednesday, February 2, 10 p.m.)- IMDb listing.

The Film Lounge 2022 (not rated; FilmScene at the Chauncey: Saturday, January 29, 12:30 p.m.)- IMDb listing.

Flee(PG-13; FilmScene at the Chauncey)- IMDb listing.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife(PG-13; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline)- It would be wonderful to report that Jason Reitman's sequel to his dad's comedy classic was nothing more, or less, than goofy dumb fun. But if you only smile four times (I counted) over the course of two hours, I'm not sure that qualifies as having fun.IMDb listing.

Good Luck Sakhi(not rated; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX)- IMDb listing.

House of Gucci(R; Regal Moline)-Lady Gaga is abona fidemovie star, but while her electric spark and charisma keep you invested, enjoying the diva's routines here also means putting up withso much else.IMDb listing.

In Bruges(R; FilmScene at the Chauncey: Saturday, February 29, 10 p.m.)-Martin McDonagh's first, still-finest feature film casts Brendan Gleeson and Golden Globe winner Colin Farrell as chatty Irish hit men in a film that's profane, bloody, politically incorrect, horrifying, and hilarious.IMDb listing.

Into America's Wild(not rated; Putnam Museum & Science Center)- IMDb listing.

Introduction(not rated; FilmScene at the Chauncey)- IMDb listing.

The King's Daughter(PG; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline, Marcus Sycamore Cinema)-You kind of know what you're in for from the start of this deeply uninteresting fantasy adventure,with Julie Andrews' gentle, mellifluous narration guaranteeing an experience that'll be indistinguishable from a nap.IMDb listing.

The King's Man(R; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline)- Despite Ralph Fiennes' heroic work, this is a prequel that involves Grigori Rasputin, Mata Hari, and a one-minute role for Stanley Tucci that still manages to be almost no fun at all.IMDb listing.

Lenny Cooke(not rated; FilmScene at the Chauncey: Tuesday, February 1, 7 p.m.)- IMDb listing.

Licorice Pizza(R; FilmScene on the Ped Mal)- Paul Thomas Anderson's latest is like the movie version of a chocolate-covered pretzel: saltyandsweet, and something that, once consumed, makes you instantly crave more.IMDb listing.

Love & Basketball(PG-13; Marcus Sycamore Cinema: Thursday, February 3, 7:05 p.m.)- IMDb listing.

The Matrix Resurrections(R; Marcus Sycamore Cinema)-Massively produced and modestly winning, this sci-fi sequel is also deeply unnecessary yet unexpectedly charming, and should ensure that the red pill/blue pill debate continues at least until we enter these particular realms again.IMDb listing.

The Met:Rigoletto(not rated; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Marcus Sycamore Cinema: Saturday, January 29, 11:55 a.m.)- FathomEvents.com.

Moonfall: Advance Screenings (PG-13; Marcus Sycamore Cinema: Saturday, January 29, and Sunday, January 30, 7 p.m.)- IMDb listing.

Nightmare Alley: Vision in Darkness & Light(R; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Marcus Sycamore Cinema)- A black-and-white version of this gorgeously designed noirin which Guillermo del Toro's lethargic pacing and unusually drab compositions dull your interest in even the actors' expert contributions.IMDb listing.

Oceans(G; Putnam Museum & Science Center)- This edu-doc is a little bland, butit's hard to be too disappointed by a film that provides so many extraordinary sights.IMDb listing.

On These Grounds(not rated; FilmScene at the Chauncey: Thursday, February 3, 6:30 p.m.)- IMDb listing.

Parallel Mothers(R; FilmScene at the Chauncey)- IMDb listing.

Redeeming Love(PG-13; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline)- This earnest, tacky, largely offensive trifle is, thanks to a handful of unexpectedly resonant performances, a lot less icky than it should have been.IMDb listing.

Scream(R; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline, Marcus Sycamore Cinema)- While this latest, incessantly meta horror-comedy sequelis frequently clever and easily watchable, it also kept reminding me, unfortunately, that there's a fine line between smart and smarty-pants.IMDb listing.

Shang-Chi & the Legend of the Ten Rings(PG-13; Marcus Sycamore Cinema)- It's stuck with a formulaic storyline and emotional banality, but this Marvel adventure at least boasts a bevy of terrifically sharp and well-choreographed set pieces that are bound to stick in memory.IMDb listing.

Sing 2(PG; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline, Marcus Sycamore Cinema)- TheAlice in Wonderlandopener delivers a jazzy re-introduction to writer/director Garth Jennings' show-biz wannabes, whose new film is understandably less inventive, but decidedly more satisfying, than its 2016 predecessor.IMDb listing.

Spider-Man: No Way Home(PG-13; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX, Regal Moline, Marcus Sycamore Cinema)- Jon Watts' third showcase for Tom Holland's Spider-Man is an initially dreary, ultimately exhilarating love letter to Marvel fans.IMDb listing.

Superpower Dogs(G; Putnam Museum & Science Center)-Writer/director Daniel Ferguson provides enough globe-trotting action for a James Bond flick, and we're given just enough information on how the heroic pups pull off their feats of derring-do to wholly appreciate them in practice.IMDb listing.

The Tiger Rising(PG; Davenport 53rd 18 + IMAX)- IMDb listing.

Titans of the Ice Age(not rated; Putnam Museum & Science Center)- Gorgeously photographed and boasting perhaps the finest CGI I've ever seen in aNational Geographicdoc, the film is both informative and a heck of a lot of fun.IMDb listing.

The Tragedy of Macbeth(R; FilmScene on the Ped Mall)- In perhaps a first for my personal acquaintance with this much-cherished Shakespeare saga, I didn't feel anything aside from respect for its designers while watching it.IMDb listing.

The Velvet Queen(not rated; FilmScene on the Ped Mall)- IMDb listing.

Venom:Let There Be Carnage(PG-13; Regal Moline)- At least it's not the 2018Venom, meaning that this one occasionallydoesn'tsuck.IMDb listing.

West Side Story(PG-13; Regal Moline, Marcus Sycamore Cinema)- Happily, and gratefully, Steven Spielberg's musical remakeis a film clearly made by people who both adore its 60-year-old predecessor and still saw 21st-century room for improvement.IMDb listing.

Wild Africa(not rated; Putnam Museum & Science Center)- IMDb listing.

Go here to read the rest:
Now Playing: Friday, January 28, through Thursday, February 3 - River Cities Reader

A Twitter bot now faces a ban on social media because of the many spoilers and wreaking havoc by giving the next word of the day. The bot called "Wordlinator" faces prohibition as it afflicts many users that post their Wordle scores online. The bot will reply to the score tweet and tell the person the next word of the day right then and there.

(Photo : Image from Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash)Twitter Tests iOS App Search Bar on Its Home Tab

According to areportby The Verge, the social media company of Twitter already banned the bot in the platform called "Wordlinator" with the handle "@wordlinator." The bot is known for its "killjoy" attitude that gives away the answer for the next word of the day in the said game, defeating the purpose of those that wants to play.

ATwitter user also shows what the botdoes in certain situations, and it would most likely appear when one tweets about anything related to Wordle and its game scores. Here, the next day's word to be the game's focus will get spoiled by the bot, affecting the experience of many.

Read Also:Elon Musk Bashes Twitter's New NFT Profile Feature-Saying Platform Wastes Engineering Resources

Worldlinator is a bot on Twitter, and it was made by a user that comes as an account but doubles as an algorithm or program that scans the social media for Wordle scores mentioned. The bot would then tweet the users and reveal the next day's word.

The bot also degrades the user by picking on their scores.

Twitter bots are popular in the social media landscape, and this is because people are fond of them as they immediately pop on your replies when a specific keyword gets publicized. Tweeting online sure does have lots of lurkers to see and inspect one's profile, even bots that run around millions of tweets per day, looking for their opportunity to reply to tweets.

One popular Twitter bot was something that raised awareness on the term called"illegal immigrants," where advocatespushed that it is a "politically incorrect" term for those people. Here, the bot would correct them and let them know that they misused the time, especially as it brings discrimination to addressing the minorities.

Another popular bot is the one called "COVAX SF," which was particularly helpful during the first stages of the vaccination campaign of the country. Before, doses and schedules were complicated and challenging.

Twitter bots are like the bots from Discord, Reddit, Telegram, and other online platforms that allow people to enjoy the experience or see more of different offers within the app.

However, if it spoils the experience, it has to go.

Related Article:Twitter NFT Profile Picture Releases to Twitter Blue Subscribers | How it Works

This article is owned by Tech Times

Written by Isaiah Richard

2021 TECHTIMES.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.

See original here:
Twitter Bans Wordlinator, A Bot that Spoils the Wordle Game in the Social Media - Tech Times

NEWS AND OPINION:

Press coverage is brimming with alarming reports about a possible conflict between the U.S. and Russia over the destiny of Ukraine. Many of these reports stress that U.S. troops have been put on high alert.

What does the public think?

Almost half of Americans 47% expect that Russia will indeed invade Ukraine according to a Daily Agenda YouGov poll of 4,428 U.S. adults conducted on Monday which revealed some unsettling sentiments among the respondents.

If the conflict were to escalate to a war between the United States and Russia, few Americans believe that either side would emerge victorious, noted an analysis of the findings.

And the numbers: 41% of U.S. adults overall agreed that neither side would win. That finding includes 41% of Republicans, 50% of independents and 35% of Democrats.

Another 26% said the U.S. would emerge the victor an opinion shared by 29% of Republicans, 21% of independents and 32% of Democrats.

The survey also found that 10% felt that the Russians would win the conflict. Ten percent of Republicans, 11% of independents and 7% of Democrats agreed.

A significant 24% simply were not sure who would be victorious. Twenty percent of Republicans, 18% of independents and 26% of Democrats agreed with that.

Does the U.S. have the obligation to even enter into this confrontation?

Americans are split on whether the United States does (35%) or does not (33%) have a responsibility to protect Ukraine. Democrats (44%) are somewhat more likely than Republicans (36%) and independents (31%) to say that protecting Ukraine is the United States responsibility, the poll analysis reported.

A STUDENTS STARK TRUTH

Justo Antonio Triana is a Cuban-born student who has been in the U.S. since 2019 with his family only to discover that many Americans have a distorted view of his birthplace. That view is idealistic, he said, and has been shaped and defined by persistent left-leaning thinkers. To counter that view can be a challenge.

But its not easy to speak out against the leftist narrative. Today the mere fact of repeating progressive slogans gives you a kind of moral superiority; and instead, citing statistics condemns you to always be stigmatized as politically incorrect, Mr. Triana wrote in an essay for The College Fix, a news organization.

Sadly, its all about whats fashionable. The left has been winning the culture war, and has dictated that the cool thing to do now is to be woke. At the same time, for woke Americans it is cool to disrespect everything that the United States stands for, because for them the United States itself is nothing more than a symbol of racism and oppression that must be destroyed in the name of social justice only to later become a communist dystopian hell, Mr. Triana said.

Meanwhile, every time my Cuban friends desperate to get off the island but without the means to do so have asked me about the political situation in the United States, Ive had to tell them: Most young Americans that Ive met sympathize with socialism, and are pushing for policies that will hurt them in the long run. Then everyone responds in disbelief, and are worried, and sometimes even desperate, asking: And where will we go if the United States turns socialist? Mr. Triana noted.

NETWORKS MUFFLE BIDENS GAFFE

During a White House press conference on Monday, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy posed a last-minute question on inflation to President Biden who responded by calling Mr. Doocy a stupid son of a b. His oath was heard by one and all via a nearby microphone.

The major broadcast networks ABC, CBS, NBC went into full protection mode and downplayed Mr. Bidens oath according to a study of the coverage.

All three networks on Monday night and Tuesday morning offered sympathy for Joe Biden, wrote Scott Whitlock, an analyst for NewsBusters.org, a conservative press watchdog that monitored the follow-up coverage.

Its not easy being president, noted CBS Mornings co-host Tony Dokoupil.

The president was clearly frustrated he was peppered with questions about Ukraine at an economic event, said ABCs White House correspondent Mary Bruce in her review.

NBCs Kelly ODonnell also said the presidents gaffe was a result of frustration.

As Bidens gaffes and hot mic moments pile up, look for the networks to continue to argue for understanding and empathy towards our frustrated and sometimes bewildered president, Mr. Whitlock predicted.

The three networks did not offer much in-depth coverage either.

On Monday night and Tuesday morning, ABC allowed the least coverage on the gaffe. Just 53 seconds on Tuesday morning and nothing on Monday night. CBS came in second with 17 seconds on the CBS Evening News and 51 seconds on CBS Mornings (a total of 68 seconds.) NBC managed 45 seconds on Tuesday morning and 50 seconds on Mondays Nightly News a total of 95 seconds, Mr. Whitlock wrote.

FOXIFIED

During the week of Jan. 17-23, Fox News was the leading network across the entire cable realm, besting both news and non-news competition and drawing 2.4 million primetime viewers according to Nielsen Media Research. Fox News, in fact, aired 76 of the top 100 cable telecasts.

Among the standouts: Coverage of President Bidens big press conference was the biggest draw of the week, earning 4.2 million viewers. The Five was in second place with 3.7 million viewers, followed by Tucker Carlson Tonight (3.4 million) and Hannity (3.2 million). And one more: Fox & Friends which airs weekday mornings brought in 1.4 million viewers. In contrast, CNNs New Day attracted an audience of 354,000 viewers while MSNBCs Morning Joe drew 723,000.

POLL DU JOUR

77% of likely U.S. voters worry that microchip implants placed in human brains will be used to usher in a never-before-seen level of totalitarian control.

67% would prefer not to experience any merge with artificial intelligence.

56% fear the implants will destroy social fabric.

23% say the implants are ingenious and want to participate in such an activity.

18% say use of the implants would bring about new heights of prosperity.

Source: A John Zogby Strategies poll of 777 likely U.S. voters conducted Dec. 17, 2021, and released Monday.

Helpful information to jharper@washingtontimes.com.

See the rest here:
Inside the Beltway: Neither U.S. or Russia would come out winner in Ukraine conflict: poll - Washington Times

January 22, 2022, 2:49 PM The Peanuts Celebration returns today to Knott's Berry Farm. But is Peanuts still an entertainment franchise worth celebrating?

Knott's annual Peanuts Celebration runs through March 6, giving Charlie Brown, Snoopy and the rest of the Peanuts characters more than a month in the park's spotlight. The Calico Mine Stage this year offers a new game-show-themed musical called It's Your Life, Charlie Brown, while fans can learn how to draw the Peanuts characters in the Bird Cage Theatre's Peanuts Sketch School. Franklin and Linus host the Peanuts Cowboy Jamboree at Calico Park. Knott's is rolling out new Peanuts-inspired food items for sale throughout the park, and new-to-the-park character Marcie joins the Peanuts meet-and-greet lineup.

But how many Knott's Berry Farm visitors know Peanuts as anything other than the theme for the park's Camp Snoopy children's area?

Half a century ago, Peanuts was bigger than Disney. Charles Schulz' creation anchored the comics pages of every major newspaper in America - back when pretty much every household subscribed to the local paper. The Charlie Brown Christmas, Halloween and Thanksgiving specials were must-watch television every year. Millions of American children went to school carrying Peanuts-themed lunch boxes. Peanuts characters hawked everything from their parents' life insurance to the Dolly Madison snack cakes in those lunch boxes. The Apollo 10 mission to the Moon named its lunar and command modules after Snoopy and Charlie Brown.

And, like countless other GenX kids, a Snoopy plush doll was my most prized possession and companion for years after I got it on Christmas morning.

So what happened? Why didn't Peanuts continue to grow and dominate family entertainment in the United States and abroad, the way that Disney ultimately managed to do?

A clue to that answer lies in the farewell letter that Schulz wrote to fans in Peanuts' final Sunday comic strip, which was drawn weeks in advance but ran the day after Schulz's death in February 2000:

"Unfortunately, I am no longer able to maintain the schedule demanded by a daily comic strip. My family does not wish 'Peanuts' to be continued by anyone else, therefore I am announcing my retirement."

Unlike Schulz, Walt Disney built his business to be done by others. Yes, Walt put his name on everything, but even the first Mickey Mouse cartoons were as much the work of Ub Iwerks as Walt himself.

Walt Disney built an entertainment company. Charles Schulz drew a comic strip. Ultimately, that difference explains why Peanuts failed to thrive in Schulz' later years and after his death, while The Walt Disney Company eventually grew into the most dominant entertainment brand in the world.

Yes, Schulz oversaw a multi-billion-dollar business, like Walt did. But Schulz did not branch out and create other franchises beyond Charlie Brown and company. When Schulz sold the rights to Peanuts, they did not go to a movie studio with the ability to grow the franchise across multiple media. Instead, they went to a newspaper company. (Full disclosure: I worked for that newspaper company - E.W. Scripps - for several years.)

One great deal that Charles and Schulz family made, however, was with Knott's Berry Farm. In 1983, they licensed the Peanuts characters to the park for its Camp Snoopy - a trailblazing children's area that continues to delight many young fans who have no clue what a "newspaper comic strip" might be. Even if Peanuts hasn't kept up with other animation franchises in film and television, Peanuts continues to resonate with many fans as a theme park IP. Knott's Peanuts Celebration provides an opportunity for the franchise's Boomer, GenX and elder Millennial fans to reconnection with Snoopy, Charlie Brown and the rest, even if they've long passed the age when they - or their children - would spend time in Camp Snoopy.

IP can help give a theme park attraction a head start in resonating with guests. But whether you come to an attraction knowing its backstory or not, that attraction must deliver something special to its guests to succeed. Knott's often leans on live entertainment, and the Peanuts Celebration gives Knott's talent another opportunity to show off for park audiences. The shows are cute and charming, the characters engaging, and there's plenty on the celebration menus for a variety of tastes.

So, ultimately, this celebration might not need Peanuts as much as Peanuts needs a celebration like this.

Knott's Peanuts Celebration runs daily through March 6. For discounted tickets to Knott's Berry Farm, please visit our travel partner's Knott's Berry Farm tickets page.

* * * We wanted you to read this article before we make our newsletter pitch, unlike so many other websites. If you appreciate that -and our approach to covering theme park, travel, and entertainment news -please sign up for our free, three-times-a-week email newsletter. Thank you.

Read the original:
Vote of the Week: Is Peanuts Still Worth Celebrating? - Theme Park Insider

Thiruvananthapuram: UDF leaders on Wednesday visited Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and handed over a petition seeking him to refrain from signing the ordinance which curtails the powers of Lok Ayukta.

The petition noted that the new set of amendments is frivolous, politically driven and in stark contravention to the established laws of the country.

Opposition leader VD Satheesan was accompanied by former CM Oommen Chandy, MLA Ramesh Chennithala and leaders of various parties in the front.

Here is the complete copy of the petition submitted by Congress leadership to the Governor:

This letter is in continuation to my earlier letter dated 25-01-2022 requesting your good self to abstain from giving your assent to the Lok Ayukta ordinance.

Please note that the reasons for the proposed amendment to the Lok Ayukta Act have been revealed by the State Law Minister and other stakeholders in public. However, those justifications appear to be frivolous, politically driven, and in stark contravention of the established laws in this Country.

The Government has cited the Kerala High Court's decisions as one of the reasons for amending Section 14 of the THE LOK AYUKTA ACT,1999. As per available information, the judgment in Sudha Devi Vs The District Collector(WP(C). No.41335 of 2016) and The Kerala State Cooperative Vs Kerala Lok Ayukta (WP(C). No.23431 of 2016) have been cited by the Government. On perusal of these judicial decisions, it is abundantly clear that the scope of Section 12(1) of THE LOK AYUKTA ACT, 1999, rather than Section 14, was subjected to judicial scrutiny in these cases. The Court has rightly pointed out that the Lok Ayukta has only recommendatory jurisdiction as per Section 12(1), which is exactly what is mentioned in the Act. The Courts decisions in these aforesaid cases are just literal interpretations of Section 12(1) of the Act, which talks about reports of Lok Ayukta and states that the Lok Ayukta shall by a report in writing recommend to the competent authority for taking appropriate decisions.

Kindly note that in the 22 year-long histories of the Lok Ayukta Act, only one decision was pronounced by Lok Ayukta invoking Section 14 of the Act. The decision was against former Minister Sri K.T. Jaleel, with the Lok Ayukta finding him guilty of nepotism and abuse of office to obtain a favour for a relative. The Kerala High Court and Supreme Court upheld the Lok Ayutka decision, demonstrating that Section 14 is in accordance with the Indian Constitution. Cases against the incumbent Higher Education Minister and the Chief Minister pending before the Lok Ayukta are to make a declaration under sec: 14 of the Act as in the case of Sri.K.T.Jaleel.

It is in fact shocking to learn that the verdicts of the High Court have been misconstrued in order to deceive the public and push anti-people legislation.

Another argument advanced by the government to justify the proposed amendment to Section 14 is that it violates Article 164 of the Indian Constitution. Article 164 discusses the appointment of the Chief Minister and other ministers, and how they hold office at the Governor's pleasure. This does not mean that the Chief Minister or other ministers can only be removed by the Governor. Many times, the Judiciary has ordered public servants to vacate their positions in quo warranto and other petitions. In fact, Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disqualifies a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years from continuing in office. It would be absurd for the government to argue that the Apex court, High Court or a statute passed by the Legislature cannot order a public servant found to have committed a grave offence to vacate their positions.

Above all, the Indian Constitution has given the judiciary the power to validate the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature under Articles 32, and 226. In fact, the legal principle of presumption of constitutionality requires the judge to assume that Acts passed by the legislature are constitutional unless they are found unconstitutional. Please note that no constitutional court has ever declared the impugned section unconstitutional in its 22-year history. In reality, the Supreme Court supported the Lok Ayukta's decision in the K.T.Jaleel case, demonstrating the Section's constitutional legitimacy.

However, in this ordinance, the executive is openly proclaiming a statute that has been in effect for 22 years to be unconstitutional and is proposing an ordinance to change the provision. This is ultra vires and goes against the fundamental tenets of the Indian constitution.

These facts demonstrate that the claim of unconstitutionality is baseless and founded on incorrect premises.

Another odd justification advanced by the Law Minister in defence of the proposed legislation is that the current Act lacks an appeal provision. There are various laws in this country that do not provide for appeals. Lok Adalat formed under Legal Services Authorities Act, is one example. The lack of an appeal clause in the original legislation can be justified by the fact that the Lok Ayukta would be a Supreme Court Judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice. Kindly note that the decisions of the Lok Ayukta can be challenged in the High Court as per Article 226 and Article 227.

In fact, the opposition will enthusiastically support measures amending the Said Act to include an appeal provision entrusting with a Division Bench of the High Court.

It's ironic that the proposed amendment, which purports to correct a violation of natural justice, actually contradicts the natural justice principle's basic premises.

The proposed amendment to Section 14 of the ordinance gives the Governor, the Chief Minister, or the government in their capacity as the competent authority to either reject or accept the decision of the Lok Ayukta after hearing both the parties. It is strange how an executive could serve as an appeal authority on a decision pronounced by a judicial or quasi-judicial forum consisting of former Supreme Court judge or Chief Justice of the High Court.

According to the natural justice maxim "Nemo Judex in causa sua," no one should be a judge in his or her own cause. After the proposed amendment, the case against the Chief Minister would be decided by the Governor, while the case against the Ministers would be decided by the Chief Minister. According to Article 163, the Governor has to exercise his functions at the aid and advise the council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head. As a result, the Chief Minister has a substantial say in the cases brought against him. This is an outright denial of natural justice.

Please take note that the contested provision in the ordinance was part of the original bill of the THE LOK AYUKTA ACT, 1999 when it was first introduced in the legislative assembly. However, due to widespread objections from members of both the opposition and the ruling party during the debate on February 22, 1999, this was withdrawn. In other words, this government is pushing through legislation that the Kerala Legislative Assembly debated and rejected.

The hastiness in bringing this ordinance is dubious and has put the probity of the government under scanner. As per Article 213, which talks about ordinances, compelling circumstances which render it necessary to take immediate action should exist as a prerequisite for promulgating an ordinance. With the legislative assembly session slated for next month, there seems to be no compelling reason to change the law, which has been in existence for over 22 years. The only immediate reason that could be perceived is that the Lok Ayukta is about to take up cases against the Chief Minister in relief fund misappropriation and the Higher Education Minister in the university issue. It should be understood that the government is expecting an unfavourable verdict in these cases and this ordinance is a shield to guard against any unsavoury decisions from the Lok Ayukta.

Moreover, the proposed amendment would serve as a catalyst for rampant corruption and nepotism.

In these compelling circumstances, taking into consideration the interest of the State and public at large, I request your good self to abstain from providing your assent to the Kerala Lok Ayukta (amendment) ordinance 2021.

-VD Satheesan, Chairman, UDF.

View original post here:
UDF leaders petition Governor on Lok Ayukta ordinance; read full text of their letter - Mathrubhumi English