Category Archives: Liberal

Forbes

The Liberal Redneck, Trae Crowder, Leaves Dixie for Hollywood Forbes Raised by his dad in rural Tennessee, Trae Crowder's town had no streetlights. Mostly surrounded by political conservatives and the politically apathetic, Trae was liberal early on. He was poor but smart, and his dad was emphatic about him going to ...

Read more:

The Liberal Redneck, Trae Crowder, Leaves Dixie for Hollywood - Forbes

Irecently noticed a bumper sticker: I dont believe in liberal media.

My first thought was, You fool. But, I then contemplated the situation and decided, you ignorant fool was the kinder response.

You see, friends and neighbors, there is no such thing as a monolithic liberal media. In fact, there are precious few liberal organizations anyway connected to the media.

My first real job at 18 was as a radio copywriter. But, I had been a radio fan for years. I was and still am an AM radio DXer. That means I spend way too much time trying to pick up obscure, staticky stations. Ive listened to a lot of radio in the past 53 years.

My calling in life was to be a journalist, and I had two fairly successful stints in the newspaper business separated by 17 years of being unwelcome for my liberal views. I have kept up with that industry for about 45 years.

Let me assure you: The notion of a liberal media is the concoction of rascals who resent scrutiny of their sketchy activities and who consider liberal a pejorative term instead of one indicating open-mindedness, fair play and offering neighbors a helping hand.

Or, those mean old media types, if not liberal (and theyre not), are mainstream as if theres something evil in having created a legacy of honest journalism that is older than the Twitterer-in-Chiefs latest rant or the lies generated from political caves or parents basements.

You would think that right-wing radio haters denouncing the liberal media would know better, being on the radio and all. Their very existence refutes their claims.

I cant be sure of the exact number now, but, when I did keep count, I could come up with fewer than a dozen truly liberal large daily newspapers in the country a few on the East Coast, usually with conservative counterparts publishing in their their cities; maybe three in the border states and Old South, maybe a fourth now; and Ill guess at a few on the West Coast though, judging by the political cartoons in The Oklahoman, that guess may be optimistic.

But, there are legions of conservative newspapers who believe that telling the public what is happening is a primary responsibility.

so, occasionally, you will see some yokel attack the Oklahoman one of the most conservative newspapers in the country for its liberalism.

Most newspapers, big and small, are directed not by political leanings, but by bean-counters. the MBAs who took over American business in the late seventies made making money the priority over making the product and orchestrated the death of american industry as a by-product.

Newspapers, too, fell victim to this fallacy. Newspapers arent trying to convert anyone. Theyre trying to meet profits that feed Bottom Line Fever.

Ah, but those liberal TV networks are unfair to our unfair man.

No, they, too, are just doing their jobs. When a U.S. president cites a last night incident in Sweden that did not happen, it is the job of the media left, right or center to point out the discrepancy.

Furthermore, the networks, too, are part of corporate, profit driven worlds, which is why NBC and ABC spend so much morning show time pushing parent company movies and CBS joins them in making whichever latest award show that their network is carrying the most important gathering of celebrities since the very similar one last week.

True, some of us might want to blame NBC for giving a blowhard bully a platform as an unreality show celebrity.

And, I guess you could tar ABC as a bunch of liberals since its parent company, Disney, has branched out in recent decades to furnish princesses and heroines from cultures around the world.

Sure, its a marketing ploy to increase their profits, but it also pushes that dangerous liberal notion of a brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity just as do the core teachings of most world religions.

It seems now that the brave Mr. Trump will protect his fragile ego by skipping the Whit House Correspondents Dinner. Talk about the bravery of bullies, who can dish it out, but not take it.

Mr. Trumps inability to laugh at himself would be laughable were he not president. But, it reveals an extreme lack of empathy, an inability to see the world from any viewpoint but his own.

Go here to see the original:

Column: The myth of the Liberal media - Duncan Banner

WASHINGTON The next big test of the activist energy within the Democratic Party will be the special election to replace Health & Human Services Secretary Tom Price in Georgias 6th Congressional District. Already, the leading Democratic candidate is receiving unprecedented grassroots support.

That candidate, 30-year-old former congressional staffer Jon Ossoff, has already raised more than $1 million from the liberal online website Daily Kos. Thats the most the 15-year-old online community has ever raised for a single candidate. So far, 59,000 donors connected to Daily Kos have donated to Ossoffs campaign.

We can scarcely describe how intense the Daily Kos communitys support for Jon Ossoff has been, Daily Kos political director David Nir said in an email. Its literally unprecedented. In the first week after we endorsed him, our members gave more to Ossoff than they gave to our previous record-holder over an entire cycle and that was Elizabeth Warren. Whats more, the pace hasnt slackened at all. Its only intensified, as Trumps perpetual outrage machine keeps fueling people to contribute more and more. And its only going to escalate as we get closer to the election.

Activists have poured into their local Democratic Party headquarters across the country looking for some way to direct their anger at President Donald Trumps policies and, for many of them, to act on the positive energy that came out of the nationwide womens marches attended by millions on Jan. 21. These activists have already helped push Democratic candidates in special elections in Delaware and Connecticut to perform far better than probably they would have in ordinary conditions.

Ossoff has also received just over $63,000in donations throughFlippable and $150,000 from small donors connected to the pro-campaign finance reform group End Citizens United. In addition, 3,500 Georgians have signed up to volunteer for Ossoffs campaign. To take advantage of this grassroots energy on the ground, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is deploying nine staffers to the Georgia Democratic Party to help with turnout.

The Georgia district appears on the surface like it would be a place for Democrats to avoid. It is rated as R+14, meaning it favors Republicans by 14 percentage points. Price had never won the district with less than 60 percent of the vote.

But the district swung heavily toward Democrats at the presidential level in 2016. Where Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama there by 21 percentage points, Trump narrowly bested Hillary Clinton by a 1-point margin, 48-47. That was one of the largest shifts toward Democrats in the 2016 election.

Clintons near win in the district was driven in large part by her success among college educated white voters appalled by Trump. The district, which encompasses parts of Atlanta and its suburbs, has significantly more college-educated voters than Georgia as a whole. It also has more Asian and Latino voters and fewer African-American voters.

One of the biggest emerging splits in public polling surveys on Trumps job performance has been on education. College educated voters and college educated white voters are significantly less supportive of Trump than those who have not graduated from college.

These demographics may help Democrats as they attempt to make the race a referendum on Trumps first three months in office.

Republicans are already putting big money into holding the seat. Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC connected to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), plans to spend $1.1 million attacking Ossoff a major investment for a district that hasnt gone to a Democrat since 1979. The super PACs first ad goes after Ossoff for dressing up as Han Solo for Halloween when he was in college.

The election is held on April 18. Ossoff is one of five Democrats running, along with 11 Republican candidates. If no candidate surpasses 50 percent on April 18, the top two finishers will head to a June 20 runoff.

See the original post:

Liberal Readers Just Raised $1 Million For The Democrat Looking To Replace Tom Price - Huffington Post

The budget is coming and the news is out that the focus will not be on job-threatening automation, but yet another innovation agenda. The downwardly mobile are unlikely to be thrilled. How many times have the feds laid out supposedly trailblazing innovation schemes the past four governments have tried them only to have them fade away?

They havent worked. The country has never been turned into a leading business or technological innovator. But Liberal strategists are undeterred. They will double down on innovation in this budget. Its to be innovation of a different kind, insiders say. Past measures, such as pouring funding into university science research, havent brought forward the anticipated trickle-down benefits.

Now the Grits are intent on getting into the business of cherry-picking. Theyll identify specific sectors and potential champions and target them for special support. One way will be by spending a large chunk of their procurement budget on them. The plan might be likened, so to speak, to an Own the Podium program for innovators instead of athletes. Economic growth will allegedly follow.

But what about the elephant in the room? The job-ravaging behemoth called automation. Dominic Barton, the head of Justin Trudeaus Advisory Council on Economic Growth, said recently that automation will eliminate no less than 40 per cent of existing Canadian jobs in the coming decade. Hes referring to such technologies as self-checkout counters, driverless cars, burger-flipping robots.

These are what Joe Populist cares about. More than any trade agreements, they are the job killers. But strangely the torrid pace of automation is hardly even being debated in Parliament or elsewhere. Theres a collective throwing up of the hands. Nothing can be done. Technological determinism is here to stay, earthlings. Deal with it.

Theres got to be more focus on automation and robotization, argues Frank Graves, co-author with Graham Lowe of Redesigning Work. There will be huge carnage and it is going to happen quickly. There are solutions but they will require bold action, not some bromides about innovation.

Bold action will not be forthcoming. Automation will be given short shrift in the budget. The word from insiders is that while the projected scary numbers of job losses have to be taken seriously, There isnt an appetite to hold back the tide of technology. There is no pickup, for example, on Microsoft founder Bill Gatess idea of taxing robots that do the work of humans and using the revenues for social needs. There is no enthusiasm for measures such as rewarding retailers who dont switch to self-checkout counters.

Such proposals are readily batted down by the argument that interfering with the advance of technology hinders progress by slowing down productivity. Countries that engage in such practices will become less competitive.

The counter-argument is that were moving into a new hyper-accelerated phase of automation. Just because it hasnt had a negative impact on jobs in the past doesnt mean it holds true for the future. Its a reason more governments are looking at economic nationalism to protect their workers. Its a reason why globalization appears to be winding down.

The Liberals point out that countries with the highest degree of automation still have the lowest unemployment rates. Mr. Barton and his group see no reason for proactive measures to slow it down. Their automation strategy is reactive. They will address it as a social problem that has a purchasable social solution. They are planning, for example, enhanced programs for people over 50 whose skills are ill-suited for the digital age.

Their plan to move away from trickle-down innovation agendas to a more targeted supporting of winners may well be worth a shot, especially if the winners dont win by reducing jobs.

But it wont, given the failures of past innovation schemes, be an easy sell. Joe Populist is more worried about having his job displaced by innovative technologies than seeing the country becoming more adept at creating new ones.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

Read the original here:

Where is the Liberal plan for tackling job-killing automation? - The Globe and Mail

CNN commentator and former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones was awestruck by the address that President Trump gave to a joint session of Congress, but he pin-pointed the moment he thought that Trump became the president.

He became president of the United States, in that moment. Period.

The moment Jones is referring to is the recognition that Trump gave to Carryn Owens, the widow of the Navy SEAL who was killed in the Yemen raid ordered by Trump weeks into his presidency.

There are a lot of people, who have a lot of reason to be frustrated with him, Trump continued, to be fearful of him, to be mad at him. But that is one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics. Period.

And he did something extraordinary. And for people who have been hoping that he would become unifying, hoping that he might find some way to become presidential, they should be happy with that moment.

For people who have been hoping that maybe he would remain a divisive cartoon, which he often finds a way to do, they should begin to become a little worried tonight. Because that thing you just saw him do if he finds a way to do that over and over again, hes gonna there for eight years.

Now there is a lot that he said in that speech that was counterfactual, Jones warned, that was not right that I oppose, and will oppose. But he did something tonight that you cannot take away from him he became president of the United States.

Other pundits noted the extraordinary nature of the moment as the entire chamber of Congress appeared to applaud in unison to show their appreciation for the great sacrifice made on behalf of the country by Carryn Owens and her husband.

The death of William Ryan Owens isthe subject of much controversy as critics have accusedthe administration ofexaggerating the success of the raid in order to undermine calls for investigations into the military action. Some, like Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, even went so far as to affirm that Trump was exploiting the death of Ryan Owens.

Even Owens father has publicly demanded that an investigation be opened to probe whether the raid was ordered for other than purely military motivations.

Read this article:

Liberal pundit Van Jones says Trump 'became the president' in his speech to Congress - TheBlaze.com

Its somehow fitting that Alan Colmes got his start in standup comedy, since he needed a strong sense of humorand equally strong debating skillsto spar with Sean Hannity and other conservatives at Fox News.

The unabashedly liberal commentator, who died this morning at 66 after a brief illness that has not been disclosed, gained national fame as one-half of the Hannity & Colmes show that launched when FNC did in 1996. But his roots were in radio, working for such powerhouse stations as WABC and WNBC in New York. Colmes remained a Fox News contributor and Fox radio host after the channel ended the prime-time partnership and made Hannity the solo host just before the start of the Obama administration.

Colmes faced a difficult challenge in his heyday as Foxs most prominent left-wing voice, doing battle not just with Hannity but with Bill OReilly and other hosts. His views were not popular with much of the Fox audience, but liberals sometimes criticized him for not being more forceful against Hannity.

The reason the duos chemistry worked, even as their clashes sometimes turned contentious, is that Colmes leavened his arguments with wit, often flashing a broad grin. I take some great pride in seeing how Ive aged you over the years, he told Hannity on air.

In a statement, Hannity said: Despite major political differences, we forged a deep friendship.Alan, in the midst of great sickness and illness, showed the single greatest amount of courage Ive ever seen. And through it all, he showed his incredible wit and humor that was Alans signature throughout his entire life. Im truly heartbroken at the loss of a dear friend.

Despite his uber-liberal image, Colmes once told USA Today:I'm quite moderate... I follow [Rush] Limbaugh on about 100 stations and I precede other conservatives, so I may be the only person giving a different point of view.

But there was no mistaking what side he was on, as was clear when he published his 2003 book Red, White & Liberal: How Left is Right and Right is Wrong.

When his 12-year run in Foxs prime-time lineup ended, Colmes said in a statement that he had approached management about taking on new challenges. Although its bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, Im proud that both Sean and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years, he said.

Colmes is survived by his wife Jocelyn Crowley, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. The family, which asked for privacy, said in a statement: He was a great guy, brilliant, hysterical, and moral. He was fiercely loyal, and the only thing he loved more than his work was his life with Jocelyn.

In an era of political polarization, perhaps his most enduring trait was that even those who fiercely disagreed with him found Alan Colmes likable.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Read the original here:

Remembering Alan Colmes, a liberal who could laugh

LONDON After the annus horribilis that was 2016, most political observers believe that the liberal world order is in serious trouble. But that is where the agreement ends. At the recent Munich Security Conference, debate on the subject among leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US Vice President Mike Pence, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demonstrated a lack of consensus even on what the liberal order is. That makes it hard to say what will happen to it.

When the West, and especially the United States, dominated the world, the liberal order was pretty much whatever they said it was. Other countries complained and expounded alternate approaches, but basically went along with the Western-defined rules.

But as global power has shifted from the West to the rest, the liberal world order has become an increasingly contested idea, with rising powers like Russia, China, and India increasingly challenging Western perspectives. And, indeed, Merkels criticism in Munich of Russia for invading Crimea and supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was met with Lavrovs assertions that the West ignored the sovereignty norm in international law by invading Iraq and recognizing Kosovos independence.

This is not to say that the liberal world order is an entirely obscure concept. The original iteration call it Liberal Order 1.0 arose from the ashes of World War II to uphold peace and support global prosperity. It was underpinned by institutions like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which later became the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, as well as regional security arrangements, such as NATO. It emphasized multilateralism, including through the United Nations, and promoted free trade.

But Liberal Order 1.0 had its limits namely, sovereign borders. Given the ongoing geopolitical struggle between the US and the Soviet Union, it could not even quite be called a world order. What countries did at home was basically their business, as long as it didnt affect the superpower rivalry.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a triumphant West expanded the concept of the liberal world order substantially. The result Liberal Order 2.0 penetrated countries borders to consider the rights of those who lived there.

Rather than upholding national sovereignty at all costs, the expanded order sought to pool sovereignty and to establish shared rules to which national governments must adhere. In many ways, Liberal Order 2.0 underpinned by institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as new norms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) sought to shape the world in the Wests image.

But, before too long, sovereignty-obsessed powers like Russia and China halted its implementation. Calamitous mistakes for which Western policymakers were responsible namely, the protracted war in Iraq and the global economic crisis cemented the reversal of Liberal Order 2.0.

But now the West itself is rejecting the order that it created, often using the very same logic of sovereignty that the rising powers used. And it is not just more recent additions like the ICC and R2P that are at risk. With the United Kingdom having rejected the European Union and US President Donald Trump condemning free-trade deals and the Paris climate agreement, the more fundamental Liberal Order 1.0 seems to be under threat.

Some claim that the West overreached in creating Liberal Order 2.0. But even Trumps America still needs Liberal Order 1.0 and the multilateralism that underpins it. Otherwise, it may face a new kind of globalization that combines the technologies of the future with the enmities of the past.

In such a scenario, military interventions will continue, but not in the postmodern form aimed at upholding order (exemplified by Western powers opposition to genocide in Kosovo and Sierra Leone). Instead, modern and pre-modern forms will prevail: support for government repression, like Russia has provided in Syria, or ethno-religious proxy wars, like those that Saudi Arabia and Iran have waged across the Middle East.

The Internet, migration, trade, and the enforcement of international law will be turned into weapons in new conflicts, rather than governed effectively by global rules. International conflict will be driven primarily by a domestic politics increasingly defined by status anxiety, distrust of institutions, and narrow-minded nationalism.

European countries are unsure how to respond to this new global disorder. Three potential coping strategies have emerged.

The first would require a country like Germany, which considers itself a responsible stakeholder and has some international heft, to take over as a main custodian of the liberal world order. In this scenario, Germany would work to uphold Liberal Order 1.0 globally and to preserve Liberal Order 2.0 within Europe.

A second strategy, exemplified today by Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, could be called profit maximization. Turkey isnt trying to overturn the existing order, but it doesnt feel responsible for its upkeep, either. Instead, Turkey seeks to extract as much as possible from Western-led institutions like the EU and NATO, while fostering mutually beneficial relationships with countries, such as Russia, Iran, and China, that often seek to undermine those institutions.

The third strategy is simple hypocrisy: Europe would talk like a responsible stakeholder, but act like a profit maximizer. This is the path British Prime Minister Theresa May took when she met with Trump in Washington, DC. She said all the right things about NATO, the EU, and free trade, but pleaded for a special deal with the US outside of those frameworks.

In the months ahead, many leaders will need to make a bet on whether the liberal order will survive and on whether they should invest resources in bringing about that outcome. The West collectively has the power to uphold Liberal Order 1.0. But if the Western powers cant agree on what they want from that order, or what their responsibilities are to maintain it, they are unlikely even to try.

More here:

What Liberal World Order? by Mark Leonard - Project Syndicate - Project Syndicate

DENVER We are only in the second month of Donald Trumps presidency, but many Americans have already tired of the drama, and are wondering what the next 46 months have in store.

Beyond producing constant anxiety, Trumps bizarre presidency poses a more fundamental question: Having already come under siege in many of its outposts around the world, is liberal democracy now at risk of losing its citadel, too? If so, the implications for US foreign policy, and the world, could be far-reaching.

The United States has elected a president whose understanding of American democracy is apparently limited to the fact that he won the Electoral College. To be sure, this does require some passing acquaintance with the US Constitution, where the Electoral College is defined. Beyond that, however, Trump seems to have little respect for the Constitutions system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. Nor does he respect Americas fourth estate, the press, which he has begun describing as the enemy of the American people.

Elections, while necessary, are hardly sufficient for upholding liberal democracys central tenets. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, and many other despots have come to power by winning a popular vote.

As any schoolchild should know, elections require all citizens to tolerate views that differ from their own. Elections are not meant to transcend or overturn democratic institutions or the separation of powers. Regardless of how the Trump administration ultimately performs, its first month of presidential decrees or, in American political parlance, executive orders can hardly be viewed as a triumph for liberal democracy.

Trump would do well to study the Constitution; and while he is at it, he should find time to read some of the republics other founding documents. He could start with the 1620 Mayflower Compact, which implicitly recognized the rights of political and social minorities in one of Americas earliest religious colonies.

But Trump is not the only American who should use this moment to reflect on his countrys history and its role in the world. Although the administrations America first sloganeering may sound frightening to some foreign ears, it might come as a relief to others.

Since the end of the Cold War, more than a quarter-century ago, the primary goal of American foreign policy has been to spread democracy around the world. But in pursuit of this lofty ambition, the US has sometimes overreached. Although Americas support for democracy would seem to put it on the side of the angels, its policies have often been implemented with a measure of arrogance, and even anger.

America has sometimes force-fed democracy to countries, or even delivered it at the tip of a bayonet. There are many reasons why liberal democracy seems to be in retreat around the world. But among them is surely the growing resentment of other countries and their leaders, who have tired of listening to American accusations, lectures, and admonitions.

Consider Iraq. Many Western observers were inspired by the sight of Iraqis ink-stained fingers after they had cast their ballots in that countrys first election. But while free elections are often a first step on the road to democracy, the aftermath was not so smooth in Iraq. Political identities became increasingly defined by sectarianism, rather than substantive issues; and it soon became clear that democratic institutions and the culture of tolerance on which they rely are not so easily introduced to societies that have not known them before.

Some years ago, I spoke to a Balkan leader who had just spent the day listening to an American philanthropist lecture him about all of his troubled young countrys democratic shortcomings. As he contemplated the political pain of following the philanthropists free advice, he asked me, What am I supposed to do with that? He had identified a fundamental shortfall in the movement to promote democracy: telling someone how to implement democratic reforms is not the same as taking on the risks and responsibilities of actually doing it.

Notwithstanding its currently toxic political scene, the US still has one of the most successful democracies in history. It provides a great model for others to emulate, but its example cannot be forced on the world. Telling people that their countries have to be like America is not a sound strategy.

Liberal democracy was already off balance before Trumps victory; now it has lost its center of gravity. The next four years could be remembered as a dark period for this precious form of government. But liberal democracy has outlasted its rivals in the past, and it will likely do so again. Those who have fought so hard and sacrificed so much for it will be ready to ensure that it does.

More here:

Liberal Democracy in Retreat? - Project Syndicate

R. Alexander Acosta, President Trump's nominee for secretary of labor, is racking up an impressive list of endorsements from liberal groups and appears to be drawing no serious opposition from the union movement, suggesting that the nominee will likely have an easy confirmation when the Senate gets around to him.

At least three major unions have endorsed Acosta's bid and most other groups that would lead the effort against a Republican appointee are holding their fire. That's a sharp change from their reaction to Trump's previous nominee for the position, fast-food businessman Andrew Puzder. He drew fierce opposition from Democrats and liberal groups, especially organized labor.

"He's been a public servant, he has a record of enforcing the laws that he's been put in charge of, whether it's the [National Labor Relations Board] or elsewhere. We think he deserves absolute serious consideration, yes," Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, said of Acosta in an interview Tuesday on Fox Business. An AFL-CIO spokesman clarified that Trumka was not endorsing Acosta.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., told the Washington Examiner, "It doesn't appear as if Acosta has the same level of conflicts of interests and other problems that Puzder did." She did not endorse Acosta but raised no possible problems with him.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

Acosta, who is currently dean of Florida International University law school, appears to be benefiting from interactions he has had with liberal groups from his past career in public service. He served as a member of the NLRB, the main federal labor law enforcement agency, from 2002 to 2003. He was also an assistant attorney general for civil rights during President George W. Bush's administration and was a U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida.

Wilma Liebman, who was appointed chairwoman of the NLRB by President Obama and whose time on the board overlapped with Acosta's, told Politico, "Even though we often came out differently on policy conclusions or the outcome of a case, he was a good colleague and he was always willing to talk and bounce around ideas. I would say he's very smart and he's an independent thinker."

Lafe Solomon, who served as acting general counsel for NLRB under President Barack Obama, told Bloomberg Businessweek Monday: "I found Alex to be very open-minded and fair ... He deserves to be secretary of labor."

Acosta has been endorsed by the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International Union of North America and the International Association of Fire Fighters. All praised his record of public service in the two previous presidential administrations and said they expected he would fairly apply the law as labor secretary.

Also from the Washington Examiner

"Administrative corrective measures" have been taken against the individuals based on their involvement.

02/28/17 8:20 PM

Original post:

Trump's new Labor secretary drawing liberal support - Washington Examiner

Daniel Kaluuya in Get Out. The villains here arent southern rednecks or neo-Nazi skinheads, or the so-called alt-right. Theyre middle-class white liberals. Photograph: Justin Lubin/Universal Pictures

The success of Jordan Peeles Get Out it took $30m in its first weekend in the US is remarkable for lots of reasons. This is a first-time film from a respected, but essentially cult comedian, with no real big-name stars and a premise that is anathema to most of middle America. Yet people came out to see it in their thousands and critics raved about a horror film, which just does not happen. The film has a A- rating from audiences on CinemaScore, which as some have pointed out is unheard of for a horror, and a rare 99% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Like Donald Glovers Atlanta, almost universal praise has followed the films debut and as with that series, Peele has dealt with race in America in a refreshing, funny and unflinching manner. The number of things Peele manages to reference is stunning: the taboo of mixed relationships, eugenics, the slave trade, black men dying first in horror films, suburban racism, police brutality.

Film-makers have used absurd horror to tackle race before, like in Timo Vuorensolas 2012 film Iron Sky, which placed the action on the dark side of the moon where the Nazis had been hiding out, plotting to forcibly make black people white. But in Get Out, Peele brought the action much closer to home. Some have dubbed the film an African-American nightmare movie; it isnt. This is an American horror story. (It comes after an impressive run of low-budget two-word-title horrors that place the action in middle America, and prod at issues bubbling just beneath the surface: Dont Breathe, It Follows and Youre Next.)

The villains here arent southern rednecks or neo-Nazi skinheads, or the so-called alt-right. Theyre middle-class white liberals. The kind of people who read this website. The kind of people who shop at Trader Joes, donate to the ACLU and would have voted for Obama a third time if they could. Good people. Nice people. Your parents, probably. The thing Get Out does so well and the thing that will rankle with some viewers is to show how, however unintentionally, these same people can make life so hard and uncomfortable for black people. It exposes a liberal ignorance and hubris that has been allowed to fester. Its an attitude, an arrogance which in the film leads to a horrific final solution, but in reality leads to a complacency that is just as dangerous.

There was always something that didnt quite ring true about Guess Whos Coming to Dinner a film many have compared to Get Out. It wasnt in Sidney Poitiers performance, which felt real: his anger, fear and frustration at having to battle his own familys disapproval of him marrying a white woman and her familys liberal hand-wringing was note-perfect. What didnt feel real was the mostly calm reactions of almost everyone involved. In Get Out, under that placid exterior lurks the dark subconscious, where the true horror lies.

In the screening I was at, the biggest reactions from the mainly black audience were the knowing laughs whenever Peele took on tropes people recognised from real life. There was the anxiety about meeting the family of a white partner, which proved to be well placed when Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) arrives at the Armitage residency and is immediately treated to a line of ham-fisted and loaded questioning. There was the cringe-inducing way the black serving staff are treated; the interactions with the police who, unlike in most horror films, arent last-minute saviors but potential fatal hurdles.

Horror tropes are inverted, subverted and turned on their head, none more so than the way Peele takes the idea of a white woman being in peril as soon as shes in an inner-city area and turns that into a black man being at his vulnerable in an affluent white neighborhood. The unique history plus the fascination, fetishization and fear of dark-skinned men on this continent gives Get Out even more punch. After seeing it, I started to think that it might not be a coincidence the film came out almost five years to the day since Trayvon Martin was killed.

Peele said The Stepford Wives, because of the way it dealt with social issues in regards to gender, was an inspiration for Get Out. I just thought, thats proof that you can pull off a movie about race, thats a thriller and entertaining and fun, he said. His debut has managed to do just that, and like The Daily Show a satirical news show which became must-watch social commentary Peele has placed real issues in an unlikely context, this time a horror film, and said something painfully true about them. Get Out will be one of this years biggest conversation starters. Just dont expect it to be comfortable.

Continue reading here:

Get Out: the film that dares to reveal the horror of liberal racism in America - The Guardian