Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

When you think of Richard Madeley, you probably also think of Alan Partridge.

The infamous socially inept and politically incorrect media personality - sorry, I'm talking about Partridge here - is known for his howling blunders.

Over the years, Madeley has drawn parallels with Steve Coogans bumbling, tone-deaf comedy character thanks to his hilarious off-key takes on the latest news stories.

The veteran host is a one-of-a-kind - and has built up a huge fan base for his unique way with words over the years.

He took over presenting on GMB from Piers Morgan - another man who bears a close resemblance to Partridge.

Previously Steve Coogan, who plays the bumbling personality on screen, admitted that he thought the pair were pretty similar.

"I suppose if you fused Richard Madeley with Piers Morgan you might get close to who Partridge is at the moment, he told Naga Munchetty on BBC Breakfast.

The ITV star seems okay with this branding, as he told one local paper: "I suppose I do have a bit of Partridge about me, but there's a bit of Partridge in every journalist on the planet."

Now as his name (once again) trends on Twitter thanks to his interview with Chloe Kelly, we've taken a deeper look into whether Madeley really is the real-life Alan Partridge. Back of the net!

Image:

He once scolded a guest for weeping when he met the paramedics who had saved his life, telling them: "Stop crying. This is supposed to make you happy."

He then added: "Anyway, after the break, the biggest dog in the UK. And he really is big. Don't miss it!"

Reflecting on a teacher remortgaging her home to save her dog's life, the 66-year-old asked viewers: "What price do you put on your pet's care? Is there a point where you just say, 'Too expensive, the dog has to die?"

While interviewing a group of Primordial Dwarves, he asked: "Do you find that people patronise you? That means they talk down to you."

The rise of 'Me Too' sparked a much-needed discussion about the inappropriate sexual conduct across countless industries.

Discussing the problem in Westminster, Richard said: "And that's one of the questions of the day. To touch or not to touch? When is it appropriate and when is it not? We'll be talking about that very soon."

Chatting to some 'freegans' who raids supermarket bins for food, he cheekily asked: "What's your supermarket skip of choice, then? I quite like shopping at Waitrose".

To one guest who had a stammer: "You looked as if your head was going to come off!

Quizzing one of the Birmingham Six, he asked: "What do you notice most that has changed during your 18 years in jail? Cars have five gears now, for example.

Image:

Richard married wife Judy in 1986 and the pair had two children: son Jack and daughter Chloe.

They ended up presenting This Morning on ITV together in 1988 - and along the way, Richard has been rather frank about their life.

He once told viewers: "When me and Judy were trying to conceive, I used to douse my balls in icy water before intercourse.

Another time, he mused: "Remember when you had thrush Judy? You had a terrible time of it."

When Judy once revealed she once dreamed of becoming a doctor, he shot her down, saying: "No, you would have ended up killing everybody."

And after she once confused a viewer's age, he laughed: "Ha ha, she failed maths. She did, she did!"

Image:

Famously, he once told Bill Clinton: I know what its like to be wronged by the press. I was once accused of shoplifting. Unlike you though, I knew I was innocent.

In 2007, former Dr Who Peter Davidson was interviewed by Richard, alongside his daughter, actress Georgia Moffett.

They aired a clip of her new show in which her character complains of her husband: "I just wish he had a bigger d***."

"Did Georgia wish you had a bigger d***?" Madeley then asked her dad - leaving people in stitches

While interviewing Keira Knightly, he yelled to his production team: Can we get some make-up please? Get Keira looking like a crack wh*re shed make a good crack wh*re!

Introducing Paul Gascoigne, he said: "He suffers for us. He bears our pain in the most public way possible. He serves a timeless human need, one that goes back long before the time of Christ. Perhaps this has always been Paul Gascoignes destiny.

Earlier this week, he called England player Chloe Kelly 'Coco' in an awkward interview on Tuesday morning (2 August).

The football star was appearing on Good Morning Britain two days after her extra-time goal saw the Lionesses win the Euro 2022 final.

Wrapping up the interview, Madeley called Kelly Coco and thanked her for coming on the show.

Chloe -or Coco as I call my daughter Chloe -thank you for coming in, the presenter said.

Image:

Appearing on ITV's Good Morning Britain in 2021, Corrie actor Nigel Havers remained professional when Richard Madeley asked: 'Do you ever get mistaken for the Duke of Westminster?', confirming he didn't.

Awkwardly he had referred to the wrong duke - Gerald Grosvenor, who died in 2016...

"You look at the beach and you think, ahh, pretty pretty, lovely golden sand, thats safe. Not in certain parts of the country quicksand!

Watch out this summer...

Image:

The presenter once complained he had to carry around salt to ensure his dishes are correctly seasoned.

He told viewers: I have salt in my bag. Increasingly in restaurants they wont give you salt because its bad for the heart. I carry a little vial of salt, because if youre in a restaurant, and you order the soup, say, and it comes and its under-salted, why would you sit there for the next 15 minutes sipping under-salted soup?

Chatting about the heavy topic of war crimes, he said: "Obviously, we had the Nuremberg trials after the war and we hanged quite a few Nazis and imprisoned a lot of others and we let them out eventually.

"But we didnt go after the Hitler Youth as far as Im aware. We didnt go after the Hitler Youth we only went after adults who served in the Hitler regime. And thats something to reflect on, I think.

Read More

Read More

View original post here:
Richard Madeley's cringiest gaffes as GMB host is coined the new Alan Partridge - The Mirror

Funnyman John Oliver recently offered a confused message on whats driving rent prices sky high. This week he moved onto inflation, and his analysis was much sounderthough he still made one critical mistake.

The British-American comedian and host of HBOs Last Week Tonight with John Oliver begins by noting everyone is pointing fingers over inflation. President Joe Biden blames Vladmir Putin. Republicans are blaming Joe Biden and his Build Back Better spending agenda. Democratic lawmakers Sheila Jackson Reid and Elizabeth Warren say its corporate greed, while other commentators have cited supply chain disruptions.

There has been a flurry of finger-pointing, Oliver says, with many tending to place the blame at whatever they were already mad at.

Some of these arguments make little sense, however, including corporate greed.

Its not like corporations only just got greedy the last two years, Oliver says, adding that some companies may be using the inflationary environment to charge higher prices. Most economists will tell you thats not what caused inflation in the first place.

He also debunked Bidens common refrain that inflation is Putins tax hike, though Oliver rightly noted the war in Ukraine has not helped inflation, since it has increased energy demand and disrupted supply.

When Biden said, Inflation is largely the fault of Putin, that is clearly not true, Oliver says. Inflation was happening before Putin even invaded Ukraine, so thats just not how time works.

Not only does Oliver reject these two misguided explanations, he largely gets the basics of inflation correct.

Too much money chasing a limited supply of goods can lead to inflation, he says.

This is an almost verbatim quote of Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who explained that inflation is caused by too much money chasing after too few goods. And Oliver notes that by expanding the money supply to finance massive stimulus spending, the government inadvertently created too much money without a corresponding increase in goods, causing inflation.

Importantly, Oliver says this wasnt the only cause of inflation, something some of Bidens critics have overlooked. (Government lockdowns, which crippled supply chains, also played a role, as did the war in Ukraine and government policies that hampered energy production.)

Olivers segment is funny and even informative in some ways. He goes off the rails though in a few ways.

First, as noted above, Oliver admits that people did have more cash on hand because of the Federal Reserves money pumping, but he argues that this policy was necessary because it helped us avoid a Covid-induced financial crisis.

The financial crisis was not induced by Covid, however. The financial crisis was induced by government, which closed the economy and put millions of Americans out of work.. This is an important distinction, and one Oliver probably overlooked in large part because he supported government lockdowns and ridiculed people who opposed them. Lockdowns failed to tame the virus, an abundance of evidence shows, but the action prompted the massive stimulus spending to avoid the Covid-induced financial crisis Oliver cites.

This was not the only way the lockdowns caused inflation, however. The governments pandemic response is also what caused the supply chain problems.

"If you don't make stuff, there's no stuff, Elon Musk noted early in the pandemic.

Throughout the segment, Oliver points out that these supply chain issues have also exacerbated inflation. While the monetary expansion resulted in more money, the supply chain issues resulted in fewer goods and servicesa perfect recipe for inflation.

But Oliver misses a simple fact: however you slice it, inflation was caused by the government, whether its the supply chain disruptions they caused with lockdowns or the erosion of the dollars purchasing power through money printing.

This matters, because Oliver seems to see the solution to inflation as more government. Throughout his segment, he defends the Federal ReserveIt was not like the Fed was alone in calling this wrong. Most economists thought inflation would go away on its ownand concluded his show by advocating more government intervention to alleviate the problem. (Taxpayer-funded rental insurance. Taxes on higher-income earners to finance refundable child tax credits.)

I want to like John Oliver. Hes funny, has a great accent, and is not an unintelligent person.

But in his highly-entertaining and pretty informative analysis on inflation, he somehow still manages to miss the true culprit of inflation. Governmentabove any other single entityis the root of our inflationary problems. Nor should this come as any surprise.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments, the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek once observed.

John Oliver is right that corporate greed and Putins tax hike are poor answers when it comes to explaining inflation. But he still cant seem to see that the government is the root of the inflation problem, not the answer to it.

See more here:
What John Oliver Gets Right (and Wrong) about Inflation - Foundation for Economic Education

Nine months after the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann died at the end of a noose in Israel, a controversial but thoughtful commentary about his trial appeared in The New Yorker. The public reaction stunned its author, the famed political theorist and Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt (1906-1975). It was February 1963.

Arendts eyewitness assessment of Eichmann as terribly and terrifyingly normal took the world by surprise. Her phrase, the banality of evil, entered the lexicon of social science, probably forever. It was taken for granted that Eichmann, despite his soft-spoken and avuncular demeanor, must be a monster of epic proportions to play such an important role in one of the greatest crimes of the 20th Century.

I was only following orders, he claimed in the colorless, matter-of-fact fashion of a typical bureaucrat. The world thought his performance a fiendishly deceptive show, but Hannah Arendt concluded that Eichmann was indeed a rather ordinary and unthinking functionary.

How callous! A betrayal of her own Jewish people! How could any thoughtful person dismiss Eichmann so cavalierly?! Arendts critics blasted her with such charges mercilessly, but they had missed the point. She did not condone or excuse Eichmanns complicity in the Holocaust. She witnessed the horrors of national socialism first-hand herself, having escaped Germany in 1933 after a short stint in a Gestapo jail for anti-state propaganda. She did not claim that Eichmann was innocent, only that the crimes for which he was guilty did not require a monster to commit them.

How often have you noticed people behaving in anti-social ways because of a hope to blend in, a desire to avoid isolation as a recalcitrant, nonconforming individual? Did you ever see someone doing harm because everybody else was doing it? The fact that we all have observed such things, and that any one of the culprits might easily, under the right circumstances, have become an Adolf Eichmann, is a chilling realization.

As Arendt explained, Going along with the rest and wanting to say we were quite enough to make the greatest of all crimes possible.

Eichmann was a shallow and clueless joiner, someone whose thoughts never ventured any deeper than how to become a cog in the great, historic Nazi machine. In a sense, he was a tool of Evil more than evil himself.

Commenting on Arendts banality of evil thesis, philosopher Thomas White writes, Eichmann reminds us of the protagonist in Albert Camuss novelThe Stranger(1942), who randomly and casually kills a man, but then afterwards feels no remorse. There was no particular intention or obvious evil motive: the deed just happened.

Perhaps Hannah Arendt underestimated Eichmann. He did, after all, attempt to conceal evidence and cover his tracks long before the Israelis nabbed him in Argentina in 1960facts which suggest he did indeed comprehend the gravity of his offenses. It is undeniable, however, that ordinary people are capable of horrific crimes when possessed with power or a desire to obtain it, especially if it helps them fit in with the gang that already wields it.

The big lesson of her thesis, I think, is this: If Evil comes calling, do not expect it to be stupid enough to advertise itself as such. Its far more likely that it will look like your favorite uncle or your sweet grandmother. It just might cloak itself in grandiloquent platitudes like equality, social justice, and the common good. It could even be a prominent member of Parliament or Congress.

Maximilien Robespierre and Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, I suggested in a recent essay, were peas in the same pod as Eichmannordinary people who committed extraordinarily heinous acts.

Hannah Arendt is recognized as one of the leading political thinkers of the Twentieth Century. She was very prolific, and her books are good sellers still, nearly half a century after her death. She remains eminently quotable as well, authoring such pithy lines as Political questions are far too serious to be left to the politicians, The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution, and The sad truth of the matter is that most evil is done by people who never made up their minds to be or do either evil or good.

Some of Arendts friends on the Left swallowed the myth that Hitler and Stalin occupied opposite ends of the political spectrum. She knew better. Both were evil collectivists and enemies of the individual (see list of suggested readings below). Hitler never intended to defend the West against Bolshevism, she wrote in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism, but always remained ready to join the Reds for the destruction of the West, even in the middle of the struggle against Soviet Russia.

To appreciate Hannah Arendt more fully, I offer here a few additional samples of her writings:

The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one liea lie which you could go on for the rest of your daysbut you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows.And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.

_____

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convincedNazior the convincedCommunist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.

_____

The essence oftotalitarian government, and perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy,is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanize them.

_____

The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together, for it impliedas had been said at Nuremberg over and over again by the defendants and their counselsthat this new type of criminal, who is in actual facthostis generis humani,commits his crimes under circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel that he is doing wrong.

_____

Totalitarianism begins in contempt for what you have. The second step is the notion: Things must changeno matter how. Anything is better than what we have. Totalitarian rulers organize this kind of mass sentiment, and by organizing it they articulate it, and by articulating it they make the people somehow love it.They were told before, thou shalt not kill; and they didnt kill. Now they are told, thou shalt kill; andalthough they think its very difficult to kill, they do it because its now part of the code of behavior.

_____

The argument that we cannot judge if we were not present and involved ourselves seems to convince everyone everywhere, although it seems obvious that if it were true, neither the administration of justice nor the writing of history would ever be possible.

Hannah Arendt (movie trailer)

Why Read Hannah Arendt Now? by Richard J. Bernstein

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt

What Did Hannah Arendt Really Mean by the Banality of Evil? by Thomas White

Two Monsters of the French Revolution Who Were Consumed by PowerAnd Lost Their Heads on the Same Day by Lawrence W. Reed

What the Nazis Had in Common With Every Other Collectivist Regime of the 20th Century by Lawrence W. Reed

Excerpt from:
Hannah Arendts Chilling Thesis on Evil - Foundation for Economic Education

[Editors note: This is a version of an article published in the Out of Frame Newsletter, an email newsletter about the intersection of art, culture, and ideas. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.]

Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government has imposed harsh censorship on its citizens to restrict negative discussions of the war.

Several independent news outlets in Russia have shut down, or have censored coverage of the war. Government censorship affected foreign reporters too: In March, Russia blocked access to the BBC, the Voice of America, and other Western outlets. The BBC halted operations in Russia to avoid arrest.

Last month, a court in Kaliningrad ruled that news outlets were guilty of a criminal offense for publishing a list of Russian military casualties because it was "classified information."

According to The New York Times, Russia's war censorship laws passed in March "could make it a crime to simply call the war a 'war' the Kremlin says it is a 'special military operation' on social media or in a news article or broadcast."

Besides banning criticism of the war, the legislation also makes "calling on other countries to impose sanctions on Russia or protesting Russias invasion of Ukraine punishable by fines and years of imprisonment."

The Russian government arrested thousands in mass demonstrations when the war began, and Russians continue to be detained for protesting the conflict.

Earlier this month, a local politician in Moscow, Alexei Gorinov, was sentenced to seven years in prison for speaking against the war in a city council meeting. The BBC reported:

Judge Olesya Mendeleyeva ruled he had carried out his crime "based on political hatred" and had misled Russians, prompting them to "feel anxiety and fear" about the military campaign.

Attacks on the press and dissidents in Russia are not new. But the country had a "mostly uncensored" Internet according to the New York Timesthat was, until Moscow blocked Facebook and Instagram.

These abuses of power should show us the dangers of giving the government the authority to restrict freedom of speech. But the Kremlin's stated justification for the censorship should also serve as a more specific warning.

The main laws under which Russia's censorship is taking place, Law 31-FZ and 32-FZ, prohibit "public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" and "discrediting" the use of the Russian military.

That is the official language in the law. And although no liberal democracies currently engage in campaigns of naked state censorship like Russia's, the idea of banning "knowingly false information" is familiar to citizens of the West.

But what the situation in Russia should teach us is that the definition of "false" always lies with the censors. It may sound good to want to ban misinformation, or any other kind of "bad" speech, but deciding what fits these ambiguous categories will give the censors great opportunity for abuse.

In the words of economist Milton Friedman: "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

Visit link:
What the War in Ukraine Can Teach Us about the Dangers of Censorship | Matt Hampton - Foundation for Economic Education

"Would you say South Park is still good?" asked u/SoulOfaLiar at the r/southpark subreddit. It seems to be an honest question, given that in the same post, the author confessed to having never watched the show and was more curious about what fans of the longtime series had to say. In response, most commenters wrote that, while it has ups and downs like any other television program, "South Park" is still a strong show that is consistently funny. "Things have changed over the years but its still incredible," wrote u/Calbreezy9.

There were some users such as u/nm499x who were slightly critical, writing that "South Park" is still good even if it "definitely [isn't] as popular and funny as it used to be."However, plentyof other comments were similarly succinct and supportive of the series' recent seasons.

This is quite different from what some critics now have to say about the show. The premiere of Season 25 earned a conflicted, somewhat lukewarm review from The Guardian's Charles Bramesco, who seems to think that the subversive edginess is wearing thin. "With Parker and Stone now entering their 50s, the greatest challenge facing them is their own success," wrote Bramesco.

Perhaps, then, fans of "South Park" see virtue in the show because, for all its faults, at least its writers are still trying. Other comments contrasted Stone and Parker's willingness to keep pushing the envelope with the apparent complacency of its animated contemporaries. "IMO I think the show is more focused on making quality content, unlike the Simpsons, family guy and American dad,"wrote u/Galil_Alexandro.

Link:
Longtime Fans Keep Saying The Same Thing About Modern South Park - Looper

Dear Reader (including some of my snowflakier colleagues who are triggered by self-indulgent wordplay),

Im having a minor crisis. I have an indefensible fondness for double entendre, and this causes dismay among some of my Dispatch colleagues. As Anthony Weiner no doubt said to Huma in a very different context, Im not proud of it and I try to keep it in check, but sometimes I just cant help myself; its like it has a mind of its own. On some occasions, however, its as if the news is trying to entrap me. When I was just starting out as a blogger, the House of Representatives launched an investigation into Chinese espionage in the United States. It was a bipartisan effort, spearheaded by Reps. Christopher Cox (R-California) and Norm Dicks (D-Washington). I still giggle about the Cox-Dicks probe, but I will refrain from going deep into all that. When Rep. Dick Swett was in office, I would often yell at my muse, Not today, Satan. When George W. Bush promised to take out Mullah Omar, I couldnt stop making jokes about punishing or pounding the one-eyed cleric.

But not since the Toobin Missile Crisis of 2020 have I been so sorely tempted by irresponsible, sophomoric wordplay. Sen. Josh Hawley has a book coming out titled Manhood. I would love to see the internal discussions at Regnery about how to market Josh Hawleys Manhood. How many times did the editors say, Lets keep it short, or, Hawleys Manhood is running implausibly long. When his Manhood goes on sale, eager customers will go to the store to grab Hawleys Manhood at full price, others will wait until it ends up at Costco where his Manhood will be available for cheap, and others will simply say that Hawleys Manhood is cheap at any price and always for sale.

Critical reviewers will suffer from a literary version of Peyronie's disease and bend whole paragraphs toward declaring the prose in Josh Hawleys Manhood limp and his reasoning less than rigid and hard to grasp. Favorable reviewers will strain to avoid calling the insights of Josh Hawleys Manhood seminal. His comms people will gird their loins for his Manhoods first sales reports. Will Hawleys Manhood have a soft debut? If so, they will hold out hope that demand will eventually swell. If Hawleys Manhood rises to the occasion and stores sell out of his Manhood, eager buyers will go out to search in vain for Hawleys Manhood.

Man, what a mess.

Okay, Im done. Frankly, Ill be happy if I never have to think about Josh Hawleys Manhood ever again. But I do think a few things need to be said on the broader topic of manliness. Thomas Klingenstein, the chairman of the Claremont Institute, recently delivered a speech in which he extolled Donald Trumps manly virtues (this appears to be the prepared text of his speech). Unlike the above two paragraphs, Klingenstein wasnt trying to be funny, but in his sincere earnestness he succeeded far more than I did. I often joke that Trumps biggest fans often sound like Stalins sycophants: Under Comrade Trump, wheat production has exceeded all expectations, etc. Klingenstein offers a pristine example of such political and psychological lickspittery.

I regularly ask Republican politicians what they think of Donald Trump, Klingenstein says. The most frequent response is some version of, I like his policies but dont like the rest of him. But this formulation gets it almost backwards. Although Trump advanced many important policies, it is the rest of him that contains the virtues that inspired a movement.

Trump is a manly man, Klingenstein insists. He is also a man of action, guided by facts and common sense who is Culturally fueled by Big Macs. This most towering political figure in living memory understands Americas needs at a granular and metaphysical level lost on lesser men.

If you think Im being unfairly selective in my quotes or my summary, by all means check it out for yourself.

Now, when I hear man of action, my mind goes to Nietzsche, Mussolini, and all of the acolytes of the cult of action who waged intellectual and physical war on the rule of law, virtue rightly understood, and democracy. As Mussolini put it, Democracy is talking itself to death. The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them. There is too much foolishness, too much lost motion. I have stopped the talk and the nonsense. I am a man of action. Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that someday.

But plenty of people use the phrase man of action without intending any such connotation. Ill give Klingenstein the benefit of the doubt and assume hes ignorant of all that stuff. Thats not exactly a compliment for a guy at the tiller of the USS Claremont. Under the header Who We Are, the Claremont Institute says:

We are a think tank that teaches, writes, and litigates. Since our founding in 1979, our strategy has been to teach the principles of the American Founding to the future thinkers and statesmen of America. Those principles include the foundational doctrines of natural rights and natural law found in the Declaration of Independence; the ingenious political science of the Constitution; and the popular constitutionalism or reverence necessary for the maintenance of free government.

With that in mind, consider that Claremonts chairman of the board lionizes the guy who promised to protect Article 12 of the Constitution because he has no use for theories.

Still, giving Klingenstein the benefit of the doubt that hes not cribbing Mussolinis liner notes is a hernia-inducing heavy lift, because his real point is to fetishize Trumps manliness, and such macho He-Man crap was also very much Il Duces bag, baby.

Let us also note my generosity in not dwelling on the hilariously fact-free claim that Trump is guided by facts. After all, were talking about a man who left figurative skid marks on the White House and whose fans literally smeared feces on the halls of Congress in service to a refusal to accept the fact he lost the election. Both his own attorney general and campaign manager presented him with that fact, but Trump let his feelings be his guide.

Ive always thought it was profoundly ironic that Donald Trump launched a social media company called Truth. He spends his days posting truths instead of tweets because his lies got him kicked off Twitter. What better name for the post-truth era than a platform called Truth filled with posts of manufactured facts. Post your truths like offerings on the altar of the post-truth era, everybody! But if you offer inconvenient facts, you will be banned. Thats poetry, man.

Defining manliness down.

But lets get back to manliness. I think Kevin Williamson nailed the bizarre idea that Trump is manly on Klingensteins own terms. A man who cakes himself in makeup every morning and insecurely obsesses over his hairline does not fit even a crude version of manliness.

The problem with Kevins take is not that it is wrongagain, I think he got it just rightbut that it leaves out the more pernicious effort underway. Most of Klingensteins examples of Trumps manliness are actually examples of Trumps asininity. He said Maxine Waters is dumb! He called Haiti a shithole! Clear some space on Mount Rushmore!

These were not racist lies but uncouth, politically incorrect observations that most people would agree with but not dare say, Klingenstein gushes. Now, its worth noting Trump didnt say Haiti was a shithole in public. He said it in private, and then, wilting under criticism, he denied he said it. So much for the idea that Trump is a manly truth teller.

Regardless, this is rhetorical sleight of hand. I have no problem with combating political correctness, or even what Klingenstein eye-rollingly calls woke communism. But lots and lots of politicians do that. What Klingenstein fawns over is the rudeness, not the truth telling.

Take a step back and youll see that what Klingenstein and his fellow schoolboy Trump followers like is simply anti-intellectual bullying and crudity. Dolling up this deformed definition of masculinity in the language of virtueconservative virtue!is a grotesque betrayal of both virtue and conservatism. The politicians who fit this thin-skinned, insecure, ugly theory of manliness are poltroons like Rep. Matt Gaetz, who recently dazzled college kids with this brilliance: Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.

No doubt thats true when Gaetz pays a premium for hookers who dont look like thumbs.

Even if Gaetzs only ugly girls want abortions theory were true (obviously, its not), truth would not be a powerful defense of such jackassery. Similarly, reasonable people can argue that Maxine Waters isnt too sharp or that Haiti is a mess, but the question for an institute dedicated to statesmanship is, What is gained by such public grotesquerie? Does Gaetz bring more people to the pro-life cause than he repels?

Klingenstein looks at a serial adulterer who bedded a porn star when his third wife was still recovering from childbirth. He gazes upon a father who reportedly didnt want to give his name to his firstborn son because, after all, What if he's a loser? He sees a businessman who was a legend for cheating his partners and contractors and a politician who threw this country into turmoil to protect his ego, and proclaims, What a man!

Again, he says the best part of Trump, the stuff that makes him indispensable, isnt his policies but the rest of him. And he declares the rest of him manly and virtuous.

The instrumental argument is gone. The transactional case has vanished. Now the order of the day is to celebrate this man in full! Ecce homo! shouts Klingenstein, but without the derision.

The transvaluation of virtue.

For years, Ive argued that character is destiny when it comes to Trump, and I believe Ive been proven inarguably correct, especially in the wake of January 6. What I didnt fully appreciate is how so many people would end up agreeing with me by embracing the belief that Trumps character should be our destiny.

Even by the most generous accounting of the various Christian virtuesboth heavenly and capitalTrump qualifies for exactly none of them. The only possible exception is temperance, but that only works with the secular definition of avoiding alcohol. The classical understanding of temperance defines it as resisting luxury, arrogance, and rage, so cross that one off the list too. This shouldnt surprise anybody who has paid attention to the man who said his favorite Bible verse is probably an eye for an eye.

I wasnt trying to score cheap points by invoking Nietzsche. The embarrassing, nihilistic crushing on this Big-Mac-powered man of action and the elevation of crudity and cruelty to defining features of manhood is redolent with Ubermenschy projection and fantasy. The new testosterone toadies tell usby word and deedthat real men are unconstrained by virtue and call that virtuous. The creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred No even to dutyfor that, my brothers, the lion is needed, proclaimed Nietzsche. And Trump is the lion for his chestfeeders.

I agree with those who complain that we have a masculinity crisis in this country. The problem is that the people shouting the loudest about it subscribe to a definition of manliness I find repugnant because it deliberately erases manliness properly understood. Manliness isnt supposed to be about testicle tanning-I cant wait for the chapter of Josh Hawleys Manhood on thatits supposed to be about the courage to do right when all the incentives are to do wrong. Re-read Kiplings poem If- and youll see theres nothing in there about owning the libs.

This new manliness celebrates the will to power, personal gratification, and the rejection of virtues in service of self-assertion and the conquest of others. We need strong men, Klingenstein insists without a trace of irony.

No! We need good men.

Good men are strong, but what makes them strong is their goodness. The Ubermensch rejects the constraints of virtue (and of history, theory, doctrine, etc.) in favor of a self-made, self-serving morality in this world, for there is no world to come as a reward. You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, the only way, it does not exist, spoke Nietzsches Zarathustra.

The man of action is freed from the old virtues because he is free from the past. Forgetfulness is a property of all action, Nietzsche wrote. The man of action is also without knowledge: he forgets most things in order to do one, he is unjust to what is behind him, and only recognizes one lawthe law of that which is to be.

While I have much reverence for the Christian virtues, Im more oriented toward a different traditions opposition to Ubermensch morality: the Jewish concept of the mensch. Leo Rosten defined a mensch as someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character. The key to being 'a real mensch' is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous. I dont pretend to live up to that now or in the past, but I do proudly confess to trying more and more (the opening paragraphs of this newsletter notwithstanding).

As I try to live up to that ideal, its quite obvious, to me at least, that the last thing I should do is take advice from any of these throne sniffers and gonad bronzers, no matter how much power they derive from eating Big Macs.

Various & Sundry

Canine update: We had a bit of a scare this week. For a while now Ive noticed that Zo is a bit clumsier than she used to be, but it didnt seem like a big deal. Then the other day Zo started behaving really weird. She was scared to go down stairs, and when she did descend them she did it very carefully, as if they were covered in ice. Then she lost her appetite. And on the midday walk Tuesday, Kirsten reported that she (I mean Zo) was lethargic and panting very heavily even though it wasnt that hot. So I took Zo to the vet for an emergency visit.

I waited three hours to see a vet (though they did take her vitals immediately). When she finally had to go in, I had to slide her along the floor like a sack of potatoes because she went into total Rosa Barks civil disobedience mode. The vet couldnt find anything wrong (were still waiting on the bloodwork results, though). Maybe she just ate something weird, because shes much better now. Yesterday, Kirsten asked how Zo was doing and I said, Oh, shes fine except I havent heard her aroo for like a week. Zo then proceeded to loudly aroo at me to prove me wrong. It was very funny. The only strange thing now is shes extremely attached to me. We all know the dogs love the Fair Jessica more and Ive made peace with that. But now she follows me around the house and wont leave my side. It can be nice, but its also disturbing. Other than that, everything is fine. Next week, were going to Maine for a while and were taking the animals with us. Ill still be filing, but the canine content should improve markedly.

ICYMI

Last Fridays G-File

Last weekends Ruminant

The Remnant with Klon Kitchen

This weeks Dispatch Live

Are Republicans moving on from Trump?

Wednesdays newsletter

The Remnant with David Bahnsen

The Dispatch Podcast on the contracting economy

And now, the weird stuff

Modern problems

Foul incentives

I want to believe

Short fused

Checkmate

Aloha

Read more from the original source:
The Descent of Men - by Jonah Goldberg - The G-File - The Dispatch

Someone once said that politics is just showbiz for ugly people. By the same token, Im starting to think that, for those obsessed by such matters, politics occupies the place that sport does in other peoples minds.

his could be why, as a parliamentary session or football season comes to an end, both types need something to fill the empty hours until the next one resumes, and thats the role currently being filled by the Tory leadership election in the UK.

BBC One, Monday, 9pm

Our Next Prime Minister and what a defensively proprietorial our that is was supposed to be about weighty issues such as the cost of living crisis, taxation, Brexit, Ukraine. But really it was just a fix for news addicts who cant bear to be without some political punditry for the next few weeks.

It wasnt a very exciting debate, in truth. The two remaining candidates, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, waffled as only trained wafflers can, while presenter Sophie Raworth wore an outfit in deep red, the colour of the Labour Party. Whether this had further significance, who can say?

BBC Two, Monday, 6pm

On the other side there was some real sport as the England womens cricket team took on South Africa in the third of three T20 matches.

Cricket has a reputation for being boring, but actually, with a good run chase in the offing, it can be quite exciting. Not this time, though. With six balls left, South Africa needed 48 runs. Even a novice like me knew that wasnt going to happen.

Even here, though, politics is inescapable. When Englands fast bowler Issy Wong took a wicket with only her fourth delivery of the match, it was observed that no woman has ever bowled faster than 80mph. Wong hopes to be the first. Some men, on the other hand, can bowl over 100mph.

It led to a brief discussion about the physiological disadvantage that women have when compared to men.

No one said explicitly this is why womens sports need shielding from men identifying as women, but the implication was certainly there. Politics and sport go together like, well, horse racing and gambling.

RT2, Monday-Thursday, 5pm

Video of the Day

Thats a very clumsy link to The Galway Races, back at Ballybrit with full capacity crowds for the first time since before Covid.

A happy occasion, surely?

Watching the daily coverage, however, I couldnt help wondering why betting companies are still allowed to sponsor sporting events when other businesses whose profits rely on life-ruining addiction, such as alcohol and tobacco firms, have been shown the door? Slapping on the slogan gamble responsibly doesnt change the nature of the industry.

I also wondered why riders are still allowed to whip horses in this day and age? From this year, the whip has been banned in Sweden. Other countries are bound to follow. Why not take a lead? If no one uses the whip, the best horses and riders will still win. True, I may not be the target audience, but it ruins the fun for me.

It didnt help when Tuesdays programme opened with all four of that days presenters standing there with giant heads on them depicting the members of U2. They had their reasons. Alas, their reasons werent good enough.

RTE2, Tuesday, 7.30pm

The final race over, it was time for the womens Euros semi-final between England and Sweden.

I cannot in good conscience demand more womens sport on TV since I dont generally watch any of it, male or female. Those who do watch sport must be the final arbiters of what gets shown.

But it is reassuring to see broadcasters getting enthusiastically behind tournaments which have not always been taken seriously.

Commentator George Hamilton began proceedings by announcing: There are three matches to go, and this is the first of them. Well, it would be, wouldnt it? If it was the second, thered only be two left.

Over on the BBC, there was rather more highfalutin talk of the hopes of a nation resting on the result. By the time England were 4-0 up, we were being told it was Roy of the Rovers Stuff and there was mention of ghosts being laid to rest. I thought it was only on The Fast Show that football pundits peddled such cliches.

It was a good match. At least, I think it was. How would I know?

In all honesty, I probably wont be watching Sundays final. But these hours of live sport do seem to make others blissfully happy. I dont begrudge them their escapist pleasures one bit.

Channel 4, Wednesday, 10pm

The first series of The Great went out on Sundays. The second series, which started this week, has moved to a Wednesday.

I have no clue whether this represents a promotion or demotion, but it would be a shame if it was the latter, because this comedy-drama about the rivalry for the throne of Russia between the future Catherine the Great (Elle Fanning) and her cruel, mad husband Peter III (Nicholas Hoult) is just ridiculously entertaining.

Recently there has been much chatter about how TV plays fast and loose with historical veracity think Netflixs Persuasion but The Great doesnt care about any of that.

The fact it doesnt pretend to be anything other than a foul-mouthed, violent, bleak, cynical, politically incorrect romp is what makes it work so well.

The first episode ended, typically, with Peter giving his wife a gift of her lovers severed head.

Its a testament to The Greats ability to mix up genres that the goriest moments remain genuinely shocking amid all the bawdy Carry On style slapstick.

Original post:
Television reviews: Summer of sport gives way to a Russian winter of giddy discontent in The Great - Independent.ie

On this Face the Nation broadcast moderated by John Dickerson:

Clickhereto browse full transcripts of Face the Nation.

JOHN DICKERSON: Im John Dickerson in Washington.

And this week on Face the Nation: With 100 days to go ahead of the midterm elections, Democrats revive a tax and spending package and hope voters will reward them if it passes.

Last week saw a surprise development in the protracted Build Back Better saga. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who seemed opposed to a sweeping package, reversed course and joined his fellow Democrats to support an economic bill including hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases for some corporations and the wealthy aimed at fighting inflation, cutting health care costs, and combating climate change.

We will talk with him and get the GOP perspective on the bill from Pennsylvania Republican Senator Pat Toomey.

All this as we had more dreary economic news. The Fed raised interest rates again, and the economy shrank for the second straight quarter. Inflation is at a 40-year high. But the job market remains strong and gas prices have dropped.

The presidents take?

(Begin VT)

JOE BIDEN (President of the United States): That doesnt sound like a recession to me. Thank you very much.

(End VT)

JOHN DICKERSON: We will see what Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neel Kashkari has to say.

Finally, the Face the Nation political panel and the CBS News Battleground Tracker poll are back. We will have an estimate on where the race for control of the House stands, plus political analysis.

Its all just ahead on Face the Nation.

Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. Margaret is off this week.

We have got a lot to get to today.

And we begin with the news that President Biden is experiencing a rebound case of COVID, most likely due to his taking the drug Paxlovid. He has returned to isolation, but took to Twitter yesterday.

(Begin VT)

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Hey, folks, Joe Biden here.

Tested positive this morning. Going to be working from home for the next couple of days. And Im feeling fine. Everything is good.

(End VT)

JOHN DICKERSON: Although the president said that the rebound cases do happen with a small minority of folks, the actual number is difficult to track, and estimates vary on just how many Paxlovid users are affected.

Another Democrat who is recovering from COVID is West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. Hes been negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Inflation Reduction Act. And the final agreement was made in a Zoom call.

Democrats say the bill would reduce the deficit by $300 billion. Revenue would come from a minimum corporate tax rate, expanded IRS tax enforcement, and by tightening the so-called carried interest loophole that benefits some investment managers.

The bill would also make the largest investment in fighting climate change in U.S. history. Nearly $370 billion will go to new tax credits for renewable forms of electricity, electric vehicles and grants to automakers to increase efficiency.

On health care, the bill would keep the Affordable Care Acts premiums from increasing and cap out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for Medicare recipients at $2,000 per year. Medicare will also be able to directly negotiate prices with drug companies, reducing costs.

We go now to West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin.

Senator, welcome. I hope youre feeling better from the COVID.

Let me start with a with a

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN (D-West Virginia): I have, John. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me start with something you said back in 2010 in a debate when you were running for Senate. Heres what you said.

(Begin VT)

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: I dont think, during the time of recession, you mess with any of the taxes or increase any taxes.

(End VT)

JOHN DICKERSON: So thats become the your Republican colleagues favorite quote to roll out now that youve made this agreement with Chuck Schumer that has a tax piece to it.

Why did you change your mind?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: John, I didnt change my mind. I have never changed at all. This is fighting inflation.

This is all about the absolute horrible position that people are in now because of the inflation costs, whether it be gasoline, whether it be food pricing, whether it be energy pricing. And its around energy mostly thats driving this high inflation.

This is going to do take care of that, because this is aggressively producing more energy to get more supply to get the prices down. Thats what were doing. But we didnt raise taxes, John. The taxes were the corporate tax in America in 2017, before the Republican tax cut, was 35 percent.

They cut it to 21 percent, 14 percent reduction. All the people that I know are paying 21 percent or more. All the even larger corporations, but some of the largest corporations of a billion dollars of value or more dont even want to pay the minimum of 15 percent.

JOHN DICKERSON: So, this is an issue of fairness?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: All were doing is changing is basically closing- this is a fairness in closing a loophole.

JOHN DICKERSON: Yes.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: So, Im not raising any taxes. I never thought that people werent paying at least 21.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: And I dont know why. I mean, we went yes, go ahead. Im sorry.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you, though, on the raising OK, so I understand what youre saying about closing loopholes.

But the Republican criticism, which attaches to what you said in 2010, is, when you increase taxes by closing loopholes, you hurt supply, and during inflation, you want a lot of supply. And so even though this might not be a tax increase relative to previous rates, the taxes for certain companies will go up, which will make them produce more, so the theory goes, and that will hurt inflation.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Let me just say this, John.

In the last two years, there have been massive record profits across the board by these largest corporations, massive record profits. And its been the lowest capital expenditure in the last two years, so that didnt drive it.

What theyve all told me was, we want security. We want to have some type of pathway forward in permitting and regulations. Theyre strangling us.

And this is what were doing. Were streamlining the regulations that people have to live with in, basically accelerating how we get things to market, how quick we can produce things, how quick we can basically produce more energy, and how we can develop more technology, and using that for our benefit.

Were talking about also batteries for electric cars. If you want to get a discount on an electric car by buying an E.V., the battery better be made in America, it better be sourced in North America, it better be processed.

JOHN DICKERSON: Your Republican colleagues think you and Chuck Schumer did something underhanded by, essentially, it looked like there wasnt going to be anything big passed, and then and then you changed course, worked out something with Schumer.

Senator Cornyn, the Republican from Texas, said that that unveiling this agreement between you and Senator Schumer was a declaration of political warfare.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Its such a shame. John Cornyn is a good friend of mine. Hes such a good man.

And for the politics to be so toxic right now, first of all, I never thought this would come to fruition. I never spoke with anybody about it, any of my colleagues, because they were frustrated that nothing happened for so long on the other. I never could get the Build Back Better, which was a $3.5 trillion spending bill.

This is a $400 billion investment bill. And everything my Republicans talked about, reducing the amount of debt that we have, were paying down $300 billion, first time in 25 years. They have got to like that.

And, next of all, they wanted more energy. I want more energy. Were going to be producing more energy. Theres an agreement that were going to be drilling and doing more than we can to bring more energy to the market that reduces prices. They like that.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: And theres going to be a streamlining of permitting, John. They got to like that so.

JOHN DICKERSON: Well

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: So, Im hoping they just take cool off, take a good look at the bill.

JOHN DICKERSON: Their argument is and this matters, because you are working with Republicans on other pieces of legislation.

And Susan Collins, one of those Republicans youre working with, says that this this break of trust, which is what theyre calling it you made certain representations, they would say, to Republicans, then broke your trust.

She said Susan Collins said: Its a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way, in other words, whether its on election reform or same-sex marriage, that the well has been poisoned.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Well, heres the thing. I think Susan Collins is my very dear friend, and we work almost on everything together.

But the thing of it, I never told anybody that I wasnt going to do something. If I had a chance to fix the energy policy of the United States of America, and I didnt do it, shame on me. If I had the chance to reduce the amount of inflation that people in West Virginia and across the country are enduring right now, shame on me.

And I never thought they would come to an agreement and use a dual path, and basically recognizing with this administration, working with President Bidens administration and working with Chuck Schumer and all of them who basically were going a different direction and were very upset with me for so long, that they would ever sit down.

But I guess with this thing has become truly horrible for the for families all across America. So, now to have a piece of legislation that we have energy and we have investments for new energy.

But, basically, thats a responsibility. You can walk and chew gum. You have a balanced approach. These are solutions Americans want.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: And we were able to provide these solutions. Lets not make them political, John.

JOHN DICKERSON: You and Senator Schumer have a deal. A lot of Democrats who used to be very angry at you are suddenly now saying nice things about you.

Senator Kyrsten Sinema have you talked to Senator Sinema, whose vote is still unknown on these bills? And where do you think shell go? Because, if she doesnt vote for it, it doesnt happen.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Yes, Senator Sinema is a dear friend of mine. And weve worked very close together on so many pieces of legislation.

And shes shes so involved in this legislation. When you think about it, shes the one that really negotiated and worked very hard on getting Medicare, allowing them to negotiate for lower drug prices, saving $288 billion. Thats tremendous, which I support her completely on that.

Shes always been adamant about were not going to be raising taxes. And I agree with her wholeheartedly. I made very very, very carefully evaluations that we wouldnt raise any taxes. And that was the last scrub that was done.

JOHN DICKERSON: Have you tried to lobby her?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: No, you dont we dont I have never lobbied my colleagues on that. I just basically put the facts out, try to answer questions.

Im always trying to negotiate with them, if if they want. And I try to. And, sometimes, we dont get there, they get frustrated. But were always looking at the next opportunity to improve the quality of life in America. And thats what were doing.

JOHN DICKERSON: Finally, Senator, there was a vote on a bill this week that would provide health care to millions of veterans exposed to toxic fumes in burn pits during their deployments.

Republicans who had previously voted for it voted against it. Pat Toomey, Republican from Pennsylvania, who will be on, who youve worked with extensively in your career, is worried that it adds to the deficit. Thats something you care about. Does Pat Toomey have a point here?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Sure.

Well, Pat Toomey is going to get a hes going to get an amendment. He hell have a vote on that. So, Pat, come on, lets go. Lets put put it out there, put the facts out there. Pats a good man and good friend of mine. Im sorry hes not going to be running again and hes leaving the Senate, because hes been a quality, valued member of the Senate, and he represented Pennsylvania extremely well.

So hes been a friend. Were going to work through this. I havent seen the amendment. Im I will be briefed tomorrow morning on it and everything. But Pat is going to get his amendment, and lets see where it goes.

JOHN DICKERSON: OK.

So, on that note, Senator Joe Manchin, thanks for being with us.

Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

JOHN DICKERSON: We go now to Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Hes in Zionsville this morning.

Good morning, Senator.

SENATOR PAT TOOMEY (R-Pennsylvania): Good morning, John.

JOHN DICKERSON: Lets start with what the Democrats are calling the Inflation Reduction Act.

You you and other Republicans are not a fan. What is your principal critique?

SENATOR PAT TOOMEY: Well, its going to make inflation worse, actually.

So, theyve got a big corporate tax increase thats going to probably make this recession that were in worse. All of this spending is unnecessary. Its going to exacerbate inflation. It is not going to reduce the deficit.

And what did Senator Manchin get for us? Look, Im a big fan of Joe Manchin. We are friends, as he said, and I like Joe very much, but I think he got taken to the cleaners. Hes agreeing to all this bad policy, in return for which hes been promised that theres going to be some kind of pro-energy infrastructure bill sometime in the future.

Well, first of all, I thought we did that in the infrastructure bill. Secondly, what is the text? But, most importantly, why isnt that in this bill? And the answer is because Democrats dont support it.

And so this is going to do a lot of harm and theres not going to be a corresponding benefit.

Originally posted here:
Full transcript of "Face the Nation" on July 31, 2022 - WSGW

CHUCK TODD:

This Sunday: A big deal.

PRES. JOE BIDEN:

We're taking a giant step forward as a nation.

CHUCK TODD:

Joe Manchin and Democrats finally agree on a bill to spend billions on climate, energy, health care and to cut the deficit.

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

I've never been in reverse in my lifetime, and I never walked away.

CHUCK TODD:

It's a political win, but do Democrats have the votes they need?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:

We'll all be talking, and hopefully we'll have 50 votes.

CHUCK TODD:

I'll talk to the man at the center of it all, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Plus, Senate Republicans block a bill they formerly supported to help veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.

JON STEWART:

Im used to the lies. Im used to the hypocrisy. But I am not used to the cruelty.

CHUCK TODD:

Democrats say Republicans switched their votes because they were angry about the Manchin deal. I'll talk to veterans advocate and comedian Jon Stewart on the politics of helping vets. Also, those catastrophic floods in Kentucky.

DAVE HARRIS:

Never in my life have we seen it come up that fast.

CHUCK TODD:

Dozens dead, thousands without power or water, in some of the worst flooding in Kentucky's history.

RONNIE SLONE:

Everybody tries to help, but when it comes this fast it's theres ain't nothing you can do.

CHUCK TODD:

We'll get the latest from Kentucky's governor, Andy Beshear. Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Chief White House correspondent Kristen Welker, former Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo, Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod and White House Bureau Chief for Politico Jonathan Lemire. Welcome to Sunday, it's Meet the Press.

ANNOUNCER:

From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.

CHUCK TODD:

Good Sunday morning. We're going to get to all the politics, my interviews with Joe Manchin and Jon Stewart, all of that in just a moment. But we need to begin with this historic flooding in eastern Kentucky. It's the worst flooding there in decades. It's left dozens dead. Four children from one family are dead. Officials expect the number to rise in the days ahead. As of yesterday, some 1,300 people had been rescued by air or boat. Fourteen counties have been declared disaster areas, and tens of thousands of homes are either without power, running water, or both. Sadly, more rain is in the forecast. Now, climate experts say global warming is -- has not increased the number of floods. But what it has increased is their severity due to more powerful rainstorms. This is extreme weather in action. I'm joined now by Kentucky's governor, Andy Beshear. Governor Beshear, sadly, this is not the first time I've had you lead off our show due to natural disasters in your state. First, give me an update. You have expressed fear this death toll is going to rise. What is the status this morning?

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR:

It's tough. This is one of the most devastating, deadly floods that we have seen in our history. It wiped out areas where people didnt have that much to begin with. And, at a time that we're trying to dig out, it's raining. I'm about two hours from the first hard-hit county, and it is really raining. And it's going to continue to rain throughout today. Our death toll right now is at 26. But I know of several additional bodies, and we know it's going to grow. With the level of water, we're going to be finding bodies for weeks, many of them swept hundreds of yards, maybe a quarter mile plus from where they were lost. Thus far, just those four children. I fear that we'll find at least a couple more as well. Water, a big problem with some of these areas, power. And even when we get over the rain, it's going to be really hot in this next week. So we are still in an emergency phase. Even as we work towards what it's going to take to get people stable, we got our first travel trailers to help shelter people as well as opening up our state parks. Have been seeing some reason progress on that, so at least one good sign.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you have a sense of how many people are missing? Because you obviously fear this death toll. I mean, is there a sense that you have your arms around that?

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR:

Now it's really hard when the answer is probably no. Cell phone service still incredibly spotty. And in some of these hollers, think gullies, we don't have a firm count of how many people were there to begin with, how many people were visiting. We have multiple Kentucky state police posts that are taking calls from loved ones that can't connect with those that they are worried about. But it's going to take some time to get a firm grasp on that. We still can't get in to some areas to check on people. We're doubling our National Guard. We're going to work to go door to door, work to find, again, as many people as we can. We're even going to work through the rain. But the weather is complicating it.

CHUCK TODD:

Anything you're not getting from the federal government that you're still asking for?

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR:

Federal government has been responsive. The FEMA administrator was there on day two, on the ground. The president called and said, "Whatever you need." I said, "Mr. President, we need individual assistance, whereby people can apply directly to FEMA." He got that done in about three days. I haven't seen that before. And I'm grateful for it. Definitely cut through a lot of red tape there.

CHUCK TODD:

Look, you said you don't know why Kentucky's been hit more than others. Obviously, these extreme weather instances are becoming more frequent. You had tornadoes in December, right? We don't usually see that in December. This flooding is worse than we've ever seen. What about long term? What do you need for mitigation, for adaptation? Because it's pretty clear these extreme storms are not going to end soon.

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR:

Well, we have to build back stronger. We've got to make sure that our roads, our bridges, our culverts, our flood walls can withstand greater intensity. A lot of this has to do as well with water and wastewater systems that get overwhelmed. You know, rural water is already such a tough issue. The infrastructure is so expensive. I will say that both ARPA and the bipartisan infrastructure bill are a good start. They're helping us do things before this that we haven't been able to do before. But if we truly want to be more resilient, it is going to take a major federal investment, as well as here in the state. We're ready to do our part.

CHUCK TODD:

Governor Beshear, I know it's never easy to deal with situations like this. We're all thinking about you, and we hope this ends soon.

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR:

Thank you.

CHUCK TODD:

If you want to be helpful here to the Kentucky flood victims, the governor's office suggests contributing to the Team Eastern Kentucky Flood Relief Fund. I know that's a big URL there. You can find that web address on the Meet the Press Twitter and Facebook pages. Let's turn now to politics. Senator Joe Manchin breathed some new life into the Democrats' reconciliation bill and into Joe Biden's presidency when he agreed to hundreds of billions to fund climate programs and bring down the cost of healthcare. The helpfully named Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, cobbled together with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, also calls for increased tax revenues from high earners and businesses to help trim the deficit. It's a long way from the president's far more ambitious Build Back Better plan. And Democrats still need to pass it without any Republican help paging Kyrsten Sinema? Plus, the good news stops there because the administration has had to argue that we're not in a recession, despite a second straight quarter of negative economic growth that usually foreshadows a recession. Still, as Democrats face strong headwinds in November, this deal gives Mr. Biden a big victory to brag about and Democrats an unexpected success they can campaign on because disaffected Democratic voters needed a reason to turn out in November.

[START TAPE]

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL:

I think we must stay in session for as long as it takes to get this plan done.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY:

We're in a recession, and it's not the time to increase taxes or spending. It's going to feed the fires of inflation.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

And joining me now is Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Senator Manchin, welcome back to Meet the Press.

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

Always good to be with you, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, so let me just start with this. Two weeks ago, you said you were adamant. You needed to see the July inflation numbers before you were ready to talk about this bigger budget bill with the Democrats called reconciliation. And then abruptly, you didn't need to see those inflation numbers. What changed your mind?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

It wasn't abruptly, Chuck. We've been working and negotiating off and on very quietly because I didn't know if it'd ever come to fruition. I didn't want to go through the drama that -- eight months ago that we went through for so long, thinking we'll negotiate it, got close, and then it fell apart, and this and that. Never could get there on Build Back Better. It just was too much, and I never could get there. On this one here, we started in April and kept working, and working, and working, and back and forth. And all of a sudden, inflation went from six, to 8.1, to 9.1, and I said, "Hey, Chuck, listen: We'd better wait and let's see what's coming in July, numbers coming in August before we do anything more." And that was the point of where we had been talking and negotiating. And that's when Chuck got upset with me, and I understand that. And he says, "Oh, here we go again," and everything. I said, "No, Chuck." I said, "I'm just being very cautious. I'm not going to be responsible for inflaming the inflation rates. I'm just not going to do it." So then we got a hot weekend. We all cooled off a little bit and talked on Monday. And I said, "Chuck, I've never walked away. We're still working on it." And he says, "Well, okay. Let's do it." And I said, "Well, let's start talking." So to Chuck's credit, our staffs kept talking. We didn't know if we were going to get there or not. But the bottom line was is we reduced it and scrubbed it clear down to 739. Nothing inflammatory in that piece of legislation.

CHUCK TODD:

The initial criticism of this bill from Republicans is, in some ways to some people, a predictable response, which is simply this: You should not increase any taxes during a time of recession. Why is now the right time to hit certain businesses with a tax hike?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

First of all, Chuck, I agree with my Republican friends. We should not increase taxes, and we did not increase taxes, Chuck. That's what we scrubbed out from that Thursday when we shut down, until we started talking again on Monday. The only thing we have done is basically say that every corporation of a billion dollars of value or greater in America should pay at least 15% a minimum corporate tax. Many people in West Virginia dont, couldn't believe that corporations aren't paying anything, and some of the largest in the country. And with that being said, the rate was at 35% in 2017 when my Republican friends took it to 21. We thought it should stop at 25. It went to 21, a 14% savings. You would at least think that they would be paying at least 15%. Most businesses and all corporations that I know pay 21%. So that's not a tax increase. It's closing a loophole.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, I understand that, but one person's loophole is another person whose tax bill increased. And, you know, the folks over at the National Association of Manufacturers, and look, they're not going to like any, anything that increases their tax bill. I understand that. But here's their main argument. They say, by doing this, you threaten to stifle the very innovation this bill is supposed to spur because if you create that tax penalty and you don't get the credit for investments, then all of a sudden, you dont see that -- they'll make the decision not to invest. Do you buy that argument?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

I don't because I'll tell you why. The last two years have been massive, record profits. Massive, record profits. And with that being said, it's been the lowest investment of capital expenditure that we've ever had. So it's not the taxes thats driving this. What's driving people sitting on their money right now is a lack of confidence that we can't get our act together in Congress or government. And they don't have a confidence there, so what we have done is we have total permitting reform. That's the thing everyone has told me. When I've asked them point blank, they said, "If you can just take the leashes off, take the chains off of us, let us go and do it." So we're going to basically reform our permitting so we're able to get these projects completed that are needed now.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you trust -- I know that was the promise you got, and it's one of those where you were promised a bill later. You support reconciliation now, you're going to get permitting reform later. Why did you not insist on permitting reform first before you gave, gave them your vote for reconciliation?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

We would have done permitting reform in this bill but basically because of the Byrd bath and because of reconciliation being around finances, it did not fit. So with that we have an agreement -- from Speaker Pelosi to Majority Leader Schumer to President Biden we all have made an agreement on this. And you know what, if someone doesn't fulfill, if I don't fulfill my commitment, promise that I will vote and support this bill with all my heart, there's consequences, and there's consequences on both sides. So I have all the trust and faith that this will be accomplished. We'll get this done. And if not, we both are going to face some consequences.

CHUCK TODD:

Speaker Pelosi and Chuck Schumer can keep their word, and the bill still wouldnt -- and it's possible the bill still doesn't pass. So what are the consequences if you don't get your permitting reform because they don't have the votes?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

Well, as I've said before, theres other avenues and vehicles that we can use. And I've been committed. I've been promised. And I do believe, and I trust. And if any of us don't keep our promises, then there are consequences to pay for this. I don't think that's going to happen at all, Chuck. There's too much at stake here. This is the greatest investment we've ever had in energy security. Energy security, and also investment in the innovation in technology that we need for the fuels of the future. This is an all-American bill red, white, and blue all the way through.

CHUCK TODD:

Now the name of this bill, some would argue, is a bit misleading: the Inflation Reduction Act. Can you explain where in this bill inflation will be reduced for folks in the next six months?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

Well, first of all, we've got the highest gas prices right now. Inflation is killing. It's hurting everyone in West Virginia right now, and it's hurting all working people across America. And if you want to get the gasoline prices down, you've got to produce your way out of it. We've got to bring more manufacturing to, back to America. And let me tell you what the bill does. It gives us a strong fossil energy that's going to produce the cleanest forms of fossil energy in the world. That's carbon reduction when you're replacing the dirtiest oil right now that's going into the climate and atmosphere. That's something we can do. You producing in America, we become energy independent, you're going to reduce because of supply. Next of all, we pay $300 billion down on debt. 300 billion, the first time in 25 years, Chuck, that we've ever done this. Next of all, we're reducing $288 billion in drug prices because of what we're doing. This is a bill that basically does everything. If someone says it's not going to reduce inflation, my goodness, we've never done anything like it. We didn't raise taxes. We've paid down debt. We've done everything, and we've accelerated our permitting processing so we can get things on the market and to market quicker.

CHUCK TODD:

Look, I understand it doesn't add, I understand it doesn't add to inflation, but here's what the folks at Penn Wharton said. They said, "The impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero." Isn't calling it the Inflation Reduction Act sort of politically cynical and a bit misleading?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

Not at all. If you're producing more and have more supply, and that supply drives -- basically satisfies demand, and then the prices come down because theres more people shopping for the products, that's capitalism. That's who we are. We haven't done that. If we're able to bring things to market quicker, they're not looking at the long game at all. But, you know, Chuck, you talk to different economists, they all have a different opinion. They told me the 17 laureate -- Nobel laureates were saying that it was going to be transition, transition. And you know what? It wasn't transitory. It was permanent. We have a serious problem in inflation, and we've got to defeat it.

CHUCK TODD:

Are you convinced that Senator Sinema is going to support this bill? Or if she ends up changing some parts of the tax structure because she votes with Republicans, would that impact your support of this reconciliation package?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

Let me say that Kyrsten Sinema's a friend of mine, and we work very close together. She has a tremendous, tremendous input in this piece of legislation. This is things that everyone has worked on over the last eight months or more. And she basically insisted that no tax increases, we've done that. She was very, very adamant about that, and I support and I agree with her. She was also very instrumental in making sure that we had drug prices that Medicare could compete on certain drugs to bring it down so that there wouldn't be an impact on individuals, on Medicare across. She's done all this, so she has a tremendous amount of input in this piece of legislation. And I would like to think she would be favorable towards it, but I respect her decision. She'll make her own decision based on the contents.

CHUCK TODD:

Senator Manchin, what's your case for Democrats

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

She's a dear friend of mine, I respect her.

CHUCK TODD:

Whats your case for Democrats to keep control of the House and Senate this election year?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

I dont know, I just -- if you look back through history, it makes it very difficult, especially in the most toxic times we've ever seen. So it's up in the air right now. With the House, it looks like the House is --

Go here to read the rest:
Meet the Press - July 31, 2022 - NBC News

Two royal commentators have since argued that Meghan Markle was brave to call out Harrys Etonian friends for being politically incorrect.

Last week, Tom Bower's book about the couple was released, and claimed Meghan was a "dampener" on a party hosted by the prince.

Mr Bower wrote:According to some of Harrys friends, again and again she reprimanded them about the slightest inappropriate nuance. Nobody was exempt."

However, Russell Myers, Daily Mirrors Royal Editor, has come to the defence of the duchess.

He said: Meghan is Meghan. And, if they were saying things that she didnt agree with, she is well within her rights to say something.

That does not mean she was a dampener on the party.

He continued: You can imagine Harrys old Etonian mates being sexist or misogynistic and saying things that generally arent funny to a lot of people."

Read more:
'Poison running in blood' Harry sparks fears with William 'power' play - Express