Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

NEWS AND OPINION:

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

What does the public think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A STUDENTS STARK TRUTH

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

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

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

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

NETWORKS MUFFLE BIDENS GAFFE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOXIFIED

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

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

POLL DU JOUR

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

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

56% fear the implants will destroy social fabric.

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

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

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

Helpful information to jharper@washingtontimes.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-VD Satheesan, Chairman, UDF.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Bill Maher is back and ready to rumble.

I feel like Covid is still the dominant issue of our lives right now and it should not be anymore, the Real Time with Bill Maher host says as the HBO series prepares to kick off its 20th season tonight. And I think the big discussion on our show Friday night when we go on, is should we continue with the Covid policies weve had in the past?

Set to feature a one-on-one interview with On Tyranny Graphic Edition: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century author Timothy Snyder and panelists Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and Honestly podcasts Barri Weiss, the Real Time 20th season debut will undoubtedly see professional contrarian Maher also tackle the legacy and possible future of Donald Trump. Even with a tendency to lapse into grumpy old white man mode and false equivalencies when it comes to the culture wars, Maher has proven an unsparing Cicero of sorts against the tyranny of Trumpism and the frequent ineptitude of American liberals.

In that vein, the multi-Emmy nominated satirist spoke with me about his 2024 fears and the progress, or lack thereof, in the fight against the pandemic. Looking back over the years, currently longest running late-night host on the air, Maher also noted the shifts hes observed in the increasingly ravaged body politic since Real Time premiered in 2003 when George W Bush was in the White House.

DEADLINE: Years ago I saw a documentary about the Rolling Stones and they interviewed the late great Charlie Watts outside some airplane hangar or something on a video shoot. And theyre asking the clearly unimpressed drummer about his career and the band, and at one point Watts looks at the camera and says, Work five years and 20 years hanging around, f*cking around or something like that. So, I wanted to ask you, looking back now, what does 20 seasons of Real Time feel like to you?

BILL MAHER: Not bad. Because theres never any just doing f*ck all on my show, I mean, I work really hard on it. I like the grind. You know Im just coming off a vacation so it kind of lands with a thud like, wow, I forgot this takes a lot of work every week. But you know it keeps me off the streets, and Ive always enjoyed the process of putting a show together over a whole week to be able to make it the best possible show.

As opposed to my first show in the 90s, Politically Incorrect, which was an everyday show. And when you do an everyday show its a different animal. Youre just kind of throwing sh*t up against the wall and seeing what sticks. I mean, thats sort of the beauty of it too, you know, its a little less polished and that can be great too.

DEADLINE: One thing I always loved about Politically Incorrect was it always felt like you were a little bit on the knifes edge, as was the show itself.

MAHER: Yeah, like I say, theres some virtue in both of them. Just like to continue with your music analogy with the Rolling Stones thats a raw sound, you know, theyre not overproduced, whereas like the Beatles most of their stuff is like very perfectly completed in the studio. With the Rolling Stones, youre just going to feel like theyre letting it rip. Theres good in both.

DEADLINE: Its an understatement to say there hasnt been a lot of good news the past couple of months around the ongoing pandemic with the rapid spread of the Omicron variant. Covid saw Real Time filming from your backyard for a while in 2020 and even go dark last year for a spell when you tested positive. So, heading back to a new season this week, whats your feeling about the pandemic in 2022?

MAHER: Im over Covid.

DEADLINE: Really?

MAHER: I was never scared of it. I was always scared of the reaction to it, and as this has played out that only proved to be more true for me. Im sure many people feel different, but thats me. It was never that virulent a threat, I thought, to people who were in good health.

Now, some people cant help that theyre not in good health. We should, of course, protect the vulnerable, but it was mostly a disease of the very old, which every disease is a threat to, and people who have comorbidities, which mostly is due to lifestyle.

DEADLINE: Yeah, youve always been quite strong about that in terms of people taking care of their health and the way they can do it.

MAHER: Right. I mean, 78%, this is just the CDC fact, 78% of the people who died or went to the hospital were obese. Now, Im not saying they deserved to die. Dont twist my words, please. Im just saying that is a lifestyle, you know? So, the fact that America, the medical establishment, never even attempted to get people to live a healthier lifestyle as a response to this pandemic is a giant scandal to me. [Editors note: The CDC study from March 2021 that Maher seems to be citing actually says among 148,494 adults who received a Covid-19 diagnosis during an emergency department or inpatient visit at 238 U.S. hospitals during MarchDecember 2020, 28.3% had overweight and 50.8% had obesity.]

Its not a rarefied or weird point of view to say that if people would up their vitamin D levels, up their zinc levels, stop eating sugar, get a proper amount of sleep, stop overeating and day drinking, which is what went on during this pandemic, they would have a much better chance. The people who didnt do that have blood on their hands. Theres no other way to put it.

I understand that the Western medical establishment is rather cozy with the pharmaceutical industry, so I understand that their only idea about solving this is a pharmaceutical response. And Im glad there is a vaccine because many people need a vaccine. It does stop you from dying. But shouldnt we also have at least mentioned this other way to deal with it?

DEADLINE: In terms of mentioning another way, you attracted a lot of attention last fall in your Slow-Moving Coup segment when you warned against Donald Trump declaring himself the winner of the 2024 election regardless of the outcome, the vote count consequences of the stooges he is installing right now and the threat of violence that will make January 6 look like a training session. It was a stark assessment that not a lot of people wanted to hear

MAHER: I dont know anyone who didnt want to hear that except Trumpers, but maybe I missed it. Actually, what I mostly heard the reaction from that was you scared the sh*t out of us and Im glad you did. And since I said it, Ive noticed basically that theme being put out there in dozens of places. Its now like part of the dialogue in America and thats exactly what my show is meant to do, is to put ideas in the water that other people are ignoring or too afraid to say.

And you know that is certainly what Im going to be doing about Covid also, as you mention that.

DEADLINE: How so?

MAHER: I mean, were in a very different place with Covid than we were just when I was on the air last time, and that is the vaccines, we know, do not prevent you from either transmitting it or getting the disease. We know that. Thats a fact now. They just prevent you from dying, which is a great part of it, lets not undercount that. But if they dont prevent you from transmitting it and they dont prevent you from getting it why are we still treating this disease the way we always have? And what the f*ck is the use of a booster shot? Because I will never get a booster shot.

DEADLINE: Because you think its useless?

MAHER: Its not only useless, but this is a very, very new vaccine. Okay, I didnt want the first vaccine. We should not treat people unfairly who want to allow their own immune system to take care of the situation. But okay, I took one for the team. Now, theyre giving a fourth one in Israel with the booster shots. Now, this I read in the front page of the New York Times, which is a very pro-vaccine publication, and even they printed that many scientists in Israel were against this, scientists and doctors, because they said it might have a reverse effect, something called immune system fatigue.

Well, I dont want that, do you? So, now youre not protected by the vaccine or your immune system? I dont think so.

DEADLINE: One of the emerging realities over the past few months is that many are simply exhausted by the pandemic now and what feels like ever-changing standards from governments and scientists changing regulations, requirement and edicts, like the recent move to quarantine now for just five days if you test positive for Covid. Listening to you, it sounds like you really dont think Dr. Anthony Fauci or the medical establishment really know what they are doing, that this is more whack-a-mole?

MAHER: They dont know a lot about anything.

Thats not a criticism of them like theyre being corrupt although there certainly is plenty of corruption in the medical establishment. But Ive always maintained that the big overarching theme should be that people look back and say, oh, look how far weve come medically. Yes, thats true. Were not putting wooden teeth in our mouth like in the George Washington era, and of course we have antibiotics and lots of vaccines and lots of other things that have been miraculous. But in general, we still dont understand too much about how the human body works.

So, dont sit there in your white coat and tell me just do what we say. When have we ever been wrong? A lot is my answer. A lot. They drilled mercury into my teeth when I was a child. Now, of course, we dont do that anymore, but do you really think in 50 years people will look back and say, oh, yeah, we had it all figured out in 2022? No, they will be appalled at things were doing right now.

Medical error is still the third leading cause of death in America and thats just based on what we know now and what we know in the future will certainly make that number rise. [Editors note: According to the CDCs most recent report from December 2021, Covid-19 was the third leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2020 after heart disease and cancer. The fourth leading cause was unintentional injuries, which include car accidents, poisoning and falls, followed by stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, Alzheimer disease, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia.]

DEADLINE: Flipping that look forward, looking back over the history of Real Time, theres obviously been a lot of change in this country since 2003, a lot of change in this industry. For you, what has changed in terms of the show itself and the way you put it together, and what you emphasize?

MAHER: I think the politics around me have changed. In other words, the first years George W. Bush was president and the liberal half of the country was, I thought, pretty sane. Now, since about I dont know 2015 or so theres been a real sea change in whats going on, on the left.

Now I always will maintain that the right is the more dangerous faction in this country, especially since they dont believe in elections I mean you have to keep that in perspective. One side does not believe in the form of government we have. What do you do about people who are in the government who dont believe in your form of government?

I mean, the peaceful transfer of power was always the feather in our cap as America. It was always the jewel in our crown. It was the thing that other countries, so many other countries, had a problem with. They could not peacefully transfer from one guy to the next. We had that figured out. And now these people on the right have broken that and God knows whats going to happen in the future. But on the left, you know, I mean a big problem is that they strike too many people in this country, for good reason, as the party of no common sense.

DEADLINE: How so?

MAHER: They have inverted so much of traditional liberalism, I mean, traditional liberalism was all about creating a colorblind society as opposed to so much of what goes on now is insisting on seeing race everywhere, things like that.

So, whereas before what I was doing was, almost always, making fun only of the conservatives. Now, I have to, if Im an honest broker, if Im going to just call things as I see them, Im doing it for both sides. I mean, again, with the perspective that the right is worse, but that is a big change. And by the way, it has been embraced by the audience. Everywhere I go people tell me they appreciate this and Im talking about mostly liberal people. You know they are not okay with what has gone on with that faction of the left.

DEADLINE: Well

MAHER: Excuse me let me finish my thought. They want someone to call it out.

DEADLINE: So, at the beginning of your 20th season, where do you see America at?

MAHER: Not a great place. It couldve been worse if the election went the other way.

And I, again, per the prediction you were talking about, think the real day of reckoning is going to be between election day 2024 and Inauguration Day 2025, because thats when the rubber really hits the road.

Trump, who, as Ive said before, will definitely be running and definitely be the candidate for the Republican Party. Hes already running if you saw that display this weekend, and this time like last time hes not going to concede. But this next time, hes going to have people in place who will back him up on his lie that he won the election whether he did or not. And then what do you do when those people are much more powerful and there are two claimants to the throne? I mean, weve seen this play out in other countries and its not pretty. And I dont know what will happen, but it frightens me a great deal.

DEADLINE: And in terms of the show itself?

MAHER: Oh, I mean, Ill say this, we dont live in dull times. Its frightening in many ways, sometimes depressing, but not uninteresting.

I feel like Covid is still the dominate issue of our lives right now and it should not be anymore. And I think the big discussion on our show Friday night when we go on, is that is should we continue with the Covid policies weve had in the past? Or do we have to do a reset, and just say this thing is never going away and we cant always be living in a state of emergency? And of course the other thing is, as weve been talking about also, Trump and whats going to happen with our democracy.

Read the original:
Bill Maher On Real Times 20th Season, Being Over Covid & Americas Upcoming Real Day Of Reckoning - Deadline

Earlier this week, a pair of right-libertarian journalists announced the launch of their new site, BASEDPolitics. All hell promptly broke loose on right-wing Twitter.In the first editorial for their new site, co-founders Brad Polumbo and Hannah Cox define 'based' as 'upfront, on point, or rooted in true principles.' That fits pretty well with my understanding of the term, but it leaves something out.

That 'something' accounts for the pushback they received from the post-liberal, national conservative crowd. According to them, libertarians like Polumbo and Cox are nothing more than Koch-funded shills who fight for tax cuts and weaker antitrust laws while drag queens read to our children. They are not 'based' and have no right to refer to themselves as such.

'Our culture is not your costume,' one popular right-wing Twitter personality quipped. Sohrab Ahmari, an American Conservative editor who advocates for 'political Catholicism,'tweeted'Im never using based again, now that these corporate schmucks have appropriated it.'

Ahmari also threw in some disparaging comments about Polumbos 'gigantic' head and Coxs 'tackily overspilling dcolletage' as they appeared in the announcement graphic.

I asked Polumbo (full disclosure: he and I are both affiliated with Young Voices) whether he expected this kind of reaction. Heres what he had to say:

Oh yeah, we anticipated pushback from the very-online nationalist crowd. Im not particularly bothered by it, although some of it has been ad-hominem and juvenile, and thats pretty pathetic, fan behaviour. We wont stoop to that. But the pushback is kind of the point. The nationalists want to redefine what it means to be conservative so that it resembles big government, socially conservative Elizabeth Warren economics more than Ronald Reagan. We still believe the future of the Right should be rooted in free markets, individual liberty, the Constitution, (and)limited government.

The term 'based' originated as slang for being high on crack. Perhaps theres some connection with 'freebasing', or smoking cocaine. From there, the terms definition expanded to cover all the strange and erratic behaviours typically associated with 'crackheads'. A modern equivalent might be to say someone is 'trippin' or 'tweakin'. These dont necessarily mean the person is under the influence of psychedelics or meth, only that theyre acting like it. 'Youre crazy,' spoken either with total dismissiveness or with a hint of admiration, would convey the same meaning.

'Based' began to take on its current connotation with rapper Lil B the Based God, who released his first album, Based Boys, in 2007. According to Lil B, 'Based means being yourself. Not being scared of what people think about you. Not being afraid to do what you wanna do.'

According to one online dictionary, the term, now a 'signal of power and swagger,' became associated with the online right in the 2010s as a synonym for 'politically incorrect'. Donald Trump was 'based' because he was willing to say things that annoyed the libs and then laugh at their outrage.

'Can you believe OrangeMan said X?!' the outraged soycuck shrieks. 'Lol, based,' the gigachad responds.

It seems to me that at this point, an earlier definition of 'based' unrelated to West Coast drug culture began to influence the terms use by the new right. 'Based' retained its sense of the manic, un-self-conscious energy of Trumps Twitter, but it also took on the the sense of being 'based on' or 'based in' something older and sturdier than the endless flux of liquid modernity. ric Zemmour is based. So is Viktor Orbn. Jailing pornographers, seizing the assets of the Ford Foundation, and going to Latin Mass with your nine kids and tradwife are all based. On the darker corners of right-wing Twitter, Rhodesia, Mussolini and overt expressions of sexism are also 'based'.

The prevailing definition of 'based' sits somewhere near the intersection of troll and trad.

Polumbo told me hes fully aware that hes going against the usual meaning of the term:

'While not our only mission, a crucial part of our project is to explicitly combat the nationalist conservative movement in a substantive and ideas-based way. We are redefining what it means to be based, whether they like it or not. Freedom is based. Catholic integralism and other forms of lite-theocracy are authoritarian and un-American.'

The post-liberal response, of course, would be that right-libertarianism, like progressivism, is a dominant ideology masquerading as a scrappy resistance. They are two faces of the same beast called liberalism. They divide the world between them: freedom in the boardroom and freedom in the bedroom.

Im not nearly the libertarian Polumbo is, but Im not a fully convinced post-liberal yet either. I think wokeness is a far greater threat than socialism. At the same time, I worry that any sort of post-liberal political project could lead to tyranny. The levels of social conservatism and, frankly, religiosity it demands simply dont have enough buy-in to win national elections.

Imagine the average Joe Rogan listener. Not the alt-right white nationalist monster sketched out in thinkpiece after thinkpiece, but the representative of the American median, the 'barstool conservative'.Hes economically agnostic, an admirer of entrepreneurship who distrusts large corporations. Socially, hes slightly to the left of centre. The idea of giving puberty blockers to kids freaks him out, but he has no interest in outlawing gay marriage or no-fault divorce. Hed be more likely than Polumbo to support trade protectionism and breaking up big tech, but Ahmari would have a hard time selling him on porn bans and blue laws.

Polumbo and Cox are betting that this voting bloc will be more open to Friedrich Hayek than to Thomas Aquinas. Their plan seems to be to stan capitalism while casting wokeness as a collectivist distortion of individual liberty rather than its natural outgrowth. Its possible, they promise, to combat the excesses of progressivism to be 'based' without throwing out many of the fundamental assumptions of American politics and culture.

It might work. If their attempt to reclaim 'based' succeeds, well know it has.

Link:
Who will win the battle for 'based'? - Spectator.co.uk

By Ariana Ceballos

Every year, Hollywood stars are invited to sit through award ceremonies to praise one another for their various accomplishments. Ceremonies for televised events like the Golden Globes and the Oscars invite audiences to witness these special occasions celebrating the accomplishments of beloved actors, actresses, and movies of the year from the comfort of their homes. While spectators are given a window view into the world of elites, associations that host these events have largely ignored the people outside their exclusive circles.

In recent years, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) that runs the Golden Globes and the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) that runs the Oscars have experienced a steep decline in viewership for their shows, because they neglected to reflect on connecting to ordinary audience members.

The pandemic pushed many issues to the forefront of the media, especially those of racial inequality and class disparity. These are issues that cannot be dismissed and should be addressed by any platform with great power. Award shows are entertaining, but they need to address these inequalities within their systems before attempting to show allyship.

This years Golden Globes ceremony took place on a different platform. Rather than being shown on television, winners of the award were posted on social media. The decision to move the award show from its established televised event to social media was a reaction to the recent issues with the HFPA.

Many issues have surrounded the HFPA, like a lack of diversity within its members and past winners. People look forward to seeing the ceremony for many reasons including hoping to see a winner that may resemble their gender, religion, race, or identity. With a majority white members in the association, theres no one appealing to POC, and others who are out of the organizations perception as the common audience.

Ann Hornaday for The Washington Post states, The Globes are looking like what the Oscars used to be, and might benefit from becoming, at least for the time being, meaning a private event. Hornaday says that the HFPA (Hollywood Foreign Press Association) has inner work to undertake before it can gain a wider audience.

Given the reception of the Golden Globes this year, not much is expected of the Oscars, whose viewership has been in a steady decline. Brooks Barnes and John Koblin note in their New York Times article that the 2021 Oscars ceremony failed to garner 10 million viewers.

The production of the show has also changed, such as the absence of a host for three years. 2022 should mark the return of a yet unannounced host. AMPAS is trying to fix their production to resonate with a larger audience. Recent years have shown first-time winners for POC communities, such as Parasites Best Picture win in 2020, becoming the first Korean film to receive the award.

In 2021, Yuh-jung-Youn became the first Korean to win an Oscar in an acting category and Chlo Zhao became the first Chinese winner of the best director award as well as being the second woman to win. These are monumental wins that should be celebrated, and one cant help but think why it took so long for POC communities to receive such awards.

Award associations can no longer shut down non-elites or turn a blind eye to societal issues. Even if it means promoting a foreign movie dealing with such issues, the associations should attempt to discuss them. In order to capture a wider audience, the associations need to have awareness when approaching diverse communities. Not only will this appeal to a wider audience, but it will uphold values that are fundamental to our overall social welfare and prosperity.

View post:
Student Opinion: Are Award Shows for Us Ordinary Folks? - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Peacemaker, played by John Cena, was introduced in 1966 with the tagline A man who loves peace so much hes willing to fight for it! (Warner Bros. Pictures/DC Comics)

We already know from last years The Suicide Squad movie that John Cenas Christopher Smith aka Peacemaker is among the dumbest and most brutish entities in the superhero universe, given his slogan is: I cherish peace with all of my heart. I dont care how many men, women and children I kill to get it.

To quote the immortal Napoleon Dynamite: Ugh! Idiot!

Peacemaker is also a politically incorrect, misogynistic, wildly inappropriate, socially tone-deaf, ignorant lunkhead but in the care of Suicide Squad and Guardians of the Galaxy writer-director James Gunn, the HBO Max spinoff series placing Peacemaker front and center works, because the titular characters boneheaded and often misguided but sincerely felt words and deeds make for the primary running joke in this wacky and subversive comedy/action romp.

Consider the moment when Peacemaker is shown a photo of a senator, his wife and their two children and told his assignment is to assassinate the entire family, because theyre not actually human, theyre something quite different and dangerous. But Peacemakers new supervisor says he doesnt trust Peacemaker enough to reveal any further information, so Peacemaker exclaims: So what is it, Just trust us and shoot kids? Come on man, look how adorable that one (kid) is. The other one, not so much. Hes got a Children of the Corn vibe going on. Are you sure those two kids came out of those parents? Thats an attractive couple

Thats some twisted and funny stuff right there.

Of course, it helps to have as your lead the chiseled and amiable former pro wrestler Cena, who has an admirable one-two punch of action skills and comedic timing and is the perfect foil for meta humor, e.g., when Peacemaker opines that climate change isnt real and a colleague retorts, Why do all the people who think pro wrestling is real think climate change is a hoax?

The deadpan lunacy tone of Peacemaker is set with the opening credits, where Cena and the ensemble cast, in character, perform a hilariously stiff choreographed dance number to the sounds of the bombastic glam-rock anthem Do You Wanna Taste It? by Wig Wam. (Writer-director Gunn is a master at pop/rock needle drops; a running joke in this series is Peacemakers love of glam metal bands from the 1980s.)

In the pilot episode, we pick up the story just after the events of The Suicide Squad, with Smith/Peacemaker miraculously recovering from his injuries after having killed Rick Flag during the Task Force Xs mission in Corto Maltese. Upon his release, Peacemaker is offered another Dirty Dozen type of deal: He can avoid prison by joining a task force helmed by Clemson Murn (Chukwudi Iwuji), and you can be sure the ensuing mission will involve Peacemaker getting into all sorts of comedically violent scrapes and well eventually see guts spilling and heads exploding.

Peacemakers new colleagues include the obligatory snarky tech nerd John Economos (Steve Agee); the gorgeous, no-nonsense and quite lethal Emilia Harcourt (Jennifer Holland), and the eager and inexperienced Leota Adebayo (Danielle Brooks). He also has to contend with the irritatingly chipper Vigilante aka Adrian Chase (Freddie Stroma), who is kind of like a Dimwit Deadpool and is dying to be Peacemakers BFF, and Peacemakers father, Auggie (the always formidable Robert Patrick), a white supremacist who is so hateful and has been so awful to Peacemaker, we begin to feel empathy for the big guy. Its clear Peacemakers bravado stems from his deep-rooted insecurity and his aching need to be loved. (Hes still a jerk, but theres hope for him.)

Brimming with references to D.C. characters such as Harley Quinn and Aquaman and brutally frank jokes about real-world figures such as Louis C.K., Peacemaker is a James Gunn creation through and through, with Gunn flexing his pop culture muscles and spilling blood, guts and irreverent humor all over the screen. There are times when the jokes seem stuck on repeat mode, but Cena and the terrific ensemble cast are real gamers who sink their teeth into the often absurd material, and were happy to ride along with them in their ridiculous undercover van that looks exactly like an undercover van.

More here:
John Cena hits the small screen as a boneheaded, misguided DC superhero - Albuquerque Journal

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Continued here:
FROM THE PUBLISHER | Bridget, Hazy Davy, and the appeal of the specific - Manhattan Mercury

I mutter, I am sorry. But the victims never hear my apologies.

I mutter them while glancing into my rear-view mirror at the disappearing taillights of a vehicle that had been coming toward me a moment earlier, in the dark and in the rain.

Often too often, I think the headlights of that oncoming vehicle blind me.

He has his high-beams on! I growl. Not necessarily accurate.

I assume the oncoming driver is a guy. Thats a politically incorrect assumption these days.

I claim that the driver has his headlights actually switched to high beams.

But even on low beam, the much brighter headlights on some of todays vehicles force me to squint and panic as I cannot see clearly from behind my own steering wheel.

Several things are at work here. One is the cataracts on my eyes, not yet dense enough to require surgical removal.

That is a good thing because, since childhood, I have had a phobia about anybody doing anything near my eyes.

I would rather have a no-anesthesia root canal on a tooth than have a glaucoma test done by puffing air past my held-open eyelids and onto my eyeball.

So I have not yet had cataract surgery. That is one explanation for the nighttime glare problem while driving.

Another, I think, might have to do with headlight alignment. Back when cars were simpler (and clunkier), it was easy to realign three or four screws around the bezel of each headlight while shining the lights onto a garage wall at the appropriate height and breadth. But that re-aiming had to be done often, because those cars, e.g., my rusted-out 1956 Plymouth, rattled and shook everything loose, including headlights.

Today? The light housing is a giant one-piece monstrosity, costing hundreds of dollars to replace if damaged. It is much more stable but also more expensive. I have no idea how to realign new-vehicle headlights.

Headlight alignment should be checked as part of annual state inspections. But that is an entire year between checkups.

The headlights themselves, I think, are the third factor. Todays cats-eye designs and LED loops look snazzy. I have driven or ridden in a few of those vehicles. They do make the road ahead brighter for the driver.

But what about the driver of the oncoming vehicle?

In 50 years of having vehicles inspected, I have never had anyone question the aim of the headlights on my vehicles and I have driven some clunkers.

A friend recently recounted how oncoming headlights blinded him. Before his eyes could recover to see the road ahead, he hit a deer. He thinks he might have avoided the deer if he had not been blinded.

The oncoming driver probably did nothing wrong. How can most of us tell if our headlights are incorrectly aimed? Even if, after we buy a vehicle, we think its headlights are too bright, what are we going to do? Fords headlight modules do not fit Chevys cars, etc.

Who regulates the lights on new vehicles? Does the National Transportation Safety Board do that? Some governmental agencies release all sorts of data about vehicle safety in crashes. But what about vehicle headlights? Do we just trust the designers and their lust for sales and profits?

Sometimes, after I flick my headlights to bright and back to normal to suggest that the other drivers lights are on high beam, the oncoming driver flicks his own lights onto high beam, then back off. That shows me that I am mistaken in thinking that his lights are set at the high beam level. Happily, in the dark, I cannot discern how many fingers he is using to wave jovially at me.

I mutter my apology because just blinking my own headlights at the oncoming car does distract that driver a bit. I am distracted when that happens to me, justifiably or not.

This is not a widespread problem yet. Most vehicle headlights are no big problem to others, unless they are really misaligned due to a fender-bender, or the driver is a vehicular moron.

But some headlights do make me react in ways that are dangerous to me, to my passengers, and to other vehicles or pedestrians.

If we cant see, we cant drive safely.

Is this just a problem for one old guy? Not according to what I hear from friends though those friends are mostly other old guys or gals.

Maybe I do need to find a way to defeat my phobia and get my cataracts removed. If that will fix the headlight problem, Ill try it.

But if it doesnt fix the problem, if some of todays headlights really are unsafe, who does what about it?

Denny Bonavita is a former editor/publisher at newspapers in DuBois, Brookville, New Bethlehem and Warren. He lives near Brookville. Email: notniceman9@gmail.com

Go here to see the original:
Are new headlights too bright? | Opinion | theprogressnews.com - Clearfield Progress

Trigger warning: This article contains transcriptions of chats describing graphic sexual violence against women.

New Delhi: On January 17, 2022, a tweet featuring a video of a group of people talking with each other on the social media app ClubHouse, went viral. The subject of the discussion was Muslims Gals are More Beautiful Than Hindu Gals (Gals Opinion. (sic)

Below is a paraphrased transcription of the video. The content is highly offensive in nature.

An account by the name of Kira xD, was one of the moderators.

In the discussion, an account called Harsh says, In my opinion this topic is wrong, because at the end of the day, all Muslim girls are Hindu in the end. How can you compare?

A female account called Roma interjects approvingly, saying Ye baat (this) and another one says Jai Shri Ram.

Harsh continues, When we do ghar wapsi (conversion), when RSS bhakts like us take Muslim women, they will become Hindu women. Roma interjects to say that either way, 70% of all Muslims are converts.

Then comes the most provocative line. Harsh says, Did you know, that if we hit a Muslim pussy, our sins will be washed away? Has anyone else heard this? To which Kira xD, the moderator, replies, In the last panel, one guy said that if you are hitting a pink pussy, you will get the same blessings as building seven temples.

He follows up by asking, Id like to test this. Is there a Muslim woman here? Harsh interjects, saying, Kiraji, I have to correct you its not about 7 mandirs Babri todna itna punya milta hai (You get as many blessings as you would for destroying Babri)

Everyone in the group approves this vocally, but one pipes up saying that they are moving away from the subject that pink coochie is a priority. The account called Roma asks, Ek confusion hai Kira, you keep saying this again and again, Muslim pussy pink pussy is Indian, Hindu pussy not pink? To which the men unanimously respond, Nahi, woh kali hoti hai, kali kalooti (No, it is black, very black.)

In subsequent videos, the account Kira xD proceeded to outline a graphic scenario where he asked the group for aid in engaging in sexual congress with his mother, here being characterised as a Muslim woman. The conversation that follows can be viewed here:

After the video went viral, there was immediate outcry, with many calling for the arrest of those present in the group, equating them with mass rapists, saying they sounded like co-conspirators of the Bulli Bai app, and warning that it was the height of radicalisation.

The Delhi police lodged an FIR against the unknown perpetrators by the next day, with KPS Malhotra, DCP (Cyber Cell), saying an FIR has been registered under IPC sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion) and 354 A (sexual harassment).

Curiously, this outrage neglected to take into account that Hindu women were also explicitly insulted towards the end of this video.

A day after this discussion took place on the Clubhouse app, a new Room was opened with the subject, Gals do not have the privilege to marry upper cast boys (sic). In the video, the same account as before Kira xD is seen saying Girls should have just enough privilege that they can walk on streets naked.

He proceeds to call women objects in the videos that follow, saying at one point, Women should be made to lie down, have their chests opened, and be rubbed from head to foot with a hot iron rod.

In this video, he appears to be talking about all women, without qualifiers of caste or religion.

The Wire spoke to the person handling the account Kira xD, who was responsible for some of the most provocative statements in both groups, under conditions of confidentiality.

It was in fun

Kira is an 18-year-old male student, and claims to be both apolitical and irreligious, having no particular political inclinations to any party, nor believing in any religion. In conversation, he seems surprised by the amount of outrage that the video has generated, saying that these conversations take place as a matter of course on the Clubhouse platform, irrespective of what political affiliation or religion those engaging might belong to.

This sentiment was echoed by multiple people discussing the situation on the app, including a Hindu woman, Sarita*(24), who circulated the videos of the caste-oriented Room on the following day.

According to her, misogynist actions happen agnostic of religious or political affiliations, alleging that on that day, pictures of her were taken from her linked Instagram account and morphed onto lewd pictures something which again, seems to be a regularly occurring activity on the app. Sarita says she plans to take legal action, but was hesitant as it would be difficult to explain to her family.

Also read: A Reporters Notes: The Only Way Out for Targets of the Bulli Bai App is Forward

This is not the first time extreme misogyny has been reported on the app BBC reported that Clubhouse hosts a sustained atmosphere of misogynistic abuse, including a mock auction which featured 200 people watching and went on for two hours. However, unlike the Sulli Deals and Bulli Bai cases, this auction did not discriminate based on religion.

I did this in the heat of the moment, and it wasnt my intention to offend anyone, Kira said, saying that these rooms and this speech was preceded by another insulting Hindus, Sikhs, his parents, and making insults about attacking India, to which he and his friends were responding. He did not provide any evidence to substantiate this.

I only heard of Sulli Deals yesterday when I found out about this viral tweet, he said. On Clubhouse, when we make rooms, we put out a disclaimer saying if anything happens in the room, it should not be recorded.

I was not insulting anyone else I was using myself to insult, I thought it was okay. I made a story about a Muslim mother, this is why I was not targeting anyone else, because they get offended. I took my own name, its my decision.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

When asked about his intentions, he said it was a form of fun. Serious discussions were not happening there, it was in fun I was abusing myself. I did not want to hurt anyone. According to him, Trolling is not a crime.

Kira says he does not intend on doing this again, but he seems troubled at the idea that this was something problematic at all, saying that insulting people is a regular occurrence on the platform, and that the worst thing that he did was not respect his parents.

Kira seems to have been under the impression that this speech would not leave the confines of the Clubhouse room an element which is incongruous given the anti-Muslim speeches made and disseminated by the political right wing and by radical Hindutva activists. He also does not think that these actions in any way translate to real life, saying, Of course I do not believe (that rape is an art), when questioned about an allegation that accused him of making this statement. If someone was threatening to rape a girl in front of me, I would protect her.

This again is a small but significant deviation from the Hindutva radical hate speech, which when advocating for violence against Muslim bodies, follows up the threat with very real-world hate crimes be it against interfaith couples, Muslim sites of work or simply visible Muslims occupying public spaces.

So what exactly is going on here? Is Kira part of an ecosystem of right-wing hatred, like the trads that The Wire has previously reported on? If so, why is he disowning his ideology? Or is he the product of an osmotic effect, as the official poison leaches into the social topsoil, producing wild contaminations? And most alarmingly, why did nobody on the app seem to take issue against these horrific statements while they were being made?

The answer to a lot of these lies in the nature of the platform of Clubhouse itself, and the specific digital subculture within which this speech is operating.

What is Clubhouse?

ClubHouse is, simply, a place for people to talk to each other. Accounts that do not necessarily need to be linked to real-world handles, guaranteeing a degree of anonymity, engage with each other in Rooms very similar to a conference call.

The space is currently more anarchic and less structured in nature than the usual social media spaces like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, because you can join any Rooms publicly available, without barriers to access like the invitation of those involved as a result, while space does create an algorithmically directed political bias (for instance, if you choose to follow clubs about Hinduism, it will recommend popular groups on the subject), it lacks the intensely silo-ed nature of the more established social media platforms.

It also has a distinctly ephemeral nature while many conversations in rooms can be made available for replay, for the most part, they are not, giving the conversations taking place a momentary, dynamic nature in contrast to the archival nature of other platforms.

Illustration: The Wire

Clubhouse was launched in 2020, making it among the youngest platforms currently available, and only recently aiming for a mass audience. In August of 2021, it was launched to the public before that, you needed an invitation to get in. When you take the combination of anonymity, the lack of algorithmic silos making for discrete political spaces, and the ephemeral nature of the content itself, were looking at a digital space which resembles the early days of the 4chan message-board and were seeing a subculture with very similar characteristics arising from it, with its attendant dangers.

When 4chan was first developed in 2003 by the 15 year old Chris Toole, it was meant to be a space prioritising absolute freedom of speech. While it had seven major messageboards, the ones which shot to notoriety were /pol, short for politically incorrect and /b, a miscellaneous space for random items of speech which would be unlikely to be tolerated in mainstream spaces.

These two spaces were where the culture of trolling was born. As Emma Grey Ellis, a specialist in internet culture at WIRED put it, this was home to all the creepy porn and violent imagery banned from the rest of the site. Users are in it, they say, for the lulz. They make swatiskas trend on Google, tell Justin Bieber fans to self-harm, and leak celebrity nudes. By 2010, it had become distinguished by its lawlessness, obscene content and vindictive campaigns.

Also read: Tek Fog in Action: Targeting Women Journalists, Pushing Communal Narrative on COVID, Delhi Violence

An analysis of /b/ on 4chan made points that are pertinent to Clubhouse today that This language is part of the group identity: pushing the bounds of propriety in order to hack the attention economy and turn heads. It also made the important point that, Not only does anonymity invoke disinhibition on /b/, but styling the collective as Anonymous also suggests de-individuation and mob behavior.

As a result, ironic humour and the use of violent hyperbole plays a critical part of how this group understands and relates to each other, and creates an intra-group identity.

So what the literature would suggest is that when Kira creates a fictitious narrative of his mother as an object of his sexual interest, its plausible that his speech is not meant to be interpreted as a literal desire, as much as a provocation to a group where earnest communication would be suspect. This aim in this communication is to shock, to throw down a gauntlet as a form of play, to see if this shock quotient can be met or escalated. In a manner similar to hazing, the premise is that the group will explicitly be attempting to push or violate social boundaries, and your ability to take a joke becomes directly proportional to your status within the group.

These are rituals which have been consistently recorded in hypermasculine spaces as ways of establishing identity and creating social bonds, and as such, it is not surprising that they come along with extreme misogyny even though the groups themselves feature women.

In a conversation with Sarita, as well as in monitored conversations on the app itself, a point which came up repeatedly was that women were targeted simply for being friends with men who were the enemies of the aggressor, and faced violence like morphed images and verbal abuse even if they didnt say anything at all a punishment by association.

*Name changed on request.

Link:
Clubhouse and the Fantasy of Sexual Violence Against Muslim Women - The Wire