Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

The BBC rarely misses an opportunity to broadcast its wokeness. Execs at the corporation seem to come up with new right-on initiatives every week from gender-balanced panel shows to allyship training for production staff, from spending millions on diversity to slapping trigger warnings on older, politically incorrect programmes. But what does all this behind-the-scenes wokeness mean for the corporations output?

Nigel Rees is a writer and broadcaster who presented the BBC Radio 4 show Quote Unquote for over 40 years. He recently called time on the programme and has spoken out about how the BBCs increasing wokery interfered with his job. spiked caught up with him to find out more.

spiked: What led you to stop making Quote Unquote for the BBC?

Nigel Rees: Although the woke thing has attracted the most attention, there were two main triggers for calling it a day. One was Covid. Covid meant that for the past two series, we were unable to record the show in front of a studio audience. The second thing was that at the beginning of the last series, we did the 500th edition of the programme, which was quite a landmark. And I began to think, why go on? But during the recording of what was already going to be the final series, what provoked me was all the wokery. I did not stop making the programme because of the wokery, though.

spiked: You have said that the BBC interfered with your selection of guests for the show. Why did that frustrate you?

Rees: This issue has grown over the years. It used to be a gender thing having an equal number of women and men on the panel. That was fairly easy to achieve, though it became slightly more difficult when the size of the panel was reduced from four to three. It is difficult to get a gender balance when you have three people.

But in the past few years, it became about minorities particularly people of colour. We had always had people of colour on the panel, whenever we had found people of colour whom we wanted to have on the programme. And this had always been my overriding rule that we should only have people on the show who could do it, who were up for it, who were the right sort of people never mind what colour they were. Nevertheless, there was this feeling that you had to have people of colour. During the recording of the last series, I was told that there should never be an all-white panel on panel games or quizzes.

Also, I was told that we had to have disabled representation on the panel, which rather took my breath away. What has that got to do with anything? And on radio, how do you know if someone is disabled? We had had disabled people on the programme in the past, so I asked why this policy had come about. A talent agent had complained to the BBC and specifically said that we did not have disabled people on the show. So this imposition was put on the programme.

It was completely unnecessary. I just wanted people who could do the programme. There was no need to tick boxes. But this is now everywhere in the BBC.

spiked: You have also spoken about being prevented from featuring lyrics from a Nol Coward song on the show. What happened?

Rees: That was the other side of the wokery. This had been going on for rather longer than the representation and diversity aspects. It was about a script I wrote. We had a segment called Detached Lyrics, where we would take a bit of a song lyric and remove the music, remove the context and ask the panel where it came from. In one series, I had wanted to include a quotation from Chattanooga Choo Choo. They said no, you cannot refer to that song because it is racist (at the beginning, there is a black porter). This is now a well-known, established forbidden area you cannot do Chattanooga Choo Choo.

For the 500th episode, I wanted to include the lyrics, In Bengal, to move at all, is seldom, if ever, done, which comes from Mad Dogs and Englishmen by Nol Coward. No, I was told by the executive, because the song represents colonial attitudes. It was ridiculous. The song is actually not pro-colonial, but anti-colonial. It pokes fun at the English, not the Bengalese. But I had to give way.

This sort of thing wore me down so it only added to my desire to leave the BBC.

spiked: Is this problem endemic in the BBC as a whole?

Rees: I think the wokery is endemic now or systemic, which is the word that people always use about everything.

Twenty or 30 years ago, we called it political correctness. I wrote a book about it in the 1990s, called The Politically Correct Phrasebook, so I have been very aware of this side of things. I used to say that political correctness was not wholly bad if it made you think about the language you used when referring to race, sex or whatever. I do not know who, upstairs at the BBC, has pushed this forward but it is now part of the way things are done.

spiked: Why is the BBC doing this?

Rees: One of the reasons is that a lot of activists have joined the BBC and they push it. Once upon a time, BBC producers and executives were very straight and balanced. But now you have got activists in production and research and they try to enforce their viewpoint.

Nigel Rees was speaking to Paddy Hannam.

More here:
The BBC is systemically woke - Spiked

With the year 2021 over, all the eligible films for Hollywoods annual awards have now come out, and the top contenders are up for discussion. Its also the end of the 21st year of the 21st century, a good opportunity to look back, as Hollywood is well into its second century now.

Theres no better way to see what happened, what could have been, or perhaps what should have been than a simple look at The Academy Award for Best Picture year by year. Mistakes were clearly made, awards intentionally politicized, and cultural identity revised relentlessly.

This could be a much bigger issue to discuss and deliberate, but for an end-of-year list well simply mention what won versus what was in the running. In doing so, well see who we were just a few years back and who we are today as the 21st century unfolds.

In 1999, American Beauty won the Best Picture Oscar, perhaps denoting the end of the American Century. Thats because the 21st century began with Gladiator, Ridley Scotts trademark decadence and emptiness, telling the story of the Roman Empires imminent demise. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should have won the Oscar, if only for its revolutionary effects that laid the foundation for Marvel and every single sci-fi or action movie since.

Russell Crowe carried A Beautiful Mind across the finish line, so to speak, even though it ended up unintentionally dismayed, empty, even vapid in its third act. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was the best film that year, but The Academy knew it was a triptych, so theyd be rewarding Peter Jackson for his epic undertaking in a couple of years.

As a return to an age-old cabaret vibe filled with talent and energy, Chicago took the prize. But realistically, it didnt have much competition. Gangs of New York became a Scorsese knock-knock joke, and while The Pianist was a clearly better film, Adrien Brodys performance wasnt enough to let The Academy forget it was directed by Roman Polanski, one of the first world-class directors whose past was beginning to get too strange, difficult, and unacceptable. Little did they know what cancel culture would ultimately become.

When the final installment of Peter Jacksons epic adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkiens The Lord of The Rings finally came out, the Best Picture Oscar statue was already being engraved. While The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was not as astounding or inspiring as the original or even the sequel, the cinematic storytelling masterpiece deserved the Academy Award across the board. In any other year, Lost in Translation would have won because of its tone, tenor, and Scarlett Johanssons debut pitted against Bill Murrays apex.

Ever so often, even Hollywood is able to view, recognize, and award the right film for the right reasons. With Million Dollar Baby, the story, the direction, the performances, and especially the timing are undeniable.

Not only is it Eastwoods best performance since Unforgiven, but Hilary Swank deservedly received Best Actress, Morgan Freeman earned Best Supporting Actor, and Eastwood won Best Director. An authentic, heartfelt story of redemption through unforgivable means, Million Dollar Baby is not only an exceptional film but a necessary discussion of morality and meaning.

From the highest highs to the lowest lows, the very next year after Million Dollar Baby, Crash was awarded Best Picture. Almost immediately Hollywood realizes not only that its a downright terrible film, but also that its egregious conversation about racism, inequality, violence, and humanitys flaws is at times laughable.

The faint smell of revisionist policies affected other nominees as well, with Brokeback Mountain presenting rugged homophobia and Munich re-evaluating Holocaust revenge strategies. This Best Picture failure did not bode well for The Academys future.

Every few years The Academy realizes its time to honor a legend, so The Departed became that moment for Martin Scorsese. While it remains at least arguable that hed earned the Best Director Oscar, the film by no means deserved Best Picture.

Despite an A-list cast, the story itself proved untenable and thin as ice, with a noticeably misguided performance by Jack Nicholson that probably convinced him it was time to retire. If not for the Scorcese variable, all signs pointed to Little Miss Sunshine for refreshing levity and originality.

The Academy Awards are notorious for crests and valleys, for accomplishments that define generations and moments that everyone wishes they could erase. After a couple of years lost in the woods, two films emerged that defined cinemas inherent prophetic profundity.

No Country for Old Men is quite simply a masterpiece. The Coen Brothers are at their very best, directing three of the finest lead performances in recent memory, with a story thats just as auspicious as its naturalism and articulate spiritual analysis. Javier Bardem won Best Actor, and to this day his portrayal of Anton Chigurh is deemed the most realistic depiction of sociopathology ever filmed.

If not enough, an equal contender was There Will Be Blood, a frontier character epic from Paul Thomas Anderson with a mesmerizing, unforgettable performance by one of the finest actors in cinema history, Daniel Day-Lewis.

A classic example of times collision with timing, Slumdog Millionaire winning Best Picture is more of a story about Western revisionism merging with a global game show craze caused by Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. While Dev Patels performance is acceptable and the story is enchanting and exhilarating, Slumdog Millionaire gets flimsier and less significant with every passing year. But perhaps it won the Oscar legitimately when its only competition was the laughable The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or the overtly political Milk.

The Hurt Locker being awarded Best Picture is yet another example of timing, but this instance proves strategy and intentionality. A film critical of military expansion and warrior mentality in the 21st century directed by a politically charged woman that manages to indirectly criticize an American president who started an illegitimate war? Yes, please. Thank you.

Among unique, original, favorable, or even forward-thinking contenders like Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man, or District 9 and the first year The Academy named 10 nominees instead of five The Hurt Locker proved two things: Jeremy Renner is a capable frontman and films can and should (and will) express political propaganda.

Again, a reset. A simple straightforward Best Picture to a deserving film; not so much a masterpiece as a relevant historical glance at a unique character and the moment that defined Great Britain approaching World War II.

Amid devastatingly realistic performances in The Fighter or the sweeping tech masterclass Inception created, The Kings Speech remained grounded and dignified, and actually pulled pivotal elements from both. Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as his linguist specialist preparing him for a wartime speech amid an expansive depiction of England approaching its historic role in saving Europe and the world made a clear, decisive, and necessary statement.

Although superficial in the sense there wasnt much beyond visual excellence and classic flair, The Artist manipulated old-fashioned nostalgia quite effectively. In that sense, it deserved the Best Picture Oscar, but with a rather weak list of nominees, even Woody Allens Midnight in Paris or Moneyball, a downplayed American pastime analysis, were arguably better features. Nonetheless, The Artist proved yet again that nostalgia the intentional reference to the way the past makes us feel is all it takes sometimes.

In hindsight, the year Argo won Best Picture foreshadowed three dominant trends that have continued in Hollywood ever since. First, politics is undeniably preeminent. Any film that provides an implicit or even explicit leftist perspective will be hailed just for its intentionality. Second, identity overshadows performance. Its more important that the right actor acts than the right performance performs.

Third, overall quality is in decline for a multitude of reasons: production value, international competition, global perspective, and social media influence. In other words, Argo may have been competent, but was far from momentous, let alone meaningful.

The very next year a candid, violent, and damning portrayal of American slavery won Best Picture. Fittingly, to this day its difficult to assess the long-term effects and implications of 12 Years a Slave. The performances were intimate, dignified, even exceptional especially Lupita Nyongo, who won Best Supporting Actress and the quality of the filmmaking both in terms of story and adaptation proved articulate and authentic.

Yet what were told to remember about the actual film is less its narrative, and more its unprecedented production characteristics. Yes, 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture with the first black producer and the first black director, but is that what the film was meant to signify? In other words, the separation of the art and the artist became muddled. Irreversibly and permanently.

Identity and globalization moved forward unabated the following year when Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) swept the production Oscars and awarded Alejandro G. Irritu Best Director. As a dark comedy-drama with a stellar comeback performance from Michael Keaton, Birdman proved to be the legitimate favorite of the year. But there were a few others nipping at its heels including The Grand Budapest Hotel, Boyhood, and even Whiplash. A strong year on the storytelling narrative level, Irritus credentials, talent, and international appeal sealed the deal.

With a biographical drama like Spotlight, The Academy had another chance to prove the Best Picture award wasnt just honoring a formidable film, but also making a necessary and time-sensitive statement perhaps not overtly political, but clearly against an acceptable, politically incorrect villain: the Catholic Church. A story about the Boston Globes investigative journalists responding to widespread and systemic child sex abuse not only won a Pulitzer in 2003 but an Oscar a decade later. And even though the contenders were limited, The Revenant was actually better in terms of performance and profundity. Its just that the message counted more than the metaphor that year.

Not unlike the 2016 election, the Best Picture Oscar came down to two very different, very disparaging, and very flawed versions of what the best film of the year should be. On one hand, you had an articulate and demanding coming-of-age drama suffering from an unnecessarily flawed and featureless third act, and on the other you had a musical comedy-drama love story about Los Angeles, The Industry, and hopes and dreams becoming our lives and loves. While it was truly a coin toss, La La Land was announced the winner until the recipient declared a mistake on stage at The Academy Awards. So Moonlight won by mistake. Or did it?

When a romantic fantasy like The Shape of Water beats Dunkirk to win the Best Picture Oscar, theres more going on than just the quality of any given film. And in this case, it was honoring an international director like Guillermo del Toro. Ironically, his past films had proved much more profound and inquisitive than The Shape of Water, but after the Best Picture incident the previous year, The Academy decided to lean on devotion instead of derangement.

Despite its numerous accolades, perhaps the reason Green Book won Best Picture is a good example of the-simplest-answer-is-probably-the-right-one: its easy. Green Book is an American autobiography against a racist past in the South victimizing jazz performers that pretty much everyone can agree is correct, necessary, and exactly what happened.

Is it an exceptional film? Not really. Is it safe? Yup. Is it anywhere near A Star Is Born in terms of performance quality, engaging narrative, or a sweeping soundtrack? (And keep in mind, A Star Is Born is a remake thats essentially the movie version of vanilla ice cream.) Definitely not.

As globalism takes hold, Hollywood either adapts or dries on the vine. So in a strange way, Parasite threw it a lifeline by legitimately presenting an impressive cast and story entirely produced in South Korea.

The headlines spoke volumes when they claimed Parasite was the first foreign film to win Best Picture. Again, its historic, its well-earned and fitting, and it was absolutely necessary for Hollywood to evolve and survive. All in all, either Joker or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood were better films in terms of quality, performance, and intentionality, but Joaquin Phoenix won Best Actor and Quentin Tarantino received Best Director. Fairs fair.

The year of COVID-19 shut things down entirely and almost made The Academy Awards senseless or even inappropriate. So its quite fitting that Nomadland won Best Picture, either because it became a convenient way to honor a foreign female director and feminist female lead or because every other film was essentially non-existent.

All jokes aside, given the pandemic, perhaps the slice-of-life moments and vignettes depicting like-minded Americans were exactly what The Academy wanted to honor? Probably not. But sometimes hope is all we have.

So here we are. What 2021 film will win the next Academy Award for Best Picture? It depends on the X-factor currently dominating. If its legitimate production quality, it could be Dune. Performance valor and resonance would indicate The Tragedy of Macbeth or even Pig. (Believe it or not.)

The Industry counting its blessings that movie-going still exists might mean Spider-Man: No Way Home could surprise everyone. If its early Oscar buzz, The Power of the Dog is currently the frontrunner. And if its time to honor a directors career and influence, perhaps Paul Thomas Andersons Licorice Pizza will be the surprise that wont age well. So all thats left to say is: We shall see.

Michael Jerzy is a writer for film and television living in Los Angeles, California. Amid the reverse McCarthyism in Hollywood today, he's proud to be writing film reviews for The Federalist.

Read the original post:
The 21 Best Films Of The 21st Century So Far - The Federalist

In a series of interviews granted by President Muhammadu Buhari at the turn of the New Year to some media houses; particularly the one granted to Channels Television; the president was taken to task on the prospects of a political solution to the Biafra question which is now more frequently assessed through the prism of Mazi Nnamdi Kanus incarceration. It was an instinctive question which I assume the Presidents handlers must have given serious thought as they prepared him for what he jocularly described as a punishment.The reason is not hard to seek: the Presidents relationship with the Igbos of the South East, has not been a rosy one; a situation which the President has failed to handle with the needed awareness and presence of mind.

But the Presidents interviewers were met with a response they might not have expected. It was supposed to be a well-rehearsed one aimed at distancing the President from any malice in the circumstances of MaziNnamdiKanu. But typical of the Presidents ex tempore remarks, it was unnecessarily convoluted, making it difficult for the objective listener to pinpoint with any accuracy the Presidents sentiments on the issue. Yet, he said enough to give an indication that he was averse to any political resolution of the matter.

Let us quote the man, there is one institution that I wouldnt dare interfere with. That is the judiciary. Kanus case is with the judiciary, but what I wonder is, when Kanu was safely in Europe abusing this Administration and mentioning so many things, I never thought really hed want to come and defend himself of the accusations against him. So we are giving him an opportunity to defend himself in our system, not to be abusing us from Europe, as if hes not a Nigerian. Let him come here voluntarily with us. Nigerians know that I dont interfere with the judiciary. Let him be listened tothose who are saying he should be released.No, we cannot release him.

When taken pointedly by SeunOkinbaloye on the prospects of a political solution, however, the President appeared to contradict himself. Nothere is the possibility of a political solution. If they behave themselves (a reference to IPOB apologists), all well and good. But he would contradict himself again: you cant go to a foreign country and keep on sending incorrect economic and security problem against your country and thinking youll never have to account for what youve been doing. Let him account for what he has been doing, he concluded.

Arguably, that interview was the clearest window into the mind of President MuhammaduBuhari, particularly where he stood on the matter of Mazi Nnamdi Kanus incarceration. It is instructive that the presidents response, was a reviewed version of what he had told a high-powered Igbo delegation which had paid him a visit at the twilight of 2021, demanding a political solution to the continued incarceration of MaziNnamdiKanu whose trial for alleged acts of treason remain subjudice before Justice BintaNyako of the Federal High Court.

President Muhammadu Buharis politically correct response may appear appealing to those who disagree with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his methods towards the actualization of a Biafra State (and I am one of them), it however fails to impress in the larger consideration of the need to quell the degenerating security situation in the South East which observers of the polity have often attributed to the (mis)management of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu situation.

While the President may want to be seen as a Democrat as he campaigned at his second coming, and who would not want to be seen to interfere in the constitutional mandate of the judiciary, a deeper introspection into the Body of our laws and recent political history, proves the president and his posturing wrong.

In an opinion piece titled On Biafra and the Igbo Peace-Mission published in the days after the visit of the southeast delegation to President Muhammad Buhari, I submitted as follows:

I welcome and commend the intervention of Igbo Leaders to secure a political resolution of the highly delicate NnamdiKanu situation, as well as President MuhammaduBuharis indication of a possible consideration.

Like all negotiations, that must, however, be on concessionary grounds which I believe, must consist of #MNKs abandonment of his near-terrorist Biafra project, as well as the Federal Governments commitment to addressing the sociopolitical issues fuelling agitations in the South East.

As I see it, a political solution holds the most realistic prospects of a win-win resolution of the crisis which, if not properly managed, can degenerate into the unfolding events in the Tigrayan region of Ethiopia. Needless to say, the ongoing judicial process, is at best, a tinderbox.

I however hope the negotiating Igbo Leaders have the brief and authority of MNK to undertake this project on his behalf and those of his lieutenants. Otherwise, it may end up in another embarrassing circus which will not bode well for both sides.

If they do, President MuhammaduBuhari should seize the rare opportunity towards resolving the crisis. Itll not only shape his not the particularly popular presidency, but it might also earn him accolades abroad as a possible recipient of the coveted Nobel Peace Prize.

Against the backdrop of President MuhammaduBuharis recent comments and the reasons canvassed for his inability to midwife a political solution out of the imbroglio, I think it has become imperative for me to reiterate that admonition and to provide legal and historical perspectives on how the President may proceed in that regard, assuming hes minded to.

First, the legal angle. There is no question that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is being tried for alleged acts of terrorism by the Federal Government of Nigeria over certain comments attributed to him vide a medium known as Radio Biafra. This automatically puts his trial within the oversight of the Attorney General of Federation who has the domino powers under Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution to enter a nolleprosequi in the matter of MaziNnamdiKanus trial. In legal parlance, a nolleprosequi simply means, the State is no longer willing to prosecute the charge against the Defendant and which automatically renders charge liable to be struck out within a defined legal framework, provided however that the charge may be preferred against the accused at a later time. Contrary to President Muhammadu Buharis fears, hell not be interfering with the judiciary in the event he sanctions it. Hell only be exercising one of those powers warehoused in the Executive in a presidential democracy in which we operate. Needless to say, our case law is replete with instances where Attorney Generals both at the State and Federal levels have invoked this power with the approval of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Alternatively, to the extent that the trial is conducted under the extant Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the Federal Government as Prosecutor may elect its right under Section 108(1) of the Act, to withdraw the charge against MaziNnamdiKanu on the back of a negotiated agreement between him and the presidency. Interestingly, like the Attorney Generals power of nolleprosequi, the Federal Government need not advance any reason before the Court for electing to withdraw the charge.

From my limited knowledge of our criminal jurisprudence, I think the above are two ready options before the presidency that would not see it, interfering with the judiciary, as the President fears. Theres no question that other options exist within our laws. I now turn to the evidence of history.

At the end of the day, the primary objective of any Government is the security and welfare of the citizenry. I am of the school of thought which postulates that there is no price too steep for buying peace in the socio-political market. Indeed, even our Supreme Court held in Dokubo v FRN (2007) WRN 1 that where the security of the nation and her citizens is threatened, the Rule of Law assumes secondary consideration. Now, while this writer concedes that that pronouncement of the Apex Court continues to agitate the minds of legal scholars, its purposes in the context of this intervention, is no more, than to underscore the imperative of winning the peace in any conflict; the post-Biafra conflict headlined by the activities of the IPOB inclusive.

Thus, in 2007, it took a negotiated amnesty by President Umaru Musa Yar Adua administration to secure the relative peace now being enjoyed in the Niger Delta region. Not many may recall that part of that negotiated process was the unconditional release of Chief AsariDokubo from prison, who incidentally was standing trial for Treasonable Felony before the same Justice BintaNyako.

Ditto for Chief Ralph Uwazuruike, who before MaziNnamdiKanu, had led a Biafra agitation movement under the banner of Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign States of Biafra (MASSOB). Whilst Uwazuruike was incarcerated in an underground cell at the DSS facility while standing trial for Treasonable Felony beforeJusticeBintaNyako, it took a political negotiation by the Goodluck Jonathan Administration in 2011 to calm the waters of that movement before MaziNnamdiKanu came to national consciousness. When the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 for Uwazurikes protracted trial to resume, the case was all too forgotten.

A political solution to politically-punctuated conflicts is not a new phenomenon. To be sure, it is a recognized medium by which national governments confront disputes that have great implications for national security. Recently, the Military Junta in Myanmar adopted this approach by freezing hundreds of political prisoners whom it had thrown behind bars when it interrupted the countrys democracy last February. Elsewhere, in the wake of the ongoing Civil War in Ethiopia, the Ethiopian government penultimate week, said it would release several prominent political prisoners, including members of the rebel Tigray Peoples Liberation Front, as a step toward peacefully resolving the countrys Civil War which recently entered its 15th month.

Other examples of a negotiated political solution to national conflicts abound across the African continent and beyond which need not be rehashed here.

As I have argued across different platforms; while Im not a fan of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his jejune Biafra project, what we cannot wish away, is the fact of him being a political prisoner. It is my considered view that this material ingredient calls for an unconventional assessment, evaluation, and management of his trial. It is therefore in this regard, that President MuhammaduBuhari might be persuaded to take a different look at the situation and quit the resort to arid legalism.

While MaziNnamdiKanu may be the only one physically standing trial, the ugly truth is that the South East in particular, and the nation in general is implicated in that trial. Kanu appeals to the large demography of Igbo Youth who now ascribes messianic status to him. Theyre ready to go to war against the Nigerian State at his command and would sit at home, in obedience to him, at the prompting of his lieutenants. That is how much influence he wields and his continued incarceration, needless to say, would only quadruple the ranks of his followers.

As the learned authors of a leading article in Peace Studies, Wallace Warfield and AshaldSentongo argued in their work, Political Leadership and Conflict Resolution: An African Example, the Biafra imbroglio requires the management of a transformative leader who acknowledges not only the tension posed by a conflict but also the opportunities existing in a broadly participatory political process. Such a leader values the role conflict mitigation can play in managing this tension and building a nations capacity for sustainable peace and development. President Muhammad Buhari can rise to that example.

A Legal Practitioner and Public Affairs commentator, Raymond can be reached via [emailprotected] and @RayNkah on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
Buhari, Nnamdi Kanu and the 'political solution' question - TheCable

Activists in Jakarta, Indonesia, protest the Chinese governments persecution of the Uyghur people and call for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing January 4, 2022.(Willy Kurniawan / Reuters)

On the Beijing Games; Elon Musk; Russian appetites; Epsteins pals; the scourge of wokeness; Sidney Poitier; Winston Churchill; and more

A report from the Associated Press begins in interesting fashion: The Beijing Winter Olympics are fraught with potential hazards for major sponsors, who are trying to remain quiet about Chinas human rights record while protecting at least $1 billion theyve collectively paid to the IOC. Also, the president of the IOC that would be International Olympic Committee points out that the Games must be politically neutral.

Okay. But, as you know, if a person is neutral between persecutors and persecuted, he is in effect siding with the persecutors.

Isaac Stone Fish delivered some unsettling news: Just days after Biden signed into law a bill banning exports from Xinjiang, Elon Musks Tesla opens its first store and showroom in Xinjiang. A shocking move.

Xinjiang Province, as you know, is where the Chinese government is trying to obliterate the Uyghur people. (To the Uyghurs, Xinjiang is East Turkestan.) There are so many things to say. I will merely quote Willi Schlamm, as Bill Buckley liked to do: The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.

There are things more important than the China market especially in Xinjiang Province, or East Turkestan.

In London, the Russian embassy had something to say. It was quoting the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov: #NATO has become a purely #geopolitical project aimed at taking over territories orphaned by the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and the Soviet Union.

With apologies to Russia experts, you really dont have to be a Russia expert to understand the mindset: These guys are plenty transparent. They feel an ownership of other countries.

I very much liked the response of Radek Sikorski, the Polish statesman (and former writer for National Review):

Get this, @RussianEmbassy, once and for all, in a language you can grasp. We were not orphaned by you because you were not our daddy. More of a serial rapist. Which is why you are not missed. And if you try it again, youll get a kick in the balls.

Lets hope so.

Michael McFaul, the Russianist who was our ambassador to Moscow, says this:

I met Putin in 1991. Ive written about him for 2 decades. I sat in the room with him for 5 years during the Obama administration. Those who believe that Putin will stop undermining Ukrainian sovereignty & democracy with a non-expansion NATO guarantee dont know Putin.

I think of a French expression, taught to me by a Briton, David Pryce-Jones: Lapptit vient en mangeant. Appetite comes from eating.

When I was managing editor of National Review, I asked DP-J to write about many, many things, and he never balked except once. I asked him to write something about Vietnam, and what happened after we abandoned the South. He asked to be excused. It was so terrible, so atrocious and we bore some responsibility.

At the moment, it is very, very tempting to look away from Afghanistan. But theres a plethora of stories like this one: Parents Selling Children Shows Desperation of Afghanistan.

Is it time to stop following the Jeffrey Epstein story? Ghislaine Maxwell, his partner in crime, has been found guilty. A jury convicted her of five counts of sex trafficking. Good. But how about the friends and associates of Epstein? The men with whom he shared the trafficked girls? It would be good to know the truth about the matter the whole matter whether it embarrasses Republicans, Democrats, royals, or anyone else.

You may have seen this story (and if youre a Brit, you surely have): British Prime Minister Boris Johnson faced a wave of public and political outrage on Tuesday over allegations that he and his staff flouted coronavirus lockdown rules by holding a garden party in 2020 while Britons were barred by law from mingling outside the home. (Article here.)

Now, you may think the rules were dumb. But the hypocrisy stinks. I think of an ancient phrase, and concept: to lead by example.

Strongly, strongly I recommend this article by two Peters: Kiefer and Savodnik. It is about woke madness (for lack of a better phrase) in Hollywood. I wish to quote one line: We spoke to more than 25 writers, directors, and producers all of whom identify as liberal, and all of whom described a pervasive fear of running afoul of the new dogma.

Im here to tell you: The same kind of article could be written about music in the classical field, the musical-theater field, and others, I bet. No one would go on the record, maybe. The fear is great. But I have heard expressions of despair and disgust from people who never had a politically incorrect thought in their lives, if you know what I mean.

Allow me to repeat what I have said before in my column: Aung San Suu Kyi has had one of the most tumultuous lives of modern times. Her father, the national hero, was murdered when she was two. She made great sacrifices for freedom. She stood with phenomenal courage against the Burmese dictatorship. She was imprisoned for many years. In a democratic opening, she was elected the civilian leader of the country. She went along with the military, especially in its persecution of the Rohingya people (very popular among the nationalist Burmese, unfortunately). The democratic government was overthrown by the military in a coup.

And now, the latest: Myanmars Suu Kyi sentenced to 4 more years in prison. This lady is 76 years old, and still in the storm.

Sidney Poitier, the actor, has passed away at 94. What a voice. What a face. Etc. Some lines are indelible. And one of them is: They call me Mr. Tibbs. On Twitter, Avi Mayer circulated a portion of an interview that Poitier gave to CBSs Lesley Stahl. The actor explained how an elderly Jewish waiter taught him to read. Moving: here.

Lani Guinier has passed away at 71. Id like to quote Ben Shapiro:

I had Lani Guinier as a professor at Harvard Law. We agreed on nothing, and she was a total delight as a human being. We used to have hard-edged discussions in class, and she embraced them with joy. A rarity. RIP.

Bob Saget has passed away at 65. Comedian, actor, TV host. He was a gift to our popular culture the kind of person who makes you smile, even merely to think of him.

Dale Clevenger has passed away at 81. He was one of the greatest orchestral players of our time: principal French horn in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Robert Marshall, the music scholar, once told me a story about him. I wrote it up for The New Criterion.

In the mid-Seventies, the [University of] Chicago music department was running a series called First Chair. Principal players from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra would visit the department and talk. One such was Dale Clevenger, the eminent French hornist.

A student said to him, Do you know the solo from the Tchaikovsky Fifth Symphony? Clevenger said, Does the Pope know Latin? The same student, or another one, asked Clevenger whether he ever got nervous. In answer, Clevenger said, Im going to play the Tchaikovsky excerpt. Come up here. I want you to feel my pulse while I play it.

When he was through, he said to the student, Did you notice how my pulse was racing? And this was a fairly easy solo certainly not very high. And I am not playing in a major concert. Its just us, having an informal get-together. Still, yes, it makes me nervous.

Now and then, Twitter announces a permanent suspension. Peter Baker of the New York Times commented, ... isnt permanently suspend a contradiction in terms? Which reminded me of my father: who calls a permanent, as in the hair treatment, a temporary.

Lets talk pronunciation. When I was growing up in Michigan, a lot of people said vanella, instead of vanilla: Ill have a vanella shake. Now, the coach of the New England Patriots is Bill Belichick. But I hear many, many Americans say Belicheck.

You know the word quarter? I think I said corter until I was about 20 not kworter.

In a recent piece, Kevin D. Williamson wrote, ... it turns out, keeping Winston Churchills daily personal routine doesnt make you Winston Churchill. Which gave me a memory.

Paul Johnson, a biographer of Churchill, and many others, wrote that Churchill worked in bed until noon. I said to Johnson, Thats probably the only thing I have in common with Churchill: I, too, work in bed till noon. Johnson replied, He really worked, you know. I protested, So do I!

It was true then (although it has not been true in some time). (I move from bed to a chair.) (Most of the time.)

A little music? Heres a review of a Rigoletto at the Metropolitan Opera.

Feel like some pictures? I had a slew of them in my Nashville journal earlier this week (here). Take a few more, if you will.

This is an attractive building on the campus of Limestone University, in Gaffney, S.C.

And how about this stately mother?

A farm, in Greater Gaffney really nice:

New Yorks Central Park, in midwinter?

Another shot, for the road:

No, one more shot: of the USS Intrepid, in the Hudson River (also New York). You remember Patriot Pops? Those red-white-and-blue popsicles? Well, thats what the ship reminded me of the other night.

Thanks for joining me, everybody. All the best.

If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail links to new columns write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.

Go here to read the rest:
The Beijing Olympics, Elon Musk, Jeffrey Epstein, and More - National Review

A few days ago, Aiman Khan appeared on the first episode of a new season of Voice Over Man, a show where many celebrities often end up saying somewhat offensive things because of the kind of questions asked by the shows host, Wajahat Rauf.

Because its a comedy show, Rauf, AKA Voice Over Man, tends to make provocative statements to see if celebrities take bait. Sometimes the guests come across as witty and fun-loving, other times they sound judgmental. Unfortunately, Aiman Khans episode gave room to some problematic statements.

As per the show format, Rauf deliberately asks problematic questions, such as Do actresses lose their value after they get married? If not, then what things make women lose their value? As one of his options, he asked if wearing small clothes like Faryal Mehmood or posting angry posts like Ushna Shah make women lose their value.

He then proceeded to make the following statement: All heroines should get married because boys are running out. To this Aiman replied, I think if you take too long to get married, then you dont end up getting married at all. There are so many actresses who are still unmarried.

This is a fairly loaded statement because it suggests that all unmarried actresses lost their chance, and it also makes it sounds like being unmarried is a bad thing.

In another segment of the show, Rauf asks her to give advice to her contemporaries. When he takes TikTok star Jannat Mirzas name, Aimen advises her to wear less makeup.

The TikTok star has also responded to Aimens statements, saying that someone with a lot of makeup and surgeries should not be telling other people what to do.

The format of the show is infamously provocative and politically incorrect and celebrities know exactly what theyre walking into when they agree to be on the program. Several artistes have thus chosen to not participate. So those who do appear come with a responsibility of saying what they will. Voice Over Mans questions can be responded to with equal quirk and mischief but without that ability, most artistes have the tendency of walking straight into the trap, especially when commenting on other stars.

Looks like Time Out with Ahsan Khan has some serious competition from Voice Over Man when it comes to which show will create more controversy!

Read more from the original source:
Aiman Khan upsets many with her comments on the Voice Over Man show - Something Haute

For the past 60 or so years we have lived in an age of charismatic capitalists. The paragon of the species was Steve Jobs. I happened to be in Moscow when he died on October 5, 2011, and I remember watching as a giant poster of his face was unfurled on the side of a skyscraper and Russians gathered around in silence, holding candles and sometimes weeping.

But charismatics have thrived outside Silicon Valley. General Electrics Jack Welch was treated as a demigod for supposedly reviving the conglomerate form. Michael Milken was revered (and reviled) for spinning junk bonds into gold. Enrons Jeffrey Skilling told a beguiling story of freeing natural gas from the constraints of molecules and movement. At Alibabas 18th birthday party the company founder, Jack Ma, dressed as Michael Jackson and danced to the song Billie Jean in front of 40,000 cheering employees.

Adam Neumann grew WeWork into one of the worlds most valuable startups before losing control of the company. Credit:Mark Lennihan

In his new book, The Emergence of Charismatic Business Leadership, Richard Tedlow, a legendary professor at Harvard Business School who is now on the faculty of Apple University, argues that charismatic business leaders are more than just larger-than-life personalities. Sam Walton was deliberately folksy and self-effacing. Milken comes across as the class nerd.

What distinguishes them is a combination of personal magnetism and reality distortion. You want to follow them even against your better judgment: One of Milkens employees opined that someone like Mike comes along once every five hundred years. And you are captured by their vision of the world: Guy Bud Tribble, a leading member of the team that designed the Mac, said that in Jobss presence reality is malleable. He can convince anyone of practically anything It was dangerous to get caught in Steves distortion field, but it was what led him to actually be able to change reality.

These charismatic figures exploded on the business world after an era in which capitalism had degenerated into grey bureaucracy. The greatest manager of the era, Alfred P. Sloan, prided himself on turning General Motors into an objective organisation, as distinguished from the type that gets lost in the subjectivity of personalities.

Loading

The most telling book was William H. Whytes The Organisation Man, which includes the wonderful phrase lifted from a documentary film produced for Monsanto Chemical Company: no geniuses here; just a bunch of average Americans working together. This was the world of the corner office, the grey flannel suit and the annual upgrade of the same old product.

Charismatic capitalism was produced by the most powerful forces of the new capitalism unleashed by the Reagan-Thatcher revolution. Technological innovation allowed a few first-movers geniuses rather than average Americans to build world-spanning empires, just as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller had done in the second half of the 19th century.

Deregulation forced established businesses to become more agile. The explosion of executive pay persuaded even run-of-the-mill CEOs that they were geniuses who deserved to be splashed on the cover of Forbes. Why else would the average CEO at the top 350 US firms ranked by sales have been paid 386 times their average workers pay in 2000, compared with 45 times in 1989. And changing mores allowed members of out-groups, most notably Oprah Winfrey, to turn charisma into towering fortunes.

View original post here:
Why we shouldnt give up on the charismatic CEO - Sydney Morning Herald

SURVEILLANCE PELICANA

BY

DAN WEISMAN

The entire book appears at this link with chapters added after appearing online:

Chapters 1-10: https://www.escondidograpevine.com/surveillance-pelicana-full-book-chapters-added-as-they-appear-online/.)

Chapters 11-20: https://www.escondidograpevine.com/surveillance-pelicana-part-ii-chapters-11-to-20-chapters-added-as-they-appear-online/)

Chapters 21-30: https://www.escondidograpevine.com/surveillance-pelicana-part-iii-chapters-21-to-30-chapters-added-as-they-appear-online/

CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE

The convention hits full stride as

Tyger embarks on guerilla protest. He spends a lot of time with

convention protesters and reveals all the counter-culture events

pertaining to the gathering. Much time is spent at the Yippie

Peace Camp the abandoned Worlds Fair parking lot where the

box of troubles burned and other Yippie events. Details of the

convention are considered and explained, as well as pertinent

historical correlations. The novel ends with a wrapping up of

details concerning the leading characters and relevant events.

CHAPTER 29

Pie in the Sky at Peace Camp

SURVEILLANCE PELICANA

Chapter Twenty-Nine

Weisman

593

By Wednesday August 17, Armors is mad as hell about events

pertaining to the convention. The utter banality of the

proceeding coupled with the unbelievably unconstitutional nature

of unpublicized mass arrests convince him to take matters into

his own hands.

Armors grabs Tyger by the proverbial lapel

taking it to thestreets. Guess who is driving.

About 11 a.m. on a typically hot and humid New Orleans

mid-morning, Tyger climbs in the cockpit of his muffler not

bomb that somehow manages to navigate around town. Adjusting an

internal compass, he heads east beneath a cloudless sky for the

streetcar line.

Armors mission is simple. Seek out Republicants

wherever they land, preferably in groups of three and smaller,

and destroy them with well placed barbs.

In other words, engage the invaders in one-on-one dogfights

using the quick verbal zap technique before fleeing the scene. It

is a classic guerilla campaign thanks to General Giaps handy

training manual with a hardy assist from Joe Fine mobile Israeli tactics.

SURVEILLANCE PELICANA

Chapter Twenty-Nine

Weisman

594

This way, mobility plus intimate knowledge of the

area can be used effectively to overwhelm the confused target and

defeat it. Then, executing a timely escape enables the

guerilla to seek and destroy another objective. The tactic has a

certain charm, plus the additional safety first factor.

Targets must be chosen carefully.

Of course, it is easy to spot delegates and their fellow

travelers. They stick out like Cajun pig sandwiches cochon

dlait for the goyim at a kosher supper.

Repub delegates are the ridiculous fools wearing

jackets and dress suits plastered with ridiculous badges,

buttons, and symbols. Fellow travelers, as well, are costumed in

formal wear of the poorest taste. They all seem to be gunning for

Mr. Blackwells worst dressed list and quite a few appear to be

making it.

First up at 11:15 high Armors blows reefer, as Tyger avoids

radio contact due to the need to concentrate on prosecution of

the offensive is an insipid well dressed man right out of

Blue Velvet. He looks quite lost along the neutral ground just

past Napoleon Avenue. Josephine this, baby.

SURVEILLANCE PELICANA

Chapter Twenty-Nine

Weisman

595

Tyger checks right and left; nobody else in the vicinity,

no traffic behind him, all systems a go go, big brother . Tyger

slows his vehicle to a crawl, waiting until the man looks his way.

Then, Armors lets loose theinitial volley

of his personal guerrilla war on evil. Repuboscum

faggot. Everybody hates your shitty guts, boom boom boom. Tyger

speeds away, leaving the guy with a pissed off expression staring

at mother the cars dust.

Tyger checks in all directions. No one else has noticed.

Direct hit mission control. We bagged a dead live one.

Armors is somewhat disappointed in his

initial encounter. The tactic works great, but he wants

a more special brand of verbal abuse for a special brand of inbred

porkers.

Another target about 11:30 a.m., 12 oclock high about 50

yards down the neutral ground. Looking bad, two Repubbubbly

women replete in hideous suit dress camouflage with tell-tale

badges.

Tyger checks all directions, slows almost to a stop. Armors

attracts their attention by waving his right hand out the cockpit

glass. They take the bait and look his way.

Hey bitches, Armors yells. How many Contras have you fucked. Why dont

you die Repuboscums.

See the original post:
Surveillance Pelicana Chapter Twenty-Nine: 'Pie in the Sky at Peace Camp' - Escondido Grapevine

As predictions go, you could do worse in forecasting the issues that defined this year than what those two men were focused on: Attempting to overthrow American democracy and struggling to contain the pandemic. 2021 in a nutshell, before it even began.

With the year (blessedly) behind us, its time again for a treasured POLITICO Magazine tradition: a rundown of some of the worst predictions of 2021. Some are cocksure and smug; others have a tragic air of obsessiveness (cough, Mike Lindell, cough); still others were totally fair and reasonable predictions at the time, but the world spun in a different direction than it once seemed. Here, more than two dozen predictions about 2021 that were, well, bad.

Everythings going to be fine in the last few weeks of the Trump administration

Predicted by: Hugh Hewitt, Jan. 6

On the morning of Jan. 6, conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt appeared on Megyn Kellys podcast and was asked a question on the minds of seemingly every political observer in America: Joe Bidens going to get certified [as president-elect] today. What does Trump do over the next two weeks before the inauguration? I mean, hes still going to be saying what hes saying about the electoral process, and theres a big rally in D.C. today, but what do you think we can expect?

Hewitt responded by predicting a raft of new pardons before turning to the broader concern about the peaceful transfer of power: I would just say to everybody: It will be fine. Everythings going to be fine, he said as Kelly voiced her agreement.

A few hours later, a violent pro-Trump putsch at the U.S. Capitol disrupted the peaceful transfer of power and dragged the nation to the brink of a constitutional crisis. Everything was not fine.

Predicted by: Scott Adams, July 1, 2020

There are a few reasons you might recognize the name Scott Adams. Perhaps you know him from his repeat appearances on these annual worst predictions lists (e.g. that Trump, Biden and Bernie Sanders would all contract Covid by election day 2020 and one would die). If youre of a certain age, maybe you remember Dilbert, the 90s cartoon icon he created that satirized corporate office culture in the years before Office Space. Or, if youre part of the political cognoscenti in the broader Trump era, you might know him as a self-described expert in the rhetorical dark arts who has spun that ability into a second act as a MAGA-adjacent political commentator with a large online following.

But unlike many prominent voices of that persuasion, he exudes a calm clarity in his thinking as if what he says is the natural outgrowth of a deliberative process which gives his predictions a certain dispassionate confidence, as if they are closer to scientific fact than wishcasting or doomsaying.

For instance, on July 1, 2020, Adams made this prediction about American life in 2021 with Joe Biden in the White House: If Biden is elected, theres a good chance you will be dead within the year. Lest you think he was talking about, say, the potential mismanagement of the pandemic or some natural disaster, Adams clarified what he meant in two further tweets: Republicans will be hunted. Police will stand down.

We are nearly a full year into Bidens presidency. Police have not stood down. In fact, many cities have increased funding for police. Republicans, far from being hunted, have made major electoral gains and stand poised to retake at least one house of Congress next year. There are no killing fields. There has been no purge.

Predicted by: St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board, Aug. 3

When Bush staged a sleep-in on the steps of the Capitol to protest the lapse of the pandemic-era eviction ban, her hometown St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an editorial that reads like a pat on the head of the freshman Missouri congresswoman and liberal Squad member.

Bush clearly misunderstands the complicated process required to restore the moratorium, they wrote. As with many progressive ideals, righteous-sounding aspirations never seem to take into account political reality. Bush tweeted a demand that President Joe Biden extend the eviction moratorium and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer force legislative action. Its as if she believes those three can wave their wands and magically make things better.

Later that same day, Biden announced a new 60-day eviction moratorium prompted by pressure and coverage generated by Bushs TV-ready protest. With her antics, she had changed political reality. Even as the ban ended weeks later after being struck down by the Supreme Court, it came about not through magic, but real-world politics.

Predicted by: President Joe Biden, July 8

Last summer, as U.S. forces withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban steadily regained territory throughout the country, Biden held a press conference where he was asked about the historical echoes some veterans of the Vietnam War saw between the fall of Saigon and the Afghanistan pullout. Asked if he saw parallels between the two events, Biden who, by the way, was a U.S. senator when Saigon fell in spring 1975 was insistent.

The Taliban is not the South the North Vietnamese army. Theyre not theyre not remotely comparable in terms of capability, he said. Theres going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable. The likelihood theres going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.

Just over one month later, in mid-August, Chinook helicopters airlifted Americans from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul as it evacuated. The Taliban surrounded and retook Kabul; it is now fully in control of the government of Afghanistan.

Predicted by: Chuck Schumer, March 10

Nope. The Covid bill passed, checks went into pockets, shots went into arms and the political benefit for Democrats has been minimal. Politics hasnt changed drastically, and it certainly doesnt seem like the pro-autocracy movement has been put to bed in any way.

Predicted by: Kevin McCarthy, April 28

Ahh, the early days of the Biden administration pre-Afghanistan pullout, pre-Delta wave, pre-vaccine mandate when the presidents poll numbers were strong and Republicans flailed about for an issue, any issue, that could provide a political foothold. Banning Dr. Seuss. No? Going to war against Major League Baseball? No? What about meat? Yes, thats the ticket.

Heres what happened: in late April, after Biden vowed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half, Fox News and its sister channels went to work promoting the falsehood that Biden was going to effectively ban meat, as PolitiFact extensively documented. Their promotion of that deception led House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy to reflect their outrage back at them: On April 28, he appeared on Hannity and confidently predicted that the Biden administration is gonna control how much meat you can eat. That is, of course, not the case: Biden did not ban meat, nor is he controlling how much animal protein you consume, nor is any plan in motion to do that.

Here, a quick clarification may be useful: Theres a difference between a falsehood and a bad prediction. A falsehood is something presented as fact when it is not. A bad prediction is a forward-looking, if ultimately incorrect, assertion about how the future will play out. What McCarthy said is both.

Predicted by: Mike Lindell, many times

March 26: All the evidence I have everything is going to go before the Supreme Court, and the election of 2020 is going bye-bye. Donald Trump will be back in office in August.

March 30: I said Donald Trump will be in [the White House] in August. And I fully believe that myself: hell be back in.

May 25: Donald Trump will be back in by the end of August.

June 2: These are facts: We have a clear path to pull this election down. [On the Supreme Court,] itll be 9-0 down comes the election, and in August, here comes Donald Trump.

June 5: [On the August prediction] I could be off by a month or so, I dont know.

July 4: By the morning of August 13, itll be the talk of the world, going Hurry up! Lets get this election pulled down. Lets get these communists out, you know, [who] have taken over.

Aug. 21: Its Trump 2021, 100 percent: Trump 2021. This election, when it does get pulled down, there were so many down-ticket [races] affected, maybe the Supreme Court, theyll just do a whole new election.

Sept. 21: I made a promise to this country that with all the evidence I have that we would get it to the Supreme Court. And I predicted they would vote 9-0 to look at the evidence. Originally, I had hoped for August and September. We will have this before the Supreme Court before Thanksgiving. Thats my promise to the people of this country.

Sept. 24: Were giving everything all the evidence I have [to] the Supreme Court. That will be done before Thanksgiving. Thats in stone.

Nov. 7: [The Supreme Court is] going to accept it 9-0. It will require a new election across the board. [Theyll] declare the 2020 vote void and order new elections across the board.

Nov. 17: One week from today, on Nov. 23, the states are suing the U.S. government at the Supreme Court. Its over!

Dec. 17: [On the timeline for his long-promised 9-0 Supreme Court case] It was gonna be today; it switched out til Monday.

Lets be clear: Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election. He lost by every possible measure. He lost the national popular vote (which doesnt decide who wins). He lost the Electoral College (which does). He lost the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. He lost each of them by margins far too large to even possibly be changed by voter fraud. He and his allies lost 61 state and federal lawsuits related to the election results. His claims of widespread fraud or a stolen election are baseless and themselves fraudulent. He has no rightful claim to the presidency.

And yet, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO-turned conspiracy theorist, continues to predict, despite reality, that the election results will be deemed illegitimate, thrown out, and that somehow, this will make Trump the White Houses rightful occupant. How would this work? Unclear. Even if the election were somehow dismissed, why would Trump be given the office? Also unclear. When will this occur? Perpetually, someday soon.

What Lindell has done repeatedly and confidently predicting Trumps return to office time after time, missed deadline after missed deadline isnt just moving the goalposts; its well, metaphors fail. Its moving the whole damn field. Its changing the sport entirely. Its inventing a new game that only he can win, and then managing to lose said game, repeatedly.

Predicted by: Robert McCartney (among many, many, many others), Jan. 1

On Jan. 1, when Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney published his 11th annual predictions quiz about the year ahead, he gave readers six options from which to correctly select the next governor of Virginia. Who would it be? Could Virginia make history by electing a Black woman, like Democratic state Sen. Jennifer McClellan or former Delegate Jennifer Carroll Foy? Would scandal-plagued Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax improbably resurrect his career after sexual assault allegations? Perhaps a Republican lawmaker, like former state House Speaker Kirk Cox, or the Trumpy state Sen. Amanda Chase?

No. The next governor, McCartney wrote, would be Terry McAuliffe, as Bidens 2020 victory showed theres still plenty of appetite for an old White guy. In November, of course, McAuliffe lost to someone who wasnt even on the list: Republican Glenn Youngkin.

Predicted by: Karl Rove, Feb. 11

Predicted by: John Kerry, April 27

Predicted by: Anthony Scaramucci, May 15

Apparently, fomenting a violent uprising against the government isnt a deal-breaker. With his grip on the GOP still tight, the partys nomination is certainly Trumps if he wants it. And this month, polls on a potential presidential election between Trump and Biden show a tight race: Biden up by 1 (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 7); Biden up by 3 (Echelon Insights, Dec. 14); Trump up by 3 (Harris, Dec. 6). By all appearances, Trump is certainly capable of running in 2024 and winning.

Predicted by: Sean Duffy, Jan. 2

When, on Jan. 2, Watters World guest host Dan Bongino asked Duffy, a former Real World castmate-turned-Wisconsin GOP congressman-turned-Fox News personality, for his predictions for the year ahead, there was not a moments hesitation: Listen, my crystal ball tells me that youre going to have a continued cognitive decline for Joe Biden. By the end of 2021, Kamala Harris will be the president.

Right now, it is Dec. 24, and while Ill concede that it is possible that the next six days bring some truly Earth-shattering news, Biden is still the president. Has his fastball lost some of its zip as hes aged? Sure. Whose doesnt? But there is nothing to suggest anything in the realm of debilitating cognitive decline. And as 2021 ends, Harris is not only not the president, shes been the subject of much critical coverage that has fanned doubts about whether she could ever really be the president.

Predicted by: Donald Trump, Oct. 22, 2020

You can doubt the strength of the Biden economy, debate whether or not the inflation weve experienced is transitory and question all the various statistics trotted out to prove this or that. But its a simple fact that the economy is not in a depression. Its not even in a recession.

Since Biden took office, the unemployment rate has dropped from 6.3 percent to 4.2 percent; the Dow Jones Industrial Average has grown by roughly 14 percent; the S&P 500 is up roughly 21 percent; Americas gross domestic product grew by 7.8 percent over the first three quarters of 2021, even when adjusted for inflation. If thats a depression, then what would be the appropriate term for the economy at the end of the Trump presidency?

Predicted by: Tom Ricks, June 24

In his tweet, Ricks conceded that it was a reckless prediction, but at the time, maybe it didnt seem too crazy. The economy was improving, the pandemic seemed to be receding.

Two months later, the botched Afghanistan withdrawal began to slash away at Bidens ratings. The political fallout from the debacle punctuated by horrific violence, humanitarian disaster and scores of deaths continues to be an albatross on the Biden administration.

By Labor Day, in FiveThirtyEights average, Bidens approval sat at 46.1 percent; his disapproval was 48.3 percent. It was the end of the first full week of the Biden presidency where his approval was underwater. Its been there ever since.

Predicted by: Nate Silver, Aug. 23

There was a time this summer when it appeared that the recall election against California Gov. Gavin Newsom might actually win polls tightened substantially in early August, sparking the typical apocalyptics from the blue-check Twitterati. Pretty decent chance Newsom gets recalled, FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver tweeted before jumping to explain how this reality revealed the foolishness of Dems strategy of not putting forward a potential Newsom successor on question two on the recall ballot: Democrats could potentially keep the seat if they urged their voters to consolidate behind an alternative Democrat but instead theyre telling them not to vote on the replacement!

Come September, Newsom defeated the recall with 62 percent of the vote. And Dems strategy of not consolidating behind an alternative candidate helped Newsom make the vote an up-or-down choice between him and Republican frontrunner Larry Elder rather than giving Democratic voters a viable option on question two (which mightve sweetened the prospect of voting yes on question one).

Silver might take issue with our call that his odds-making counts as a wrong prediction, but the fact is, Newsom ultimately won handily. And his strategy paid off.

Predicted by: Brett Arends, Jan. 22

Predicted by: Myles Udland, Dec. 16, 2020

Turns out there was a reason to worry about inflation. By October, the year-over-year inflation rate was the highest since 1990. By November, it was the highest since 1982. Between January and this writing, the chatter among economists has evolved: It was something you probably didnt need to be worried about. Then it was transitory. Now, it is maybe not so temporary. Hard to tell.

The issue has badly disrupted the first year of the Biden administration, and has a quality not unlike a beach ball in a swimming pool: Try as you might to wrestle it down, it pops back up to the surface over and over again, stubborn to your every effort.

Predicted by: Jamelle Bouie (among many, many others), July 7

In July, my colleague Maya King reported on a trend in suburban Virginia: Tense school board meetings populated by growing numbers of parents angry about the supposed teaching of critical race theory often used by ideological conservatives as a shorthand for how race and social issues are taught in K-12 public schools, even as Loudoun County school officials insisted that the theory was not actually being taught. Could a School-Board Fight Over Critical Race Theory Help Turn Virginia Red?, the headline read.

No, responded Jamelle Bouie, a New York Times columnist who lives in Virginia. The idea, he continued, was an extremely credulous take on Republican wishcasting. (Worth noting: That wasnt an entirely unreasonable assumption, coming four years after stories asked aloud whether fears about the MS-13 gang would spur Republicans to retake the governors mansion.)

It wasnt. Come November, Republicans won the elections for Virginia governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, and regained control of the state House. Was the critical race theory backlash the sole reason why? No. But it appears to have played a substantial role in winning Youngkin the election.

By promising at nearly every campaign stop to ban critical race theory Youngkin resurrected Republican race-baiting tactics in a state that once served as the capital of the Confederacy, wrote the Times Lisa Lerer. It was, wrote the Times Trip Gabriel, his best known pledge embodying the anger that drove the grass roots. And, in a tidy answer to the question posed in the headline of Mayas piece, USA Todays Ledyard King and Mabinty Quarshie reported that the issue sparked a movement that help[ed] turn Virginia from blue to red last month.

Predicted by: Dana Perino, Jan. 4; Matt Grossmann, Nov. 9, 2020; et al

Its an understandable assumption: Georgia has been going hard for Republicans for decades, and a reasonable observer might imagine that the GOP would have the edge in the Jan. 5 run-offs. Down-ticket, Republicans in the state performed strongly in the November elections: While Trump lost to Biden by about 0.3 points in the state, David Perdue led Jon Ossoff by 1.8 points on the same ballot. The states other Senate seat had just undergone an inconclusive jungle primary in which nobody received more than one-third of the vote; but in her bid to defeat Democratic candidate Raphael Warnock, incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler was buoyed by a vast fortune and the reality that the Deep South had elected only one Black man to the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction (Tim Scott in neighboring South Carolina). Plus, without Trump on the ballot, Democratic voters might be less inclined to turn out to vote against him.

Nope. With Black voters coming out in huge numbers for Democrats and Republican turnout depressed after Trumps incessant, and false, claims of election fraud, something surprising happened. Warnock and Ossoff won, and delivered Democrats the narrowest possible majority in the U.S. Senate.

Predicted by: Jason Chaffetz, Jan. 2

This one was a bit of Republican wishcasting. Chaffetz, the former GOP congressman from Utah, predicted on the night of Jan. 2 that Nancy Pelosi whose mastery at vote-counting has kept her atop House Democratic leadership for 20 years now would somehow lack the votes to be elected speaker the following day, despite a Democratic majority.

The result was entirely predictable: Pelosi had the votes. Of the 427 members of the House at the time, 216 supported her a margin comfortable enough that a handful of House Democrats from swing seats were free to vote for someone other than her.

Predicted by: G. Elliott Morris, April 25

In fairness, this was not a bad prediction when it was made: Polls throughout the spring showed overwhelming support for Bidens plan to withdraw from Afghanistan.

But by Bidens Sept. 11 deadline, the chaotic U.S. pullout had destabilized his presidency, calling into question the core claims of competence that had long been Bidens ballast.

Its possible that over the long arc of history, Morris prediction will turn out to be correct. But at this point, the pullout was extraordinarily politically damaging for Bidens presidency.

Predicted by: Ben Weingarten, Dec. 30, 2020

A week out from the Georgia Senate run-offs, Benjamin Weingarten, a contributor to the Federalist, appeared on Fox News The Ingraham Angle and laid bare what would happen if Ossoff and Warnock defeated Perdue and Loeffler, delivering Democrats a 50-50 Senate majority. If the Democrats take these two seats, its a guarantee of socialism in this country because youll have D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood. Youll have mass amnesty. Youll have socialized medicine. Youll have the evisceration of the vote integrity.

Two things:

One: A 50-50 Senate could never be read as a mandate for any policy at the ideological extremes of American politics, including socialism. The very nature of the Senate, where members of the minority party have enormous power to block legislation, makes it exceptionally difficult to enact any major policy change.

Two: Clearly, the man has never met Joe Manchin. D.C. statehood? Opposed to it. Puerto Rican statehood? Non-committal. Socialized medicine? Hardly: The man opposed expanding Medicare to cover dental care. Forget socialism; they cant even pass Build Back Better.

Predicted by: Amy Siskind, Jan. 2

Amid the run-up to Jan. 6 as Republican senators like Missouris Josh Hawley announced that theyd object to the count of electoral votes from certain swing states that Biden carried, as pro-Trump die-hards planned a massive rally with the goal of pressuring Congress to essentially discard the results of a democratic election, and as the Big Lie about the 2020 vote metastasized within the Republican electorate a certain amount of (understandable) anxiety percolated among liberals and moderates on Twitter.

Amy Siskind, who rose to online prominence in the early days of the Trump administration by recording and listing out the norms being broken on a weekly basis, was one of the relatively few major voices on #Resistance Twitter urging calm.

Anyone worried about Jan 6 impacting the election dont be, she tweeted on the night of Jan. 2. Its nothing more than a seditious stunt that will go nowhere. Then, a follow-up: If you live in DC, stay off the streets on Jan 6. Let the DC police take care of the white supremacists like they did in Oregon yesterday. I actually think it will be fun to watch lol.

What ultimately happened on Jan. 6, of course, was a brazen attack on both democratic institutions and the democratic process itself: a mob of pro-Trump extremists assaulted police officers, broke into the U.S. Capitol building, called for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence (and, broadly, heads on pikes), defiled the office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (among others), sent staffers and members into hiding for hours, took over the floor of the U.S. Senate, caused law enforcement to draw their weapons and barricade the entrance to the House chamber, led to the use of lethal force against a pro-Trump rioter who attempted to enter the Speakers lobby as members fled, and halted the counting of electoral votes for several hours until armed forces could secure the Capitol complex. Fun to watch lol? Not so much.

Predicted by: David Fegan (among others), Jan. 8

After a half-decade during which @realDonaldTrumps every missive was mainlined into the bloodstream of American politics, it was hard to imagine Twitter without him. Then, two days after the Jan. 6 attack, Twitter permanently blocked him. Suddenly, @realDonaldTrump was no more. And after a couple days, it was not at all hard to imagine Twitter without him. Nearly a year later, Twitters still going strong.

Predicted by: Duncan Ross (among others), Jan. 3

Spoiler alert: Trump remained in office until Biden took the oath on Jan. 20.

Predicted by: Paul Strand, Feb. 17

Many progressives wish he would. But Biden has made no move to expand the court, and his blue-ribbon commission to study the issue did not endorse the idea.

Predicted by: Fortune Magazine, Dec. 2020

Theres a consensus that after 20 years at the helm of the Democratic Party in Congress, Pelosi is nearing the end of her career. That much seems obvious. But there are two big x-factors about her remaining time leading Democrats: when shell step aside, and who her successor will be.

View original post here:
The Worst Political Predictions of 2021 - POLITICO

Land Rover didnt need to build the V8. The petrol and diesels do just fine for the reinvented Defender these days, and of course the plug-in hybrid version gives the toughest Land Rover a green conscience.

But sometimes the best cars are the ones that didnt have a requirement to exist, and you could certainly say that about the Defender V8. While it feels like its very unfashionable, politically incorrect, gross, and so on, to talk about a large 44 powered by an old-school eight-cylinder engine, the V8 and the Defender do have a history.

Land Rover first stuck the old Rover-Buick 3.5-litre V8 into the Series III Land Rover in the late Seventies, and the engine was available throughout the Eighties before being dropped when the first Defender launched in 1990. So its only fitting that the second Defender (if you can call it that) gets an eight-cylinder engine the first car never got.

Thirty years on and its quite a different engine of course. That old Rover engine has been dead for a long time, but the 5.0-litre supercharged V8 this car gets is hardly in its first flush of youth either. The 5.0 AJ-V8, previously built by Ford but now by Jaguar Land Rover itself, dates back to the mid-Nineties in one form or another, and in recent years has been the engine JLR has turned to when it needed a thumping range-topper for a Jaguar or Land Rover model. The writing is on the wall for the venerable old thing, though, as tighter EU emissions regulations coming into force over the next few years has meant JLR is using a BMW 4.4-litre twin-turbo V8 for the new Range Rover, so there wont be many more new applications for the old 5.0-litre.

The AJ-V8 has come in various states of tune over the years, but over 500bhp is its sweet spot. For the Defender, JLR has plumped for a pretty conservative 518bhp and given the chassis a bit of a once-over to help the Defender cope with the power upgrade. So there are new anti-roll bars to help keep the body a bit more tied down, the suspension has been recalibrated and theres an electronic limited slip differential and torque vectoring by braking. Add 20-inch wheels, a couple of subtle V8 badges, some suede-like stuff for the interior plus blue brake callipers and thats pretty much it.

Theres a very good reason for this small but effective assortment of tweaks. The Defender V8 is a Land Rover product it trundles down the same production line as all the other Defenders, and doesnt get engineered by its Special Vehicle Operations division like the Range Rover Sport SVR does, for example. That means the Defender V8 has to perform as well on the farm as it does on the Kings Road, so theres still the full gamut of a low-range transfer case, Terrain Response 2, wade sensing and other essential off-roading paraphernalia.

The V8 comes in short-wheelbase 90 and 110 long-wheelbase forms, but for some reason the 90 suits the engine better perhaps its the hot rod-like character.

Within a few metres and even at near-walking pace, you can tell this V8 is more than just a Defender with a big engine under the bonnet. The steering immediately feels sharper, no doubt helped by the massive 22-inch wheels and lower profile rubber. Pick up the pace a bit and you can tell the suspension has tied down the body considerably its less wayward and a bit more controlled. For the V8, the Terrain Response 2 system gets a Dynamic mode that does the usual sharpens and hardens practically everything and its essential if you want to make quick progress from point to point. The engine feels more alive and the exhausts are a touch louder not uncouth like a Range Rover Sport SVR, but a slightly deeper bellow.

By gum its quick. While the old 5.0-litre V8 does come in more powerful tunes, 518bhp in a tall and short 44 is an awful lot. Squeeze the throttle and the blocky retro body sits back on its rear axle, and it really does fire down the road. Exit a corner and you can feel that electronic diff doing its best to keep the car controlled, although if you hit a bump or an imperfection in the road theres a pogo-stick-like bounce. Its hysterically good fun.

While there wasnt a chance to try out the V8 off road, there were plenty of times when a slower pace was needed between shoot locations. Just like other more normal Defenders, theres a familiar cosseting feel that all modern Land Rovers have. And with big squishy seats and a now-excellent infotainment system (previous JLR systems have been less than brilliant), its a very special car to drive. With prices starting from 100,890, it overlaps into the new Range Rovers territory, but in perfect Land Rover fashion it offers something so wonderfully different to the super-smooth and super-posh flagship. The Defender V8 is ludicrous, unnecessary, hilarious and utterly fabulous.

James Batchelor

Click here to read more Road Test of the Year

See the rest here:
Road Test of the Year: Land Rover Defender V8 Car Dealer Magazine - Car Dealer Magazine

When the Nobel Prize Committee recently honored its winners for the 2021 Peace Prize Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov it was a much-needed booster shot for journalism and for the democracies that the profession protects by producing real news of public interest, often at the risk of life and limb.Sometimes journalism can amount to heroism, and we never needed such heroism more than we do now, living, as we do, in an age when journalists (Khashoggi) can be dismembered in a foreign embassy located in a country (Turkey) legendary for its abuses of reporters. That seems to be what the Committee was suggesting when it honored Muratovs work in Russia under KGB sentimentalist Vlad Putin, and Ressas work in the Philippines under Rodrigo Muerte Duterte, citing their courage in fighting for freedom of expression.

At the Columbia Journalism Review, youll find a relatively brief delineation of previous journalists nominated for or receiving a Nobel prize for their journalism in Celebration and impunity as journalists win the Nobel Peace Prize. Referring to impunity of authoritarian governments, John Allsop writes,

The killers of journalists getting away with it, of course, is a global phenomenon. CPJ monitors the trend via an annual impunity index; last year, both the Philippines, with 11 unsolved journalist murders, and Russia, with six, featured among its 12 worst offending countries.

Journalists risk retribution for reporting facts, which are a precondition for democracy and lasting peace, as the Nobel Prize announcement puts it.

Shortly after the award ceremony on December 10, Maria Ressa told Al Jazeera News, The Committee made a point to show that journalists under attack are critical and that perhaps our future is going to be dependent on how well we do our jobs.In 2012, Ressa established the news site Rappler, which has taken to task the excesses of the Duterte regimes war on drugs that has included death squad activity and widespread human rights abuses throughout the Philippines, home of Americas start in waterboarding.Ressa continued with a very sharp observation of the stakes for future news reporting, in the battle between fake news and real fact-based news:

Our experience in the Philippines is actually, I think, the experience of everyone around the world. When news organizations lost [their] gatekeeping powers to technology platforms. Those platforms abdicated responsibility for the public sphere, and that has made facts debatable because the data, facts, and lies are actually treated equally. In fact, the algorithms of the worlds largest distributor of news, Facebook [now Meta], actually favors lies laced with anger and hate that spreads faster and further than facts. So when facts are debatable, when you dont have facts, then you cant have truth.

If you see a Turd Blossom, flush it. Ressas full interview with al Jazeera is worth viewing here.

Similarly, in Russia, Dmitry Muratov has put himself at risk challenging the Putin regime and its henchmen, who, as Reporters Without Borders (RWB), says, has curbed press freedom and encouraged a climate of impunity for crimes of violence against journalists ever since he took over [in 2000].RWB cites the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya as an example of Putins repression of oppositional news. He describes the chilling effect of Politkovskayas vicious murder, so described, he told Time magazine:

Because of how they followed her. The people who were ready to put each of those five bullets in her body, they knew everything about her life. Thats why I call it vicious. They were plugged into her life. They watched who came and went from her home, all her private dramas, when her granddaughter would be born, how sick her mother was, how she races to the newsroom to turn in an article. And in the middle of all that, they shot her.

Vicious as a mob hit. (Jesus, suddenly I see that Obama strut, while a drone strike flashes in my head; another Jonas brother bites the dust.)

Muratov has used his platform, Novaya Gazeta, to challenge the thuggish policies of the never-ending Putin presidency. Its clear how much he detests the Putin era. In the same Time interview, he said:

I cant stand bullying and torture. I know the case against [Alexei Navalny]. It is a total fabrication. It represents the return of Stalins practices the forced confessions, the ruined fates, the isolation, the absolutely trumped-up charges. The political views of Alexei Navalny do not matter to me in the least. He and I have discussed our disagreements. But he has faced his imprisonment stoically and courageously. He has shown us all how to have a backbone, how to have a sense of irony and humor, to be brave. These are qualities I hold in the highest regard.

Good on the Nobel Committee for honoring such diminishing courage amongst the reactionary pablum of mainstream journalism. Of all the prizes the Nobel Committee awards, the Peace Prize is the most politically-motivated and controversial you slap your forehead in brainfart wonder when you recall awards to Henry Kissinger (Daniel Ellsberg feared K. might kill him for knowing too much) and Barry Obama (remember that arrogant casus belli acceptance speech?) and, yes, you punch yourself in the face when you remember that Donald Trump was nominated for the Peace Prize but these awards to these journalists are meet and timely.

Americans may see the Philippines and Russia as far-flung hoodlum wildernesses of disorder, not relevant to our relatively advanced lifestyle, but that, too, is delusion and a disease of conceit, as the Bard from Duluth puts it. Ed Snowden reminds his fellow Americans, in his aptly titled memoir, Permanent Record, that Americans were well on their way to a secretive, repressive, anti-democratic system rife for exploitation by future demagogues and Jan 6 types, like neo-animists QAnon, all horns no dilemma, and the Proud Boys on the threshold of a dream. No, but seriously, Snowden writes presciently, and rather soberly I thought,

A decade [after 9/11], it had become clear, to me at least, that the repeated evocations of terror by the political class were not a response to any specific threat or concern but a cynical attempt to turn terror into a permanent danger that required permanent vigilance enforced by unquestionable authority.

And, he later adds, that the government could always find something in our permanent record that could be criminalized for repressive purposes. We are already marks for State and corporate intel phishing expeditions. By creating a world-spanning system that tracked [us] across every available channel of electronic communications, the American Intelligence Community gave itself the power to record and store for perpetuity the data of your life. (p.247)

Not long after the award ceremony for Ressa and Muratov breaking news informed us that a British court has upheld the extradition process of Julian Assange to the United States to face life-withering Espionage Act charges for his journalism which the State deems illegal and politically incorrect, which is to say, embarrassingly revealing haughty disregard for human rights and conventions. For some brass in the Pentagon and pollies in DC, Assange might as well as have been one of the Reuters reporters murdered by laughing gunships in Baghdad, as depicted in the Collateral Murder video Wikileaks published in 2010. Radical transparency of government?

There has been plenty of justifiable hand-wringing over the fate of journalism, given the implications of prosecuting Assange for his publishing his revelations of American imperialisms vicious excesses. But, in typical sardonic fashion, former Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges catches the spirit of the Assange take-down in his blog post, The Execution of Julian Assange.Hedges begins the piece,

He committed empires greatest sin. He exposed it as a criminal enterprise. He documented its lies, callous disregard for human life, rampant corruption and innumerable war crimes. And empires always kill those who inflict deep and serious wounds.

Ouch. And this, too, seems to be what the Committee was responding to. It reminded me of Harold Pinters go at American Empire in his Nobel Literature Prize speech, and gave new metaphorical wings to his Birthday Party. Remember when Stan gets taken away by the Deep Underworld State for adjustments?

If you resist their invisible authority or persist in seeking clarity, they will come for you and blow out your fucking candles. Happy birthday, motherfucker.

What Muratov claims about the Putin regime is equally true, and perhaps even more sinister because of the patriotic (see vaterland) deceit involved, journalists, real journalists, are in a war with the highest stakes the publication of state propaganda versus information of vital public interest.A couple of years ago, The Intercept ran Team of American Hackers and Emirati Spies Discussed Attacking The Intercept, a piece about how the publication was the target of secret eavesdropping and spying originating from ex-NSA agents whod gone to the UAE to enhance its nascent hacking activities embodied by the security company Dark Matter. They had reported on Dark Matters start-up three years prior, in a piece called Spies for Hire.They have also been the target of Israel for reporting on the Jewish states brisk ascension into the upper echelons of hacking tools, selling its products around the world to governments that want to spy on their own citizens, The Intercept notes.

Its important to begin a campaign to overturn the politically initiated 1917 Espionage Act, which is what Assange faces should he be extradited to America. But also, once he is here, it is important, ironically, that he stay in America.There has been talk from US government officials that perhaps Assange could finish out his sentence in Australia a bizarre arrangement motivated by the fact that in Australia hed be beyond American jurisprudence. America has, among many things, two advantages that Aussies lack, guns and proactive Bill of Rights-defending lawyers (there is no Bill of Rights in Australia). And its not clear if Assange would receive better prison treatment in Australia, where hes not regarded as a hero, beyond the Lefty academic lot, by the largely conservative populace the state has rarely come to his assistance. Max prison life in Australia is harsh as all get out, if the account by Gregory David Roberts in his 2003 reality-based prison escape novel Shantaram (highly recommended by the way) is any indication.

In the meantime, raise a glass to these intrepid spirits all around us.And raise a finger to the surveillance state that always assumes that youre up to no good. Like they should talk. Rappler.com

John Kendall Hawkins is an American poet and freelance journalist currently residing in Australia. He is a regular contributor to CounterPunch magazine, a progressive magazine of politicsand culture.

Read more:
[OPINION] Journalism and the peace dividend - Rappler