Categories
media and media people partisanship

Pander, Please

Washington Post, ethics, Democratic Party

The newspaper of record in our nation’s capital urges its much-preferred political party to “trim your principles, Democrats, and pander away.”

This is a very different media watchdog role, where instead of calling out bad behavior, The Washington Post calls for it.

Sure, some of President Biden’s policies “clearly pander to core constituencies,” acknowledges the editorial board, adding: “The problem is that some of these policies are quite bad — even dangerous.”

For the record, the editors explain that they much prefer “the kind of pandering that is less obviously dangerous but still violates common sense and principle.”

Well, on a ranking basis . . . but isn’t this all too rank? 

Proselytizing for a lack of principle, the Post posits that these “means” of pandering to voters — i.e. buying their votes — are fully justified by “the end” of winning the election against former President Donald Trump.

“The only thing worse than” Democracy [Dying] in Darkness (per the paper’s masthead) is, the editorial board concludes, “losing.”

So, go ahead and delay again the Food and Drug Administration’s ban on menthol cigarettes, which, if implemented, would undoubtedly cost Mr. Biden the votes of many black men who make up the majority of that product’s customer base. Even though it is simply a trick of timing — for after the election, the Biden boys will be back to snuff out menthols. 

Come’on, man! Who needs honesty, accountability, or fair media coverage when there’s an election to win?

Surprisingly, The New York Times’ executive editor Joe Kahn argues the paper should not become an “instrument of the Biden campaign,” not “stop covering those things” such as immigration and inflation “because they’re favorable to Trump,” and not “turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda.”

He’s not wrong.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

Thomas Szasz

Our adversaries are not demons, witches, fate, or mental illness. We have no enemy whom we can fight, exorcise, or dispel by “cure.” What we do have are problems in living — whether these be biologic, economic, political, or sociopsychological.

Thomas Szasz, ”The Myth of Mental Illness” in American Psychologist, Vol. 15 (1960), p. 115.
Categories
Today

Brazilian slavery

On May 13, 1888, Brazil abolished slavery with the passage of the Lei Áurea (“Golden Law”).

Categories
Update

Only Slightly Ratioed?

On Friday, Paul Jacob provided some vivisection services to a review of Jerry Seinfeld’s stance on what the woke have done to comedy, in “The French King Flip Flap.” On May Day, in “They Don’t Get It,” Paul had dealt with the same subject, Mr. Seinfeld’s long-running beef with the woke.

But the current context — the one that led to Friday’s target, an article in The Washington Post by Brian Broome — is the new movie on Netflix, Unfrosted, directed by Seinfeld and co-written by him with Spike Feresten, Andy Robin, and Barry Marder.

Is it funny?

This is of course something everyone must judge for him- or herself. The intent is clear, a retelling of the “wars” between the breakfast cereal companies to create a new breakfast product — what has become known as a “Pop Tart” — in a zany, cartoonish fashion. It is designed as a silly movie. Mostly good clean fun. Family fare.

But a survey of critics and audiences at Rotten Tomatoes gives us an indicator to how it’s doing: Early reactions were that the movie stinks. But now that more people have seen it, we are seeing something like a “ratioed” split, with an average of critics’ responses placing it in the splatted green tomato (rotten tomato) range, at 40 percent approval, while audience scores have run higher, at 55 percent.

In recent years, the audiences have split with critics at much wider margins, on Rotten Tomatoes, with critics giving low scores for unwoke creative products, while audiences have given ultra-high scores, and vice versa.

Sometimes it’s not Wokianity at issue, but simply orthodox religion: Aronofsky’s Noah (2014), for example, which yielded a 75 percent positive for the critics and a 41 percent negative for the audience. Noah owed as much to The Book of Enoch as to Genesis.

But 2019’s Captain Marvel was indeed about the woke issue, and audiences judged the movie at a weak 45 percent, while critics placed it pretty high, at 79 percent. Even more dramatic, in the same vein, went on with Rian Johnson’s The Last Jedi (2019), which critics raved about at 91 percent, but audiences yawned at 42 percent.

But the ultimate split between audiences and critics may be Amy Schumer’s 2023 Netflix stand-up special, with critics granting the comic a whopping 100 percent approval, while audiences scorned her product with jeers at a mere 18 percent. The split in appreciation was an epochal moment in the current culture wars.

Ms. Schumer plays Marjorie Post in the new Seinfeld flick.

Categories
Thought

Gnaeus Naevius

Semper pluris feci ego
potioremque habui libertatem [multo] quam pecuniam.

I have always valued and preferred my liberty far beyond money.

Gnaeus Naevius (c. 270 – c. 201 BC), translated by W. F. H. King, Classical and Foreign Quotations, 3rd ed. (1904), no. 2388.
Categories
Today

Axis in Africa

On May 12, 1943, Axis forces in North Africa surrendered.

Categories
FYI Update

Let’s Play “Who’s the Fascist!”

The problem of the Left Pole is, who’s not a Nazi who’s not leftist? This is a consequence of the game leftists play, calling everyone not leftist the very worst names they can think of.

The latest casualty is Javier Milei, libertarian president of Argentina. He’s been called a fascist.

Benjamin Williams clears this up in “No, Milei Is Not a Fascist,” over at Mises Wire.

The dictator Benito Mussolini and his close comrade Giovanni Gentile were indisputably fascists. They invented fascism, wrote fascist literature, and called themselves fascists. So it stands to reason that if you want to see if Javier Milei is a fascist, you’d compare him to these fascists. The critics never make these sorts of comparisons because they’re aware it would expose their ridiculous accusations for what they are: ahistorical and ignorant.

Mussolini viewed the state as almost something to be worshipped, with his works riddled with references to its greatness and importance. He summarized his view with the mantra, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” In stark contrast, Milei’s speeches, debates, and rants are filled with insults and criticisms directed at the state. One of his most famous quotes, “wipe my ass with the state,” encapsulates this disdain. Milei does not hold the state on a pedestal like Mussolini did.

Mussolini believed that capitalism was deeply flawed and needed to be abolished. In “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism,” he states that the state was “the force which alone can provide a solution to the dramatic contradictions of capitalism” and that fascism would replace capitalism with “a system of syndicalism.” On the other hand, Milei holds a contrasting view. He frequently praises capitalism as morally and economically superior. In his World Economic Forum speech—dubbed a ‘fascist rant’ by socialists—he declared that people should resist the state, asserting, “The state is not the solution. The state is the problem itself.”

Milei’s policies are certainly not fascist either. Mussolini’s dictatorship supported the socialization of industry, not privatization. His dictatorship mandated union membership, harshly regulated industries, and socialized over eighty firms.

Leftists need to see the world as it is, not as they think it should be — sequestered, as their minds are, at the Left Pole, from which all roads out are “far right.” Ideological geography is more complex than that.

Categories
Thought

John Adams

Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. . . . [L]et every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing.

John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765).
Categories
Today

Union, disunion

On May 11, 1858, Minnesota was admitted as the 32nd U.S. State.

Nine years later, to the day, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg’s independence and neutrality were affirmed in the Second Treaty of London.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

The French King Flip Flap

Jerry Seinfeld, censorship, woke culture, wokeism

There’s this great Jerry Seinfeld bit about how we treat our “important” friends on our smartphones: “They don’t seem very important, not the way you scroll through their names on your contact list like a gay French king.” And Mr. Seinfeld flipped his wrist in a motion of dismissal. “Who pleases me today?”

Well, Seinfeld is not pleasing the woke. Not today. Not The Washington Post’s Brian Broome. 

“Wake up, Mr. Seinfeld. Mean-spirited humor isn’t cool anymore,” is Mr. Broome’s title. And his opinion is that times change, and meanie Mr. Seinfeld is a has-been for making fun of marginalized people. 

You may have judged Jerry Seinfeld as one of the lighter, cleaner comics, his act almost universal. Broome says you’re wrong. “I have never found Jerry Seinfeld funny,” he explains. “Even in the ’90s when his show was all the rage, I didn’t get why people thought it was hilarious. It always seemed to me to be about immigrants being odd or unhygienic or making fun of women’s faces or body parts. The show always seemed mean-spirited to me, and that’s just not my kind of humor.”

O, shall thy pearls be clutched!

Wasn’t the self-described “show about nothing” really a comedy of manners where the main characters, George Costanza, Elaine Benes, Cosmo Kramer, and Jerry himself served as the actual butts of the jokes? These four egoists fretted over their ultra-liberal concerns about good manners but always behaved badly. And we always knew it. And somehow still liked them — because Seinfeld was not mean-spirited!

Broome characteristically ends on a vindictive note: “So, yes, if you make ham-fisted jokes about women or the LGBTQ+ community or people living with disabilities or the French, someone will come for you.” Thus, the mob beheaded the king. And the priest. All with wrong opinions.

Would Broome think the point of the “gay French king” joke was to make fun of gays? But recall the actual target: ourselves.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts