NPR reporter Uri Berliner wrote an essay forThe Free Pressarguing that the network has lost chunks of its audience by growing too dogmatically progressive. Some of the evidence supports his claim. Unfortunately‚ he undermines his case by leading with an example that in no way vindicates the thesis‚ and actually undermines it: coverage of theTrump-Russia scandal.Berliner presents the story as a nothingburger that NPR breathlessly hyped and then ignored when it turned out to...

BashingNational Public Radios leftward bias is a favorite pastime of conservatives‚ especially since it is funded by taxpayer money‚ but critics received a boost this week from an unlikely source.Uri Berliner‚ a 25-year veteran ofNPRwho is now a senior business editor there‚ published a lengthy essay this week that was remarkable because it absolutely blasted his employers approach to journalism. It was such a complete takedown that I found myself marveling‚ He wrote...

2024 has not been kind to American journalism. Mainstream news outlets including NBC News‚ CBS‚ Washington Post‚ Los Angeles Times‚ TIME and Business Insider have laid off hundreds of staffers. Publishers and media analysts have been casting about for possible explanations‚ whether difficult economic headwinds‚ the collapse of ad revenue or Americans news fatigue ahead of another presidential election.But we can thank Uri Berliner‚ a senior business editor at NPR‚ for revealing the...

";She always encouraged me.";The post I wanted to be just like Cass: Cass Elliots best quality‚ according to Michelle Phillips first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Ayme!Iseetheruinofmyhouse.The tiger now hath seized the gentle hind; Insulting tyranny begins to jut Upon the innocent and aweless throne: Welcome‚ destruction‚ death‚ and massacre! I see‚ as in a map‚ the end of all. Richard III‚ Act II‚ Scene 4The reader may‚ perhaps‚ recall the answer given by Caitlin Upton‚ Miss South Carolina Teen USA‚ at the Miss Teen USA 2007 pageant in Pasadena‚ California‚ to a question posed by judge Aimee Teegarden: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans cant locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is? Her convoluted response‚ which immediately went viral‚ was that:I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because‚ uh‚ some people out there in our nation dont have maps and‚ uh‚ I believe that our‚ uh‚ education like such as‚ uh‚ South Africa and‚ uh‚ the Iraq and everywhere like such as‚ and I believe that they should‚ uh‚ our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S.‚ uh‚ should help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries‚ so we will be able to build up our future.Given the opportunity to revisit her answer the following week‚ on the set of The Today Show‚ Upton fared rather better:Well personally‚ my friends and I‚ we know exactly where the United States is on our map. I dont know anyone else who doesnt. And if the statistics are correct‚ I believe that there should be more emphasis on geography in our education so people will learn how to read maps better.There was always something gratuitous about the mockery to which Miss South Carolina 2007 was subjected in the aftermath of her shaky performance in Pasadena. This was a beauty pageant‚ after all‚ not the Athenian agora‚ and we have all been tongue-tied at some point in our lives‚ and‚ in any event‚ we must admit that there is something legitimately baffling about the American populaces apparent inability to read something as simple as a map. Caitlin Uptons infamous answer came to mind when I ran across a recent statement concerning Ukraine uttered by Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene‚ a political figure who has been described by Debra J. Saunders in these pages as one who validates the sneering classs poor opinion of conservatives. Last week‚ she declared that House Speaker Mike Johnson is a Democrat Theres not even any daylight between him and Nancy Pelosi at this point‚ as she threatens to seek his ouster and throw the republic into further paralytic disarray‚ antics that have prompted New York Rep. Mike Lawler to bemoan the idiocy and the chaos that is totally unnecessary and does nothing to actually solve the problem. (RELATED: Who Put Marjorie Taylor Greene in Charge?)Addressing the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Steve Bannons War Room podcast‚ Greene claimed that our government is at the same time funding a war that most people do not support in a country that no one can find on a map‚ hardly. Greene is no more a modern incarnation of Demosthenes than was Miss South Carolina in 2007‚ but we should still consider her words carefully. To begin with‚ the phrase funding a war that most people do not support is a curious one. People of good conscience do not support the war‚ insofar as they would very much like it to end with an immediate Russian withdrawal from Ukraines sovereign territory‚ with the cessation of Iranian Shahed drone‚ hypersonic missile‚ and glide bomb strikes against Ukrainian apartment blocks‚ kindergartens‚ and thermal power plants‚ and with an end to Russian depredations including cultural genocide‚ ecocide‚ and the mass rape of women‚ children‚ and men (including Ukrainian Orthodox priests). What they support is Ukrainians right to self-defense and national survival. Now there are some in our country who genuinely do support Vladimir Putins war‚ as was evident at the 2022 America First Political Action Conference in Orlando‚ held the day after the Russian invasion of Ukraine‚ when organizer Nicholas Fuentes complained‚ Theyre going on about Russia and Vladimir Putin is Hitler they say thats not a good thing‚ and asked the audience to give a round of applause for Russia‚ with ensuing chants of Putin‚ Putin‚ Putin‚ all before Marjorie Taylor Greene proceeded to take the stage.It is safe to assume that what Greene really meant during her podcast interview was that most people presumably most Americans do not support Ukraine in its war against Russia or do not support further funding for Ukraines struggle for survival. This is demonstrably false‚ as recent polls make clear. While it is true that support for Ukraine has dropped since 2022 on the neo-isolationist right‚ we still see‚ in an AP-NORC poll conducted Feb. 2226‚ 2024‚ that 60 percent of respondents agreed that United States spending on Ukraine is too little or about right‚ while 76 percent felt that stopping Russia from gaining more territory in Ukraine is extremely/very important or somewhat important. (READ MORE: An October Surprise From New Ukraine Is Possible)Similar numbers supported providing military aid‚ and 63 percent remained in favor of economic sanctions against Russia. Unfavorable opinions of Putin were still high 79 percent although some 14 percent of Republicans gave him a favorable marks‚ and 28 percent of Republicans strongly/somewhat oppose the United States deploying U.S. troops to defend a U.S. NATO ally if it were attacked by Russian forces. Another survey‚ conducted around the same time by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Ipsos‚ found that majorities of Democrats (75 percent) and independents (54 percent) still favored providing military assistance to Ukraine‚ although the Republican number had dropped from 80 percent in March 2022 to 45 percent in February 2024. Nevertheless‚ it is hard to fathom how that those results could be characterized as most people having abandoned the Ukrainian cause.Greenes second claim‚ that Ukraine is a country that no one can find on a map‚ hardly‚ is likewise worth considering. Are Americans really unable to locate Ukraine‚ the second-largest country in Europe (if we must include Russia as a European country)‚ 233‚062 mi in size‚ with a population of 40 million and an international diaspora of some 20 million‚ a country not infrequently in the news these days? Surely Americans generally possess some basic knowledge about Ukraine and its geographical and geopolitical situation. Yet here we must reluctantly admit that Greene may have the facts on her side. In late March 2014‚ in the aftermath of Russias first invasion of Ukraine‚ political scientists Kyle Dropp‚ Joshua Kertzer‚ and Thomas Zeitzoff conducted a survey‚ fielded via Survey Sampling International Inc.‚ that‚ among other things‚ asked Americans to locate Ukraine on the globe. Only 16 percent were on the mark‚ and the median respondent was a staggering 1‚800 miles away‚ with a significant number of those surveyed mistaking Ukraine for Kazakhstan‚ and with others picking locales including Australia‚ the Falkland Islands‚ the American Midwest‚ Alaska‚ a surprising number in Greenland‚ and a few lonely dots even placed floating in the Bay of Bengal. The open-ended poll was designed to measure Americans knowledge of world affairs‚ given that‚ as the authors deadpanned‚ [p]eople who believe Ukraine is in Eastern Europe clearly are more informed than those who believe it is in Brazil or in the Indian Ocean. The results were not encouraging‚ though it is conceivable that the renewed Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 may have led at least a few more of our fellow citizens to try and figure out precisely where this mysterious nation of Ukraine might lie.According to Miss South Carolina 2007‚ some people out there in our nation dont have maps‚ but that doesnt completely explain our predicament; the vast majority of Americans do have ready access to Google Maps or Wikipedia on their smartphones and computers‚ and two-thirds of Americans live within two miles of a library‚ which are full of atlases and other useful resources‚ but all the same‚ it appears that a vast swathe of the populace has little to no idea what the world looks like on the most basic level. One may question whether the 2014 survey was methodologically sound‚ as it is difficult to believe that there are so many Americans who think Ukraine is in central Africa or adrift in the Barents Sea north of Novaya Zemlya. Respondents may‚ for one reason or another‚ have been answering completely at random or fooling around. Dropp‚ Kertzer‚ and Zeitzoffs survey may not be perfectly accurate‚ but there is no doubt that many Americans cannot identify the location of one of the worlds most prominent military‚ diplomatic‚ and economic hotspots.It is not as if Ukraine is a unique lacuna in the average Americans mental map of the globe. Other studies in recent years have demonstrated that only 36 percent of American adults can find North Korea on a map‚ that only 34 percent of registered voters can find Taiwan on a map‚ that only 28 percent of registered voters can find Iran on a zoomed-in map of the Middle East‚ and that only 31 percent of respondents aged 1826 can find Israel on a map. One expects these numbers to decline further. A GAO report from back in 2015 found that only 17 states required a geography course in middle school‚ that three-quarters of eighth-grade students lacked proficiency in geography‚ and that half of all eighth-grade students in 2014 reported learning about geography a few times a year or hardly ever‚ and the intervening decade of societal decay cannot have improved matters much.Whether any of this is surprising depends on ones conception of the overall American intellectual landscape. Bear in mind that if we pierce the veil of supposed mass literacy‚ we find‚ as the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies survey of American literacy did in 2013‚ that that only 2 percent of the population can integrate information across multiple dense texts; construct syntheses‚ ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence-based arguments‚ while 10 percent can perform multiple-step operations to integrate‚ interpret or synthesize information from complex texts‚ which may require complex inferences. Those possessing intermediate-level literacy‚ some 36 percent of the populace‚ can interpret or evaluate one or more pieces of information that require inference‚ and those possessing basic literacy‚ some 34 percent‚ can only find information that may require low-level paraphrasing and drawing low-level inferences. The remaining 18 percent were limited either to being able to read relatively short digital‚ print or mixed copy to locate a single piece of information or managing to locate a single piece of information in familiar copy. It should not be terribly unexpected‚ then‚ that out of a random sampling of 2‚066 Americans‚ only one in six would be able to pinpoint a distant country on a blank map.That the majority of Americans are incapable of detecting Ukraine‚ Israel‚ or Taiwan on an unlabeled map is not‚ however‚ an argument for allowing Russia to pursue a genocidal campaign against its neighbor‚ withdrawing support for Israels existential fight against Iranian-backed Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations‚ or permitting Red China to threaten or conquer its democratic counterpart across the Taiwan Strait. Rather‚ the lack of geopolitical savvy on the part of what H.L. Mencken called the great masses of the plain people is really just an argument for a republican form of representative democracy.Neo-isolationism has evidently taken root among a certain section of Republican voters‚ but the pursuit of autarky‚ energy independence‚ revitalized domestic manufacturing‚ and a secure border should not be confused with a precipitous and destabilizing abdication of Americas post-war role as the sole guarantor of international peace and stability. George Washington‚ in his Farewell Address‚ confidently described a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence‚ who would interact with the world as our interest‚ guided by justice‚ shall counsel. There are elements on both the political right and left that would sooner see America sink giggling into the sea than pursue its interests abroad. That this would give carte blanche to the worst actors in the world and would result in the most horrific injustices imaginable being heaped upon innocent‚ freedom-loving‚ formerly trusting allies is apparently of no account.On Sept. 27‚ 1938‚ the arch-appeaser Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain notoriously referred to Nazi Germanys designs on Czechoslovakia as nothing more than a quarrel in a faraway country‚ between people of whom we know nothing. American anti-war protestors paraded in 1941 with signs bearing slogans like: Hitler Has Not Attacked Us. Why Attack Hitler?; Why Not Peace With Hitler?; Europe for Europeans‚ America for Americans; I Did Not Raise My Boy to Die for Great Britain; and Save Our Sons‚ No Convoys‚ No War‚ No Death for American Boys‚ Join America First Committee‚ Help Us in Our Fight. We all know how that turned out‚ and how those ignorant attitudes would be viewed by posterity. Should the United States now willfully abdicate its profound international responsibilities on the basis that some of its citizens are unable to read a map‚ or that other countries are far away Who cares? or that Congress is perennially beset by idiocy and chaos‚ the consequences cannot be anything but catastrophic.The post Most Americans Cant Find Ukraine on a Map. That Doesnt Dilute Our Duty to Defend It. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It seems that most people have started to tune out the latest developments in artificial intelligence. Thats probably because‚ while many of those developments feel as though they belong in the prologue of an epic sci-fi novel‚ computer scientists and tech writers are rarely as good as H.G. Wells and Ray Bradbury at telling a story.So its no surprise that announcements this week by Meta and Microsoft have been eclipsed (pun certainly intended) by headlines about abortion‚ Donald Trump‚ and O.J. Simpson. (READ MORE: On Abortion‚ Trump Has Gravely Erred)Meta announced that‚ in the coming weeks‚ it will be rolling out an AI model called Llama 3. The goal isnt just to create a machine that can read millions of transcripts and New York Times articles. We are hard at work in figuring out how to get these models not just to talk‚ but actually to reason‚ to plan to have memory‚ Joelle Pineau‚ Metas vice-president of AI research‚ said.Microsofts OpenAI isnt far behind. Executives there have indicated that GPT-5 is just around the corner. The goal even if the next rendition of ChatGPT doesnt accomplish it is to create a model that reasons.AI Models That Induce‚ Deduce‚ and DecideOf course‚ computer scientists dont mean the quite same thing as Plato or Thomas Aquinas did when they identified mans reason as being the distinguishing factor between man and beast. But their definition of reason isnt all that far off.When researchers at OpenAI and Meta talk about computer programs that reason‚ theyre referring to the programs ability to think ahead‚ to come up with possible predictions for the future‚ and to model the consequences of actions taken. (READ MORE: Fact-Checking AI: Are Republicans Racist?)In simpler terms‚ they want to create an AI model that can plan your next trip to Paris or present the president of the United States with a series of possible outcomes if he chooses to launch a nuclear weapon at Russia. Meta wants to be able to hand you a pair of Ray-Ban glasses powered by Llama 3 that could diagnose a broken coffee machine and explain to the wearer how to fix it (even handymen are now at risk of being replaced by AI).The ultimate goal is to create artificial general intelligence (AGI) an AI model capable of human cognition or beyond (think C-3PO from Star Wars but without the lovable congenial personality traits). To create that kind of model‚ AI has to be capableof deductive reasoning (going from general principles to specific applications)‚ inductive reasoning (going from specific applications to general principles)‚ and decision-making based on the data available to it.That should sound a lot like what humans do.Right now‚ artificial intelligence is incapable of coming up with an idea. While it can generate text‚ images‚ and videos‚ its never truly creative. The creator is the person with his or her fingers on the keyboard coming up with prompts and accepting or rejecting the results being spewed out by the machine. By building an AI model that can induce and deduce just as well as we can‚ were essentially creating one that can decide to create a prompt and generate a response in other words‚ an AI model capable of creation.Computer Scientists Are Sub-Creators TooAt this point‚ youre probably wondering what vendetta computer scientists have against the world. Weve all seen The Matrix. We dont need to recreate it in real life.But perhaps its not a vendetta. Maybe this is just human nature.In March of 1939‚ J.R.R. Tolkien gave the Andrew Lang Lecture at the University of St. Andrews. The resulting essay‚ On Fairy-Stories‚ is perhaps one of the best explanations we have of the mentality and methods of one of the greatest fantasy writers of our time. In that essay‚ Tolkien answers the question: Why do men tell stories?His answer is that man is a sub-creator. Because man was created in the image and likeness of God‚ man shares with God a desire for creation. Mythology‚ fairy tales‚ novels‚ and ghost stories told by the campfire on late summer nights are a fulfillment of mans desire to be a sub-creator in some capacity to build a world.Computer scientists and executives at OpenAI and Meta dont necessarily have a way with words; instead‚ they have a way with algorithms and code. That proclivity doesnt absolve them of the very human desire to be a sub-creator. Whether or not they realize it (and some of them may)‚ creating artificial intelligence is simply an attempt to scratch the creative itch endowed in each of us.The attempt to create an artificial intelligence that rivals human intelligence may be an outpouring of our identity as sub-creators‚ but that doesnt make it always a healthy thing. Tolkien writes‚ Mythology is not a disease at all‚ though it may like all human things become diseased. The same is true of artificial intelligence. If we can write bad stories (morally speaking)‚ we can create bad AI models.As a society‚ were going to need to identify what diseased AI looks like (which is not to say that AI capable of induction and deduction is diseased). Developments like this newest one should remind us that‚ as a society‚ were fast approaching a rather scary deadline: At some point we will no longer be able to identify diseased AI proactively; well have to do it retroactively.The post Could We Endow AI With Reason? Meta and OpenAI Think So. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

By now youve heard about the comments of the University of South Carolina womens basketball coach Dawn Staley. A day prior to South Carolinas victory over Iowa in the NCAA womens championship game last Sunday‚ Staley was asked whether she thought biological men should be allowed to play womens basketball. She said yes:Im on the opinion of‚ if youre a woman‚ you should play. If you consider yourself a woman and you want to play sports or vice versa‚ you should be able to play. Thats my opinion.This is one of the most accomplished figures in womens sports‚ certainly in womens basketball. Dawn Staley has coached the Gamecocks to three national titles. Her team has won eight Southeastern Conference championships and eight regular-season titles. She has captured four Naismith Coach of the Year awards. She won a gold medal as a coach at the 2020 Olympics and has won three of them as a player. Playing at Virginia‚ she won two national player-of-the-year awards. (READ MORE: The Strange‚ Growing Demands of the Alphabet People)She exhibited greatness both running the court and stalking the sidelines. She knows the game and knows what it takes to win. One group that has helped her teams achieve excellence is the Highlighters‚ against whom her squad practices. Said she:The Highlighters are really‚ really‚ really good. Although a lot of times they beat us in practice‚ a lot of times they beat us‚ so it makes it easier when were able to just come out and play our competition‚ because the Highlighters‚ no matter what the speed of our opponents is‚ theyre much quicker. They do [everything] at a much faster pace.The Highlighters‚ you see‚ are guys. They arent pros; they arent Division I players‚ borrowed from the mens team to practice against her unit. Theyre good‚ but not good enough to play varsity at a major college. And they dominate the best womens college team in the land.It shouldnt be necessary to say this‚ but male basketball players‚ generally speaking‚ are bigger‚ stronger‚ and faster than female basketball players through no fault of the women and‚ all things being equal‚ they would dominate a womens team in any fair contest.In fact‚ a good boys high school team could dominate. Clay Travis‚ radio host and media presence‚ has a standing offer‚ unanswered‚ of $1 million to any WNBA champion that beats a high school team of his choosing: It is 100% true‚ a good state championship caliber high school boys team would smoke the best team in the WNBA.You know this. I know this. Dawn Staley knows this.The media know this‚ too. And yet‚ in the aftermath of Staleys comment‚ all sports media outlets except OutKick‚ which asked Staley the question to begin with‚ fell right in line with the progressive position. In fact‚ the media outrage was directed at the OutKick correspondent who asked the question.Its possible Staley didnt believe what she said she did take her time answering‚ after all but regardless‚ she felt compelled to give the answer she gave‚ and as dumbfounding and incomprehensible as that answer is‚ it says something about the culture war.The fact is that the transgender-in-sports issue has been folded into the broader progressive playbook. Its become a cardinal tenet of liberalism‚ along with pro-abortion‚ progay rights‚ pro-reparations‚ school board control of educational content‚ gun control‚ etc. Its now part of the hive of issues one must hold in all their purity or face the specter of denunciation‚ ridicule‚ and cancellation.Thats why so very few have the sand to oppose males-in-female-sports. Reject it and face expulsion from the team; ridicule from sports media‚ who are as liberal as mainstream media; and‚ if youre in Scotland‚ possible imprisonment (ask J.K. Rowling‚ who narrowly escaped such). (READ MORE: J.K. Rowling Is on Fire)Where this goes where it has to go is no divisions at all. No dedicated mens sports and no dedicated womens sports. Just sports‚ in which men and women are all on the same teams‚ playing on the same field. In that case‚ women would be rendered inconsequential in absolutely every sport in the world‚ with the possible exception of rhythmic gymnastics.Women have been working for over 50 years to achieve a level playing field‚ ever since Title IX passed in 1972. What some would call the pinnacle of that effort was surmounted last Sunday‚ as more millions tuned in to watch the womens NCAA championship basketball game than tuned in a day later to watch the mens NCAA championship.Put a couple of 6-foot-6 dudes who think theyre women and who know their way around the hoop on a womens team‚ put them in Womens March Madness‚ and 50 years of striving for equality go away.As I said‚ its dumbfounding and incomprehensible.A Bright LightOne sports association‚ however‚ has bucked the trend. The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) on Monday approved a policy that prohibits self-identified transgender men from competing in womens athletics. To participate in an NAIA-sponsored womens sports‚ a players biological sex assigned at birth must be female‚ and the player cannot have begun hormone therapy.Said NAIA president and CEO Jim Carr in a press release:We are unwavering in our support of fair competition for our student-athletes. It is crucial that NAIA member institutions‚ conferences‚ and student-athletes participate in an environment that is equitable and respectful. With input from our member institutions and the Transgender Task Force‚ the NAIAs Council of Presidents has confirmed our path forward.The NAIA comprises mostly small colleges 241 of them and sponsors 25 sports. About 83‚000 athletes compete in NAIA athletics.The associations statement is stronger than the NCAAs‚ which allows self-identified transgenders to participate in their sports if they comply with guidelines governing the international sport in which they are competing. The Olympics will allow self-identified transgender athletes if theyve completed their transition before the age of 12.The post Great Coach Stumbles on Transgenders in Sports appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

PBSs The Incomparable Mr. Buckley is in many ways a favorable treatment of the founding father of modern conservatism‚ William F. Buckley Jr. The program explores Buckleys many fine personal qualities and professional talents and tells the story of his greatest public achievement in patiently marshaling conservative intellectual resources to shape and transform the modern Republican Party into a powerful conservative presence on the national political scene a presence that triumphed with the election and reelection of Buckleys friend Ronald Reagan to the presidency. But‚ predictably‚ the program ends with what PBS calls the dark side of conservatism: the rise of Trumpism. Buckley‚ according to PBS‚ too often accommodated this dark side and‚ therefore‚ shares the blame for Trumpism.READ MORE: What PBS Got Wrong‚ and Right‚ About William F. Buckley Jr.Despite frequent praise of Buckley from commentators on both the left and the right‚ and despite the programs appreciation of Buckleys energy‚ personality‚ and skills‚ there are hints of this dark conclusion throughout the program‚ including Buckleys support for Sen. Joe McCarthy in the early 1950s‚ his insufficient support of the civil rights movement in the 1960s‚ and his toleration of divisive figures on the political right‚ such as Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. Indeed‚ the program ends with the events of Jan. 6‚ 2021‚ as if to say: This is where Buckley brought us.That‚ of course‚ is nonsense. It is the product of the leftist worldview of the people at PBS. Sure‚ Buckley can be praised for some of his accomplishments‚ especially since he is dead. That is the same way liberals treated Reagan‚ whom they scorned as a dangerous reactionary who was going to get us into World War III while he was alive but treated with a degree of respect and fondness after he died. But praise of Buckley must not be permitted to carry over to praise of conservatism. PBS wont allow that.The Buckley story is a fascinating one. Born into wealth and privilege‚ educated at the finest schools‚ imbued with an intellectual confidence at a very young age‚ William F. Buckley Jr. was like a bright‚ shining star. He was handsome and polished‚ a skilled and prolific writer of both fiction and nonfiction‚ a brilliant debater and wordsmith‚ a skillful sailor of oceans‚ musically talented‚ personally gregarious‚ and quick to make friends. He worked briefly for the CIA. He had talented siblings (his sister Priscilla was also a writer and editor‚ and his brother Jim was a senator‚ statesman‚ and federal appeals court judge)‚ a beautiful wife‚ and a witty and talented son.Buckley first came to public attention with his book God and Man at Yale‚ a precocious and stinging critique of his alma mater. He used his wealth to found a conservative magazine‚ National Review. He recruited remarkable writers and personalities‚ such as James Burnham‚ Russell Kirk‚ Frank Meyer‚ Willmoore Kendall‚ and Whittaker Chambers. Buckleys magazine provided the intellectual fire and sustenance for the growing conservative movement. National Reviews pages were open to cultural conservatives‚ libertarians‚ and anti-communists. Buckley promoted their fusion into a significant political movement. That movement nominated Barry Goldwater for president in 1964‚ helped Richard Nixon squeak by to victory in 1968‚ nearly defeated incumbent President Gerald Ford at the 1976 GOP convention‚ and helped usher Ronald Reagan into the White House in 1980. Reagan was a friend of Buckleys and a devoted reader of National Review.Buckley was a devout Roman Catholic‚ which is mentioned‚ albeit briefly‚ in the PBS program. Indeed‚ Buckleys faith was even more important to him than his conservative philosophy‚ though in many ways his deep faith shaped that philosophy. National Review under his tutelage was a very Catholic magazine. For obvious reasons‚ PBS spent quite a bit more time on Buckleys television program Firing Line‚ which ran on PBS from 1966 to 1999. Firing Line tackled controversial issues with important guests who were both interviewed and debated by Buckley. During each episode‚ the Buckley intellect and wit were on full display.Interestingly‚ the PBS program notes that Buckleys initial elitism evolved into a pro-police‚ pro-military‚ pro-cultural populism (he famously said that he would rather be governed by the first 2‚000 names in the Boston telephone book than by the 2‚000 members of the Harvard faculty) that is not that much different from the populist movement that propelled Donald Trump to the presidency. Though not mentioned in the PBS program‚ Buckley‚ like Trump‚ opposed George W. Bushs Iraq War and the notion of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East.It was probably too much to ask of PBS to refrain from highlighting the dark side of conservatism in a program that otherwise celebrates the life of William F. Buckley Jr. One can only hope that Sam Tanenhaus forthcoming biography of Buckley gives us the man in full without tarnishing it with a political agenda.The post PBS Uses the Life of William F. Buckley Jr. to Highlight the Dark Side of Conservatism appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In a surprising move‚ a typically left-of-center Catholic cardinal is praising the Vaticans new declaration Dignitas infinitafor its approach to LGBT issues. In a recent interview‚ Washington‚ D.C.s Cardinal Wilton Gregory said that the new Vatican document‚ which addresses gender theory and transgender genital mutilation surgeries‚ among other issues‚ applauded the love with which the Francis pontificate treats those struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism. No‚ not a false love built on emotional over-sensitivities‚ but the love of a father (or‚ more accurately in the case of the Catholic Church‚ a mother) who seeks the childs ultimate good‚ even if the child doesnt appreciate that particular good.READ MORE: Vatican Statement on Transgenderism Comes at Opportune TimeWhen asked why Pope Francis hasnt rewritten the Catholic Churchs age-old moral doctrine to approve of homosexual acts and relationships‚ Gregory replied: Well‚ he cant if hes going to be true to the Churchs history and its teaching. He cant ignore the history of our faith‚ but he can call us to be respectful of others‚ but also to invite others to see and to appreciate and to accept the Churchs moral teaching. Gregory added‚ I said the most loving parent‚ at least in my own experience‚ but watching it in other situations‚ listens with the heart of the parent to a child‚ but it doesnt believe that the child gets everything they ask for.This is‚ quite frankly‚ a surprising insight from Gregory and truly drives at the heart of the pastoral spirit that so many priests and bishops today seem to elevate above moral clarity. Priests and bishops are‚ of course‚ pastors or shepherds of their flocks‚ tasked with guiding souls to Heaven. It is very much en vogue (though not quite so en vogue as it has been in recent decades) to preach a strange sort of emotional prosperity gospel: Do what makes you happy and if sin makes you happy‚ then can it really be sin? Oughtnt we‚ after all‚ appreciate and enjoy the good that God has given us‚ even if sin has warped and distorted that good almost beyond recognition?Pastors‚ shepherds‚ are to guide their sheep‚ to keep their flocks safe from ravaging wolves and steep cliffs‚ not to let their sheep wander where they will because it feels right to the sheep. Yet all too often‚ our shepherds today allow their sheep to graze within inches of the wolfs jaws‚ often with some justification such as‚ Well‚ the grass there looks awfully green‚ and why shouldnt my sheep enjoy a nice meal?This notion seemed to peak last year with the publication of Fiducia supplicans‚ a Vatican directive touted as permitting certain informal types of blessings for same-sex couples‚ although subsequent clarification made it clear that only individuals were being blessed‚ not the relationship between the individuals and certainly not the relationship itself. But the Francis pontificate (both the pope and those closest to him) have insisted on pointing out the good that can be found in homosexual relationships: stability‚ companionship‚ mutual respect and affection. (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: The Vatican OK With Normalizing the Exception)What has been often forgotten by those who ought to be pastors in the Church is that these goods are but wavering shadows of the true goods God intended for heterosexual relationships‚ culminating in marriage and family. What the emotional prosperity preachers call a stable relationship between two men might better be called stagnant. It cannot grow into a marriage; it cannot blossom into a family. What is called mutual respect or mutual affection is really nothing of the sort. After all‚ how can one claim to respect or show affection toward another if ones very lifestyle is contributing to the others spiritual decay? If homosexual relationships are‚ as the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares‚ intrinsically disordered‚ can engaging in such a relationship with another really be called a form of love?Whether he meant to or not‚ Gregory hit that proverbial nail on the head. Holy Mother Church is not‚ as her enemies would have us believe‚ a strict and soulless dictator‚ merely a cabal of closeted old men devising rules to deny pleasure to the populace. She is‚ instead‚ a loving mother‚ listening with care to her children‚ showering them with the riches of their Father‚ and always pointing out to them the right path to tread‚ even if it seems a difficult or arduous one.Image: This file is licensed under theCreative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 2.0 Genericlicense.The post DC Cardinal Surprisingly Praises Pope Francis on LGBT Issues appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.