Comedian Jerry Seinfeld teed off on the political Left during an interview published over the weekend‚ in which he blamed them for killing comedy on television. Seinfeld told The New Yorker that in the past nothing has really impacted comedy because people have always needed it. “They need it so badly and they don’t get it‚” he said. “It used to be‚ you would go home at the end of the day‚ most people would go‚ “Oh‚ ‘Cheers’ is on. Oh‚ ‘M*A*S*H’ is on. Oh‚ ‘Mary Tyler Moore’ is on. ‘All in the Family’ is on.” You just expected‚ there’ll be some funny stuff we can watch on TV tonight.” “Well‚ guess what — where is it&;#63; This is the result of the extreme left and P.C. crap‚ and people worrying so much about offending other people‚” he continued. “Now they’re going to see stand up comics because we are not policed by anyone. The audience polices us. We know when we’re off track. We know instantly and we adjust to it instantly.” “But when you write a script and it goes into four or five different hands‚ committees‚ groups — ‘Here’s our thought about this joke‚'” he added. “Well‚ that’s the end of your comedy.” X owner Elon Musk posted a clip of the audio clip from the interview on the social media platform and wrote: “Make comedy legal again&;#33;” WATCH: Make comedy legal again&;#33; pic.twitter.com/nTf9wmlfzn — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 28‚ 2024

Eric Church’s life nearly fell apart after he had two near-death experiences and lost his younger brother‚ but music helped him find his way out of the “darkness.” While talking to CBS Mornings recently‚ the country star revealed that he went through a long battle with depression beginning in 2017. That June‚ he went to the emergency room because he was feeling tingling and swelling in his hands and left arm. And doctors found a blood clot that could have killed him any second. The clot came after a birth defect caused his rib to form too close to his collarbone. He was rushed into emergency surgery to remove the clot and a rib bone. He spent much of that summer recovering and in physical therapy. “It was the first time‚ I think‚ in my life I had maybe evaluated my own mortality‚ one‚ but then a lot of other people’s mortality‚ too‚'” he said. Eric was able to get back on the road by September. But a few weeks later‚ he was playing at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas when a shooter opened fire and killed 60 people. “I watched people that night hold up boots and sing at the top of their lungs‚” he shared. “And then two days later‚ it was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. I had a lot of fans that had stayed over for the weekend to see all the shows that got killed.” “Something about it just kind of broke me‚” he continued. “I think it was the sense of what music has been for me along with them‚ the safe space part of it…That shattered a part of me.” Eric Church Uses Music As “A Form Of Therapy” Sadly‚ life gave Eric Church another heartwrenching experience. On June 29‚ 2018‚ his little brother‚ Brandon‚ died at only 36 years old. Brandon passed away after having two seizures and a cardiac arrest in June 2018. Doctors determined that chronic alcoholism led to his death. Brandon had been one of Eric’s biggest supporters and best friends. The two even co-wrote several of the songs on Eric’s debut album‚ Sinners Like Me. While the loss could have pushed Eric Church beyond his limits‚ he focused his emotions into his music once again. “I got through it like everything else I’ve got through in my life; I turned to the one thing I know I can do‚” he said. “I wrote songs.” In recent months‚ the singer has focused on a residency at his Nashville‚ TN‚ bar‚ Chief’s. He pours his emotions out through the music he wrote that was “too personal” to put on records and says it’s a “form of therapy.” “I want to play those‚” he continued. “I want to say‚ ‘This is what got me through.'” This story’s featured image is by Amy Sussman/Getty Images for Stagecoach. The post Eric Church Says Music Healed Him After A Tragic Loss And Two Near-Death Experiences Left Him “Shattered” appeared first on InspireMore.

During the chaos of school drop-offs and work commutes‚ we often forget to take a moment to appreciate each new morning‚ which can make our whole day feel stressful. But this 6-year-old is reminding us to slow down and start our days in peace. Alissa Holder‚ a mom influencer‚ shared a video of her son‚ Ayaan enjoying some alone time early one morning. As she wrote in the caption‚ she was packing her kids’ lunches when she noticed that Ayann was sitting at his tiny desk and sipping on some lemon and honey tea while enjoying a new book. “At first‚ I laughed. Because…who does he think he is&;#63;‚” Alissa wrote. “But then I realized that I’m glad he had this moment of calm and focus for himself before he starts his day at school. I hope your day is off to a great start.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by Alissa Holder NYC (@alissa360style) In the video‚ which has gone viral and has been featured in several major publications‚ Ayaan looks like an old soul as he pays close attention to his book and is dressed up in black pants and a crisp blue polo shirt. Alissa shared that her son enjoys the morning routine at 6:30‚ just after finishing his cereal. Commenters can’t get enough of Ayaan’s peaceful moment and obvious sophistication. “I love how his collar is popped. Like ready for his tie but AFTER breakfast and tea‚ of course‚ cause can’t spill anything on it&;#33; &;lt;3 He’s the sweetest&;#33;” someone wrote. “Here we have a distinguished gentleman ” a follower cheered. “This makes my heart so happy &; calm ” someone admitted. “Wow‚ his focus rivals my own at 32. Such a cute kid&;#33;” a commenter gushed. Share this video with everyone who needs some peaceful inspiration for their morning routines. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post This 6-Yr-Old’s Peaceful Morning Routine Is Something We Should All Try appeared first on InspireMore.

'Forget the $500 hammer'

'You need to get better research'

Members of the press corps‚ politicians and other D.C. elite gathered Saturday night at the Washington Hilton for a cavalcade of self-indulgence during the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The event‚ hosted by Saturday Night Live’s Colin Jost‚ exemplified the fourth estate’s deep relationship with the Democratic party. Following remarks from White House Correspondents’ Association […]

Kremlin: What Do You Mean Putin Didn't Order Navalny's Death&;#63;

Rachael Evans: In a groundbreaking declaration earlier this month‚ Indigenous leaders of New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a treaty‚ He Whakaputanga Moana‚ to recognise whales as legal persons. Aotearoa New Zealand has already granted legal personhood to a river (Te Awa Tupua Whanganui River)‚ land (Te Urewera) and a mountain (Taranaki maunga)‚ but He Whakaputanga Moana differs from these earlier processes. It is based in customary law‚ or tikanga Māori‚ rather than Crown law. The declaration seeks to protect the rights of whales (tohorā) to migrate freely and to use mātauranga Māori alongside science for better protections. It also aims to set up a dedicated fund for whale conservation. Māori and Pacific leaders have signed a declaration seeking to grant tohorā‚ or whales‚ legal personhood.https://t.co/0q6SjoAdn7 — RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) April 2‚ 2024 But a core concept of legal personhood is the idea that the “person” (in this case‚ whales) can sue to protect their rights. The declaration was signed by King Tuuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII of the Kiingitanga movement‚ Lisa Tumahai who chairs the Hinemoana Halo Ocean initiative‚ and the Cook Islands leader Kaumaiti Nui Travel Tou Ariki. It recognises traditional Māori and Pasifika ideas about the importance of whales as ancestral beings. King Tuuheitia described it as “a woven cloak of protection for our taonga”‚ noting the presence of whales “reflects the strength of our own mana”. While He Whakaputanga Moana is not a pan-Māori declaration‚ mana is a shared core concept of tikanga Māori‚ representing authority and power. What is legal personhood&;#63; Over the past few hundred years‚ legal personhood has been developed for companies as a way for individual shareholders to avoid liability. This means a company can go to court‚ rather than its shareholders. In the past decade‚ Aotearoa New Zealand has led the way in developing legal personhood for things in nature into a tool used as part of settlements under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. It is important to note that these ideas have been recognised and implemented by the Crown in partnership with Māori. As part of the signing of the TÅ«hoe settlement in 2014‚ the former national park Te Urewera was granted legal personhood. In 2017‚ legal personhood for the Whanganui river was also part of a settlement. And last year‚ this idea was extended to Mount Taranaki. The Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill passed its first reading in parliament last week. These natural features are now not owned by people or the Crown‚ but by themselves. Legal personhood has been praised in New Zealand and overseas by people interested in using it to protect the environment. Tikanga key to unlocking legal power There is currently a shift in the legal system to recognise tikanga as a key source of law alongside statute and common law (the kind of customary law New Zealand inherited from England). In the recent case of Ellis v R‚ the Supreme Court recognised and applied ideas about mana. In deciding to overturn the conviction of Peter Ellis posthumously‚ the court held that Mr Ellis’ mana was affected by the convictions‚ even after his death. He Whakaputanga Moana is based on customary concepts like mana rather than being a Crown-drafted piece of law. It is likely it could be recognised by the courts as part of the growing wave of tikanga jurisprudence. Marine mammals in New Zealand’s territorial waters are protected absolutely by the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 (as has recently been highlighted when the Sail GP regatta was held in a marine sanctuary and races were delayed because dolphins were present). But He Whakaputanga Moana recognises legal personhood above and beyond that legislation. Whales in court So what if whales went to court&;#63; What if whales sued for plastic pollution in their habitat‚ the dumping of waste in the oceans or climate change causing warmer waters and depleting their food stocks&;#63; In this case‚ He Whakaputanga Moana could potentially give a human interest group‚ perhaps the Kiingitanga‚ the legal standing to sue on behalf of whales. In addition to recognising tikanga as a source of law‚ the Supreme Court has also opened the door to climate change focused litigation‚ such as the case of Smith v Fonterra. Here‚ activist Mike Smith has sued seven major New Zealand polluters for their greenhouse gas emissions. The defendants said the claim could not succeed and applied for a “strike out”‚ but the Supreme Court has allowed it go to trial. Among other findings‚ the court found the litigation should proceed‚ as it might involve ideas of tikanga and tikanga-based loss that should be tested at trial. This suggests that if the courts were to recognise the validity of He Whakaputanga Moana in customary law‚ this case might allow those representing whales to run a claim against ocean polluters. A ruling in favour of whales could have significant ramifications for the health and wellbeing of our oceans‚ and perhaps the very existence of their species. Rachael Evans‚ Lecturer‚ Kaupeka Ture | Faculty of Law‚ University of Canterbury This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post What if whales‚ having gained legal personality‚ sue us&;#63; appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Thursday’s PBS NewsHour covered the hate virus spreading on progressive college campuses nationwide of agitators threatening Israel and Jewish students. Of course‚ that’s not how PBS saw it‚ painting those pro-Hamas protesters as standing in the honorable shoes of the 1960s campus rioters that changed the course of American involvement in Vietnam. PBS also took on a University of Vanderbilt president who dared punish students for the violent invasion of a campus building. Anchor Amna Nawaz relayed the good news‚ from tax-supported PBS’s perspective. Nawaz: Campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza are continuing to grow across the U.S. The University of Southern California announced today it's canceling its main commencement ceremony next month. Encampments are now in place in at least 20 colleges‚ and hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested in the last several days at multiple schools‚ including the University of Texas‚ Ohio State and Emory University….These incidents are just the latest in a series of pro-Palestinian demonstrations unfolding on campuses from coast to coast and beyond‚ including universities in Paris‚ Cairo‚ and Sydney. Some in the U.S. say they want their universities to cut financial ties with Israel. She neutralized concerns of threats against Jewish students Nawaz: Jewish students across the country have said they feel unsafe amid the demonstrations and after being targeted by hate speech and antisemitic symbols. But some are taking part in the protests… Nawaz hosted Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier‚ who earlier this month penned an op-ed for the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal on his school’s crackdown on student disruptors that clearly didn’t please PBS‚ which described his school as a place “where dozens of students have faced suspension‚ expulsion‚ and even arrest for their participation in recent protests on campus.” Nawaz took the side of the violent students: &;quot;There was a late March incident. Some 27 students or so forced their way into a closed administration building. I understand a campus security officer was injured during that incident. Most of the students had to be escorted out. Four were arrested‚ is my understanding. Help us understand the line for you. Why were those students arrested and some expelled&;#63;&;quot; Diermeier explained that his campus has hosted peaceful protests for months‚ but these students “forced their way into a closed building” and “ran over a security officer” before trying to invade his own office‚ then sat in a hallway for hours before finally being arrested after refusing to disperse. Nawaz was lawyerly in response: &;quot;So the line for you was the physical violence part of it. Had the building been open‚ you're fine with students entering and sitting in‚ in protest‚ in other words&;#63;&;quot; Has Nawaz seen the video of the frankly pathetic Vandy students she's supporting so strongly‚ whose freedom to act like spoiled toddlers was so cruelly infringed&;#63; After Diermeier explained the issue was disruptive conduct‚ Nawaz again jabbed from the left. Nawaz: You said in your op-ed that free speech is alive and well at Vanderbilt. But there was an open letter by several members of your faculty that disputes that. They say the administration has been excessive and punitive in its response to student protests. They say the rules seem arbitrary. And they say the criterion that protests must not disrupt university operations‚ as you say‚ is perniciously vague and expansive. What do you say to that&;#63; After Vanderbilt’s president again defended his university’s response‚ Nawaz weighed in again on behalf of the disruptive protesters: Nawaz: ….Many would say the purpose of protests is to disrupt. The next night‚ Nawaz again discussed the “expansion of college protests and encampments” and used more soundbites from protesting students‚ this time skipping the anti-Semitic threats and slogans entirely and comparing these hateful protests to the takeover of college campuses during the Vietnam War‚ while pretending that divestment from Israel was the main thrust of the new agitators. (Comparisons to Vietnam War protesters are almost always positive in PBS land.) Nawaz: Many say today's demonstrations echo college protests movements of the past‚ including against the Vietnam War….As protests of Israel's war in Gaza spread to campuses across the country‚ some see parallels between today's demonstrations and college protests in the past. These segments in support of anti-Jewish campus disrupters were brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. Transcripts are available‚ click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/25/24 7:28:18 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza are continuing to grow across the U.S. The University of Southern California announced today it's canceling its main commencement ceremony next month. Encampments are now in place in at least 20 colleges‚ and hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested in the last several days at multiple schools‚ including the University of Texas‚ Ohio State and Emory University. Amid police confrontations‚ multiple arrests and large demonstrations‚ Emory University today became the latest flash point in a wave of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. Early this morning‚ at Boston's Emerson University‚ violence erupted as police cleared a student encampment. More than 100 were arrested. Authorities say four officers were injured. That followed this clash at the University of Southern California. Officers there say protesters refused to remove their encampments. The protesters say they were provoked. Student Protester: What we just saw was an act of USC acting aggressively and failing to defend‚ and‚ in fact‚ being the aggressor against its students. Amna Nawaz: By nightfall‚ more than 90 people were taken into custody. Incidents are just the latest in a series of pro-Palestinian demonstrations unfolding on campuses from coast to coast and beyond‚ including universities in Paris‚ Cairo‚ and Sydney. Some in the U.S. say they want their universities to cut financial ties with Israel. Former USC Student: We want the university to disclose its financial holdings and divest from its relationships with financial institutions. And we want the university to recognize and acknowledge to its student body that there is a genocide happening to our families in Gaza. Amna Nawaz: Officials at Columbia University yesterday extended talks with demonstrators to clear the campus‚ where‚ that same afternoon‚ House Speaker Mike Johnson was booed after his remarks. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): The cherished traditions of this university are being overtaken right now by radical and extreme ideologies. They place a target on the backs of Jewish students in the United States and here on this campus. Amna Nawaz: Jewish students across the country have said they feel unsafe amid the demonstrations and after being targeted by hate speech and antisemitic symbols. But some are taking part in the protests… Protesters: Free‚ free Palestine&;#33; Amna Nawaz: … which continue to spread to more campuses and show no signs of ending soon. The protests have also reached Vanderbilt University in Nashville‚ Tennessee‚ where dozens of students have faced suspension‚ expulsion‚ and even arrest for their participation in recent protests on campus. Joining us now is Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier to discuss his school's approach‚ which he outlined in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Chancellor‚ welcome to the &;quot;NewsHour.&;quot; Thanks for joining us. Daniel Diermeier‚ Chancellor‚ Vanderbilt University: Thank you for having me. Amna Nawaz: So‚ before we get into your school's specific experience‚ I just want to get your reaction to how quickly and how widely these protests have spread across campus. Daniel Diermeier: Yes‚ I think what we have seen in the last week or two is certainly that these issues and the protests have intensified‚ but‚ really‚ we have had them for the last six months or so. Amna Nawaz: And Vanderbilt has been among those that's seen its own protests. As we mentioned‚ there was a late March incident. Some 27 students or so forced their way into a closed administration building. I understand a campus security officer was injured during that incident. Most of the students had to be escorted out. Four were arrested‚ is my understanding. Help us understand the line for you. Why were those students arrested and some expelled&;#63; Daniel Diermeier: Absolutely. So‚ overall‚ over the last six months‚ things on campus have gone very well. Our students have done great. They had vigils. They had in-depth discussions. We have had a Passover celebration just like a few days ago with 400 students on our main lawn. And then some students have protesters as well on both sides. We have had displays of‚ like‚ the victims in Gaza. We have had displays of the hostages. So all of that has gone very well. But about a month ago‚ we had a small group of students that forced their way into a closed building. This is our main administration building. And we're still doing some construction. They ran over a security officer. They then tried to get into my office. They were — they tried to push over some of my staff there‚ but didn't succeed‚ and sat down in the hallway. And then‚ after a few hours‚ we told them that this is inconsistent with university policy‚ that this is disruptive conduct. We then had three of the students arrested that had pushed over the police officer. We had one student arrested who had smashed over a window‚ and then the other students left on their own accord and were subject to student discipline subsequently. Amna Nawaz: So the line for you was the physical violence part of it. Had the building been open‚ you're fine with students entering and sitting in‚ in protest‚ in other words&;#63; Daniel Diermeier: Well‚ the issue for us is whether you're disrupting university operations. Now‚ certainly‚ when you are forcing your way into a closed building‚ closed for construction‚ and you're injuring a public safety officer‚ that line has been crossed. The critical question for us is always‚ are you protesting and making your voices heard‚ or are you engaging in disruptive conduct&;#63; That can have many different forms. For example‚ we would not allow them to enter a classroom with a megaphone and disrupt the class‚ for example‚ so it can come in many different forms. This was certainly across the line. Amna Nawaz: You said in your op-ed that free speech is alive and well at Vanderbilt. But there was an open letter by several members of your faculty that disputes that. They say the administration has been excessive and punitive in its response to student protests. They say the rules seem arbitrary. And they say the criterion that protests must not disrupt university operations‚ as you say‚ is perniciously vague and expansive. What do you say to that&;#63; Daniel Diermeier: Well‚ I think that this particular issue has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. As I mentioned before‚ there have been many expressions of student protest on campus. The issue for us is‚ in this particular case‚ was that the people forced them — forced their way into a construction building and injured a police officer. I don't think anybody should confuse this with free speech. Amna Nawaz: But‚ if I may‚ this line that you draw that it shouldn't disrupt‚ protests shouldn't disrupt university operations‚ your opposition here says that that's actually too vague and too expansive. Many would say the purpose of protests is to disrupt. Daniel Diermeier: I think the purpose of protest is to make your voices heard. I don't think the purpose of protest is to injure members of the staff or to disrupt classes. Amna Nawaz: One of the things the students were asking for was a student-led vote‚ a referendum‚ in essence‚ asking for the university to divest itself financially from any financial ties to Israel. My understanding is‚ you did not allow that vote‚ that referendum‚ to move forward‚ which then‚ of course‚ leads students to say that their free speech is being violated. So why not allow them to discuss that and hold that vote&;#63; Daniel Diermeier: The university has three principles. One is free speech. One is what we call institutional neutrality‚ which means that the university will not take policy issues unless they directly and materially affect the operations of the university‚ for example‚ not on foreign policy issues. And the third is civil discourse‚ which means that we treat each other with respect‚ we listen to each other‚ and when our students come on campus‚ they sign a community creed where they affirm their commitment to the last value of civil discourse. The students then had a — wanted to have a referendum to use student government funds to basically boycott any firms that had connection with Israel. That‚ in Tennessee‚ is against the law. Even the vote itself would have put our state funding at risk‚ and so‚ as consequences of that‚ we did not allow the vote‚ and because it's inconsistent with Tennessee state law. But I want to be clear that calling for the boycott of Israel is also inconsistent with our stand on institutional neutrality. Amna Nawaz: You know‚ Chancellor‚ I have to ask‚ if you believe that you and other leaders are handling these protests well‚ that you are hitting that balance between free speech and safety‚ why do you think that the protests and objections are spreading as rapidly as they are&;#63; I mean‚ is there a chance here that you are not necessarily hearing the concerns of your students in the way they feel they need to be heard&;#63; Daniel Diermeier: I need to distinguish between what's happening on my campus. And on my campus‚ this was an isolated incident that involved 30 students. What other universities do and how they handle that‚ I think‚ is something that will depend on their context. All of us will have — will be tested. Our approach has been that we have been very clear about our principles‚ the principles I just stated‚ and that we will enforce those principles‚ and that's the way we have handled the situation. Amna Nawaz: That is Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier joining us tonight. Chancellor‚ thank you very much for your time. Daniel Diermeier: Sure. Thank you. * PBS NewsHour 4/26/24 7:17:45 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: As protests of Israel's war in Gaza spread to campuses across the country‚ some see parallels between today's demonstrations and college protests in the past. Steven Mintz is a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin‚ and Angus Johnston is a professor and historian of American student culture at the City University of New York. Welcome to you both. Professor Johnston‚ let's just start with what the protesters are calling for here. What is their focus&;#63; What do they want as a result of these demonstrations&;#63; Angus Johnston‚ Assistant Professor‚ City University of New York: Well‚ it varies campus by campus‚ but primarily what we're looking for — looking at is‚ they're looking for a divestment of the universities' financial relationships with Israeli companies‚ a disentanglement of the universities from relationships with the Israeli government or military‚ and transparency as to the nature of those relationships where they currently exist. Amna Nawaz: Professor Mintz‚ how do — what do you make of the demands‚ as Professor Johnston had laid them out&;#63; Is that something you think colleges can achieve&;#63; Steven Mintz‚ Professor of History‚ University of Texas at Austin: I think they're very unlikely to be achieved. The protests of the 1960s‚ it was possible to achieve some kind of accommodation. First of all‚ one of the demands‚ an end to the military draft‚ received widespread support throughout society‚ and Richard Nixon's administration would make that happen. But on campuses themselves‚ there were some practical goals‚ like studies programs‚ women's studies programs‚ coeducation at the elite private universities‚ an end to parietals and in loco parentis regulations. There was a lot of ground for accommodation and compromise. And I don't see that much right now. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston‚ what do you make of that&;#63; Do you agree&;#63; Angus Johnston: Well‚ I think that the easiest‚ simplest demand that they're making is a demand for transparency in their universities' relationships with Israeli institutions‚ and I think that that is something that is certainly winnable on a lot of campuses. I also think that‚ in a lot of ways‚ the anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and '80s is a much better analog than the mass student movement of the late '60s in some ways. And I think it's important to remember that‚ in the case of the anti-apartheid movement‚ the calls for divestment on campuses began in the mid-70s. And it was a very‚ very long and slow process‚ by which students were adjusting people's views of the crisis itself. Amna Nawaz: What do you make of that‚ Professor Mintz&;#63; Could these protests now start what could be a long chain of changing people's minds when it comes to how they see this issue&;#63; Steven Mintz: The context today is very different than in the 1960s or 1970s‚ when higher education was growing and the federal and state investments in higher education were increasing. Today‚ the situation of American higher education is extremely precarious. Public support has diminished. Funding is hotly debated in many of the states. There are threats in some state legislatures to tax endowments‚ to tax university property‚ to tax university income. Donations to many of the leading universities have declined. This is a very treacherous moment‚ especially for the most well-endowed and highly selective institutions. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston‚ do you agree with that&;#63; I mean‚ is there a chance here that protesters run the risk of losing support the longer these protests go on‚ because of this scenario‚ as Professor Mintz has laid it out&;#63; Angus Johnston: Well‚ I think it's important to note that the protests themselves so far have largely been pretty moderate in their tactics. We're not seeing‚ as we did in the 1960s‚ rioting‚ rocks being thrown at police‚ even buildings getting burned — being burned down. The protests themselves have been pretty moderate. The thing that is inflaming the situation right now — in terms of their tactics‚ the thing that's inflaming the situation right now is bringing in the cops and using the police not only to engage in mass arrests against students‚ but in arresting and in some cases beating and abusing faculty as well. I think it's really important to point out that there are a number of campuses at which the university has decided to take a hands-off approach to these encampments. MIT is one. Berkeley is another. And at these‚ the encampments have been proceeding with very little issue and very little drama. Amna Nawaz: Professor Mintz‚ what about that&;#63; Because we have seen some pretty heavy-handed tactics in some cases. At your campus‚ at the University of Texas in Austin‚ dozens of people were arrested. Police in riot gear were called in to disperse the crowds. Is that necessary&;#63; Steven Mintz: Right now‚ we have many brand-new presidents‚ unseasoned senior administrators making decisions. One suspects that administrators who were more knowledgeable about past history‚ had more experience dealing with students‚ had better rapport with their student populations‚ that this would be playing out extremely differently. What we need to see on the part of senior administrators is a real willingness to step out of their offices‚ communicate with the students‚ and try to achieve some kind of accommodation. Amna Nawaz: Are you saying that you don't believe that the police should have been called in some of these circumstances&;#63; Steven Mintz: Absolutely not. And the lesson of history could not be clearer that this only escalates the situation‚ it worsens the situation‚ and it results in a degree of alienation that's very difficult to overcome. Amna Nawaz: So‚ given all that‚ Professor Mintz‚ I will ask you‚ and‚ then‚ Professor Johnston‚ if you would follow‚ I will just ask you both‚ where do we go from here&;#63; How do you see this unfolding in the weeks ahead&;#63; Professor Mintz&;#63; Steven Mintz: I think the conversation needs to be made more productive. In this country‚ if you want political change‚ you build coalitions. And what I'm not seeing on campus right now is an effort to have effective protests that will bring people together. When people hear anti-American sentiments‚ they are radically turned off. The demonstrators‚ in my view‚ should be calling for peace‚ for the release of the hostages‚ and an American foreign policy that will really result in a two-state solution. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston‚ I will give you the last word here. Angus Johnston: I'm really heartened by the fact that‚ despite what Professor Mintz has said‚ a lot of faculty have been turning out in support of these students‚ some of them turning out in support of the students' goals‚ but others turning out in support of the students' right to protest without being harassed and without being abused by cops. I think we are seeing the development of a new coalition on the campus. And I'm very heartened by that. And I hope that administrators take heed of that and do their bit to de-escalate the situation as well. Amna Nawaz: That is Professor Angus Johnston from the City University of New York and Professor Steven Mintz from the University of Texas at Austin. Thank you both for joining us tonight. Angus Johnston: Thank you. Steven Mintz: You're welcome.

As he closed his remarks to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner‚ also known as Nerd Prom‚ President Joe Biden directed the media to lean further in his direction in covering the 2024 presidential election. Watch as Biden closes his remarks by issuing the “what’s at stake” clarion call: JOE BIDEN: On the third anniversary of January 6th‚ I went to Valley Forge and I said the most urgent question of our time is whether democracy is still- is still the sacred cause of America. That is the question the American people must answer this year. And you‚ the free press‚ play a critical role in making sure the American people have the information they need to make an informed decision. The defeated former president has made no secret of his attack on our democracy. He said he wants to be a dictator on Day One. And so much more. He tells supporters he is their revenge and retribution. When in God's name have you ever heard of another president say something like that&;#63; And he promised a bloodbath when he loses again. We have to take this seriously. Eight years ago. It could have written off as just Trump talk. But no longer. Not after January 6th. I'm sincerely not asking you to take sides‚ but asking to rise up to the seriousness of the moment. Move past the horse race numbers. The gotcha moments. And the distraction‚ the sideshows that've come to dominate and sensationalize- sensationalize our politics. And focus on what's actually at stake. I think in your hearts‚ you know already what’s at stake.  The stakes couldn't be higher. Every single one of us has roles to play- a serious role to play in making sure democracy endures. American democracy. I have mo- my role‚ but with all due respect‚ so do you. In the age of disinformation‚ credible information that people can trust is more important than ever. And that makes you‚ and I mean this from the bottom of my heart- makes you more important than ever. So tonight‚ I'd like to make a toast. To a free press. To an informed citizenry. To an America where freedom and democracy endure. God bless America. Nerd Prom‚ live-tweeted by our very own Curtis Houck‚ embodies everything that is wrong with the media (and Washington‚ more broadly) today. On the one hand‚ the press claim to be free and independent. On the other‚ you have this grotesque spectacle‚ reminiscent of the excesses at Versailles‚ wherein the media show themselves to be palace courtiers whenever Democrats are in power. And so we come to Biden’s speech. It is surreal but not at all surprising to watch this president‚ whose administration has been sued on First Amendment grounds and tried to control free speech via an Orwellian-named “Disinformation Governance Board”‚ headlining an event celebrating the First Amendment.  Equally surreal‚ the idea that Biden feels the need to direct the coverage accorded to him by an already-pliant and sycophantic media. Biden’s utterance of “I’m sincerely not asking you to take sides” has a ring similar to that of “with all due respect” which‚ when uttered‚ means that someone is about to get disrespected. Biden’s “I’m sincerely not asking you to take sides rang just as hollow.  Biden took January 6th and used it both as framing device for his closing remarks and as the basis for which journalists should take his side. He commanded the media to abandon coverage of his sagging poll numbers (“the horse race numbers”) and his gaffes (“the gotcha moments”). It bears noting that the latter ask is weird because the media already don’t cover his many gaffes. Biden commands the media to abandon these things and focus on “what’s at stake”‚ which at this point is code for his reelection. It is further galling to hear Biden talk about “the age of disinformation” after willfully repeating the well-debunked Day One Dictator and Bloodbath Hoaxes on stage. Predictably‚ none of the gushing post-Nerd Prom coverage‚ mostly consistent of Sunday show types congratulating themselves for making it to set on time‚ bothers with a fact check. Biden’s remarks were a disgusting spectacle‚ even by Nerd Prom’s disgusting spectacle standards. Far from defending the First Amendment‚ Biden called for further consolidation of the media in his camp- a rather ominous threat to free speech and to the free press- even if those in attendance couldn’t help but clap like seals as they raised their glasses.