"I'm the tabloid queen." The post Dolly Parton on how to deal with negativity: ‘I take pride’ first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

In 1972‚ President Richard Nixon won 60.7 percent of the popular vote (an 18 million vote margin) and carried every state but Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. He had previously spent four years in the House of Representatives‚ two years in the Senate‚ eight years as vice president‚ and four years as president. Within weeks of his election as the clear choice of the American people‚ he was under siege from the courts‚ the news media‚ the bureaucracy‚ leftwing activists‚ and Congress. Forty-four years later‚ in 2016‚ a newcomer to politics ran as a complete outsider. Donald Trump defeated 16 other Republicans for the nomination (including governors and senators with significant national reputations). He quickly found himself under assault by the same leftwing Washington coalition‚ which employed lies and manufactured conspiracies to smear and defeat him. Despite all the attacks‚ Trump won a narrow majority. As president‚ he faced ongoing investigations‚ allegations‚ and impeachment efforts. As a former president and front-runner for the Republican nomination‚ he is still subjected to unending legal assaults from Democrats in New York and Georgia state courts — and from an out-of-control federal prosecutor seeking to try him in Florida and Washington‚ D.C. (READ MORE from Newt Gingrich: Trump Should Learn From Watergate) At one level‚ Nixon’s and Trump’s stories are quite different — the old pro and the new outsider. Nixon had worked with the federal bureaucracy his entire career‚ Trump focused on business and approached Washington with virtually no experience in leading large government systems. But the two had a shared experience. They both sought to change Washington‚ and Washington responded by trying to destroy them.  Deep Bureaucrat Resistance in Washington Jeffrey Tucker’s phrase “entrenched administrative state hegemony” captures the depth of resistance built into a massive government with millions of employees and trillions to spend. Surrounding the entrenched administrative state are the symbiotic lobbyists and special interests. Further entrenching the old order is the degree to which House and Senate members (and even more their staff members) are allied with and influenced by the bureaucracies and lobbyists.  Finally‚ this entire entrenched‚ self-serving coalition is supported and protected by the left-wing media‚ which is sustained by the information leaking from the bureaucracies. How much about Watergate did Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discover and how much was developed by government agencies and fed to them? Remember‚ “deep throat” turned out to be the number three man in the FBI who had been passed over for the top job.  The natural tendency of large bureaucracies to defend themselves and to avoid or minimize change is compounded in our era. The Left has come to see government as the primary mechanism for controlling and coercing the American people. In addition to the natural self-interest of all bureaucracies‚ there is an ideological fervor to eliminate any serious threat of change. The Trump candidacy in 2016 was guaranteed to arouse enormous passion on the Left — and great fear in key bureaucracies. Given Trump’s platform and personality‚ it is little wonder that some in the FBI regarded his potential victory as a personally threatening nightmare. They knew they had been doing illegal things‚ and that Trump was likely to expose them. The Obama administration’s reshaping of the intelligence community into an arm of the Left (and the liberalism of the State Department) guaranteed that Trump would face constant opposition from government elements during the campaign and his presidency. In hindsight‚ Nixon posed a parallel threat to the establishment. The Culture War Against the Left President Nixon had always faced substantial hostility from the Left. Herblock (Herbert Block)‚ the famous Washington Post cartoonist‚ did many of his most famous cartoons lampooning and savaging Nixon. The anti-war movement focused a great deal of its efforts against President Nixon and then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger when they declined to surrender to the North Vietnamese and withdraw in total defeat from Vietnam.  With senior speechwriter Pat Buchanan and Vice President Spiro Agnew leading the way‚ the Nixon administration waged a relentless culture war against the Left. As Buchanan’s various memoirs and books make clear‚ this was a deliberate‚ conscious strategy to drive a wedge between working Americans and the George McGovern left. It was a process that led to the massive 1972 victory. Even after the damage of Watergate‚ it continued to drive moderate and conservative Democrats away from their party and toward Republicans. Ronald Reagan was the next great recipient of a massive majority. Finding themselves in a cultural war with a politician they never liked‚ the Left developed an antipathy for President Nixon‚ unlike anything we had seen up to that time. The Left had tolerated President Dwight Eisenhower as a war hero. He managed the Franklin Delano Roosevelt-Harry Truman bureaucracies and made them more fiscally conservative‚ but he did not try to fundamentally change them. Now the Left had a real opponent. Nixon’s plans to profoundly change the bureaucracy gave the Left a wide range of government and interest group allies who feared his bold reform plans. Watergate wiped out virtually all memory of how seriously President Nixon viewed the need for deep bold changes in Washington. Undermining the Bureaucrats The first Nixon administration had been a centrist conservative administration. It created the Environmental Protection Agency. It seriously considered a family income plan that was a huge break with conservatism (and had been authored by the Democrat in the White House‚ Daniel Patrick Moynihan). His first term convinced President Nixon that the structure and processes of the federal government needed a deep shakeup.  Richard Nathan‚ in his book The Plot That Failed: Nixon and the Administrative Presidency‚ begins:  While riding in a crowded airplane in the spring of 1973‚ I overheard a conversation about Watergate. One comment was “Nixon‚ Haldeman‚ and Ehrlichman are on the verge of taking over the government.” In the aftermath of Watergate‚ we have tended to forget the ambitious plans and highly charged atmosphere as Nixon’s second term got underway. President Nixon described his effort to decentralize government as much as possible. Nathan notes:  From the point of view of the federal bureaucracy… the essential implications of the New Federalism are clear. The idea was to weaken the federal bureaucracy.… [T]ensions between the White House and the bureaucracy grew rapidly as Nixon’s domestic policies were spelled out. Increasingly‚ and as was a logical outgrowth of the New Federalism‚ the Nixon presidency was marked by animosity on both sides between the White House and the domestic bureaucracy. The speed and aggressiveness of President Nixon’s post-election landslide effort was startling. The day after winning 49 states and over 60 percent of the popular vote‚ the re-elected commander-in-chief called a cabinet meeting. As Nathan wrote:  After thanking his associates for their help in the campaign‚ [Nixon] proceeded to outline dramatic plans for staff changes. He required that all political appointees submit their resignations forthwith. …Each Cabinet officer instructed to meet with the principal appointed officials of his agency and request letters of resignation that many would be accepted. Tension at departmental conference tables ran high at a time when in the normal course of events one would have expected instead a period of celebration and relaxation. Pundits in Washington had a field day.… Rumors and leaks were widespread in this period. The uncertainty that this process produced brought government decision processes to a virtual halt. Nathan reported that in an interview with Jack Horner‚ President Nixon said: [H]e would ‘shuck off’ and ‘trim down’ social programs that in his view reflected the failures of the sixties. He talked specifically about cutting government employment: ‘I honestly believe that government in Washington is too big and is too expensive… We can do the job better with fewer people.’ He referred to some agencies as ‘too fat‚ too bloated’ and made it clear‚ according to Horner‚ that he was talking about domestic agencies such as HUD‚ HEW‚ and the Department of Transportation. Nathan’s account of the attempted Nixon Revolution in government is reinforced by a remarkable book by Frederic V. Malek‚ Washington’s Hidden Tragedy: the Failure to Make Government Work. Malek was the management genius Nixon had recruited to work with Roy Ashe in thinking through federal reforms and his book is a useful primer on applying management in an inherently political environment. Malek describes the core of Nixon’s domestic political and governing strategy:  Shortly after the 1972 elections‚ President Nixon decided he wanted a cabinet reflective of the majority of Americans that had elected him. In his view‚ this included Irish Catholics‚ Americans of Italian descent‚ officials from the labor movement‚ veterans‚ and people from other walks of American life. His ambition was to dismantle Roosevelt’s Grand Coalition‚ and in his second term he wanted a cabinet that reflected elements of the coalition he had won over in his reelection. Watergate must be seen in the context of this enormous‚ bold‚ and extraordinarily powerful effort to reshape the American government and the Rooseveltian coalition that had dominated America for four decades. When you understand how big a change President Nixon wanted — and Washington’s hostility toward him — Watergate begins to emerge as a different story. It was not simply the story of a buffoonish political break-in‚ it was a remarkable counterattack by a system that was in danger of losing power. Anything that could be done to weaken or undermine the Nixon presidency was legitimate because he was that great a threat. The parallels between 1972 and the current assault on President Trump are remarkable. Both men were perceived by the Left as mortal threats. Therefore‚ anything to stop them is automatically seen as legitimate. The parallels of institutional dishonesty are remarkable. In both cases‚ the national establishment overrode the American people and destroyed an elected president. The New York Times and Washington Post also carried water for the establishment to destroy Nixon and Trump. There is much to learn from 1972 and 1974 that applies to us today. Similarly‚ the previous two Democratic administrations did far worse things than Watergate. The people who were trying to destroy President Nixon were themselves involved in far greater law-breaking and they knew it. But that is the topic of another essay. This is the 14th installment in a series by Speaker Gingrich on American despotism. Listen to The American Spectator’s exclusive interview with the Speaker here. Find the first in the series here‚ the second here‚ the third here‚ the fourth here‚ the fifth here‚ the sixth here‚ the seventh here‚ the eighth here‚ the ninth here‚ the 10th here‚ the 11th here‚ the 12th here‚ and the 13th here. For more commentary‚ visit Gingrich360.com. The post Washington Is Waging a War: First Nixon‚ Now Trump appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich ably defined‚ in a syndicated column on Monday‚ the findings that pollster Scott Rasmussen had uncovered in several surveys but distilled earlier this month: There’s a group of Americans out there who must be marginalized if this country is going to survive. Gingrich wrote: While doing their two weekly national surveys‚ Rasmussen and his team noticed an anomaly. Out of every 1‚000 or so respondents‚ there would always be three or four who were far more radical than everyone else. After several months of finding these unusual responses‚ Rasmussen realized they all shared three characteristics. The radical responses came from people who had graduate degrees (not just graduate studies)‚ family incomes above $150‚000 a year‚ and lived in large cities (more than 10‚000 people per zip code). When Rasmussen aggregated the responses from more than 20 surveys‚ he realized these people made up a unique elite 1 percent. He then did a national survey of only people with these characteristics — and found some astonishing results. He briefed me and our team on the findings — and joined me on Newt’s World to talk about it further. You know exactly who Gingrich and Rasmussen are talking about here. And here’s how these people are further defined‚ none of which is surprising: Two-thirds of them are between 35 and 54; 86 percent are white; 73 percent are Democrats; Just under half (47 percent) favor Bernie Sanders– style socialism; The same number‚ 47 percent‚ say there is “too much freedom” in America; 35 percent say they’d “rather cheat than lose a close election.” That number doubles among the ones who say they’re active in politics daily; 71 percent have a favorable opinion of the legacy media; 74 percent of them say they’re actually better off financially than they were before COVID (only 20 percent of the rest of us say so); Tellingly‚ 76 percent have a favorable opinion of college professors (The rest of the country? Just 17 percent hold that opinion); Two-thirds‚ or 67 percent‚ say teachers and other educational professionals should decide what children are taught rather than letting parents do so; 77 percent would “impose strict restrictions and rationing on the private use of gas‚ meat‚ and electricity”; 72 percent would ban gas-powered vehicles; 69 percent would ban gas stoves; 58 percent would ban SUVs; 55 percent would ban non-essential air travel; 53 percent would ban private air conditioning; and Joe Biden has an 84 percent approval rating with this crowd. In other words‚ these are monsters who would plunge their fellow Americans into Third World tyranny and poverty and impose an unbearably low quality of life on the rest of us. READ MORE from Scott McKay: Five Quick Things: Ted Cruz Is Spot-On and Precisely‚ Exactly Right And a great many of them hold degrees from elite universities — the Ivy League‚ MIT‚ Stanford‚ Johns Hopkins‚ Northwestern‚ UC Berkeley‚ the University of Chicago. Thankfully‚ most of these opinions are not shared by the bulk of the populace. They’re the types of positions that will get a political party utterly trounced in major elections — assuming the other party (1) wants to win and (2) is willing to make elections into referenda on the worldview expressed above. Of course‚ we’re stuck with a Republican Party that has yet to learn how to throw Democrat politicians up against a wall and force them to either repudiate this “elite 1 percent” of Rasmussen’s definition or suffer the wrath of the rest of the country. It isn’t that hard to do. Make a congressional race in the suburbs of‚ say‚ Chicago or Denver a fight over gas stoves or water heaters and force your opponent to admit those suggested bans are crazy talk‚ and his money and support from soyboys and AWFLs will suffer. Make him defend those things and he’s going to have trouble with — among many others — Asians‚ Hispanics‚ and a big chunk of black men (though‚ as of right now‚ it doesn’t appear there is any fall-off from the Democrats with black women‚ for whatever reason). Rasmussen’s 1 percent track with all the zany things spun out to the population at Davos and other globalist elite confabs. Because‚ of course‚ they do; they’ve been indoctrinated into the globalist/socialist/anti-American mindset. The universities certainly contributed to that‚ and these people define themselves to a disproportionate extent by those college degrees — credentials that afford them white-collar positions that generally don’t involve much in the way of tangible knowledge. These people aren’t engineers or construction managers; they don’t run farms or factory floors. Most of what they do involves staring at computer screens and massaging keyboards (yes‚ dear reader‚ your author is quite aware of the irony of my describing these people in such terms)‚ and‚ most importantly‚ that work disproportionately does not involve an intimate relationship with objective reality. The jobs the elite Rasmussen describes involve‚ at least to a disproportionate extent‚ the ability to creatively imagine that two plus two equals five. But what brought this magical-thinking mindset into vogue in America‚ what made these people into a mainstream political constituency‚ was the event of Barack Obama. And‚ yes‚ I provide great detail and context about this subject in my latest book Racism‚ Revenge and Ruin: It’s All Obama‚ which you are certainly invited to find and purchase at Amazon and other places where books are sold. Before 2008‚ there had never been a successful effort to marry the pieties and fetishes of the moneyed elite with a mass popular appeal. Previous efforts at doing so — for example‚ the failed presidential campaigns of George McGovern‚ Michael Dukakis‚ and John Kerry — had been miserable failures. But when Obama came along‚ he fused the radical chic of the rich white leftist in a Che Guevara T-shirt with the aspirational upward mobility of immigrants and minorities; the latter solely due to the identity politics that Team Obama has weaponized beyond any limits reason and critical thinking might otherwise have imposed. All of a sudden‚ the insane proclivities described above in Rasmussen’s polling represented the demands of an entire political party — most of whose voters either disagree with or are not motivated by them. Who in the black community‚ for example‚ who isn’t a committed Democrat activist is a staunch supporter of banning SUVs or gas stoves? They didn’t vote for those things. They voted for Obama because he was going to be the first black president. And once in office‚ they were emotionally committed to his success regardless of his radicalism and resulting failure. But Obama is gone‚ at least from a public-facing perspective. It’s Joe Biden who represents the policies of Rasmussen’s radical elite to an electorate no longer bound by a cult of personality. And that’s why it’s not working anymore. A poll in New Mexico‚ which is Ground Zero for the Obama–Biden border invasion — there’s another policy that Rasmussen didn’t poll but would no doubt reveal a massive disconnect between the elite 1 percent and the rest of the country — that popped out this week now has Donald Trump blowing Biden out by a 57–41 margin‚ with 63 percent of Hispanics rating the current president unfavorable. The RealClearPolitics average of Biden’s approval now sits at 40.1 percent‚ which is actually up a tick from last week’s 39.8 thanks to two slightly better polls. You can’t sell the politics of the white radical elite without marrying them to identity politics to attract support from more conservative black‚ Hispanic‚ and Asian voters. And that’s why you’re now seeing this: Megyn Kelly talks about Cindy Adams from the New York Post was reporting that there is a Plan to replace Joe Biden with Michelle Obama. It only make sense that Joe Biden will be replace because they know he can’t win! Anyone is more popular than Joe Biden‚ but make no mistake‚… pic.twitter.com/dv28swxUhF — ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể (@TheThe1776) January 29‚ 2024 I’m not here to tell you that Cindy Adams is correct that Michelle Obama will be parachuted into the Democrat Party’s nomination to replace Biden. The word has always been that Michelle didn’t want the job and can’t be told what to do; that would seem to be a major obstacle to making this plan work. But numbers like Rasmussen has shown us‚ and the current fortunes of a regime now fronted by an unimpressive white member of our unimpressive political elite‚ indicate that without such a move‚ the coalition will collapse. Because that 1 percent isn’t sellable. Their policies and catechisms increasingly offend the rest of America. And without a shiny object or immense aid offered by Stupid Party Republicans‚ their reckoning will come. The post Obama’s Awful Elite Unveiled by Rasmussen appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

You can’t make it up. Writer E. Jean Carroll has won a preposterous $83 million in a defamation lawsuit — her second — against former President Donald Trump for allegedly defaming her in 2019. She had written back there in the stone age of 2019 in the New Yorker that: Trump attacked me in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman Breitbart has done the much-needed investigative homework on this story‚ headlining: 15 Facts About E. Jean Carroll’s Allegations Against Trump the Media Don’t Want You to Know The story goes into chapter and verse on this allegation‚ saying: What has continually fallen under the radar is the fact that there are serious concerns with the woman’s entire story. Indeed‚ there are. Breitbart’s list of what seems — curiously — to not be getting serious media attention in all this includes the fact that Bergdorf Goodman has no surveillance video of the alleged incident‚ there are no witnesses with sales personnel and or other customers‚ and‚ oh yes‚ her story surfaced “while promoting her book What Do We Need Men For? in 2019‚ which featured a list of ‘The Most Hideous Men of My Life.’” The Breitbart story has much more and is decidedly worth a read. But there is‚ in fact‚ a considerably amazing and amusing political consequence of all these legal attacks on the former president. Here are some sample stories. CBS headlined in August 2023: CBS News poll finds Trump’s big lead grows‚ as GOP voters dismiss indictments The story reported: Well‚ there’s no debate about this: Right now‚ the Republican Party would easily renominate Donald Trump for 2024. And it’s not close. The former president now holds his largest lead over his rivals in our polling amid his recent legal troubles. In fact‚ most of his voters cite those troubles as yet one more reason to show him support. The New York Times headlined: Trump’s Legal Jeopardy Hasn’t Hurt His G.O.P. Support‚ Times/Siena Poll Finds  The Times reported‚ emphasis added: Support for Mr. Trump in the Times/Siena poll is so thorough that 62 percent of Republicans think that if the former president wins the primary he should remain the Republican Party’s nominee — even if he is subsequently convicted of a federal crime. “What they’re doing to the man is a crime‚” James Howe‚ 81‚ a retired airline worker in Phoenix‚ said of Mr. Trump. “There’s been nobody in the history of this country that so many people have tried to convict him of a crime.” Then there was this from NPR: Donald Trump’s repeated legal woes have given him a boost in the polls The story reports: Donald Trump survived many scandals as president‚ including two impeachments. After two indictments and a possible third‚ he’s still the undisputed front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination. It goes on to highlight an NPR White House correspondent being asked by an NPR host: Is it really true that Donald Trump gets a bump when he gets indicted? To which the NPR correspondent replied: I mean‚ for the most part‚ yes… There are oh-so-many more stories like these out there. All of which can easily be seen as millions of Americans see the repeated legal targeting of Trump as nothing less than an attack on … them. Which is to say‚ Trump supporters are demanding big changes in the “swamp” of Washington‚ D.C. They want out-of-control bureaucracies reduced in size when not shut down completely. They don’t believe men should be competing in women’s sports. They want judges on the bench that support the Constitution rather than insert their own liberal politics into their decisions. And they are fed up with the massive invasion of illegal immigrants who are swarming the country‚ not to mention stories like this one in the Washington Examiner that opens by reporting: A Virginia woman is suing the Biden administration for $100 million in a wrongful death lawsuit that blames the Department of Homeland Security for the murder of her daughter after Border Patrol agents allegedly released an unaccompanied minor from custody despite his alleged ties to MS-13‚ the Washington Examiner has learned. And that’s all before you even get to the latest Biden appeasement that has now resulted in Iran’s killing of three American troops. Not to mention the murder of 13 American soldiers in Afghanistan. (READ MORE: Iran Proxies Kill Three US Soldiers in Middle East) Collectively‚ all of this sends one very large message: that a massively overblown lawsuit of much challenged truth by a writer who literally told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that “most people think rape is sexy” is‚ one suspects‚ going to lift Trump’s polls even more. Not to mention that the preposterous $83 million verdict for Carroll against Trump from a left-wing Trump-hating New York legal and political establishment will send one more sign that the American legal and political establishment is corrupted and decidedly out of control. It is‚ yet again‚ one more instance of a serious and decidedly deliberate corruption. All in the name of left-wing politics. In other words? Time after time after time it has become clear that when Trump is targeted legally by his enemies — his polls go up. Raising the decidedly amusing realization that writer E. Jean Carroll is so politically clueless that she does not realize what she has done with her massive legal targeting of Trump may well contribute big time to reelecting him. Talk about a backfire — and a decidedly amusing one at that. As the saying goes‚ ya can’t make it up. The post E. Jean Carroll Reelects Trump? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Hail Mary pass. It’s a desperate‚ last-ditch attempt by a football team to score a touchdown in the waning seconds of the game. The pass usually comes from near midfield‚ well outside of the typical scoring zone‚ and‚ as the name implies‚ often requires a form of divine intervention to be successful. It rarely works‚ but when all else seems lost‚ why not try it? READ MORE: NFL: Greedy‚ Woke‚ and Stupid With the NFL’s big game scheduled to take place in a few short weeks‚ the attention of football fans everywhere will be focused on two things: the game and the commercials. According to Ad Age magazine‚ this year a 30-second ad will cost approximately $7 million. One advertiser will be airing a full 60-second ad in what amounts to its Hail Mary attempt to reach and bring back an annoyed and still fuming consumer base. That brand is Bud Light. Early in 2023‚ Bud Light marketing executives decided that the best way to communicate the attributes of their product to a target audience of mostly young‚ blue-collar males was to promote a sponsorship with self-identified transgender influencer and activist Dylan Mulvaney. As a result‚ Bud Light was hit with a consumer boycott that knocked the brand off the top spot in the light beer market with no rebound in sight. By disregarding its target consumer and following the well-worn path of woke corporate social activism‚ Bud Light placed activist priorities ahead of sound business decisions. (RELATED: The Impending Death of Bud Light) Since the Mulvaney controversy‚ the Bud Light brand has tried multiple different approaches to its advertising strategy‚ hoping to stem steeply declining sales and bring members of its target audience back into the fold. Bud Light ads edged back toward a degree of the type of light-hearted comedy once a mainstay of the brand. The summer of 2023 featured an ad depicting beer drinkers at a summer picnic burning their bare feet on hot pavement and unsuccessfully wrestling with a hammock. The brand also used advertising during the NFL season that showed fans carrying out quirky‚ humorous game-day traditions. Neither ad approach was able to turn the brand around. Even Bud Light’s most recent ad‚ featuring America’s favorite pitchman‚ Peyton Manning‚ has failed to provide a bump in sales. That leaves one last‚ desperate play to call. A Hail Mary Super Bowl ad. Bud Light will be running a 60-second ad during this year’s Super Bowl‚ one that will cost nearly $14 million. Anheuser-Busch promises a “humorous” commercial that‚ the company says‚ “introduce[s] a new character to the Bud Light universe” and is designed to bring the brand back to its lighthearted roots. A short snippet of the ad has already been released online. The question remains‚ however‚ is whether this Hail Mary will be too little too late for Bud Light.  Companies like Target and brands like Bud Light committed one of the cardinal sins of marketing: failing to keep their consumers at the heart of business decisions. Each disregarded its target audience in order to advance a woke corporate activist agenda‚ and both suffered the consequences. If only the executives at Bud Light had admitted their mistake and apologized at the outset of the Mulvaney controversy‚ the brand might have avoided the turmoil and sales decline of the last nine months. Businesses exist to serve their customers‚ not a woke social agenda; it really is that simple. Time is running out‚ and the only thing left to do is make one last desperate attempt at rescuing the Bud Light brand. It’s Bud Light’s Super Bowl Hail Mary‚ and if it doesn’t land‚ the game is over. The post Bud Light’s Super Bowl Hail Mary appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Journalism experienced one of its darkest days last week when the Los Angeles Times laid off 115 of my fellow left-wing activists‚ roughly 20 percent of the entire staff. Already the reverberations are being felt in Hollywood‚ where crucial journalistic pieces have been scuttled‚ including one examining why it’s insensitive for Holocaust films to exclude black‚ brown‚ and transgender Jews from being murdered by Nazis. READ MORE from Matt Manochio: Johns Hopkins Defines ‘Privilege.’ Good for It! Don’t believe me? That’s the problem with modern-day journalism. Nobody believes us any more‚ for reasons I’ve yet to define. The late Rush Limbaugh once said that journalism is the only business where the customer is always wrong. And it’s the only thing Rush ever got correct. Our customers‚ by and large‚ are uneducated and racist and need to be told what to think. When they complain about consequential stories like “White drivers are polluting the air breathed by L.A.’s people of color‚” they merely grunt their own ignorance because we all know that only white people drive in Los Angeles and‚ unlike the minority population‚ do not breath air. Sadly‚ the LA Times’ layoffs also greatly impacted journalists of color. Yes‚ it’s true‚ some white people were laid off‚ too‚ along with some Jews‚ I’m sure. But who cares? As a cis white male who reads anything published by Ibram X. Kendi‚ I am especially outraged that I still have a job while the Latina who called the African-American Larry Elder a white supremacist lost hers. Let me explain it in words that America’s unwashed masses who don’t have a degree in Gender Dysphoric Dance Theory can understand: You need journalists like me now more than ever. Without us‚ who will champion free speech while trying to shut down media platforms that broadcast opinions that diverge from ours? Who will‚ in all new and original ways‚ compare Donald Trump and his minions to fascists? True‚ everyone on MSNBC and CNN can fill that void‚ but we need it in print‚ too. It’s not just the LA Times that’s reeling. Sports Illustrated literally no longer exists after a licensing deal fell through‚ leading to mass layoffs. You all know SI‚ whose chauvinistic swimsuit issue catered to a majority of unathletic‚ Monday-morning-quarterbacking‚ straight white men. SI editors righty decided that if there’s one thing those hopelessly horny shlubs want a female swimsuit model to have‚ it’s a penis. That’s why it featured a transgender cover model on its swimsuit issue in late 2023‚ perfectly illustrating that it understood its core audience. Naturally‚ the conservative pigs oinked displeasure when they should’ve been forced to celebrate what men must find attractive in the 21st century. Moral superiority is the cornerstone of any successful journalistic endeavor‚ and SI exemplified this with a 2021 piece asking‚ “Why Does MLB Still Allow Synchronized‚ Team-Sanction Racism in Atlanta?” What was the racism? Something that’s almost as vile as a burning cross‚ or a dangling noose: Atlanta Braves fans performing the tomahawk chop at the World Series. The piece described the chop as “unconscionable. At every home game‚ fans raise and lower their right arms in unison‚ howling a mock war chant.” It’s almost as though Braves fans are the post-apocalyptic barbarians clinging to the bars of the Thunderdome in Mad Max. Two Braves enter! One Brave leave! World Series coverage needs forays into why fans for one of the teams are no better than a bunch of baseball-hat-wearing Bull Connors‚ yet the overt Braves racism is lost on absolutely everyone except for those of us in the newsroom. The everyday reader must be made more self-aware. And that’s why we journalists must maintain our constant moral haranguing. If you‚ the little people‚ aren’t offended by absolutely everything that exists in the context of its disproportionate impact on race‚ then we must virtue signal to our fellow journalists that we are. Also‚ journalists must be protected from the economic laws of reality. Should a newspaper lose $100 million a year — and is owned by a billionaire — then the billionaire should either just eat the loss and buy one less money-hemorrhaging newspaper or lay off everyone else who is a white male and not a journalist. We journalists can always bag our soy lunches and have no need for a cafeteria that serves sushi every day. (Firing the Asian sushi makers is acceptable‚ as their SAT scores are too high.) Here is my advice for the future journalists of America who will soon face unemployment at the end of every business quarter: Don’t change anything that you are doing. Continue to write “Fact Check” pieces that really are “Acceptable Opinion Check” pieces. Bray that “democracy is in danger” when you really mean that “liberalism is in danger.” Write opinion columns titled “Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths is ghoulish‚ yes — but may be necessary.” But whatever you do‚ don’t mock journalists’ job losses. That would be ghoulish and unnecessary. Matt Manochio can be found on X @MattManochio. The post Don’t Mock the <;i>;Los Angeles Times<;/i>;’ Loss appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

While most college students in the U.S. reluctantly dragged themselves to their first day of spring semester classes‚ students in Alyiah Gonzales’ English class on “race‚ writing‚ and power” had their first class of the year canceled “in solidarity with collective calls for a Global Strike for Palestine.” Lest they celebrate‚ Gonzales assigned them a two-to-three-page paper on their understanding of “the relationship between writing‚ power‚ and systems of oppression.” (READ MORE: Beauty Survives the Left) On today’s episode of The Spectator P.M. Podcast‚ hosts Ellie Gardey and Aubrey Gulick talk about the anti-Semitic infection that has taken over academia. Tune in to the podcast to learn more! Like and share The Spectator P.M. Podcast‚ and be sure to tune in to our next episode! Read Aubrey and Ellie’s writing here and here. Listen to the Spectator P.M. Podcast with Aubrey Gulick and Ellie Gardey on Spotify. Watch the Spectator P.M. Podcast with Aubrey Gulick and Ellie Gardey on Rumble.  The post <;i>;The Spectator P.M. Podcast<;/i>; Ep. 17: Blue-Haired College Instructor Cancels Class for ‘Global Strike for Palestine’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Appropriately‚ it was an overhead forehand smash at the net that clinched the men’s doubles at the Australian Open for the Anglosphere team of Matthew Ebden and Rohan Bopanna. The big man from Bangalore‚ at 43 one of the masters of the doubles game but lacking a Slam‚ concentrated on baseline placement and power while his Aussie partner was clutch at the net in a 6–4‚ 6–5 win over Simone Bolelli and Andrea Vavassori. Bopanna surely deserved this‚ and so did Ebden‚ a player with a classically handsome style who somehow never got near the top in singles but has proven to be consistently excellent in doubles. READ MORE from Roger Kaplan: Where Are the Israeli Players at the Australian Open? And if you like doubles‚ you had another treat from a great and popular veteran‚ Free China’s Hsieh Su-wei‚ at 38 still working her magical slices and angles to win the women’s draw with Elise Mertens‚ and the mixed with Jan ZieliÅ„ski. Notable too‚ Israel’s Guy Sasson came to Melbourne Park and had a terrific run. Or‚ in a sense‚ ride. The genius of wheelchair tennis was‚ to say‚ basically‚ no handicap for the handicapped. The only concession is allowing the ball to bounce twice. This makes sense because on one bounce the rallies just would not happen on a regulation court‚ 78 feet by 27 inches‚ 36 for doubles. By the same logic‚ the second bounce can be outside the lines. Handicapped athletes at such elite levels as the tennis Slam circuit are paragons of the not-how-you-fall-but-how-you-get-up ethos that rejects the world’s-against-me excuse so common in ordinary (and political) arenas. Sasson‚ a 43-year-old Israel Defense Forces veteran‚ successful businessman in both the U.S. and Israel‚ husband and father‚ made it to the finals in both the doubles and singles quad draws‚ for athletes who‚ in addition to paralyzed legs‚ suffer from additional upper body difficulties — arm‚ hand‚ neck‚ torso. Sasson damaged his spine on a snowboard run‚ walked out of rehab with braces and crutches against doctors’ expectations‚ but requires a chair to move swiftly on a tennis court. Fantastic‚ you would say‚ but‚ no‚ he would answer; you make do with what you have. He reminded me of the last time I was on the slopes a couple years ago and spied a blind man; this was a difficult run‚ mind. He was listening to the sounds of his guide’s skis just in front of his and the clear calm voice. Down below‚ I asked‚ they were having a warm drink in the sun outside; what happens in powder where the ski’s edges are quieter: “Listen a little harder. Love powder!” Anyway‚ Guy Sasson lost in the singles final to Sam Schröder‚ who beat him a few months ago at the U.S. Open. Schröder‚ who is Dutch and has won every major except the French Open‚ is another no-excuses man‚ born with a handicap and living his life with it. Notwithstanding the official ban on flags at the Oz‚ a party of Israeli fans unfurled the blue and white shield of David during Sasson–Schröder‚ without making a big deal of it‚ and evidently the local authorities‚ typically good-natured Aussies‚ let it pass‚ though officially they were banning national flags of countries engaged in conflicts. The women’s singles winner‚ defending champion Aryna Sabalenka‚ did not see any Belarus flags. She was okay with that‚ played fantastic‚ crushing the young star from the other (unfree) China‚ Qinwen Zheng. Defending men’s champion Novak Djokovic lost the match of the tournament in the semis‚ going down in four sets to Jannik Sinner‚ who went on to win the other match of the tournament in a five-set thriller against Daniil Medvedev. The man of Belgrade has not lost a set here since 2018‚ so‚ notwithstanding it had to happen sooner or later‚ it shocked. (READ MORE from Roger Kaplan: Racquets Down Under) It may have shocked less if you had been following Sinner’s tournament and remembered that he had just a few weeks ago beaten Djokovic in Davis Cup play‚ twice in one day‚ singles and doubles‚ leading Italy to the final‚ where he led his team to victory over Australia. His baseline game was nearly flawless‚ moving his opponents side to side and going in for the drive down the line for the winner or the passing shot if they tried to advance and cut him off. His serve was beginning to look like Roger Federer’s‚ pin-point shots to get weak returns that give him control of the point‚ or aces when needed. He did not lose a set until the semis. Djokovic got him into a tiebreak after — he said — being shocked in the first two sets‚ 6–1‚ 6–2. He meant he was shocked at how badly he was playing‚ and fair enough; he is No. 1 and has a right to feel that way about it. He won that tiebreak‚ then was shocked again‚ 6–3. The sensational win could only boost Sinner’s confidence; he needed it after losing the first two sets of the final. Daniil Medvedev‚ who usually stays behind the baseline and plays for attrition‚ this time opted for aggression. He had been on the court much longer than Sinner‚ three five setters‚ including against Hubert Hurkacz in the quarters and Alexander Zverev in the semis. He knew he had to jump on Sinner early‚ keep the points short‚ and stay ahead. He played a superb combination of grit and offense and took the first two sets‚ 6–3‚ 6–3. But the tall Tyrolean (the Moscovite is even taller)‚ who looks every bit the junior ski racing champion he was before opting for tennis‚ is unflappable‚ as well as polite and good-humored. He adjusted his game‚ forced lengthier rallies. He won the next two sets with methodical power‚ cruised through the fifth without even a hint of nerves. It was a comeback for the ages. Sinner and Medvedev were about even on points; it was not until the Russian finally showed fatigue in the fifth that anyone could predict the outcome with some confidence. You use everything you’ve got to get everything you need — or as much of it as you can. Holds for tennis. Holds for some other things too‚ I suppose. Jannik Sinner is the youngest Australian Open champion since Novak Djokovic won his first major here in 2008. Sinner is also the first Italian man since Adriano Panatta at the 1976 French Open to win a major in the Open era. He was gracious in victory‚ thanking Daniil Medvedev for making him a better player “every time we’ve played‚” and he sent a message of filial affection across time zones and continents to his parents‚ and to the fans and his team in the stadium. Did they play the winner’s national anthem‚ “Fratelli d’Italia‚” as often happens at ceremonies closing a big sport event? If they did‚ I missed it‚ or it was not streamed. It was a good show‚ and I like to think a fan was humming Toto Cutugno’s charming classic “L’Italiano.” The post It’s a Win for Sinner and Woke Rejection at the Australian Open appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Lions are known as the kings of the jungle. But judging from this coffee order‚ Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell might be the king of caffeine.

Aperol isn't just a great addition to your bar cart - it can also be a worthy addition to your baking cabinet. Here are some benefits of an Aperol cookie glaze.