Mediaboss Marketing

Its been nearly ten years since audiences were treated to a Dave Chappelle stand-up comedy special. But now, thanks in part to Netflix, Dave is back. Chappelles special, The Age of Spin, filmed at the Hollywood Palladium, is an uproariously funny look at a range of subjects, from his meetings with O. J. Simpson, to his experiences in Hollywood as well as what some would say are taboo topics, such as rape, transgenderism, and homosexuality.

It is these last three subjects that have raised the ire of social-justice warriors to thermonuclear levels. Early in the show, Chappelle recounts his first meeting with O. J. Simpson. Chappelle notes that Simpsons soon to be slain wife was with him. When he hears some of the audience react somewhat negatively to that comment, Chappelle remarks, Ladies and gentlemen, man the f*** up or youre not going to make it through the end of this show.

Naturally, the rest of his material is just as edgy, and many an audience member or viewer (myself included) will find himself asking, Did I just laugh at that? But the realization that youre laughing at what Chappelle says is a testament to his skill as a comedian not a reflection of your worldview or opinion about the subjects in question. Those who refer to Chappelles comedy as homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic rants and ignorantly claim that he shouldnt be allowed to joke about those subjects suffer from two conditions:

1. They have no understanding of what a comedians goal for his audience is.

2. They feel that theyre the arbiters of what subjects are worthy of laughter and what is off limits.

People tend to make comedy complicated. In an article critical of Chappelles show, Shannon Lee of The Establishment writes:

Comedians have long argued that their art form is meant to be provocative; that its a medium in which political correctness is anathema to the cause. But as others have argued, its absurd to act as if there is no moral responsibility in comedy. Comedy that targets societal oppression can be funny and incisive, even (or especially) as it stokes discomfort. Comedy that ridicules marginalized groups is just hateful and damaging, evoking more explicit hate speech. Dont comedians have a responsibility to create content that does not cause harm?

Moral responsibility? Comedians are not philosophers or sociologists. Their job is to tell jokes. A comics goal isnt to concern himself with societal norms but instead to connect with an audience and make people laugh. Not all comedians are provocative. Comedians such as Jim Gaffigan, Brian Regan, and Jerry Seinfeld get their audiences laughing and discussing what otherwise might be considered mundane topics such as family life, travel, and marriage. Having watched stand-up comedy for 30 years (when I was growing up in New Jersey, a local cable station broadcast taped shows from Rascals Comedy Club in West Orange) and knowing several comics myself, I can say that theyll all tell you theres no greater fear they have than an audience that doesnt laugh at their material.

As for the subjects of comedy, it does not fall on the shoulders of the perpetually outraged to dictate what topics are worthy of humor. Comedy, like all other forms of art, is subjective. Some people dont find Jerry Seinfeld discussing walking around an airport or flying on a plane funny. And while I suppose Amy Schumer talking about the smell of her vagina is meant to be provocative, I dont find it funny at all. Comedy is subjective, so to each his own. That said, theres nothing edgy about Schumers jokes.

Much of the anger directed at Chappelle revolves around a bit where hes pretending to pitch two Hollywood types on a mediocre superhero who can unleash his powers only after lightly touching a womans vulva. The superhero in question is very unattractive and women refuse to give their consent. Thus, he needs to resort to raping women to save others. A critic, Lux Alptraum, wrote in response:

Chappelle seems to think hes being very deep as he asks us to consider the possibility that maybe just maybe! a rapist might be capable of a great deal of good, too. Thats the dilemma for the audience, [Chappelle] says, Because he rapes, but he saves a lot of lives. And he saves way more than he rapes, and he only rapes to save. But he does rape.

Alptraum completely misses the point. Chappelle is not asking his audience to consider anything. Hes relaying a non-existent anecdote about an absurd pitch he made up on the spot. That the two bozos hes pitching to think what theyre hearing is a good idea for a movie is the punchline to the joke.

Comedy, ultimately, is a form of art. It will always be subjective, with opinions varying significantly. As with other forms of art, it is up to the consumer to decide what he likes (or doesnt). The self-appointed guardians of what comedians are allowed to joke about may hold themselves up as virtuous, but all theyre really doing is telling people, such as Dave Chappelle, to shut up.

Jay Caruso, a lifelong Yankees fan, is the assistant managing editor at RedState and a co-host of the politics and culture podcast, The Fifth Estate.

READ MORE:

View post:
Dave Chappelle's Age of Spin Comedy Special -- Progressives ... - National Review

When Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation since 2013, called for a reimagining of philanthropy's first principles and its relationship to our market system," few people thought this meant that he would join the board of directors of PepsiCo. But that's exactly what he did last fall. Walker, who stands to make somewhere between a quarter and a half a million dollars a year in his new role, insisted he would introduce a distinctive view into Pepsi's corporate deliberations: "I will bring my perspective as the leader of a social justice organization. ... I will bring my perspective as someone who is deeply concerned about the welfare of people in poor and vulnerable communities."

Some of Walker's allies in the progressive community seem skeptical about his self-assigned role as corporate reformer. Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and longtime critic of foundations and corporations, wrote an open letter to Walker in the Chronicle of Philanthropy last month taking him to task for accepting the appointment. "You failed to understand the negative impact your action could have on philanthropy, and on those working to change corporate behavior."

In other words, Eisenberg is accusing him of selling out.

Eisenberg notes that in the eyes of activists like himself, Pepsi has been a bad actor in the corporate world for a long time. Not only have Pepsi executives opposed legislation to combat obesity (only small sodas, please) but the company's business model is designed to sell "junk food" and sugary drinkseven to poor people.

Walker, for his part, insists that he will not serve on Pepsi's board as "window dressing" but will actually work to change the company's policies. Pepsi's CEO Indra Nooyi told the New York Times that she invited him to join her board because "we want people who give us trouble and ask tough questions. I saw in Darren someone who would hold us accountable."

That may be true, but Pepsi no doubt prefers to hear its critics asking tough questions in the privacy of the boardroom rather than leading protests outside corporate headquarters or at public shareholder meetings. Adding Walker to its board is an easy and relatively cheap way for the company to signal to its critics that it is on the "right" side of controversial issues like climate change, public health, diversity, and inequality. (Walker apparently couldn't do much to protect the company from the backlash it received over an ad in which Kendall Jenner seems to be cheapening the Black Lives Matter protests by offering a Pepsi to a police officer.)

In Pepsi's defense, it is true that the company is selling more healthy products these daysa fair amount of bottled water and items with less sugar and saltbut this is more because of changing tastes in the marketplace than in response to heavy-handed campaigns led by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and his own multi-billion-dollar foundation. Pepsi says it is planning to reduce its environmental impact in the next few years as a concession to critics concerned about climate change. No doubt the company will rely upon Walker to put the official stamp of progressive approval on whatever plans it eventually releases.

All of this mutual backscratching between leaders of liberal institutions and corporate America is nothing new. As Eisenberg noted in his letter, "Judith Rodin, who just retired as head of the Rockefeller Foundation, has been a member of at least three corporate boards, and some of [Walker's] predecessors at Ford have also enjoyed the sizable perks that come with corporate directorships." Hugh Price, who used to lead the Urban Institute, sits on the board of Verizon and MetLife. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the New America CEO, served on the boards of McDonald's and Citigroup. Large corporations have long made it a practice to invite critics to join their boards on the assumption that it is always better (in Lyndon Johnson's immortal words) "to have [them] inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in."

What is new in Eisenberg's criticisms is that some progressives are starting to see that their erstwhile allies who join corporate boards are in effect providing cover for corporate practices they once criticized. Perhaps, they are suggesting, it is better for corporate critics to remain "outside the tent" where they can at least criticize corporate practices with a clear conscience.

In a recent interview on the Ford Foundation's website, Martin Whittaker, CEO of JUST Capital, expressed worries about the dangers of "unchecked capitalism" and suggested that today's market culture "strips capitalism of any humanity and incentivizes and rewards short-term financial gain at the expense of the broader social good"not exactly a novel criticism. He went further to question whether Adam Smith would still support the free market if he could see how it operates today. His is actually one of the rosier views of capitalism that the Ford Foundation has promoted in recent years. It is a good question whether Walker's decision to join the Pepsi board is compatible with the anti-corporate and anti-capitalist views his foundation has staked out.

As Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health, told the New York Times, "Pepsi is not in the business of public health; they're in the business of selling soda." This is true, though beside the point. If Pepsi did not sell soda and other products not officially approved by progressive elites, the company would not be in business today to allow the likes of Walker to join its board.

For years, left-wing intellectuals have been pushing the idea of corporate social responsibility as a way to get companies to do the things they want, even if it costs the companies money. Whether it's reducing carbon emissions or making their workforces more diverse or changing the products they make, the goals these progressive gadflies are pursuing are no closer to being realized today than they were three or four decades ago when activists first learned they could shake down corporations for donations and occasional board positions in exchange for toning down their public criticisms. Much of the journalistic profession has by now signed on to the enterprise, calling on corporations to change their practices and to join one or another progressive crusade. This has at length evolved into a ritualized performance with all sides embracing "change" while recognizing that nothing fundamental has changed or is likely ever to change.

The cover story in the Atlantic this month about the small number of women employed by Silicon Valley concludes that the only way to achieve workforce diversity is to pay managers bonuses to hire more women. That's an expensive proposition and a fairly complicated one to carry out. It would be easier, some executives are bound to conclude, to deflect this kind of criticism by appointing a few feminist leaders here and there to their corporate boards.

Progressives like Eisenberg and Walker are badly confused about the role large corporations can or should play in American society. On the one hand, by focusing so persistently on corporate reform, they express a tacit acceptance of the important role that large corporations play in the American economic system. They do not wish to eliminate corporations or to cut them down to size, as an earlier generation of progressives wished, but to bend them in their political direction by inducing them to embrace diversity, feminism, environmentalism, gay marriage, and other causessomething that corporate leaders are more than willing to do, up to a point. At the same time, progressives want corporations to give up their market-oriented missions by curtailing production of sodas, fossil fuels, guns, large automobiles, beer, cosmetics, furs, and any number of other items that run counter to the progressive vision of a pure and uncorrupted society. But this is something corporate leaders will not and cannot do without selling out their stockholders, employees, and customers. In short, they can afford to pay lip service to progressive complaints but cannot do anything fundamental to satisfy them. And for this reason the ritual dance between the two sides will continue.

But the corporate leaders are playing a perilous game and risk forgetting Kipling's adage that "once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." They have made their alliance with progressives who are surely no friends of the American corporation, while antagonizing conservatives who should be their natural allies, but whose support they have long taken for granted. Those conservatives are aware that they win support today mainly from small business, blue-collar workers, and small town and rural votersand have little direct interest in defending large corporations, whether in the areas of taxes, regulation, or trade. Corporate leaders at Pepsi and elsewhere may soon find themselves in a situation where they have no genuine allies to support them.

James Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum.

See more here:
Progressives, Inc. - The Weekly Standard

Tom Krattenmaker Published 3:16 a.m. ET Feb. 9, 2017 | Updated 10:10 a.m. ET Feb. 9, 2017

Lady Gaga at the Super Bowl on Feb. 5, 2017(Photo: Bob Donnan, USA TODAY Sports)

And a sequin-bedecked pop star will show them the way.

Not exactly holy writ. Yet in addition to a wildly entertaining performance at the Super Bowl, Lady Gaga has handed progressives the unifying principle theyve struggled to identify and articulate. As Gaga demonstrated in her uniquely fabulous way, its time for progressives to reclaim patriotism.

Speculation was rampant that Gaga might use her halftime spotlight to make a pointed political statement la Meryl Streep at the Golden Globes. What a surprise and head-scratcher, initially to find her starting the show with God Bless America.

Liberals would have rolled their eyes out of their sockets had it been a country star singing it. But Gaga being Gaga, they probably trusted she was up to something. When she segued into This Land is Your Landand then her catchy hits, including the anthem of acceptance Born This Way,it was obvious what she was doing: connecting progressives zeal for inclusion to the nations founding ideals.

Its a line that hasbeen begging to be drawn for some time now, and an appeal to patriotism that hasalso been there for the taking. If accepted, Gagas gift can solidify resistance to the Trump administration and help shape a positive progressive identity for the long term ahead.

For me, the need for a progressive rallying cry and unifying message was never more apparent than during a recent edition of MSNBCs Hardball.Host Chris Matthews was interviewing a woman who helped organize the massive womens march that took place the day after the inauguration. Matthews ticked off some of the marchers issues reproductive rights, black lives, opposition to military aggression and asked Janaye Ingram what unites them and the people behind them.

You saw people of all different stripes, 5 million people globally, who came together on January 21st,marching for a variety of issues, Ingram responded. "And yes, they're interconnected. Why? Because we as women, we are inherently intersectional. We are born intersectional. We're not single-issue people."

5 reasons for liberal hope in the Trump era: Column

A change of heart about Muslims: Column

Important concepts, but not whats needed to bring people to their feet. Much more could have been said. Like:

"We are unitedby our caring for the dignity and fair treatment of people regardless of their sex, origins, or whatever else might mark them as 'different.' "And, "We are united by our belief in the American ideal, by the story of a nation founded on the noble principle that all people are created equal and deserving of equal respect."

Its my observation that progressives have ceded patriotism to conservatives, much like the word moral, because conservative use and misuse of these concepts have made them radioactive to progressive sensibilities. Thats a shame, and a lost opportunity to win over wider swaths of the public. Although the m-word is seldom uttered, progressive values are shot through with moral commitments. And they are deeply resonant with important aspects of what it means to be an American.

Take gay rights. Progressives rally to this cause not because of a lack of morals, but because of the deep moral conviction that its wrong to mistreat people on the basis of sexual orientation. Analogous moral commitments undergird support for the rights of women, racial minoritiesand followers of non-majority religions.

At the several rallies Ive attended recently, Ive been struck by the number of non-Latino and non-Muslim people standing with those most directly under the gun of the new administration. Ive been impressed, too, by the explicit appeals to what our country is about to patriotism captured by the frequent assertion that the dark vision of Trump and adviser Steven Bannon is not the America I know.

The America we know and the American values we advanceare the invisible glue that bind the disparate parts of the progressive movement. This is the progressive patriotism waiting for us to name, and claim.

POLICING THE USA:Alook atrace, justice, media

I aim to expose liberals for their intolerance: Your Say

As is the case with any movement, the progressive cause needs to be known for more than what its against. Resisting Trump is plenty for now, but the post-Trump day will come soon, we hope when the movement will need to articulate a positive vision and identity. What, in the long run, will progressives be known for, and what will attract more people to the cause?

Shutting down campus talks by people such as Breitbart'sMilo Yiannopoulos? Better to let him speak and disgrace himself, I say. Violence in the streets and punches in the face for hateful provocateurs such asRichard Spencer? Better to go high road, which means fierce commitment but peaceful tactics and a benevolent spirit. This is not only right but also tactically smart. Nothing would delight the president more than a pretext for a clampdown on dissent, with a level of violence infinitely more potent than anything that black bloc protesters can muster.

Progressives,its OK to wave the flag. It belongs to us as much as the conservatives who have made it their brand. Well know it means something quite different, and more valid, at a pro-immigrants march than it means as a stage prop behind Trumps podium.

A member of USA TODAYs Board of Contributors, Tom Krattenmaker is a writer specializing in religion in public life and communications director atYale Divinity School. His new book is titledConfessions of a Secular Jesus Follower.

You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2k6lZ6r

Here is the original post:
Liberals should learn from Lady Gaga: Tom Krattenmaker

The Trudeau government got little traction with the Canadian public from the big spending economic stimulus measures in its 2016 budget, according to newly released federal focus group data.

Although the focus group participants may not have known a lot about the key measures in that first Liberal budget, their opinions closely aligned with some of the big ticket items outlined a couple of months later in the fall fiscal update and in the Liberals'second budget tabled last month.

Environics Research found that few Canadians considered Ottawa's early moves to enrich monthly child benefits or expand the Canada Pension Plan as something intended to boost the economy.

Environicsconducted a series of 10 focus groups of eight to 10 people each for the Department of Finance between Sept. 19 and 22 to get a sense of people's attitudes about the Canadian economy.

Six months after the government's first budget announced billions in infrastructure spending, the focus group found that "few could recall any specific government of Canada measures in recent months to bolster the economy, aside from some vague recollection of actions related to trade."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shakes hands with Morneau after he delivered the Liberals' second federal budget in the House of Commons on March 22. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

There was also a low level of awareness when it came to the enhanced Canada Pension Plan Ottawa negotiated with the provinces and the Canada child benefit a centrepiece initiative of the Trudeau government's first budget.

"Some indicated that they recalled these initiatives, but they did not consider them measures that were designed specifically to boost the economy," the focus group report states.

When it came to infrastructure projects that would help jolt the economy, on the other hand, focus group participants supported investments in affordable housing, clean energy, roads and public transit.

And the Liberal's second budget, delivered March 22, committed $11.2 billion over 11 years for a national housing strategy.

Focus group members also offered a mixed view on the idea of the government selling off federal assets such as airports to pay for the new infrastructure projects. This was an idea championed by the government's economic advisory council but which ultimately was not included in the spring budget.

Environics says the idea was "received with mixed reviews" by focus groupparticipants, who were concerned about the loss of "future revenue potential" and could not think of many examples where selling off public assets had been successful.

There was also a lot of support for the Liberals' ubiquitous message of helping the "middle class and those working hard to join it."

Environics found that messages directed at the middle class tested well and that "many felt these kinds of messages were directed at people like themselves."

Focus group members also liked messages with a focus on job creation and diversity for their positive tone, according to a report on the findings that was posted online.

The cost of the research, which also included a telephone survey of 2,000 Canadians, was $147,000.

CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content

Read more:
Liberals' 1st budget didn't resonate with public, internal focus group suggested - CBC.ca

The federal government tabled a wide-ranging budget bill Tuesday that includes legal changes to the powers of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as well as a new law that creates the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The opposition says the legislation, at more than 300 pages, amounts to an omnibus bill at the very same time that the governing Liberals are separately proposing changes to the parliamentary rules that would make omnibus bills illegal.

At first glance, opposition MPs say Finance Minister Bill Morneaus latest budget bill appears to be an example of the very thing the Liberals say should be banned.

Opinion: Hidden dangers lie in Liberals proposed parliamentary rule changes

Its hypocritical, said Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen, who added that if the Liberals wanted to end the use of omnibus bills, they could just do so.

The Liberal Party campaigned on a pledge to end so-called omnibus bills based on concern that such large bills force MPs to vote yes or no on a large package of changes even though they might support some parts and not others.

Parliaments spending watchdog is expressing concern that the latest budget bill will limit its ability to hold the government to account.

Mostafa Askari, the assistant PBO, told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that the legislation raises concerns over the PBOs independence. New requirements to have the Speakers of the House of Commons and Senate review and approve an annual PBO work plan and to receive advance copies of any PBO report are the main points of concern.

Currently, the PBO is free to release reports at any time on any relevant topic on its website.

My first impression is that certainly those would be some issues of concern to us, he said.

There are those kind of issues that, to me, are the constraints that may, in practical terms, affect the PBO in a negative way. But there are other aspects in terms of the appointment [of the PBO] and those kinds of things that are certainly improvements.

Proposing an end to "improper" omnibus legislation is part of the package of changes to the rules of the House of Commons that recently caught opposition parties by surprise.

Ms. Bergen said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is using his majority to push through changes to the House rules that should require the support of all parties. She said changes related to the Parliamentary Budget Officer should be removed from the budget bill and studied independently.

NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice agreed that the budget bill is an example of what the Liberals say they want to eliminate.

Its an omnibus bill, from our point of view, he said. The NDP MP argues the bill includes changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Judges Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Food and Drugs Act and a new law called the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act that appear to be the types of measures that should be introduced separately, rather than included in a budget bill.

Daniel Lauzon, a spokesperson for Mr. Morneau, defended the legislation and said all of its measures relate to what was in the March 22 budget.

Our commitment to transparency is real and as far as the size of the bill and its content, its all in the budget plan. So no surprises for anyone, he said in an e-mail. Compare that with the Conservatives long-standing practice of trying to ram through unrelated measures by forcing confidence votes on them. Thats not what were doing.

The new Canada Infrastructure Bank Act gives cabinet the power to appoint a board of directors of between eight and 11 people. The board would then select a chief executive officer.

The purpose of the bank is to invest, and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors, in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that will generate revenue and that will be in the public interest the legislation states.

The legislation includes criteria for the CEO, including that he or she must be at least 18 years of age, not be bankrupt and not be employed by a federal, provincial or municipal government.

The salary and benefits for the CEO will be set by cabinet on the advice of the board. The legislation gives the Minister of Finance the power to pay the bank up to $35-billion from the consolidated revenue fund.

Follow Bill Curry on Twitter: @curryb

Follow this link:
Opposition MPs cry foul over Liberals' tabling of 300-page bill - The Globe and Mail