Mediaboss Marketing

This is the final installment in a four-part series on Americas Industrial Revolution and the political responses it sparked. Go to Richmond.com to read the entire series.

On Sept. 14, 1901, President William McKinley died from a gunshot wound delivered by a crazed assassin two weeks earlier. Republican Party leaders were stunned by the recent string of events. Vice President Theodore Roosevelt, former Republican governor of New York and hero of the Spanish-American War, would now occupy the White House, something the party bosses viewed with grave concern.

They had put the popular Roosevelt on the ticket to help ensure McKinleys re-election in 1900, despite the fact that many of them thought he was a reckless maverick.

Everything went according to plan after the election with a safe, traditional Republican in the White House. The assassins bullet, however, changed everything. While McKinley fit the profile of the non-activist presidents who had held office the previous half-century, Roosevelt was almost the opposite.

At age 42, he was the youngest man to hold the office, and unlike most of his predecessors, Roosevelt was anything but a hands-off president. The worst fears of traditional Republicans became reality when Roosevelt began using his office as a bully pulpit to promote an activist government to serve the interests of most Americans over those of the few masters of big business.

He called for a Square Deal for all Americans businessmen, laborers, farmers, and consumers. He implemented stronger federal control of corporations by attacking the large trusts and monopolies that had squelched competition; by giving more authority to the Interstate Commerce Commission; and by protecting the countrys natural resources.

He received congressional support for the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Meat Inspection Act to protect consumers from hucksters and unscrupulous food producers. More than any previous president, he took bold steps to protect some 230 million acres of the countrys wilderness from unchecked development.

***

The Progressive Movement clearly had an ally in President Roosevelt, and it did not end when he completed his next term, which he won in a landslide. Clearly, his activist presidency resonated well with the American public. For that matter his popularity helped ensure the election of his handpicked Republican successor, William Howard Taft, in 1908.

Although Taft continued breaking up monopolies and trusts, he seemed unable to control the Republican conservatives, who tried to reverse many of Roosevelts initiatives. He himself was more conservative than Roosevelt, and he took issue with many of the reformers and their demands for immediate action. A lawyer and judge by profession, he preferred a slower and more deliberate pace for reform legislation.

Tafts less-than-vigorous pursuit of reform raised the ire of his predecessor to such an extent that it led to a civil war within the Republican Party. The conflict grew so intense that Roosevelt challenged Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912, splitting the party wide open.

Frustrated that the incumbent Taft had his re-nomination locked up, Roosevelt and his supporters walked out of the Republican convention and launched a third party, the Progressive Party, better known as the Bull Moose Party. Their platform advocated expanding the powers of the federal government to bring about more reform and regulations.

With the Republicans torn asunder, the Democratic Party, which had elected only one man as president since 1860, saw victory within its grasp. The native Virginian and strong reform governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson, received the nomination and won the election by taking only 42 percent of the popular vote, but receiving 435 electoral votes to Roosevelts 88 and Tafts paltry 8.

***

Once in office, Wilson pursued an aggressive reform agenda. He created the Federal Reserve, giving the country a regulated currency. He pushed legislation that established the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit unfair business practices. He supported the ratification of the 16th Amendment that resulted in a graduated income tax, requiring wealthy Americans to pay a higher percentage on their earnings. And he addressed a number of social issues, such as greatly restricting child labor and limiting the hours of railroad workers.

Despite these many reforms, some of his policies were backward-looking. Following the example of his native South, he implemented formal segregation in the federal government. For example, government buildings in Washington were required to have white and colored bathrooms. Appointments to federal jobs through civil service became increasingly difficult for African-Americans to obtain.

Perhaps the most controversial piece of legislation coming from Wilsons administration was prohibition. Approval in 1919 of the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, and transport of intoxicating spirits, has been described as the greatest failure of a social experiment in American history. The amendment resulted in a huge illicit liquor enterprise and an explosion of organized crime. Within 14 years, it became the only amendment to be repealed in its entirety.

World War I and its aftermath dominated Wilsons second term, as did a nearly fatal stroke, taking his attention away from continued domestic reforms.

The United States emerged from the war as the most powerful nation on Earth economically, but the American public had grown weary of Wilsons activist government and reform in general.

A severe postwar recession contributed to a landslide victory in 1920 for Republican presidential candidate Warren G. Harding, who ran on a ticket pledging a Return to Normalcy and a repudiation of the progressive agenda of political and social reform.

There would be no bully pulpit presidents for another 12 years, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in a landslide in the depths of the Great Depression.

***

What can we learn from the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era? Some critics contend that we are experiencing a new Gilded Age. They argue that during the past few decades, corporations and elected officials (many representing safe gerrymandered districts) have rolled back many of the gains made by working and middle-class people during the Progressive Era.

They point out that despite its great wealth, the country now has the highest level of income inequality in 90 years. Most disturbing to these critics is that federal and state tax cuts benefited the wealthy at the expense of the poor and many in the middle class.

Advocates on the other side of the political spectrum, however, argue that government has become more intrusive than ever, thereby stifling the economic potential of the nation and interfering with our individual freedoms.

In his run for the White House, candidate Donald Trump pledged to return America to greatness by slashing regulations, easing government controls, and reforming the tax code, among other things. Once elected to office, much like Theodore Roosevelt, the president has used his own bully pulpit to implement his campaign pledges.

But a hundred-plus days into his presidency, little of his agenda has been carried out, despite having Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Why? Is it his political inexperience? Is it his confrontational style? No doubt those are factors, but I think it is something more fundamental.

A century ago, conditions in the country were as problematic, if not more so, than they are today; yet three successive presidents were able to bring about major reforms to address the issues. One of the keys then was that reform and progressive thinking crossed party lines. Two of the three progressive presidents were Republicans.

Through compromise, cooperation, and effective persuasion, they were able to work with Congress to bring about needed reform. They found viable solutions to the problems created by the painful transition from the 19th century to modern America.

Today, anyone who cooperates with members of the opposing party is an anathema. Cooperation within both parties also has become more difficult. The rhetoric has become increasingly confrontational. Fealty to party or faction within a party appears more important than loyalty to country. It is unfortunate that todays monumental challenges are not being met by either side of the political spectrum.

Perhaps the time has come for introducing fundamental change in the way we govern ourselves, much as the American people did a century ago.

Read this article:
Charles F. Bryan Jr.: With progressives in the White House, everything changed - Richmond.com

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxershas proved it scientifically bypersuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a malegenital organ but a social construct.

The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.

The two hoaxers are Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics.

They were hoping to emulate probably the most famous academic hoax in recent years: the Sokal Hoax named afterNYU and UCL physics professor Alan Sokal who in 1996 persuaded an academic journal called Social Text to accept apaper titled Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.

Sokals paper comprisingpages of impressive-sounding but meaningless pseudo-academic jargon was written in part to demonstrate that humanities journals will publish pretty much anything so long as itsounds like proper leftist thought; and partly in order to send up the absurdity of so much post-modernist social science.

So, for this new spoof, Boghossian and Lindsay were careful to throw in lots of signifier phrases to indicate fashionable anti-male bias:

We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Lefts moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship. Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.

Theyalso took care to make itcompletely incomprehensible.

We didnt try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like discursive and isomorphism), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like pre-post-patriarchal society), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being unable to coerce a mate), and allusions to rape (we stated that manspreading, a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is akin to raping the empty space around him). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didnt say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.

Some of it waswritten with the help ofthe Postmodern Generator a website coded in the 1990s by Andrew Bulhak featuring an algorithm, based on NYU physicist Alan Sokals method of hoaxing a cultural studies journal called Social Text, that returns a different fake postmodern paper every time the page is reloaded.

This paragraph, for example, looks impressive but is literally meaningless:

Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis. The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility (Butler, 1993). The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performers intent should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity. Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and whats referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as toxic hypermasculinity, is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972).

None of it should have survived more than a moments scrutiny by serious academics. But it was peer-reviewed by two experts in the field who, after suggesting only a few changes, passed it for publication:

Cogent Social Sciences eventually accepted The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct. The reviewers were amazingly encouraging, giving us very high marks in nearly every category. For example, one reviewer graded our thesis statement sound and praised it thusly, It capturs [sic] the issue of hypermasculinity through a multi-dimensional and nonlinear process (which we take to mean that it wanders aimlessly through many layers of jargon and nonsense). The other reviewer marked the thesis, along with the entire paper, outstanding in every applicable category.

They didnt accept the paper outright, however. Cogent Social Sciences Reviewer #2 offered us a few relatively easy fixes to make our paper better. We effortlessly completed them in about two hours, putting in a little more nonsense about manspreading (which we alleged to be a cause of climate change) and dick-measuring contests.

No claim made in the paper was considered too ludicrous by the peer-reviewers: not even the one claiming that the penis is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

You read that right. We argued that climate change is conceptually caused by penises. How do we defend that assertion? Like this:

Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset. This mindset is best captured by recognizing the role of [sic] the conceptual penis holds over masculine psychology. When it is applied to our natural environment, especially virgin environments that can be cheaply despoiled for their material resources and left dilapidated and diminished when our patriarchal approaches to economic gain have stolen their inherent worth, the extrapolation of the rape culture inherent in the conceptual penis becomes clear.

The fact that such complete drivel was published in a social science journal, the hoaxers argue, raises serious questions about the valueof fields like gender studies and the state of academic publishing generally:

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct should not have been published on its merits because it was actively written to avoid having any merits whatsoever. The paper is academically worthless nonsense.

But they do not hold out much hope for it having any more effect on the bullshit in the social sciences industry than Sokals hoax did becauseleftist stupidity in academe is so heavily entrenched.

As a matter of deeper concern, there is unfortunately some reason to believe that our hoax will not break the relevant spell. First, Alan Sokals hoax, now more than 20 years old, did not prevent the continuation of bizarre postmodernist scholarship. In particular, it did not lead to a general tightening of standards that would have blocked our own hoax. Second, people rarely give up on their moral attachments and ideological commitments just because theyre shown to be out of alignment with reality.

Excerpt from:
DELINGPOLE: 'Penises Cause Climate Change'; Progressives ... - Breitbart News

If you followed the race for the chairmanship of the Democratic Party of California this past weekend, you may have noticed several familiar plot points.

1. A heavily favored centrist was challenged late by a progressive, and the gap narrowed considerably.

2. Progressives demonstrated in the lead-up to the vote, while the centrists bristled and told them to shut the fuck up or go outsidein this case literally. And hey, at least they were honest this timetheir deepest desire is not to reach out to the newcomers, as they like to pretend, but to have them go away forever so things can return to normal.

3. The centrist won a very narrow victory.

4. Progressives were convinced that there was foul play.

5. The centrist faction shut down any investigation of the result, while the winner preached unitylaughably, since unity never means that actual concessions are forthcoming, but is instead a more polite call to step in line and shut up.

If any of this sounds just like the race for DNC chair, or just like the primary between Hillary Clintonand Bernie Sanders, thats no coincidencethis same story keeps playing out, over and over, in a starkly divided party. Heres what Politico had to say:

The tumult showed that in the countrys largest state which is controlled entirely by Democrats the Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders divide of 2016 and the intra-party sparring that followed Clintons November loss remain very much at the forefront.

Of course it remains very much at the forefront! When writers express surprise at the so-called tumult that occurs in these situations, they are ignoring a very basic fact, which is that the two groups of people have very different belief systems. They mostly agree on social issues, but thats where the similarities end. The centrists believe in a corporate democracy, complete with free trade and all the giveaways to big business and the wealthy and private insurance that this ethos implies, while progressives are democratic-socialists who want to usher in a second new deal complete with universal health care and the restoration of a strong system of entitlements. These value systems are fundamentally incompatible.

Seriously, they cant be reconciled. They are, in fact, at direct odds with one another, and its actually kind of stupid that people who believe these very different things are trying to function under the same party. The only reason for that is the historical anomaly that is the Republican Partya cruel society-ravaging cabal of elites devoted to making life miserable for all but the top one percentthat has somehow tricked a whole lot of people, via racial propaganda and other forms of bullshit, into voting against their economic self-interestsand, in fact, into voting for their own continued immiseration.

The existence of this party as a political powerhouse, which was made possible by the abandonment of the working classes by the centrist Democrats, has now ushered in an ugly reality in America, and it has forced an alliance between centrists and progressives at a time when such an alliance is politically unnatural, and should be blown apart.

Instead, they fight under the same umbrella, absurdly, while making lame noises at unity, because each is too afraid of what will happen if they do the logical thing and split up. This is the stay together for the kids mantra of the political worldforced solidarity among groups who despise one another, inspired by abject fear of the consequences a break-up would entail.

So whats the solution? Quite clearly, theres no easy way out, or one would have been found alreadythe Republican menace is real, even though withholding support from centrist Democrats is the best strategic move for progressives, since it would force the centrists to tack left in order to have any chance of retaking key offices, its also the kind of brinksmanship that can lead to further Republican victories, and all the consequences that entails.

In fact, as ridiculous as the current charade looks, it might actually be the rational choice for progressives, who have watched their ranks swell by shocking numbers in the past two years alone, and likely expect that with time, theyll become the dominant force in party politics. Until then, we live in the twilight zone, where two groups of people who would represent the left and right wings in any sane country are forced together to combat the far-right extremists who have been taking them to the political woodshed for the better part of four decades. And until progressives become the ascendant faction in the party, expect the same story that we saw this past weekend in California to play out over, and over, and over again.

See more here:
Can the Progressive/Centrist Split in Democratic Party Politics Ever Be Resolved? - Paste Magazine

British Columbia's final ballot count starts today to determine which party forms the province's next government almost two weeks after election day, barring judicial recounts.

Christy Clark's Liberals held a slight lead heading into the final count, needing only one riding to change in their favour for the slimmest of majority governments in the province's 87 seat legislature.

But the prospect of a minority government also looms large.

After the May 9 vote, the Liberals had 43 seats, New Democrats 41 and the Greens three.

All eyes over the next few days will be on the Courtenay-Comox riding on Vancouver Island where the NDP currently holds a nine vote lead.

The riding is the focus of an official recount, as is Vancouver-False Creek, won by incumbent Liberal Sam Sullivan by more than 400 votes.

Once the results are known, political horse trading between the Liberals, NDP and Greens is expected to intensify as the parties manoeuvre towards co-operation agreements in what could be a minority government or a bare majority.

Clark and NDP Leader John Horgan have reached out to the Greens since the election.

Green Leader Andrew Weaver has appointed a negotiating team and articulated three major demands: official party status along with electoral and campaign finance reforms.

"Andrew Weaver, I would say, is almost giddy with anticipation of a chance to play a role I don't think he even dreamed about," said Prof. Michael Prince, a social policy expert at the University of Victoria.

"To get this split, 43-41, is kind of like a Hollywood movie for him."

Weaver was the only elected Green in the legislature prior to the election, but he was re-elected along with Vancouver Island Greens Sonia Furstenau and Adam Olsen, making Canadian history for the party.

Prince said the Liberals have their fingers crossed that the vote changes in Courtenay-Comox, giving them a one-seat majority, but Clark has already signalled she's preparing to work with the Greens to preserve her government.

"But the overlaps between the NDP and the Green platforms are much more obvious and substantial than they are for the Liberals," he said.

Weaver and Horgan have butted heads personally in the past and during the campaign, but the possibility of forming a government and wielding power has the adversaries looking to work together, Prince said.

"This is politics," he said. "This is about policy and having an opportunity for influence."

Glen Sanford, the NDP's deputy director, said 60 per cent of B.C. voters rejected Clark's Liberals and people want change.

Sanford said his own family's political history is repeating itself in the current election drama.

His mother, Karen Sanford, served as the Courtenay-Comox member of the legislature for the NDP in the 1970s and '80s. The riding was also subjected to a recount when her mother was in office.

At the time he was working on a fishing boat and voted in Ucluelet. Sanford said his absentee ballot was among those that gave his mother the victory.

"I remember my skipper saying it was a good thing it was a slow day for fishing, because if we had been catching lots of fish there was no way he'd have stopped to come in and vote," he said.

Elections BC, the government agency that administers provincial elections, said almost 180,000 absentee ballots must be counted.

The final count will take place from Monday to Wednesday. Elections BC said the results will be posted and refreshed on the agency's website starting on Monday.

Read the rest here:
Final BC vote count starts today, stakes high for Liberals, NDP, Greens - CBC.ca

|

Posted: May 21, 2017 12:01 AM

That liberals are hypocrites is not news. Just take a look at the net worth of any Democratic Party leader who routinely rails against the 1 percent. But in the age of Trump, where the hatred that normally drives what were told is the tolerant left has been turned up to 11. All standards have gone out the window; no hypocrisy is too great, no conspiracy theory too insane for someone on the left to advance it and its drone army to believe.

It must be easy to be a liberal in 2017. You dont have to think for yourself. You dont have to prove anything. And your life can swirl in a bubble where youll never have anything you say challenged in a serious way. Liberals have become the bad guy in Lethal Weapon 2 their membership in the progressive club grants them a sort of diplomatic immunity from reality.

The same people who cheered the release of traitor Bradley Manning after serving only seven of 35 years for giving thousands of classified national security secrets to Wikileaks clutch their pearls to this day over the same website publishing unclassified emails from the Clinton campaign.

Is Wikileaks evil or righteous? Do they support the information it receives only if that information damages national security and puts American lives at risk? Sure seems like it.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, the left has become the Fox Mulder of politics. There is nothing beyond the pale or too insane to be advancedas long as it is against a Republican. If its not, if its critical of the left, its dismissed as paranoia.

Ive never written or spoken about the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich because, honestly, I havent seen anything but wild speculation about it. Was he the source of the DNC email leak to Wikileaks? I have no idea. If someone offers real proof, Ill bite. Until then his death is just another senseless murder.

The lack of evidence hasnt stopped some on the right from connecting dots that may or may not exist to advance a political agenda. But just because I tend to agree with a lot of the policy objectives the people connecting those dots want advocate not mean Im on board with everything they do. If Im disgusted when a Democrat does something, Im disgusted when a Republican does it too. The same cant be said for liberals.

Liberal journalists raged against the right over Rich both because there was a grieving family here and its distasteful to dredge up conspiracy theories in that circumstance, and because they are outraged a story has advanced for which there is no evidence. These are awful behaviors, but the left engages in them frequently and gleefully.

On the matter of advancing theories lacking proof, there isnt a liberal publication that not only functions under the assumption Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton, but prints stories and editorials alleging it on a regular basis.

Its been almost a year and there is still zero evidence of this conspiracy, yet the Washington Post, New York Times, and every other left-wing birdcage liner has a team of reporters opining in their pages and on cable news about how this myth is fact.

Even Democratic members of Congress, whod sacrifice their grandchildren to find a crumb of proof, have admitted there is none. It had to kill Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Maxine Waters to admit it, but they did. Journalists cant.

Instead they run anonymously sourced stories, many of which are denied on the record by the very people implicated in them. They leave those stories, uncorrected, on their websites because the conspiracy must be true.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had to have threatened to resign if the president used his letter as justification for firing FBI Director James Comey; anonymous sources told them he did.

Never mind that Rosenstein personally, unambiguously denied the story. Liberals need it to be true. As such, the original story sits, uncorrected, on the Washington Post website without mention of Rosensteins unequivocal denial. It would be journalistic malpracticeif journalism still had standards.

The same goes for countless stories in which Casper the Friendly Leaker whispers something into the ear of some liberal reporter that fits the narrative so perfectly it snaps in place like the last Lego.

Comey was fired just after requesting more money for Russia probe? Obviously. It doesnt matter that the acting Director of the FBI denied it under oath or that there is zero evidence; it just has to be true.

Someone is going to read you a couple of lines over the phone from a dear diary entry by Comey that claimed the president hoped the FBI would leave Michael Flynn alone? It doesnt matter that you dont know the context, or that Comey didnt tell anyone at the time, or you werent even allowed to see the words on the page. Trump is corrupt, so it has to be true. And so on.

When it comes to love of anti-Trump-perfectly-fitting-the-left-wing-narrative conspiracy theories, facts just get in the way. Journalists are ready to roll around like a happy dog in the sun on the grassy knoll of news.

As for the idea that respect for the dead should dictate decorum, these credentialed degenerates stepped down from their high horses long enough to cheer the death of Fox News founder Roger Ailes. I dont know how damaged someone has to be to write the things they wrote thinking something sick is one thing; believing the world needs to know it is a disorder yet to be named yet there they were, dancing on his grave before his family even had a chance to digest their loss.

You say someone is a monster and insensitive to the family for theorizing about a murder last summer, but you cant wait for the body to get cold to express glee over someones passing because you didnt like their politics? Theres a special place in hell for people like that.

Liberals, particularly journalists, have morphed into something very disturbing since the arrival of Donald Trump onto the political scene. Theyve achieved a new level of hypocrisy and disgusting cruelty that would shame a normal person.

Something deep inside them, at their core, is fundamentally damaged. Whether it was broken before the election or not is irrelevant, its their driving force now. Were they civilians, theyd likely be shouting at streetlights and losing the argument. Since theyre journalists, theyll probably win a Pulitzer.

BREAKING: General Michael Flynn Will Plead the Fifth

Read more from the original source:
There's Something Fundamentally Wrong With Liberals - Townhall