Mediaboss Marketing

Anyway, it was always obvious to anyone who really paid attention that people like Paul Ryan were fiscal hypocrites, who would suddenly lose all interest in deficits as soon as a Republican occupied the White House. And thats what they did.

As I said, the budget deficit has exploded past $1 trillion under Trump, up from less than $600 billion in Obamas last year. Most of that rise can be attributed to Trumps policies, mainly a tax cut rammed through Congress using exactly the hyperpartisan tactics Obama balked at in 2009.

In a way, the surprising thing about Trumps deficitpalooza is that it hasnt boosted the economy even more, a shortfall that can be attributed to bad design. After all, the corporate tax cuts that were the biggest driver of rising deficits did nothing to increase business investment, which has actually declined over the past year.

And while the Obama stimulus included significant investments in the future, helping in particular to jump-start revolutionary progress in green energy, Trump has never delivered a penny on his promise to rebuild Americas infrastructure.

Still, Trumps deficits have given the economy and Trumps political fortunes a lift in the short term. And that fact should bother you, a lot.

Put it this way: Republicans used the pretense that they cared about fiscal responsibility to engage in de facto economic sabotage as long as a Democrat was in the White House. Then they abandoned the pretense and opened up the spending taps as soon as one of their own was in power. And far from paying a price for their duplicity, they are being politically rewarded.

The implications for party strategy are stark: Maximum cynicism is the best policy. Obstruct, disrupt, and hurt the economy as much as you can, deploying whatever hypocritical excuses you think the media will buy, when the other party holds the presidency. Then abandon all concerns for the future and buy votes once youre back in control.

For whatever reason, Democrats havent been willing or able to behave that cynically. Republicans, however, have. And if Trump is re-elected, that asymmetric cynicism will be the main reason.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See the original post:
The Triumph of Fiscal Hypocrisy - The New York Times

On average, I spend about 6 hours a day on my phone. It is spent with me going on social media, playing games, or watching Netflix. Every weekend, a notification pops up showing me how much time I have spent and each week it has gone up. I am starting to become a lot more cautious about how much time I spend on my phone because it is starting to worry me. My phone has become something that I always have to have and it never leaves my side. It has gotten in the way of me studying and spending time with my family which has started to worry me. I believe that parents should know how much time their kid is using their phone but I dont think that they should act upon it.

Mark, Hightstown

I understand a little micromanaging when it comes to technology time. However, by the time we reach high school, we should all be responsible for ourselves in that realm, to turn in homework, to know our time limits. It is time for the parents to release their grasp unless it is absolutely necessary.

It is our job as teenagers to learn what happens when we stay on our phones too long and we dont get enough sleep or dont finish a homework assignment, we wont understand the consequences if we dont learn for ourselves.

Josh Reifel, Glenbard West, Glen Ellyn, IL

While I stand by this statement, I would also like to point out that our parents didnt grow up with this stuff, and they may not know how to handle our usage in the best way. Often times I find my parents using the phone that they bought for us as punishment. They threaten to take it away or to throw it out, this only makes out subconscious want it more. Moreover, they make us feel guilty for being born in a world where we do have access to these devices as if we could help it. They say when I was a kid we didnt have to talk to our friends all the time, we would wait to see them the next day at school. They try us guilt you into not using which once again, will only make us want it more to spite them.

kenna royce, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, Il

While some parents see it beneficial to limit teens usage on phones, others dont take any action. For example, my parents have always trusted me to be responsible in my time management, and balancing school, Church, and friends. However, I do understand that my parents pay for my phone, and data usage, and I would willingly comply if they had any restrictions or rules. Phones, however, often rely as a crutch for parents, meaning they often incorrectly blame their childs issue, or challenges for how much time they spend on their phone.

Anna Atwood, Bryant High School Arkansas

In observing my friends and classmates, I think that most of us have a handle on what an appropriate amount of screen time is. Social media can be a breeding ground for bullying, which can then lead to depression and anxiety, but Im not entirely sure that would correlate with simply spending more time on devices. Hopefully, if parents instill the value of limitations while kids are young, they will be able to control themselves appropriately in the future.

Sarah Song, Ames High School

I feel like Im extremely in touch with my personal media usage, but it isnt easy. Apps are designed to keep you on them as long as possible, and sometimes its horribly hard to put down a phone after seeing a Snapchat from your friend pop up. After checking just now, I spent an average of 1 hour 58 minutes on my phone last month. Just shy of 2 hours, which is the recommendation maximum time adolescents should spend on non-education related screens. Many of my peers use them 6+ hours daily.

Here is the original post:
What Students Are Saying About How Much They Use Their Phones, and Whether We Should Be Worried - The New York Times

Three months ago: Lebanon in turmoil Three months ago we unpacked countrywide protests over corruption and the economy that brought Lebanon's capital, Beirut, to a standstill. At the time, thousands of protesters called in particular for reforms to Lebanon's sectarian power-sharing system, which currently gives the country's top jobs to people based on their religion. Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned, and has since been replaced by Hassan Diab, a university professor who has the backing of the powerful Shia Hezbollah party designated a terrorist group by the United States but not the Sunni-bloc. This will make it hard for him to unify the country and secure the Western aid needed to rescue Lebanon's teetering economy. Diab has appointed a new, ostensibly technocratic cabinet in a bid to meet protesters' demands for a break from the old guard. But thousands of demonstrators took to the streets again this week, decrying the new ministers' connections to the political elite. Meanwhile, as the political crisis deepens, Lebanon's economy is on the brink of collapse: Banks are tightening restrictions on foreign currency withdrawals, fueling more public rage.

Six months ago: Hong Kong's enduring protests Back in August, we checked in on the increasingly ferocious protests in Hong Kong, which had been going on for about eight weeks. What started as a rebuke of legislation that would allow extradition of suspected criminals to mainland China has since morphed into an enormous, sometimes violent, political movement in defense of Hong Kongers' political liberties. Despite the fact that the size of protests has waned in recent months, protesters aren't giving up. Thousands of black-clad demonstrators have continued to flood the streets, demanding greater autonomy from Beijing, as well as investigations into police brutality. Meanwhile, Hong Kong police have used increasingly militant tactics to break-up crowds, including live ammunition. The recent coronavirus outbreak brings a new dimension to the seemingly intractable conflict. On one hand, it's revived Hong Kongers' resentment of the mainland: More than 7,000 health workers took part in a strike this week calling on Carrie Lam, Hong Kong's chief executive, to seal the entire border with China, something she's long resisted. But the outbreak, which has spread in Hong Kong, also makes it impossible to hold mass gatherings. Chinese officials have called protestors "terrorists," and have amassed forces across the border. But eight months later, it's still not clear if Beijing has a red line, and what it would take from protesters to trigger a full-blown Chinese military intervention.

Nine months ago: Cyril Ramaphosa faces the heat As we wrote after President Cyril Ramaphosa's electoral triumph last May, the leader of South Africa's African National Congress party (ANC) faced enormous challenges in trying to revive the country's flailing economy, plagued by decades of crooked leadership. When Ramaphosa took over as party chief from Jacob Zuma, the disgraced former president facing a host of corruption charges, he pledged to bring "ethics into politics," and to oversee South Africa's economic revival. While Ramaphosa has made some effort to ignite growth such as "embarking on a $100 billion investment drive in five years South Africa's economy is still on the brink. The IMF and World Bank recently urged radical reform to avoid a recession as the country grapples with spotty electricity supply problems, weak business sentiment, sky-high youth unemployment, and the worst drought in living memory. Ramaphosa's attempt at reform has largely been hampered by competing factions within the ANC itself so far, he's failed to consolidate control of the party to meet the country's enormous challenges.

More:
Then and Now: Hong Kong and Lebanon in turmoil, Ramaphosa on the spot - GZERO Media

Upon receiving the press release Wednesday afternoon, I let out an audible groan: Steve Bannon, the former Trump consigliere, fascist propagandist, and failed documentary filmmaker, would be the big top-of-show interview guest on Bill Mahers popular HBO series Real Time Friday night.

Having interviewed Bannon in the past, including a fairly heated three-hour back and forth in his lux Venetian hotel suite that lasted into the wee hours, I know how much of a charismatic charmer he can be, which, in addition to his serving as a valued source for so many White House reporters, is a big reason why hes been subject to so many fawning profiles. Such cajoling can easily work on Maher, who not only loves having his colossal ego massaged but has found common ground with everyone from alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to, well, Steve Bannon, who talked circles around the late-night comedian during his last Real Time appearance.

Which brings us to Friday night.

Following an impeachment-heavy monologue (I feel like Nancy Pelosis copy of the State of the Union), and calling it Trumps best week ever following his acquittal by the Senate, Maher welcomed Bannon, whos recently made headlines for pushing debunked claims about the spread of the coronavirus, onto the show, airing live while the Democratic debate in New Hampshire was still ongoing. And, well, things got weird.

First question? Im not gonna lie about it, your boy had the best week so far. (Yes, that was really the opening question.)

After allowing Bannon to gloat a bit, Maherreferring to Bannon as a student of historyinterjected, asking, whether anything this week in Trumpworld bothered him, including the firing of Vindman, calling Romney a suppressive person (Mahers words), bragging about how he wouldnt have been in office if he hadnt fired FBI Director Comey, etc.

We shouldve had a longer impeachment. We shouldve had Bolton, we shouldve had Mulvaneywitnesses, let em get crossed, but we get the whistleblower, we get the second whistleblower, we get Schiff as a factor in this, lets get it all out. said Bannon, adding, that this is about going after the office of the president, and if Bernie gets elected, the neoliberal, neocon national-security apparatus will go after him, too. (Though Bernie has not, like Trump, committed a number of crimes whilst in office.)

They agreed that Trump will run the table and be re-elected, and that the Democrats are incredibly arrogant, and that Hillary should have gone to Wisconsin, but lightly tussled over the merits of the Electoral College.

Bannon also rambled on about Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russiaforwarding the (debunked) right-wing conspiracy theory that the investigation was politically-motivatedbut Maher instead changed the subject, and instead of breaking down and exposing Bannons arguments for how empty they are, chose to focus on Trumps bad words, and Bannon successfully steered the talk elsewhere, as is his wont.

They agreed that Trump will run the table and be re-elected, and that the Democrats are incredibly arrogant, and that Hillary should have gone to Wisconsin, but lightly tussled over the merits of the Electoral College.

And Bannon, playing three-dimensional chess, admitted that he likes Bernie because hes a populist, and that Bernies been screwed by the Democratic Party, to which Maher politely agreed. The two then shared some laughs going at it over the debt, discussed the silly names Trumps called Bannon (he deflected once more), and then Maher allowed Bannon to deliver his closing statement, uninterrupted, before remarking, I wish we had someone on our side as evil as you, Steve. Pathetic.

Maher has made it plainly clear that he is unequipped to handle such incendiary figures on his program. So, why does he do it? Ratings? Controversy? Or both?

Read the rest here:
Steve Bannon Outduels Bill Maher on 'Real Time' - The Daily Beast

Alena Petitt, a well-known author and lifestyle blogger, has become the British face of the Tradwife movement, closely associated with the hashtag #TradWife. The movement harks back to an earlier era, encouraging women to take pleasure in traditional domestic duties while promoting feminine submissiveness, domesticity, and wifehood.

In a BBC clip, Petitt explains that her role is to submit to, serve, and spoil her husband like its 1959.

Writing on her website, The Darling Academy, she adds that many women crave a sense of belonging and home and quaintness, and therefore choose to become homemakers where husbands must always come first.

Given its glorification of traditional femininity, the Tradwife movement is often framed in the media as a backlash against feminism. This can been seen in news stories featuring bitter disagreements between feminist critics and women who embrace a tradwife identity.

This emphasis on tradwives vs feminists is sadly predictable. It fits the all-too-familiar trope of catfighting so often characterising conversations about feminist politics in the media. This framing, wittingly or unwittingly, identifies feminism as the problem, ignoring the larger structural issues at stake.

Rather than simply a backlash against feminism, the tradwife phenomenon needs to be understood as a symptom of as well as a reaction to the increasing insecurity of our times.

Tradwives often use the language of choice. They describe their decision to step off the treadmill of work as a true calling to be homemakers, mothers and wives. But even the most private of choices like deciding to leave a career and become a full-time housewife are always made within structural constraints. As one of us (Shani) shows in the book Heading Home, these choices are always shaped by social, cultural, economic and political conditions.

Many of the women in tradwife groups discuss the strain of working in demanding jobs and the difficulty of coming home to, what the American writer Arlie Hochschild has famously called, the second shift. This includes tending to children and household chores, as well as looking after elderly family members.

Petitt herself talks about how in her early twenties she was a driven career woman. Another self-identifying tradwife, Jenny Smith (pseudonym), recounts working long days as a finance administrator before dramatically changing course.

The current toxic always-on work culture must be understood as a key factor facilitating the rise of this retro-movement. As overload work culture has become common in many developed countries, governments have also been cutting vital resources that help support families and communities. Combined with entrenched gendered social norms, the burden of care disproportionately falls on women. Even relatively privileged women therefore find it difficult to live up to the popular feminist ideal of work-life balance.

So although at first blush the Tradwife movement may seem profoundly at odds with our times particularly in the wake of movements likes MeToo and TimesUp it is very much a product of the contemporary moment. The choices made by women who identify as tradwives may be presented as entirely personal. However, they are inseparable from the profound crisis of both work and care under neoliberal capitalism.

We live in a time when normative gender roles and dominant notions of sexuality have not only been challenged but are in flux. As such, reasserting a narrowly defined version of femininity may be a way for some women to gain a sense of control over their lives.

Being a tradwife is empowering and has enabled me to take back control of my life, explains Stacey McCall. A 33-year old tradwife, she quit her job due to the pressures of her and her husband both working in demanding full-time jobs.

Unsurprisingly, the movement is aligned with notions of traditional Britishness in the UK, and, as some have suggested, with the alt-right in the US. Despite their nominal differences, however, both movements are united by a similar nostalgia for an imagined harmonious national past, which has a form of gender traditionalism at its heart.

Tradwife blogs and videos are filled with serene settings outside the world of neoliberal capitalist work. Retro 1950s images of women as happy housewives abound. Yet paradoxically, this nostalgic return to a simpler and better past is dependent on the very values that it seemingly rejects.

Tradwives like Alena Petitt in the UK and US blogger Dixie Andelin Forsyth have become successful entrepreneurs who monetize their trad-wifehood. The movement, more generally, depends on savvy entrepreneurial women like these, who, through their social media activities, classes, courses, advice books, and products, advocate and popularise trad-wifehood as a desirable choice and identity.

Far from refusing neoliberal capitalism, the world of paid full-time labour or even what some consider feminist success, the Tradwife movement is deeply embedded in and indebted to all of them.

View original post here:
Tradwives: the women looking for a simpler past but grounded in the neoliberal present - The Conversation UK