Mediaboss Marketing

More than 40 people gathered at Summit Presbyterian Church in northwest Philadelphia on Thursday to watch the first public hearing from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. Juana Summers/NPR hide caption

More than 40 people gathered at Summit Presbyterian Church in northwest Philadelphia on Thursday to watch the first public hearing from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

About an hour before the first prime time hearing of the House committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol, people began to trickle into the courtyard of a northwest Philadelphia church.

They were there for a community watch event, one of roughly 90 organized by liberal activists, urging people to gather to watch the rare, televised evening hearing together.

"I expect to be shocked, and I didn't want to be shocked at home by myself," said Melanie Brennan, who lives in the Mount Airy neighborhood where the event was being held.

Brennan came to the watch event with a friend, Chauncey Harris. He had high expectations, and said that former President Donald Trump had evaded consequences for too long.

"I hope for now they'll be able to show people what the truth is, so we can get rid of our personal opinions and just judge the facts on the facts," he said before the hearing began. "That's what I hope happens. I hope we can get some justice in this country"

Brennan and Harris were among those who gathered at Summit Presbyterian Church to watch the hearing live, as members of the House select panel placed the blame for the violence that consumed the Capitol on Jan. 6 squarely on the former president.

Ahead of the hearing, Democratic State Rep. Chris Rabb, who represents this part of Philadelphia and spoke at the event, questioned how many people would be tuning in.

"It is likely that the majority of hardworking Americans will not be paying attention. And I don't say that as a judgement, I say that as an observation," he said. "And one of the reasons I feel that folks are not paying attention is there are a lot of people struggling just to pay the bills."

He called this a moment for collective action.

Before Chairman Bennie Thompson gaveled the hearing into order, Tim Brown, one of the event's organizers, presided over a satirical awards ceremony. The unflattering awards were doled out to Republican politicians.

"The first award of the evening is the Golden Boot award, given to the most servile and degrading act of bootlicking by a political toadie," Brown said.

The nominees for this award again, really, not an award were three Republican senators: Mitt Romney of Utah, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas.

Tonya Bah holds up a "Golden Boot" trophy, part of a satirical awards ceremony held at a watch party in Philadelphia for Thursday's hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Juana Summers/NPR hide caption

Brown, the organizing director of Philadelphia Neighborhood Networks, asked people to cheer for the politician they'd like to give the award to. Cruz won handily. A woman accepted a trophy, ostensibly on Cruz's behalf, standing in the front of the room, arms outstretched, holding a single, spray painted golden boot.

"I think it's important to add levity to dark situations," Brown said when asked about the role of the awards ceremony. "In some instances, to take the pressure off people, but also humor is a good way to get the point across."

By the time the hearing started, more than 40 people were seated in metal folding chairs to watch the livestream, projected on a screen in the front of the room.

Initially, people mostly watched quietly, occasionally having side conversations with a neighbor, or clapping to punctuate a point. That was until Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the select committee, spoke.

When she addressed fellow Republicans who have boycotted the proceedings and painted them as illegitimate, the crowd roared so loudly that it was hard to hear what Cheney said next.

"Tonight I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible," she said. "There will come a day where Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain."

What Cheney said stuck with Raymond Torres, who also lives in Mount Airy and was preparing to leave as the committee took a brief recess.

"I just remember the Watergate hearings when Sen. Goldwater confronted Nixon and said you need to resign," he said. "The Republican senators have not really confronted Trump and said he needs to stop lying. At least Liz Cheney has been willing to do that."

Torres said that while he believes many people were tuned in, he was concerned about those who didn't find it necessary to view the hearings.

"It was very sad that Fox News refused to cover this, and has acted as a mouthpiece for [the] Republican Party, when this is a country that needs to learn its history," he said.

While other news networks carried the televised evening hearings, Fox News continued with its typical prime time programming.

Organizer Tim Brown also worried about who would watch the hearing. He said some people told him directly that if they couldn't watch collectively, they wouldn't do so at all.

When asked why, he said: "Trauma."

"People were shocked at some of the things being said. One woman came up to me, she said, 'I couldn't have watched this alone, this was too terrorizing.' When you saw those people breaching the Capitol, cops fighting for their lives, it was just horrendous."

See original here:
In Philadelphia, liberals gather to experience the first Jan. 6 hearing together - NPR

Sometimes its hard for us common folk who lack the mental capacity and inner monologue to justify morally bankrupt hypocrisy. This week has offered some incredible snapshots into the psyche of modern-day tolerant liberalism, which is rooted in self-righteous confirmation bias and outright hypocrisy.

A person was arrested on his way to assassinate a sitting Supreme Court justice. The outrage should be loud on both sides. Unfortunately, our current president and his staff encouraged this kind of violence despite their attempts recently to spin that they didnt. Imagine if Trump encouraged people to go to Ruth Bader Ginsburgs house?

Funny to see Dick Cheneys daughter now is a fan-favorite of the 2020s left. Remember how evil we were told her father was throughout the early 2000s? Interesting side note: I agree with early 2000s liberals here. He is terrible, and I struggle to see how his daughter wouldnt share similar views. Im sure investigations are underway for all the small businesses across America that were destroyed by riots in 2020.

Lastly, Ive seen lots of discussions about protecting children in light of the tragedy in Texas. Lots of the same voices claiming to care about children now were the ones who cheered on the psychological and emotional damage done by lockdowns and masks. Remember trust the science unless it reveals minimal impact from the actual virus and significant damage from the policies in place to protect against it.

While we are on the subject of children and science: Ive yet to get a clear explanation of how a child can fundamentally lack the mental development to make rational decisions about drinking, smoking, driving or joining the military, but when it comes to determining gender, that is a decision a child as young as 5 is equipped to make?

Its hard sometimes to keep straight what is acceptable thought, who is banned, what science should be trusted and who is allowed to be attacked.

Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.

Chase McWhorter

Carbondale

Continued here:
Liberals are tolerant except when they are not - The Aspen Times

Breadcrumb Trail Links

New legislation would bring streaming services, along with virtually all other audio-visual material transmitted over the internet, under the auspices of the Broadcasting Act

Publishing date:

Sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. These famous words used to usher in viewers of The Outer Limits, but they could more aptly describe the designs of the CRTC, the broadcasting regulator that Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus government seems intent on putting in charge of anything that moves or makes a sound.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Like an episode of The Outer Limits, watching the current heritage committee hearings over Bill C-11 which would bring streaming services along with virtually all other audio-visual material transmitted over the internet under the auspices of the Broadcasting Act comes with a risk of a foreboding sense of dj vu.

The CRTC first alluded to its desire to regulate online streaming back in 2013. At the time, the idea was being pushed by Canadas big broadcasters, who were concerned about the threat posed by online competitors such as Netflix and justifiably worried that our outdated Canadian content (CanCon) rules put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis foreign companies who werent being forced to pay into the Canada Media Fund or buy substandard Canadian content to fill a quota.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The proper solution has always been to stop forcing Canadian broadcasters to invest in domestic content that isnt financially viable just because it happens to tick enough of the CRTCs CanCon-certification boxes. But this would surely be met with significant backlash from Canadian filmmakers, who have spent decades happily milking their sheltered position, free from the constraints of competing for financing based on the merits of their projects.

Though the CRTCs initial push to regulate streaming ultimately went nowhere, in Canada, bad ideas rarely seem to die. And so, last spring, the Liberals revived the idea in the form of Bill C-10.

Granted, much had changed since 2013: the number of streaming services proliferated with large companies like Apple, Amazon and Disney entering the game and an increasing number of Canadians cut the proverbial cord.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Yet there still wasnt much of a case to be made for forcing Hollywood and Silicon Valley to abide by Ottawas outmoded CanCon rules, which were born out of a uniquely Canadian fear that the only thing preventing us from being culturally steamrolled by the Americans was a patchwork of draconian regulations and taxpayer subsidies.

Quite the opposite, in fact. The huge push for content by companies competing for digital subscribers has been a boon to Canadas film and television industry one can hardly watch a show on Netflix, Amazon or HBO without spotting a location in Toronto or Vancouver.

According to data from the Canadian Media Producers Association,the money spent on foreign productions here in Canada dwarfs what is spent on Canadian film and television content. In 2020, foreign location and service production was worth $5.25 billion, or 56 per cent of total Canadian film and television spending, and supported 139,310 jobs, compared to 81,180 for Canadian content.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Though it would seem counter-intuitive to disrupt a system that provides so many economic benefits, CanCon regulations are not intended to protect the Canadian film industry as a whole, but to ensure the right type of films get made i.e., the ones telling Canadian stories. Its basically a make-work project for Canadian producers, directors and screenwriters.

And yet, the reason Bill C-10 never became law is because the Liberals went one step further and proposed regulating all online audio-visual material, including videos uploaded to sites like YouTube and TikTok.

The backlash from social media users and amateur content creators was swift, and resulted in the heritage minister first promising to make it crystal clear that the content people upload on social media wont be considered as programming under the act, and then allowing the bill to die on the order paper.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Which makes it all the more puzzling why, when the Liberals reintroduced the legislation in the form of C-11, they once again chose to treat social media sites as if they were no different than cable companies or streaming services.

Judging by the testimony before the heritage committee over the past few weeks, these measures are opposed by both the sites themselves and the Canadians who share content on them. The only people who seem to support them are the Liberals and the usual crowd who think no industry should be free from the control of our benevolent overlords in Ottawa.

I wish I could tell you precisely how the legislation would affect those who share or consume user-generated media, but it appears as though even the government doesnt know for sure.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

When asked whether Sec. 4.2 of the act, which lists very broad criteria for what exactly would be considered a program for the purposes of regulation, would include content posted to social media, Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez insisted it would not.Yet he was directly contradicted by Ian Scott, chair of the CRTC, who said that, 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.

That very specific criteria includes content uploaded to an online undertaking that directly or indirectly generates revenues for a social media service. Given that sites such as YouTube make money from ads placed before videos, this could potentially encompass anything that is uploaded.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But dont worry, because Scott insists the CRTC has no interest in regulating your cat videos,even though it will have the power to do so. It is not the focus of the CRTC, he said. We have lots of things to do. We dont need to start looking at user-generated content.

So there you have it. We just have to trust that this government, or any future government, will not abuse the extraordinary powers being granted to it. Just like we trusted the Liberals not to invoke an act intended for war or insurrection when a bunch of their ideological opponents decided to camp out in Ottawa. What could possibly go wrong?

One thing that is certain is that the legislation would force online undertakings (to) clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery. In other words, it would compel services such as YouTube and Netflix to alter their algorithms to promote Canadian over international content a measure that even Canadian YouTubers dont seem to want.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Representatives from YouTube have argued that this will end up backfiring because the algorithm will be forced to recommend content that viewers have little interest in watching, which will make the system less likely to recommend those videos to others. While true, it is also the case that a company like Google could tweak its algorithm to account for this bias. But thats not really the point.

The larger problem is a government that thinks it has the right to dictate how a private companys software operates; a government that is so intent on giving its regulatory agency total control over the internet that it is insisting on putting provisions in the bill that prevented the legislation from passing last time around and its own regulator insists it doesnt have any interest in using.

But do not attempt to adjust the picture, for this is Canada, where the Liberals will control all that you see and hear.

National Postjkline@postmedia.comTwitter.com/accessd

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

The rest is here:
Jesse Kline: C-11 will allow Liberals to control all that you see and hear online - National Post

SAUGERTIES The promoter of a scheduled gun show in Saugerties who agreed with town officials to cancel it because of the tragic mass murders in Buffalo and in Texas, has reversed his decision and plans to hold the show next weekend.

On Thursday, David Petronis, president of the New East Coast Arms Collectors Association, met with Saugerties Town Supervisor Fred Costello and agreed to cancel the show in the wake of the killings. But, on Saturday, he issued a statement saying the show will go on.

Petronis initially said to hold the show would have been irresponsible and insensitive to all those who recently lost loved ones.

On Saturday he reversed his decision saying the aggressive turnaround will create controversy and the controversy brings the news, the news brings the people.

Petronis, of Mechanicville, said with the controversy, we should get a huge crowd, if nothing else from the gun owning public than just sticking the liberals in the eye with a good show of support for our show.

The rest is here:
Cancelled Saugerties gun show is back on to stick liberals in the eye - Mid Hudson News Website

On Tuesday, as the inflation debate that consumed question period this spring ground on for another day, interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland got into an argument overwhich of them was "out of touch."

Brandishing a new survey that suggests a quarter of Canadians have been eating less because of the cost of food, Bergen asked whether the Liberal government was ready to agree with the Conservative Party's suggestions for easing some of the increased costs currently facingCanadians.

In response, Freeland pointed to the ways in which the spring budget enhanced support for Canadians: an expansion of the Canada Worker Benefit, an increase in Old Age Security and a one-time increase of $500 in the Canada Housing Benefit.

Bergendismissed such measures as "a few piddly cheques" that "might dribble in through the mail."

"The Liberals are so massively out of touch that they do not understand gas prices, they do not understand high food prices and they do not understand long lineups," Bergen said. "They understand nothing about what Canadians are dealing with and they do not care."

Bergen had overplayed her hand.Freeland made sure everyone noticed.

"Mr. Speaker, what is out of touch is for someone who lives in government accommodation to suggest that a cheque for $2,300 for a family of three working at minimum wage is 'piddly'," Freeland said, referring to the workers' benefit.

That was a rare opportunity for the Liberals to play offence in a spring sitting during which they have faced and have largely resisted incessant calls to do something in direct response to inflation and the increased cost of living.

With just two weeks left before the House of Commons is set to adjourn for the summer, it is exceedingly unlikely the Liberals will respondto those calls before the fall.

But if inflation is still running hotwhen the House of Commons returns, the Liberals might be compelled to do something more. That could look like another cheque, "piddly" or otherwise.

The Liberals have argued not unreasonably that recent inflation is a global phenomenon, driven largely by the pandemic and Russia's attack on Ukraine. In responseto concerns about the cost of living, they have pointed to long-term actions like expanded access to cheaper child care and new plans for subsidized daycare.

Of course, theBank of Canada is also taking stepsto tamp down inflation, largely through higher interest rates.

But knowing that COVID-19 and Vladimir Putin are to blame mightnot make it much easier for voters toaccept higher gas prices and it is on that very tangibleissue that the Conservatives have focused their efforts.

A motionthe Conservatives put before the House on Tuesday called on the government to suspend the application of the GST on gas and diesel sales and to suspend the carbon tax. A few provinces including Alberta and Ontario have moved already to cut their gas taxes.

The political purposeof those tax cuts is obvious. Their practical utility is debatable.Higher-income households tend to consume more fuel, so a cut in the taxes on gas is likely to disproportionately benefit people who are already in a better position to deal with rising costs.

Calls to suspend or cancel the carbon tax tend to sidestep the fact that almost all of the revenue from the levy is returned to households. Middle and lower-income households tendto receive more in carbon tax rebates than they pay out in direct costs. (Areport by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in March that included larger economic costs offered a slightly different picture, though that analysis has been challenged).

And curtailing action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to address inflation would only trade one problem for another.

Surprising no one, the Conservative motion was defeated on Tuesday night, with Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Qubcois MPs voting against.

Touting the same survey that Bergen citedon Tuesday, NDPLeader Jagmeet Singh reminded Freeland that New Democrats have suggestedimposingan "excess profits tax" on oil and gas companies and using that money to double the GST rebate and increase the Canada Child Benefit by $500.

Here is where the Liberals could find something they can workwith if they decide that more needs to be done.

"If I were thinking about relief ... Iwould focus on families who are struggling to make ends meet, which would not be a price solution, it would be an income solution, which would be, potentially, some targeted income transfers ... to help people who are struggling to literally put food on the table," said Kevin Milligan, an economist at the University of British Columbia. (Milligan was seconded to the federal Privy Council Office from June 2020 to April 2021.)

Liberals will note that both the Canada Child Benefit (CCB)and the GST rebate are indexed to inflation already.

But unlike a broad tax cut, doubling the GST rebate would be "much more targeted and provide a much stronger impact for people that are hit hardest because they spend more of their income buying things and therefore the impact of inflation is larger on them," said David Macdonald, an economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Milligan said that a large and widespread boost in income support could be counterproductive if it served to fuelinflation, but the GST rebate and the CCB are targetednarrowly enough to avoid that kind of larger economic effect.

In a series of tweets on Tuesday evening, hours before the Conservative motion was formally defeated, Freeland listed various ways that existing federal policy can help "mitigate" the impact of inflation.

There might be an argument for waiting to see whether further action on inflationis strictly necessary. Governments are not obliged to jump every time an opposition party demands it. Doing something just to be able to say you did something is not always the wisest course.

But waiting to act also carries risk. Becauseif the Liberals do boosttheCCBor theGSTrebate this fall, the first question from opposition parties and perhaps some voters will be why they didn'tdo it sooner.

View original post here:
The Liberals could do more to tackle inflation but that's now a question for the fall - CBC News