Mediaboss Marketing

Molly Rush is a longtime peace activist in her mid-eighties who lives in Pennsylvania. She was a member of the Plowshares 8, along with brothers Daniel and Philip Berrigan, who in 1980 damaged a nuclear missile at a General Electric factory in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Last June, as protests against police killings raged, Rush reposted a meme she saw online. It depicted Martin Luther King Jr. and bore the message: Looted nothing, Burned nothing, Attacked no one, Changed the World.

Rush began hearing from others who criticized this post as insensitive and arguably even racist. She promptly apologized, thanking her critics and writing Ive learned a lot.

But, as Dan Kovalik recounts in his new book, Cancel This Book: The Progressive Case Against Cancel Culture, Rushs apology was not enough. She was branded a racist on Twitter. Her children and grandchildren who defended her were called white trash. The Thomas Merton Center of Philadelphia, which Rush co-founded, issued a statement disassociating itself from her until she demonstrates both accountability to the people she has harmed and a commitment to continuous learning about how her behavior embodies white supremacy culture and impacts the people around her.

Kovalik, a labor and human rights lawyer who lives in Pittsburgh, says the center has continued to shun Rushan example of cancel culture that the left inflicts to ensure orthodoxy and stamp out dissent.

Its an urgent premise, one worthy of a book. But Kovaliks book falls short of being worthy of its premise.

What happened to Rush, to whom Kovalik dedicates Cancel This Book, is lamentable. But its the sharpest example of cancel culture in some 200 pages of exertion. And even here the overreaction she experienced was offset by statements of support, including that of a Black former board member of the Thomas Merton Center who declared, Molly said nothing that was racist or offensive and those zealots can K.M.A, which stands for kiss my ass.

In this and other respects, Cancel This Book comes across as overreaching and, worse, a testament to the craving for victimization that Kovalikdecries. (We learn, for instance, that the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, where he is an adjunct professor, doesnt pay him enough.) Instead of an incisive critique of how well-meaning people can become agents of injustice, what we get is an effort to blame the left as a whole for the actions of a few.

Kovalik lays out his thesis in the books preface: [T]oo many on the left, wielding the cudgel of cancel culture, have decided that certain forms of censorship and speech and idea suppression are positive things that will advance social justice.

Okay, like what?

Worst of all is when Kovalik gushes about how conservatives including Fox News blowhard Tucker Carlson are open to having liberal and even leftwing guests on their shows, overlooking that they serve mainly as punching bags.

Kovalik singles out David Remnick of The New Yorker for having famously, and quite effectively, advocated for the invasion of Iraq in 2003an invasion that has destroyed the lives of millions.

As a longtime subscriber to Remnicks magazine, I dont remember its pivotal role in this foreign policy blunder. What I recall are the massive protests in the United States and around the world by progressives who were solidly opposed to an Iraq attack. And what does any of this have to do with cancel culture?

Kovalik also tells the tale of a left-wing journalist named Lee Fang who wrote an article published by The Intercept last summer that quoted a Black resident of East Oakland who asked [W]hy does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it? Another Intercept journalist, Akela Lacey, sent out a tweet accusing Fang of being a racist that received thousands of likes and responses. Unmentioned by Kovalik is that Fang expressed regret for his insensitivity, Lacey thanked him for it, and life went on. Fang has more than a dozen Intercept bylines so far this year; hes hardly been canceled.

Writing about the COVID-19 pandemic, Kovalik goes on and on about the double standard that exists when the left condemns mass gatherings like the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally while winking at mass Black Lives Matter protests, glossing over that the former was mostly maskless while the protesters were mostly masked, although social distancing was not practiced at either.

But, again, why is this cancel culture, as opposed to, say, an opportunity to disparage the left?

Yes, there are people who have suffered serious and demonstrably unfair consequences for saying the wrong thing. But except when this is done by the government, it is not censorshipa point I distinctly remember hearing Harvard lawyer Alan Dershowitzwho contributes a back cover blurb calling Kovaliks book a strong liberal argument against the cancer of cancel culturemake when I sat in on one of his classes while visiting Harvard in 2006. The First Amendment, he said as he scolded a student who got it wrong, doesnt protect you from being harshly condemned and even fired for the things you say.

Nor are even the most disagreeable actions of a few indicative of a grand moral failing among an entire political persuasion. I know many people on the left who respect and defend the rights of others to say things and hold opinions with which they disagree. I like to think Im one of them.

But Kovaliks book looks past these exceptionsperhaps even the rulein his determination to make the left look bad.

Throughout Cancel This Book, the reader is treated to a smug sense of moral superiority masquerading as a commitment to fairness.

Kovalik chides the Black Lives Matter protesters who he imagines go home at night and watch Hillbilly Elegy on Netflix and wallow in the satisfaction that they are not like those people on the screen. He blames the call to defund the police for the Republicans surprisingly strong performance in the 2020 election. And perhaps this slogan did backfire. But, in this case, isnt it Kovalik who is urging that certain things not be said?

He notes that liberal-leaning California approved anti-worker and anti-union referenda while voting down a key criminal justice reform in the same election as they voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. Inconsistent, hypocritical, and disappointing, surely. But is this cancel culture?

Worst of all is when Kovalik gushes about how conservatives including Fox News blowhard Tucker Carlson are open to having liberal and even leftwing guests on their shows, overlooking that they serve mainly as punching bags. Kovalik goes on to exalt Carlson as an anti-war crusader:

Indeed, there is good reason to believe that Carlson may have personally convinced President Trump not to launch a war against Iran, as his hawkish advisers had been urging him to do. If that is true, then Carlson deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, at least.

Instead of sitting around striving for some unattainable purity that really does not do anyone any good, Kovalik advises, people should apply themselves to worthier tasks. And just maybe, if youre lucky, you can do something great like Tucker Carlson and stop the next war.

Pardon me while I wipe the vomit from my keyboard.

Iuystyuiypuiwdkhnm,lew4iopodskdfm,;lw40-y47899hghop[Kjhxdhawqdhfghj;k0=-o[pl:

There. Thats better.

In his books conclusion, Kovalik allows that there are likely things he overstated or just got wrong. Its admirable for him to say that, after producing a compendium of grievances that seem to attribute to political worldviews what is really just inherent in human nature.

The sad fact is that people on the left can be, and often are, too judgmental and unforgiving. Thats an indictment of their style, not their politics. But its a real problem. And the solution is laid out in remarks Kovalik says were made by Ibram X. Kendi, the author of Stamped From the Beginning and How to Be an Antiracist, at a symposium:

[T]hose who are constantly growing and striving to be a better form of themselves are constantly recognizing and admitting their mistakes, and constantly seeking to be better for them. And so, I think that we should take the pressure off of our backs to essentially be perfect. But we should simultaneously do that for other people. And so, an anti-racist doesnt just recognize that theyre gonna make mistakes. Theyre gonna allow other people to make mistakes.

Kovalik deserves credit for sharing this wisdom. But, for the most part, Cancel This Book ignores it.

See the original post:
Cancel This Cancellation - Progressive.org - Progressive.org

Just a day after the independent autopsy reports revealed where exactly Andrew Brown Jr had been fatally shot by North Carolina cops, news of his funeral service came from the reverend who will eulogize him.

Brown died on April 21 when Pasquotank County deputies serving drug-related search and arrest warrants opened fire at him for fleeing the scene. Brown had managed to get inside his car when he was shot by cops four times in his arm, and once in the back of his head. The bodycam footage of the shooting shown to attorneys reportedly shows Brown slumped on the steering wheel as he is fired at. While the FBI announced they are opening a federal civil rights investigation into the shooting, Brown's funeral will take place next Monday, May 3, at noon, in Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

RELATED ARTICLES

Andrew Brown: Autopsy reveals he was shot 5 times, once in back of his head as family claims he was 'executed'

Andrew Brown Jr was a drug dealer selling coke, crack, meth and heroin and had 180-page-long rap sheet: Report

Reverend Al Sharpton is going to deliver the eulogy at Brown's funeral next week, while other details of the arrangement are still being settled, local outlet WFAE reported. Lawyers for Brown's family informed the outlet of the funeral timings and other details, adding that Sharpton was asked to deliver the eulogize as the family thinks the civil rights leader would do justice in honoring Brown's legacy. Lee Ferebee, the uncle of Browns son Khalil Ferebee, told the outlet, We had a really good conversation about giving Andrew the kind of sendoff that we felt like he was worthy of. So, Rev Sharpton, we reached out to him, and we confirmed that hes going to be performing the eulogy for us.

Sharpton, who had delivered the eulogy at Daunte Wright's funeral just last week, told the Associated Press in a phone interview that he had agreed to the family's request by phone on Monday night, April 26. Wright was shot and killed by former Minnesota cop Kim Potter during a regular traffic stop, and she has been charged with second-degree manslaughter since. Although the cops who fatally shot Brown are unidentified, seven of them involved in the shooting have been placed on administrative leave and three have already resigned.

Sharpton told the outlet how he has been working with the local clergy and civil rights leaders from North Carolina to draw attention to racial injustice. Among those he's been in correspondence with is Reverend William Barber II, the leader of the Poor Peoples Campaign. The family ought to know that the value of his life is being saluted around the world, Sharpton told the outlet. While he wants to celebrate Brown's life, Sharpton also wants to help in shedding light on larger problems associated with policing. I would want to get across that this is a human being. And for us, its part of a continual abuse of police power, he said.

There's been a nationwide uproar against why Brown, a non-violent father of 10, was killed by the police over a drug arrest warrant. As the public demands the bodycam footage from the incident be released, Pasquotank County Sheriff Tommy Wooten said on Monday, April 26, that attorneys have already filed a motion requesting the same.

See the original post:
When is Andrew Brown Jr's funeral? Al Sharpton who gave Daunte Wright's eulogy to honor Black dad killed by co - MEAWW

It shouldnt feel so hard to write about voting rights in a way that will not offend partisan sensibilities. It didnt used to be this way. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the 1965 Voting Rights Act with a unanimous vote in the Senate, 98-0. It was promptly signed into law by President George W. Bush, who did so in honor of Fanny Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King, with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in attendance.

Sadly, much has changed in the last 15 years, and such bipartisan cooperation seems like another era.

While the task is difficult, I cannot let my desire to avoid accusations of partisanship overcome the need to speak truth and advocate for justice as I see it.

One person, one vote is the ideal that forms the bedrock of our democracy. It aligns with the fundamental Christian belief that all people are created in Gods image and are therefore equal. It is one of the reasons I am a Baptist.

One person, one vote is the ideal that forms the bedrock of our democracy.

Our congregational polity means each church member is empowered to vote on important matters of church life and governance. In our country, each citizen should be empowered to have their voice contribute equally to determine who represents us and how our government operates. A government by, for and of the people.

Of course, whether or not each voice is valued and given equal weight never has been a settled question. The vote has been the subject of conflict and debate throughout U.S. history. Originally, it was reserved for landowning white men, and Black slaves counted as only 3/5 of a person when considering Congressional representation. While the 15th Amendment gave Black males the right to vote, that right was rarely protected. Eventually, and after a sustained movement, women were given the vote in 1920. Less than 60 years ago, the Voting Rights Act finally put the weight of the federal government behind the promise of Black suffrage. Although in application, that fight continues.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 set up a process of federal approval for changes to voting laws in states with a history of discrimination. Those pre-clearance provisions were undone by the Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court ruling in 2013. Proposed changes to voting laws have picked up pace since then.

According to experts at the Brennan Center for Justice, as of March 24, 361 bills with restrictive voting provisions have been filed in 47 state legislatures this session. Fortunately, 843 bills have been filed to make voting access more expansive.

These dueling proposals demonstrate the partisan nature of this fight. Whether it is non-citizens, dead voters or Russian hackers, both parties should be committed to free, fair and secure elections. Faith in democracy is heightened when people believe their voice is counted and valued.

Both parties should be committed to free, fair and secure elections.

We should make it as easy as possible for every eligible voter to register and vote. Free and fair elections should mean each person is able to exercise their right to vote with few barriers and in a manner that ensures security. Any bill that restricts access and makes it more difficult for some to participate should provide rock-solid evidence of a problem and explain how the bill addresses it. Unsubstantiated accusations and hypotheticals are not enough, especially in light of our history.

Despite our partisan reality, recent polling shows broad agreement among the public on several measures that would make voting easier. Seventy-eight percent of Americans think early in-person voting should be available for at least two weeks before an election; 68% believe Election Day should be a national holiday; and 61% believe everyone eligible should be automatically registered to vote.

In many states, the law is moving in the opposite direction. Georgia and Texas are two states garnering substantial attention.

The law recently passed in Georgia was not as extreme as some of the proposed provisions, but it is problematic. Under the new law, there will be less time to request absentee ballots, fewer drop boxes with less accessible hours, local officials can no longer mail absentee ballot applications to all voters, and voters have half as long to request absentee ballots. The law also bans mobile voting sites, (polling places on wheels.) Such sites have been used only by Fulton County, which has the largest Black population in the state.

The most notorious change is the criminalization of passing out food and water to those waiting in line to vote. Why would anyone want to make it harder to stand in line to vote unless there was substantial evidence that handing out free pizza and water bottles was buying votes?

A better question might be, why are people having to stand in line so long that they need sustenance?

A better question might be, why are people having to stand in line so long that they need sustenance? The provision is more nefarious when the same law contains a mechanism for the state to take over elections from local officials. Will lines intentionally be made longer in particular counties or precincts, which will deter or suppress certain voters?

In Texas, 49 bills have been filed to restrict voting access or make voting more difficult. The two making their way through the legislature right now are SB7 and HB6. These bills would restrict the freedom of local communities to expand early voting and would make voter intimidation much more likely and difficult to stop. They also make it more difficult for those with disabilities to receive help voting.

During the presidential election of 2020, Harris County, which includes the incredibly diverse city of Houston, utilized 24-hour early voting locations and drive-through voting, which helped increase turnout by 10%. Voters of color made up more than half those who took advantage of these polling places. Although there has been no credible evidence of increased fraud, both these options would be outlawed by SB7. One can reasonably wonder if high turnout and minority participation are the problems these bills seek to solve.

Proponents justify these provisions and others by a stated need to prevent voter fraud. At best, such provisions could limit hypothetical voter fraud schemes. They are not responses to proven instances of voter fraud and will certainly make it more difficult for some to vote.

Independent analysis shows voter fraud in Texas this century is extremely rare: only 174 people have been prosecuted out of 94 million votes cast since 2005. The Brennan Center has a comprehensive list of studies that show similar results, including studies from Arizona State University, which show 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000 to 2012. According to a Houston Chronicle investigation conducted just two weeks ago, there are 43 people with pending voter fraud charges with the Texas attorney generals office. Only one of those is from the 2020 election in which more than 11 million votes were cast.

While voter fraud itself is almost nonexistent, the term is frequently used in political debate.

While voter fraud itself is almost nonexistent, and thus does not affect election outcomes, the term is frequently used in political debate. A recent Houston Chronicle editorial outlined an extensive history of racially motivated voting restrictions. In each case all-white primaries, poll taxes, re-registration and voter purges the stated justification of these clearly discriminatory laws was the same, to prevent voter fraud.

Voter fraud is exceedingly rare, and rather than impacting the outcome of our elections, it most often is used as the pretext for racially discriminatory and restrictive voting laws. We are therefore facing a conflict between fictitious, hypothetical fraud, and an undeniable history of racial discrimination.

No doubt the increase in bills that limit voting access or institute new restrictions are based in part on the widespread and entirely unsubstantiated allegations of massive voter fraud following the last presidential election. Rather than rebut conspiracies, Ill only point out that those who so fervently claimed fraud and promoted the allegations are now in court defending themselves from civil defamation lawsuits. Their most common defense no reasonable person would believe such claims. It was nothing more than political hyperbole.

Unfortunately, their made-up lies have real-world consequences. These claims, debunked in more than 60 courts, have become the basis of public policy.

The authors of such bills claim they are necessary because public faith in our elections has been shaken. But the same politicians who sowed seeds of doubt cannot now use that doubt as an excuse for new voting restrictions. People believe lies about the election because they keep telling them. Public policy should not be based on lies.

It is not surprising that politicians and parties want to protect their power, but we also should expect them to uphold democratic ideals when attempting to do so.

The corporate reaction to the new law in Georgia and proposed bills in Texas has been swift. I commend the computer CEOs and airline executives who have spoken up for democracy and in defense of historically marginalized voters.

Do we now expect more moral leadership from corporations than church leaders just so we dont offend the diehard partisans in our pews?

Shouldnt pastors and other people of faith do the same? Do we now expect more moral leadership from corporations than church leaders just so we dont offend the diehard partisans in our pews? I know it is not easy. Ive been quiet for too long and done too little myself. Im grateful for the pastors and people of faith who have spoken out, and I encourage you to join them.

Christians concerned about the common good, those trying to follow Jesus in his mission to free the oppressed, those who want to do justice, must be willing to engage. When it comes to voting, we should give particular deference to and speak up alongside those who find it harder to vote neighbors who work overnight shifts or multiple jobs to support their families, those with disabilities, and those without reliable transportation or child care.

We should hold those promoting changes to voting laws to a high standard. Suspicion from minority communities is well-earned, based in historical fact and justified.

Police violence against Black Americans has caused an awakening among many white Christians to the reality of systemic racial injustice. Those looking to engage in racial justice and reconciliation work should take this opportunity to fight voter suppression alongside our Black and Latino brothers and sisters. Our commitment to justice must be stronger than our desire to avoid partisan fights.

Stephen Reeves serves as executive director of Fellowship Southwest. This column appears concurrently on BNG and on the Fellowship Southwest website.

Related articles:

Voting rights and the people who died for them: Jonathan Daniels et al. | Opinion by Bill Leonard

A vote is a kind of prayer, Warnock says in first Senate speech

What I learned about voter suppression while sitting in the Quiet Chair as a child | Opinion by Paula Mangum Sheridan

More:
Voting rights and the ninth commandment Baptist News Global - Baptist News Global

smartphone letter to the editor mail stock image

These are treacherous times. Our principal institutions have been overtaken by the Left. We are fast approaching French Revolutionary levels. However dysfunctional and disturbed they may be, the Left rules us, and they grow more authoritarian and imperious as we speak.

The latest example of their audacity and command of our dominant institutions is the response to Georgias modest election law (SB202 or The Election Integrity Act). It included ID requirements for mail-in ballots, banned the practice of giving food or water to voters in line at polling stations, limited the number of drop boxes, and shortened early voting, none of which was racial or restrictive in the least. But the carefully orchestrated mass rollout of hair on fire outrage was classic Leftist agitprop, perfected through the decades. So absurd were the accusations that, absent an utterly compliant press, a political movement or party could never get away with it.

Shortly after Gov. Brian Kemp signed the bill into law, President Joe Biden on ESPN referred to it as Jim Crow on steroids and supported Major League Baseball moving the All-Star game out of Atlanta where it was scheduled this year. MLB, indeed, rolled over instantly, moving the event to Denver. Not insignificantly, this years summer classic also planned to honor the memory of Hank Aaron, one of baseballs greatest players, who passed away recently and played with the Atlanta Braves. That Hank Aaron was a black man and that Atlanta is a black majority city that would be negatively impacted by the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars seemed not an afterthought. Biden later called the bill sick, un-American and an atrocity. Former President Barack Obama agreed with the sentiments as did the entire Democrat Party apparatus and its poodle media.

Voting Rights activists called for boycotting Georgia-based and other companies if they did not condemn the legislation. Prominent corporations and professional sports teams folded at breakneck speed. AFLAC, the Atlanta Falcons, Atlanta Hawks, Coca Cola, Delta, Home Depot, JP Morgan Chase, Facebook, Citigroup, Merck, Cisco, Apple, Wal-Mart, Under Armour, Google, Twitter, Este Lauder, HP, Microsoft and ViacomCBS all succumbed to a sudden attack of wokeness and vigorously denounced the bill. Thus far, nearly 200 major corporations joined in. A group of 72 prominent black corporate executives, in an open letter published in the New York Times, condemned it. Several black civil rights groups including the Georgia NAACP, Black Votes Matter and Stacey Abrams Fair Fight, condemned the law as well. Lawsuits have been filed. The National Black Justice Coalition called on the PGA Tour to pull the Masters Tournament from the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia where it has been played since 1934.

LeBron James, NBA star, co-owner of the Boston Red Sox, and otherwise oppressed billionaire, too, voiced his support for MLBs decision to move the summer classic out of Atlanta, stating that he was now a proud part of the MLB family.

Lebron and many of the coalition of the irate have had no trouble doing business with the democratic Chinese Communist Party and their slave empire. Prominent liberal sports writers and figures, including the reliable Al Sharpton, also got on their soap boxes.

American Airlines and Southwest came out against a similar such election bill in Texas.

The various election laws passing through Republican states are a result of the election debacle that occurred on Nov. 3, 2020. Particularly in battleground states, election laws were unlawfully changed in the lead-up to the election, because of lawsuits by Democrat lawyers, generally bypassing the state legislatures who constitutionally have the final say on election law. Criticisms by leftist groups and the Democrat party invariably accuse the bills of being restrictive and causing voter suppression, by which they mean the suppression of blacks and other minorities.

The bills, of course, did nothing of the kind. They were intended to prevent election fraud, which Democrats depend on to win elections.

The over-the-top reaction to the Georgia legislation, however, is merely a prelude to the passage of the For The People Act (HR1 and S1), in which Democrats at the federal level, engaging in typical doublespeak, seek to nationalize election law and enshrine the changes they engineered in 2020 for perpetuity, thus ensuring a one party nation under Democrat rule forever.

How should conservatives respond?

It is up to the red states.

And the response should be vigorous and unapologetic. Each state dominated by Republicans, where Republicans hold both houses of the state legislature, of which there are 31, and then the trifecta, which would also include the governorship (24 such states), should pass election integrity laws. All should eliminate unsolicited mail in ballots, something done unnecessarily because of COVID, but allow for absentee ballots, as always, which must be verified well in advance with proper explanation (illness, disabled, out of state, in the Military).

Eliminate same day registration and motor-voter registration. Abolish computer systems. Return to paper ballots, hand counted with poll watchers from both parties present.

Require proof of citizenship. Limit early voting to two weeks or consider eliminating it all together. Mandate one election day, as was standard until relatively recently, not election season. Declare it a holiday. Clean up voter rolls regularly. And, of course, mandate photo ID, something that for Democrats, is akin to daylight for vampires.

The Democrats may never win a national election again.

But there is more.

No longer can conservatives allow companies and sports entities, professional or otherwise, to bully and abuse us.

It is time for red states to pass anti-bullying legislation against the Left and their corporate minions. Any company, sports entity and individual athletes or celebrities that disrespect our nation and flag or threaten to or implement a boycott of a red state for passing entirely legitimate legislation should be banned from all future and existing state contracts, tax breaks, set asides, anti-trust protections (where appropriate) and further business dealings with the state.

Legislation considered within the purview of the state, wholly reasonable, would contain laws and protections involving religious liberty, protecting children and students from the various and sundry depredations of Leftist theories and policies including such gems as transgenderism and critical race theory, bogus refugee and illegal alien resettlement, and, of course, ensuring the integrity of our elections.

Consider also forbidding companies, athletes, sports leagues and entities that have business ties with Chinas totalitarian regime from business relations or other benefits, tax breaks, and contracts with the state.

Attorney generals of red states should aggressively litigate against leftwing corporations and Big Tech that infringe on the rights of their states citizens including the enforcement of speech codes, censorship of conservatives, canceling (also known as crushing and destroying) individuals who espouse conservative or traditional beliefs, and otherwise prohibiting normal, free, and open expression. Similarly, they should file suits against corporations that engage in boycotts and threats against the state. Red states must coordinate their efforts.

Finally, Republican officials at all levels, state and federal, should demand that woke corporate hypocrites boycott the 2022 Olympics in Beijing.

The conservative, pro-founding, pro-American, nationalist movement has for decades been inattentive to our culture and commanding organs, including corporate America. As a result, it has largely ceded them to the Left who have been diligently infiltrating them. They have completed their long march through our institutions and now control them, as they do the nation. But we still have power at the state level. We must fight back as viciously as the Left using the tools that we have.

That means the red states.

It is time to save the country, if it is to be saved at all.

Richard Moss, M.D., a surgeon practicing in Jasper, was a candidate for Congress in 2016 and 2018. Contact him at richardmossmd.com or Richard Moss, M.D. on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send comments to awoods@aim mediaindiana.com.

See the original post:
Red states: The last bastion - Seymour Tribune

Ah, the power of the web. Every day, more and more tools are being created or honed to make the web a place for more powerful tools that can increase productivity and release us from the dependency of bloated, locally installed software. While powerful tools such as online video editors like Clipchamp or streaming game services like Stadia are extremely impressive, it is often the little things that can have the biggest impact on our day-to-day workflow. One such feature that could be headed to the Chrome browser very soon is the ability to speed up or slow down media playback.

I discovered a commit this morning from none other than Franois Beaufort who was responsible for much of the work that brought Picture-in-Picture to the Chrome browser. Thats just a small fraction of Mr. Beauforts contribution to Chrome and Chrome OS but needless to say, hes one sharp cookie. In a bug report/feature request submitted by Franois Beaufort back on April 9, work began on bringing some simple playback controls to the Chrome browsers native HTML media player. Because Franois is also a rather savvy developer himself, he is also the owner of the project in the Chromium repository and work is underway to make the feature a reality.

Advertisements

Add playback speed native control to media player

This CL adds a new playback speed button to media player native controls so that users can adjust audio/video playback rate.

The feature may seem like a very minor update but it should be a big deal for many users. The use-cases are quite practical. If you are scrubbing through a large number of videos, this will help reduce the amount of time you spend auditing or looking for specific content. Slowing video down can be useful if youre trying to pinpoint a precise moment in a video for whatever reason. Digging into the features commit, it appears that the playback speed options could range from 0.25x to 2x with the ability to adjust by .25x increments as needed. Youll be able to access the playback speed from the three-dot menu that housed the PiP button and this should be available for Chrome Desktop, Android, and Chrome OS when it arrives. The commit attached to the feature request was opened just a couple of weeks ago so I dont expect to see this arrive immediately but we could see it pop up in the Canary build of Chrome in the coming weeks if were lucky.

Well keep a close watch on this one and let you know when it goes live. Is this a feature that you would use? Whats your use-case? Drop a comment below and let us know. Who knows? Maybe Franois will read it and theyll ramp up development. Stay tuned for updates.

Advertisements

Read the rest here:
Chrome is getting playback speed controls for its in-built media player - Chrome Unboxed