Managing Editor for TGNR (tgnreview.com), noted public speaker, interviewer and emerging historian of the Second World War.
If you were part of the workforce during the Great Recession, the appeal of this program is zero. Having some punk kid screw with unwitting people trying to make ends meet isn’t funny. It’s more likely to incite violence
I don’t care what marketing research was done to see if this is a good idea, because it is a terrible idea. Nothing like a living example illustrating the divide between the entertainment industry, and the reality of most American’s real life and struggles.
Here is another highly accurate headline: “The problem with The Guardian publishing journalism is The Guardian.”
I am not often one to go after an individual publication, and I encourage sound arguments that contrast with my own. However, The Guardian has evolved into perhaps the preachiest and most condescending journalistic soapbox among legacy outlets. I recognize this was an opinion piece, but it falls seamlessly within a greater pattern.
Regardless of the ideological disposition in question, any news outlet whose tone consistently reads as ideologically self-serving is so disappointing. Nor is it any more acceptable from the right than it is from the left.
Yet, The Guardian does attract unique scrutiny. As it seems to invariably publish pieces making it clear the author knows better than you how to manage your life, and you must recognize that prime fact to alleviate your problematic ignorance. Followed immediately thereafter by a heartfelt appeal to give them your money.
“According to Meyhofer, the bullying comes from both pedestrians and other road users. It takes the form of rude gestures and utterances, challenging the cars to brake, driving up close behind them, and tending not to give the cars right of way at junctions. Meyhofer called the behavior ‘mean-spirited.’”
“Bullying?” Are these clowns serious? Bullying denotes some form of psychological or emotional aggression toward a sentient victim. A self-driving car is none of those things. The worst Uber experiences is some extent of property damage. Nobody will shed a tear for drivers “mean-spirited” conduct toward self-driving cars, especially when Uber treats those same self-driving cars better than the human drivers in their employ.
“The measure, which is an amendment to a large-scale appropriations bill funding parts of the government for Fiscal Year 2020, would delete a longstanding rider that prohibits spending federal money for ‘any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance in Schedule I’ of the Controlled Substances Act.”
Does that rider not read bizarre to anyone else? Let’s breakdown what it is actually saying, and what is absent:
- It prohibits Federal appropriation for any activity promoting legalization of substances currently deemed Schedule I.
- It makes no distinction for what denotes activity promoting legalization of current Schedule I substances.
The first takeaway is that this provision, by design, is an incredibly blunt instrument with a single purpose: maintaining the status-quo. It effectively ensures any currently classified Schedule I substance will remain so indefinitely. It creates a legal one-way avenue, directly due to the proviso that reads, “any activity that promotes the legalization...”. Without even a hint of what defines activity promoting legalization, it empowers the party making said judgement to outrageous proportions. In fact, the only definition that can be clearly ascertained from the rider is the definition of arbitrary; as it is the only basis by which a judgement can be rendered in this case.
Moreover, the rider also clearly identifies itself as a legal provision designed to cripple future legislation contradicting it, and thereby serving to abolish it.
This rider without a doubt is a textbook legal straitjacket; the product of a self-righteous agenda that simply doesn’t comport with the reality of progressing sound medical research.
One cannot pretend the liberal democracies of the West are unassailable paragons of virtue, we indeed have our own baggage. However, one of its greatest sinews is the right to air our collective dirty laundry, duking it out with each other openly. It’s not often pretty, it sometimes appears as if we’re coming apart at the seams, but it’s essential to maintain our rights to continue doing so. It is the foundation by which we seek the best course forward. It is our greatest strength.
Any regime that feels they must restrict sensitive or possibly incendiary topics tells one many things, yet primarily it communicates their belief that they could not maintain power if their people were exposed to the truth of their actions. The idea that their people may question their decisions, oppose their policies, while expecting accountability is anathema to their sense of self-preservation.
For all the blood, treasure and souls totalitarian regimes squander to control information contrary to the official narrative; simultaneously attempting to project the profile of an all powerful state, they are in reality a house built upon quicksand... with a bad mortgage.
A society and its government are only as strong as their ability to be held openly accountable for the truth of their actions. For in the case of the Chinese Communist Party, their greatest perceived threat is not that of rival foreign powers. Instead it’s a free and open domestic discourse about their actions massacring a peaceful student demonstration 30 years ago.
This is in fact a very in-depth and adept analysis of now forgotten political divides in the US prior to, and including the war itself. A critical omission however is failing to mention General George C. Marshall. The same Marshall who later served as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense under Truman.
Churchill referred to Marshall as “The Organizer of Victory,” but that is only part of the story. FDR appointed Marshall as Army Chief of Staff on 1 September, 1939. The very day Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and plunged Europe into war.
Marshall in addition to his reputation of speaking truth to power, was an amazing figure due to his high standing with both parties in Congress. Marshall was seen even by the isolationist lobby as an impartial arbiter of events. Indeed, he was the perfect figure to begin building the US war machine with a standing army the size of Romania’s in 1940. For a man that claimed to never vote in elections, so as not to bias his judgement, Marshall had an amazingly adept political hand to coax and direct a very unpopular mobilization prior to Pearl Harbor on both sides of the aisle.
Marshall, like Field Marshal Alan Brooke for Britain, is one of the most criminally underrated critical figures of this period.
“Millennial dads are less likely than their boomer counterparts to be able to change a car tire on the side of the road, unblock a toilet or sink, reset a tripped circuit breaker or even open a stuck pickle jar with their hands.”
I have yet to meet a Millennial father so DIY inept, they don’t know how to use a plunger or change a tire. Of the 1,000 participants cited in this survey, I’d be very curious to know where they live and their profession. This headline and poll feels very sensational by nature, but it is the New York Post after all.
“But HBO ‘gets a basic truth right,’ he writes, which is that Chernobyl was ‘more about lies, deceit and a rotting political system than… whether nuclear power is inherently good or bad.’”
This is troublesome, because most people won’t walk away from watching this with a civics lesson aiming to better understand the structural flaws of the Soviet Union. The late Soviet period political system is an immense topic entirely on its own. Most people watching this special will walk away with a greater fear of nuclear technology itself.
Granted in the case of Chernobyl, the technology and the political system are deeply intertwined. You cannot divorce the two because of the unique way it played out. However, from everything one can ascertain, the special has done a very fine job of simply scaring the hell out of people regarding nuclear power.
Nuclear technology for power generation has serious risks, that is not in question. Though it suffers from enough inaccurate perceptions of those hazards. That is not an altogether great thing, as nuclear power is a reasonable and highly valuable alternative for power generation with zero carbon emissions.
The big question here, of course, is taste. More specifically, Beyond Meat generating a popular reputation for tasting like actual meat - without exception. Every meat lover will go into their initial encounter with Beyond Meat exercising reasonable skepticism. Try as they might with all the marketing and product research they can muster, people have been consuming meat since the dawn of humanity. It is no small challenge to overcome that inborn bias for the real thing.
It’s a true marketing obstacle to make it so that consumers aren’t imagining the taste of a compost pile after hearing the words “plant based.” If Beyond Meat can reasonably win over skeptics, the sky is the limit. They will have effectively succeeded in a market that plays an increasingly pivotal role in the future of our planet on a daily basis.
The way the popular imagination views D-Day is through the lens of an inevitable Allied success. Not only does that not comport with the reality at the time, it could not be further from the truth.
Indeed, Allied war planners - especially the British - were very apprehensive as to its outcome. Both the British experience of fighting the German Army during the First World War, as well as their horrific experience being expelled from the continent in May/June 1940, made it so the War Cabinet was in no rush to cross the English Channel. One need only read Field Marshal Alan Brooke’s war diary to see that.
Andrew Roberts does a phenomenal job presenting the overwhelming scale of Operation Overlord. As well as the meticulous two year preparation requisite to do all possible to ensure D-Day’s success. It effectively made southern England a vast garrison before receiving the high sign to invade.
A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.
No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.
Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.