Here is a negative article about the American President Donald Trump.
You should vote for Joe Biden.
Jan. 14, 2017 "Anchor weighs in": Today I found this article by Jamie Portman in the Edmonton Journal:
You should vote for Joe Biden.
Jan. 14, 2017 "Anchor weighs in": Today I found this article by Jamie Portman in the Edmonton Journal:
Within days of publication, the knives were out for former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s new memoir, Settle For More. Donald Trump loyalists acted quickly to reignite the vendetta that had first erupted against Kelly in 2015 when she had dared to ask some difficult questions of their beloved candidate during the U.S. Republican presidential primaries.
Still, there’s something grimly comical in their choice of the Amazon website as their chief mode of attack — given that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post, a publication whose coverage of Trump’s shenanigans has earned it the undying enmity of the U.S. president-elect.
Amazon officials, convinced that Trump trolls had orchestrated the preponderance of one star reviews of Kelly’s book on its website, started deleting the offending entries.
But there’s an ironic twist here, given that it was Kelly’s publisher, HarperCollins, that complained to Amazon that the negative reviews had “the hallmarks of an orchestrated effort to discredit the book and our author Megyn Kelly.”
HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose holdings also include the ultraconservative Fox News Network, an organization jubilant over a Trump presidency — and one where Kelly had worked until her recent departure to host a daytime show on NBC.
But there’s an ironic twist here, given that it was Kelly’s publisher, HarperCollins, that complained to Amazon that the negative reviews had “the hallmarks of an orchestrated effort to discredit the book and our author Megyn Kelly.”
HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose holdings also include the ultraconservative Fox News Network, an organization jubilant over a Trump presidency — and one where Kelly had worked until her recent departure to host a daytime show on NBC.
So there’s something Byzantine about the atmosphere enveloping this absorbing but sometimes problematic book.
By the end of 2015, Kelly was under armed guard because of death threats. She and her family even needed security during a visit to Florida’s Disney World in 2016. It was part of a continuing horror story that had begun when, as moderator of the first Republican primary debate, she had asked Donald Trump about comments he had made disparaging women.
Earlier on the day of that debate, Kelly had been taken violently and inexplicably ill — indeed there’s the implication that Trump forces, having been leaked the question she intended to ask, had conspired to force her absence that night. But Kelly did show up to ask Trump that incendiary question — reminding him he’d called women he didn’t like “fat pigs,” “dogs,” slobs” and “disgusting animals.”
Earlier on the day of that debate, Kelly had been taken violently and inexplicably ill — indeed there’s the implication that Trump forces, having been leaked the question she intended to ask, had conspired to force her absence that night. But Kelly did show up to ask Trump that incendiary question — reminding him he’d called women he didn’t like “fat pigs,” “dogs,” slobs” and “disgusting animals.”
Kelly’s entirely legitimate question unleashed a torrent of venom. It started with Trump tweeting that she was an overrated bimbo, and then in a notorious CNN interview accelerating his attack with an observation that went viral on the Internet:
“She starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions and you can see that blood was coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever.”
The subsequent vileness of the online attacks even caused soul-searching among some of Kelly’s right-wing colleagues at Fox News, an organization less than wholehearted in its support of its beleaguered anchor. “If Megyn Kelly is killed, it’s not going to help your candidate,” Fox programming executive Bill Shine warned Trump surrogate Michael Cohen, who had urged 40,000 Twitter followers to “gut” Kelly.
Personal memoirs and autobiographies are almost always self-serving in some way, and one senses a determination on Kelly’s part to convince us of her integrity. This manifests early in the book when, as an ambitious young lawyer, she struggles for gender equality in a male dominated firm. But she’s also capable of ruthless self-appraisal.
And she is good at analyzing the wider implications of what was happening to her. “It is truly bizarre to cover the news for a living and then to see you yourself actually become the news from coast to coast and beyond,” she writes. “Every time Trump acted up, it was like he flipped a switch, instantly causing a flood of intense nastiness.”
And she is good at analyzing the wider implications of what was happening to her. “It is truly bizarre to cover the news for a living and then to see you yourself actually become the news from coast to coast and beyond,” she writes. “Every time Trump acted up, it was like he flipped a switch, instantly causing a flood of intense nastiness.”
But Settle For More is also a personal success story — an account of one woman’s single minded determination to make it to the top. And much of its value lies in what it tells us about the volatile media culture that has given us Fox News, the Twitter universe and Trump.
The gaze she levels at us from the book’s jacket exudes a poise and confidence suggesting she is not to be messed with. She did emerge still standing from the Trump wars — but at what price?
Trump, oddly, becomes her personal litmus test. They already had an abrasive relationship before the notorious 2015 primary exchange. Kelly angered Trump when she refused his offer to give her and a pair of her girlfriends a free holiday weekend at New York’s Trump Soho hotel.
And she makes it clear in the book that this offer was part of a larger pattern, one that saw Trump make repeated attempts to curry her favour and also offer other journalists everything from free hotel rooms to a ride on his 757.
“This is actually one of the untold stories of the 2016 campaign,” she writes. “I was not the only journalist to whom Trump offered gifts clearly meant to shape coverage.”
It’s a dramatic revelation, but the question immediately arises — if Kelly was so concerned about journalistic integrity, why didn’t she go public about this at the time?
Furthermore, she did make temporary peace with Trump because she badly wanted him on her show during the campaign. She comes across as a supplicant when she arrives at Trump’s New York fortress, while Trump can afford to be magnanimous. So she gets her interview — a cautious encounter one critic labelled “pathetic … full of soft questions and hot air.” There is the rank aroma of compromise here.
Kelly was also willing to compromise when she says Roger Ailes, the head honcho of Fox News, began sexually harassing her years ago. These revelations are in her book, but why did she keep quiet at the time? Because her golden ring — working for Fox News — was in jeopardy.
She looks back on her state of mind at the time. “I’m not the Megyn Kelly of today. I (had) no power … and he was the most powerful man in news.”
She looks back on her state of mind at the time. “I’m not the Megyn Kelly of today. I (had) no power … and he was the most powerful man in news.”
So, despite the alleged gropings of the deposed Ailes and the torments she has suffered at the hands of the Trump brigade, Kelly has always kept her eye on the main chance — which perhaps explains why she professes to be apolitical and remain resolutely blinkered about the ideological purpose of Fox News and the ludicrousness of its claim to offer “fair and balanced” journalism.
Perhaps her most revealing admission comes on page 98: “In case you haven’t noticed by now, I really like to win.” Could we be seeing a mirror image of Trump?
Apr. 20, 2017 "Postmodernism comes to life": Today I found this article by Russell Smith in the Globe and Mail:
French philosophers are having a very unpopular moment. They are being blamed for all sorts of social ills – campus intolerance and Trumpist falsehoods alike. This is odd not just because of the ideological opposites involved, but because the works of philosophy in question date from the 1960s and 70s and can hardly be said to represent the very cutting edge of philosophical trends.
Yet there seems to be a common view that the school of literary theory called post-structuralist, and associated forms of thinking loosely called postmodernist – writers once considered difficult and obscure, the fibrous diet of graduate students in literature and philosophy, the ultimate in abstraction – have so penetrated public consciousness, even outside the university, that they are finally having an impact on public life and policy.
Yet there seems to be a common view that the school of literary theory called post-structuralist, and associated forms of thinking loosely called postmodernist – writers once considered difficult and obscure, the fibrous diet of graduate students in literature and philosophy, the ultimate in abstraction – have so penetrated public consciousness, even outside the university, that they are finally having an impact on public life and policy.
This week The New York Times, for example, wondered: “Has Trump Stolen Philosophy’s Critical Tools?” The article was by a PhD student named Casey Williams, who speculates that the U.S. President’s belief in “alternative facts” may actually reflect the view that language itself distorts reality, to the extent that all truths as expressed by language become relative.
“These ideas,” writes Williams, “animate the work of influential thinkers like Nietzsche, Foucault and Derrida, and they’ve become axiomatic for many scholars in literary studies, cultural anthropology and sociology.”
“These ideas,” writes Williams, “animate the work of influential thinkers like Nietzsche, Foucault and Derrida, and they’ve become axiomatic for many scholars in literary studies, cultural anthropology and sociology.”
Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault are the culprits most often named in this sort of essay:
They are often held to be almost singlehandedly responsible for the elimination of any sort of objective reality or moral universality.
This is a bit of an exaggeration, but it is true that they have been standard reading in literature departments since at least the 1980s. Because they were so difficult to read and had nothing at all to do with everyday life, outlets such as daily newspapers ignored them completely. The media are now discovering them, and are shocked.
Williams does a not bad job of summarizing the postmodern moment. The fundaments of the approach, he says, rely on the belief that “… facts are socially constructed.
People who produce facts – scientists, reporters, witnesses – do so from a particular social position (maybe they’re white, male and live in America) that influences how they perceive, interpret and judge the world.
They rely on non-neutral methods (microscopes, cameras, eyeballs) and use non-neutral symbols (words, numbers, images) to communicate facts to people who receive, interpret and deploy them from their own social positions … Truth is not found, but made, and making truth means exercising power.”
They are often held to be almost singlehandedly responsible for the elimination of any sort of objective reality or moral universality.
This is a bit of an exaggeration, but it is true that they have been standard reading in literature departments since at least the 1980s. Because they were so difficult to read and had nothing at all to do with everyday life, outlets such as daily newspapers ignored them completely. The media are now discovering them, and are shocked.
Williams does a not bad job of summarizing the postmodern moment. The fundaments of the approach, he says, rely on the belief that “… facts are socially constructed.
People who produce facts – scientists, reporters, witnesses – do so from a particular social position (maybe they’re white, male and live in America) that influences how they perceive, interpret and judge the world.
They rely on non-neutral methods (microscopes, cameras, eyeballs) and use non-neutral symbols (words, numbers, images) to communicate facts to people who receive, interpret and deploy them from their own social positions … Truth is not found, but made, and making truth means exercising power.”
These ideas all come from the left, of course, and are widely used as a critique of capitalist and patriarchal hegemony. So it’s odd to think, as Williams does, that Trump might have “stolen our ideas and weaponized them.”
The writer acknowledges that it’s unlikely that Steve Bannon is poring over Jean Baudrillard at the White House. But these ideas are in the air: The right has cottoned on to them because they are useful, from a Machiavellian perspective.
The writer acknowledges that it’s unlikely that Steve Bannon is poring over Jean Baudrillard at the White House. But these ideas are in the air: The right has cottoned on to them because they are useful, from a Machiavellian perspective.
We are now in a paradoxical situation, he points out, in which the left is the side insisting on the existence of objective fact and scientific reality, for example in the area of climate change.
This is unlike us. We have spent the past 40 years arguing that scientific fact can be classist, racist and sexist. We now have to wheel and face the possibility that science may have been our friend all along.
This is unlike us. We have spent the past 40 years arguing that scientific fact can be classist, racist and sexist. We now have to wheel and face the possibility that science may have been our friend all along.
Indeed, the left itself is being torn apart by arguments over the value of some of our most cherished thinkers, for two reasons: because we are alarmed by the reality of a post-truth universe, and because our own ranks are being decimated by internecine disputes over these very concepts.
Many liberals, who would be described as leftists by everyone outside the academy – they may be socialistic, pro-union, pro-gay, anti-racist, socially permissive, etc. – have found themselves, with great surprise, labelled conservatives or reactionaries by their anti-individualist, anti-humanist, “intersectionalist” peers, sometimes merely for being of a certain race or gender (which constitute privilege, the exposing of which is in itself an argument).
Many liberals, who would be described as leftists by everyone outside the academy – they may be socialistic, pro-union, pro-gay, anti-racist, socially permissive, etc. – have found themselves, with great surprise, labelled conservatives or reactionaries by their anti-individualist, anti-humanist, “intersectionalist” peers, sometimes merely for being of a certain race or gender (which constitute privilege, the exposing of which is in itself an argument).
One particularly brave liberal, the British essayist Helen Pluckrose, has been consistently prodding the hornet’s nest of leftist activism by repeatedly denouncing postmodern thought in essays and tweets. She recently write a longish summary of her position in the contrarian magazine Areo, wherein she claimed that “… the cluster of ideas and values at the root of postmodernism have broken the bounds of academia and gained great cultural power in Western society.”
She claims that the identitarian excesses of social justice activists is actually the latest fruition of these radical postwar ideas. She argues that the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, whose 1979 book The Postmodern Condition described a move away from overarching belief systems such as Christianity or Marxism, laid the foundation for identity politics: “We see in Lyotard an explicit epistemic relativity (belief in personal or culturally specific truths or facts) and the advocacy of privileging ‘lived experience’ over empirical evidence.”
She goes on to outline how the linguistic theories of Jacques Derrida, who argued language’s relationship to meaning was problematic, lead in academic life to “intense sensitivity to language on the level of the word and a feeling that what the speaker means is less important than how it is received, no matter how radical the interpretation.”
I was surprised to see a few of my leftist colleagues in the arts repost this essay: I was expecting Pluckrose to be mindlessly dismissed as sexist and racist and transphobic as is anyone who questions the doctrine of progress.
The tide may be turning, even on the left – particularly as outrages against free speech continue to mount in the most expensive and privileged universities in the United States. And as more feelings are hurt – as feminists accuse each other of the worst betrayals and anti-racists accuse each other of racism.
The tide may be turning, even on the left – particularly as outrages against free speech continue to mount in the most expensive and privileged universities in the United States. And as more feelings are hurt – as feminists accuse each other of the worst betrayals and anti-racists accuse each other of racism.
It is a bit of a shame that these theories are being publicly revalued only now, 40 years after they began to become axiomatic in the study of the humanities. And now we will see an overreaction, too – there are many brilliant and fascinating and useful ideas in Derrida, and if we dismiss it all as dangerous we throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The lag is more evidence that the disconnect between academic and public discourses has grown too great. We should talk more often.
The lag is more evidence that the disconnect between academic and public discourses has grown too great. We should talk more often.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/how-postmodernism-is-infiltrating-public-life-and-policy/article34734386/
Jul. 24, 2018 Ivanka Trump is closing down her fashion line:
Ivanka Trump has decided to shut down her company after deciding to pursue a career in public policy instead of returning to her fashion company.
Trump's clothing and accessory business has been operating with limitations to reduce potential violations of ethics laws and the perceptions she's profiteering off her White House role. Given those restrictions, Ivanka, who serves as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, decided it didn't make sense to keep the company running if she's not returning after her father's presidency, two people with knowledge of her decision-making process told CNN.
"When we first started this brand, no one could have predicted the success that we would achieve. After 17 months in Washington, I do not know when or if I will ever return to the business, but I do know that my focus for the foreseeable future will be the work I am doing here in Washington, so making this decision now is the only fair outcome for my team and partners," Ivanka Trump said in a statement.
"I am beyond grateful for the work of our incredible team who has inspired so many women; each other and myself included. While we will not continue our mission together, I know that each of them will thrive in their next chapter."
Activists targeted Ivanka's clothing, shoe and jewelry lines for boycotts during the 2016 presidential campaign after the release of the now-infamous "Access Hollywood" tape in which her father could be heard bragging about groping women.
The line made headlines again not long after Trump's inauguration, when Nordstrom announced that it was dropping the brand from its stores, citing its performance. That prompted an attack from Trump himself, with the President tweeting that his daughter had "been treated so unfairly" by the department store chain.
My opinion: I don't have a problem with her. I just hate her dad. So the daughter has to pay for her dad's sins?
No comments:
Post a Comment