This week I was going to write on something else, but that subject has become a companion to this piece, which I have cobbled together from the website of a well-known Israeli/American, Caroline Glick. She is mostly worried about a ‘what if’ question: if the Democrats win in 2020, what will happen to Israel? Born in Texas, with a degree from Columbia, she moved to Israel and served for five years as a military officer there, did other civil service work, and became a writer and think-tank person. I mention this to indicate her assumptions and likely bias.
Nonetheless, the piece she wrote has a lot of interest for someone like me, and what follows is what I took from it. Others, like OnLine Opinion and Catallaxy Files, have also re-published bits of it too. You’ll see why quickly. We just don’t hear the other side of American politics from our own mainstream media.
‘Until 2000, the peaceful transition of power in the wake of elections was a feature of American democracy that everyone took for granted. In 2000, the Democrats shifted. They refused to accept the election results in Florida that gave Bush his victory in the state, and through it, in the electoral college, until the Supreme Court ruled that the results were legitimate. Even afterwards, many Democrats considered Bush’s victory and his presidency illegitimate.
In retrospect, the Democrats’ refusal to accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election results marked the beginning of the party’s radicalization.
Since Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016, the speed and depth of the party’s radical transformation has gone into overdrive.
The day after the election, Democrats coined a new term in American politics, “resistance.” Until then, the side that lost a presidential election was the “opposition.” But the Democrats don’t simply “oppose” Trump, they “resist” him.
The distinction is profound. An opponent recognizes the basic legitimacy of the person he opposes. A resister does not. The purpose of the anti-Trump resistance is not to offer an alternative path for governing. It is to nullify Trump’s presidency by among other things delegitimizing and dehumanizing Trump his family, associates and supporters. The resistance seeks to paralyze Trump’s presidency to prevent him from wielding the power of office and oust him from that office as quickly as possible.
To this end, for instance, the Democratic minority in the Senate has used procedural rules to slow-roll Trump’s appointments to senior positions in the executive branch and impede his ability to govern.
The resistance is not limited to the partisan arena. During the 2016 elections, and to an even greater degree in their aftermath, Democrats in the US media and in the federal government – particularly in the intelligence, law enforcement and diplomatic arms of government — joined Democratic politicians in their efforts to nullify the Trump candidacy and later presidency. Like the politicians, they have used the power of their positions to undermine and subvert Trump’s presidency to foment his departure from office…
We saw extra-political resistance in action with the attempt by senior FBI, CIA and Justice Department officials to criminalize Trump as a Russian agent through the use of the Clinton campaign’s fraudulent “Steele dossier…”
There’s quite a lot more in this well-written piece. I know about most of it, because I try to keep up to date with what is happening in the USA by going online. But you won’t have heard much if any of it from our own media. Virtually all references to the American President are either simply factual (he met with X today), or they are negative (his latest tweet, always pitched to worry the listener or reader), or the impeachment (what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, very negative). The other side of the Biden/Ukraine business has hardly been mentioned. I read about it before, and it seemed pretty grubby to me. And he is one of the front-runners for the Democratic Party. Whew! As an aside, there’s not been much talk about a second Hillary Clinton nomination… yet.
Now to the companion piece, so to speak. Most of you will know of Placido Domingo, the Spanish tenor. He is now 78, and has been famous for the last fifty years. In my judgment, for what it’s worth, he is the best tenor in crafting a song in that time. Pavarotti has a richer, grander voice, but Domingo sings better, just as the late Fisher-Dieskau was the best baritone in crafting a song. Domingo can act, too. I have a VCR of his Carmen, which I watch again and again. He is also a composer, and the director of the Los Angeles Opera.
Well, as to the last position, he was. Not no more. He has resigned from that post, and from all other American engagements after having been subject to a MeToo ‘outing’ that seems to have been orchestrated, at least a little, by AP, Association Press, an American news agency that was founded in 1846. Did you know about this? He is alleged to have behaved ‘inappropriately’ with respect to first nine, then another eleven women. All of these incidents occurred more than fifteen, some more than twenty, years ago. Eighteen of the complainers were anonymous. The two who have been named are not well-known names in the opera world. But the American musical world went into knee-jerk at once.
It seems clear to me that Domingo will not sing again in the US. He will continue his career in Europe where, at least at the moment, there is no comparable reaction to what has occurred in the USA. He may well have been advised simply to leave and shut up. Defending the suits, if there are to be any, would be an enormous distraction from his work. Domingo has claimed that some of the charges are inaccurate, and that standards have changed. He is of course right in that last response, and indeed it passes belief that the complainers were not themselves aware of these changed standards, or of the erotically charged environments that theatres, opera, ballet and film provide to those who work in these domains. As a musical director of revues as a young man I can certainly point to that. These domains are full of energy, triumph and sadness, with all the hugging, kissing and whatever that are natural human responses to these mercurial emotions. You can read about it all here, at Quillette, in a tough piece by Heather Mac Donald.
The point is that the media have been largely silent about this whole episode. It just hasn’t happened, as far as our own media are concerned. The Guardiandid run one news item. I may have missed the ABC’s contribution though I hear the ABC radio news and Classic FM is on all the time. As far as I can discern the ABC has mentioned it once only. As did the SMH. Yet this is surely the biggest news story in the musical world, not to mention the MeToo world, for a long time. Placido Domingo is far better known around the world than Harvey Weinstein, whose outing caused a sensation that went on for what seemed like weeks.
Why? My guess is that the media are cross-pressured on this one. Domingo is a musical icon, but the media are full of women, many of whom may feel that the tenor has got what he deserves. From an editor’s perspective, you don’t want fights in the newsroom about how to present this event. So you simply ignore it as best you can.
And we, the readers, listeners and viewers, may not even know that the event has occurred. Two stories with a similar thrust: we are in the hands of the mainstream mass media, whether we like it or not. Oh, and of course there’s climate-change…
Join the discussion 12 Comments
I can’t tell if the media is so bad because of the individuals in it and their blatant bias, or if there is coordinated management at all levels of media to drive an agenda.
I can’t tell which frightens me more.
Ben, for the media industry to pull together a conspiracy, they would need to be much smarter than they are. The more this nonsense goes on, the more popular human movements remind me of a mob of merinos that has been badly spooked. They race around in swirling mass, following other sheep who don’t understand what’s going on either.
Journalism is dominated numerically by people who self-selected journalism as a career when they were teenagers. They are predisposed to becoming influencers, activistists; young people are typically politically further to the left than the rest of the population. They are taught by staff who self-selected their training in journalism, did a good (?) PhD, and went on to influence successive generations. Intellectual inbreeding leads to declining quality, just like inbreeding sheep. If you (self) select for leftist activists when you should be selecting for objectivity, the result will be disappointing, and the longer it goes on, the worse the activism becomes.
Nil desparandum, there is always a correction, at some point, but it may be untidy.
What is happening is the weaponising of rules on sexual conduct. All you need is a target and someone mostly female to accuse. In the past it has been contained but the movement of the zealots have had constant pressure and are managing to perverted our legal system. The target is then faced with a very large costs to clear their name. In Australia there has been Rush, Jarratt and McLachlan that I know of. The first two have cleared their names I assume in the case of McLachlan it may be a case of money. In matters sexual there are powers that wish to exact punishment for the aggrieved party invariably female. Knowing the female always tells the truth the he said she said for them is unsatisfactory when presented to the law. Bettina Arndt has been fighting this because of the disturbing things that I happening on university campuses. Rather than take such things to the police there are now bodies set up to adjudicate. There has been many cases in the USA under exactly the same system where usually the parties concerned have been under the influence of alcohol and later it comes before these counselling bodies. In the USA many universities have been sued over the decisions because careers have been ended by the suspension of students because of the accusation of another. According to Arndt surveys have shown rape on campus grounds has the lowest incidence of anywhere else. In our legal system the evidence of one has been held to be no evidence at all but the wish of the sexual zealots is to turn that on its head expressing the firm belief that females and children always know the truth and never lie! The pinnacle of success for this movement is the case of Archbishop Pell. For me it is not whether he is guilty that is important but the process. There is much more to this of course but a 14-year-old boy many years on after the event gave testimony that he was raped by Pell. Absolutely certain is the fact that only the testimony of the boy without corroboration is the sole reason that Pell is in jail. Everyone of us on that basis can be put in jail. The media and the legal system have been co-opted to persecute white males for sexual activities!
Well said, BB.
Also, regarding Don’s first half; why is it so many public servants are left wing socialists these days. Obviously they must only employ lefty graduates, as do the majority of the MSM, led by our own “balanced” Auntie.
The certain future dysfunction as a consequence of this will make the so-called reason [CC] a non-event in comparison.
Why is present society so wrong about almost everything?
The MeTooers are well matched by the moral crusaders.
The insatiable urge to control others, one silly proposal at a time, will never cease until people say “enough already”
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
“Oh, and of course there’s climate-change…”
I think that you might have missed Don’s point about the media control of what perspectives do or do not get published.
Good on ya, mate!
Speaking of the media, both here and on the “deplatforming” tgread, this article is worth reading.
“PA Pundits – International
“the relentless pursuit of common sense”
Climate “Science,” Socialism” Or “Eco-Fascism?”
Posted on Thu 10/31/2019 by PA Pundits – International6
By Paul Driessen ~
Green New Dealers have convinced themselves that our planet faces an imminent, existential, manmade climate cataclysm – that can be prevented solely and simply by government edicts replacing fossil fuels with biofuel, wind, solar and battery energy. They achieve this state of absolute certainty largely by propagating constant scare stories, while ignoring and suppressing contradictory evidence and viewpoints.”
RTWT (except you Chris, you shouldn’t read it. We can’t have you being discomforted by having your world view challenged).
Another aspect of media de-platforming is ignoring statements that are counter-productive to the established “narrative”, not because the challenge it, but because they might frighten the unconvinced.
In that context, I see that around 11,000 “scientists” (apparently around a quarter of them are self-described as “student”, “researcher” or “retired, so their actual credentials are unclear) are calling for world population to be stabilised or preferably reduced. They discreetly hint at “proven methods” to do this, but avoid details.
The Indian and Chinese experiences make it clear that even authoritarian or totalitarian methods struggle to simply reduce population growth. To reduce population size in any timeframe that matches the demands of their so-called “climate emergency” will take much worse methods.