hotair--2020-10-07--Chris Pratt: "I will tell you EXACTLY who to vote for" and then everyone lost their mind

Let ’ s face it , Americans have lost their sense of humor .
In today ’ s tense and stressful times , there seems to be no room for a little good-natured ribbing over any subject .
Most of all , the scolds on social media have no patience for a joke about voting .
Actor Chris Pratt found that out from a post on his Instagram account .
Chris Pratt is known as a down to earth kind of guy .
He doesn ’ t take himself seriously and if there is such a thing as a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Pratt .
He is a Christian and he mentors young people .
An example of his personal faith was on exhibit during the 2018 MTV Movie & TV Awards show .
He stunned the audience with a powerful and moving acceptance speech .
While picking up the show ’ s Generation Award he delivered something he called “ 9 Rules from Chris Pratt , Generation Award Winner.
” At the time I covered the awards show for Newsbusters .
I remember being pleasantly surprised because it was a sharp contrast from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially during awards shows .
There is a video clip of his speech at that link and it ’ s worth watching .
From my article at the time : The rules led off with some basics like remembering to breathe and to serve others .
He reminded the MTV audience that they have a soul and to be careful with it .
He veered off into some silliness for levity and then he let them have his testimony .
He told them that God is real and that He loves them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Like the freedom that we enjoy in this country , that grace was paid for with somebody else ’ s blood.
” That was probably the last thing I expected to hear while tuning into MTV .
So , it is certainly in-character for Chris Pratt to rib his fellow celebs now over their overwrought , self-indulgent public service announcements ( PSAs ) about voting this year .
The real message from his is that they all take themselves way too seriously and who can argue with that ?
If , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time when so many ads and PSAs have bombarded our airwaves and social media , you are not alone .
Pratt has certainly recognized it and he decided to turn a plea for votes from fans into a gentle wake-up call to the leftists in Hollywood .
While they are all busy putting on their most sincere expressions and using their most serious voices to tell everyone to register to vote and exercise their right to do so , Pratt mocked them by asking for votes of his own .
His movie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People ’ s Choice Award and asked his fans to vote for it .
He posted it on Instagram .
With all that ’ s going on in the world it is more important than ever that you vote .
Just ask any celebrity .
They will tell you .
Every day .
Several times a day .
To vote .
But me ?
I will tell you EXACTLY who to vote for .
# onward The heroes before us did not spill their blood only to have their sacrifices wasted by your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Choice Awards is the most consequential vote in the history of mankind times a million infinity .
Vote for # Onward for family movie of the year .
Or else .
You WILL die .
No hyperbole .
Click the link in my bio .
Let your voice be heard .
Perfect , right ?
You will die if you don ’ t vote for his movie is the right amount of hyperbole , if you ask me .
How many times have we heard liberals tell us that if Trump wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , our country is gone ?
And he circled back to the 2018 speech by referencing the blood of heroes who sacrificed themselves for our freedom .
We really have no idea for whom Chris Pratt votes and that is refreshing .
We don ’ t have to watch a performance from him and have something political he said in an interview or speech flash in our mind .
He recognizes he is not a politician but an entertainer .
I appreciate that .
Others , however , do not .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think .
Like everything else , reactions were divided as some people weighed in that it ’ s ok to not take everything so seriously .
If an actor wants to bring some levity over voting for an award , it ’ s ok .
There are four actors who are well-known for superhero movie roles – Chris Pratt , Chris Hemsworth , Chris Pine , and , Chris Evans .
Pratt is now being called “ the worst Chris ” , though Chris Hemsworth posted a similar request for votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pratt .
Hemsworth ’ s post was more straightforward – please vote for me .
At least one entertainment writer understood that Pratt ’ s post was all in fun and asks that others lighten up .
To clarify , I mean no offense to Chris Hemsworth here .
( Loved Extraction by the way . )
It just feels a little unfair that people are dumping on Chris Pratt because he may be a little bit different than the other Marvel ( and DC in Chris Pine ’ s case ) stars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , it feels like any negative response to this post is mostly due to other reasons some people have expressed in the past for not liking Chris Pratt perhaps including his high-profile divorce , his openness about his religious beliefs and his hunting .
I ’ ve seen complaints about him going shirtless after he got in shape for movies , which Chris Hemsworth has been known to do a time or two also .
In the case of the People ’ s Choice Awards , he also asked people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have a couple sentences in front of it pretending to allude to the upcoming political election .
It ’ s fine if you don ’ t like the guy and don ’ t want to support big budget movies like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol .
3 or Jurassic World : Dominion or heck , Onward at the People ’ s Choice Awards .
I ’ m just saying , within the context of the mysterious case of the People ’ s Choice Award votes , Chris Pratt was clearly joking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just one high profile celebrity in Hollywood dared to go a different way on a message about voting and here we are .
There are 27 more days until Election Day .
We can all use a chuckle right about now .
If you are interested , “ Onward ” is streaming on Disney Plus .

Let’s face it, Americans have lost their sense of humor. In today’s tense and stressful times, there seems to be no room for a little good-natured ribbing over any subject. Most of all, the scolds on social media have no patience for a joke about voting. Actor Chris Pratt found that out from a post on his Instagram account.
Chris Pratt is known as a down to earth kind of guy. He doesn’t take himself seriously and if there is such a thing as a good guy left in Hollywood, it’s Pratt. He is a Christian and he mentors young people. An example of his personal faith was on exhibit during the 2018 MTV Movie & TV Awards show. He stunned the audience with a powerful and moving acceptance speech. While picking up the show’s Generation Award he delivered something he called “9 Rules from Chris Pratt, Generation Award Winner.” At the time I covered the awards show for Newsbusters. I remember being pleasantly surprised because it was a sharp contrast from the usual crap that is exhibited on MTV, especially during awards shows. There is a video clip of his speech at that link and it’s worth watching. From my article at the time:
The rules led off with some basics like remembering to breathe and to serve others. He reminded the MTV audience that they have a soul and to be careful with it. He veered off into some silliness for levity and then he let them have his testimony. He told them that God is real and that He loves them. He spoke about grace and said, “Like the freedom that we enjoy in this country, that grace was paid for with somebody else’s blood.” That was probably the last thing I expected to hear while tuning into MTV.
So, it is certainly in-character for Chris Pratt to rib his fellow celebs now over their overwrought, self-indulgent public service announcements (PSAs) about voting this year. The real message from his is that they all take themselves way too seriously and who can argue with that?
If, like me, you do not remember a time when so many ads and PSAs have bombarded our airwaves and social media, you are not alone. Pratt has certainly recognized it and he decided to turn a plea for votes from fans into a gentle wake-up call to the leftists in Hollywood. While they are all busy putting on their most sincere expressions and using their most serious voices to tell everyone to register to vote and exercise their right to do so, Pratt mocked them by asking for votes of his own. His movie “Onward” is up for a People’s Choice Award and asked his fans to vote for it. He posted it on Instagram.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CF1tC7opgEy/?utm_source=ig_embed
With all that’s going on in the world it is more important than ever that you vote. Just ask any celebrity. They will tell you. Every day. Several times a day. To vote. But me? I will tell you EXACTLY who to vote for. #onward The heroes before us did not spill their blood only to have their sacrifices wasted by your apathy. The upcoming 2020 People’s Choice Awards is the most consequential vote in the history of mankind times a million infinity. Vote for #Onward for family movie of the year. Or else. You WILL die. No hyperbole. Click the link in my bio. Let your voice be heard.
Perfect, right? You will die if you don’t vote for his movie is the right amount of hyperbole, if you ask me. How many times have we heard liberals tell us that if Trump wins again, democracy is dead and essentially, our country is gone? And he circled back to the 2018 speech by referencing the blood of heroes who sacrificed themselves for our freedom.
We really have no idea for whom Chris Pratt votes and that is refreshing. We don’t have to watch a performance from him and have something political he said in an interview or speech flash in our mind. He recognizes he is not a politician but an entertainer. I appreciate that. Others, however, do not.
Chris Pratt said the election does not concern me because I am a white privileged man, instead vote for my movie so I can get more awards 😁😁😁 pic.twitter.com/R67yjrAvRM — tabitha (@buckymatters) October 2, 2020
I’m not really sure it’s funny to tell people to vote for your animated movie while the world is how it is. Comes off as privileged and totally tone deaf. — savehorror (@savehorror) October 2, 2020
It was funny to probably half of his fans, I think. Like everything else, reactions were divided as some people weighed in that it’s ok to not take everything so seriously. If an actor wants to bring some levity over voting for an award, it’s ok.
What Chris Pratt said is legitimately funny, y’all are just easily angered. pic.twitter.com/FaB1XPKtzQ — K’Bucko (@KBucko7) October 5, 2020
https://twitter.com/bookcartpusher/status/1313171539022557191
There are four actors who are well-known for superhero movie roles – Chris Pratt, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pine, and, Chris Evans. Pratt is now being called “the worst Chris”, though Chris Hemsworth posted a similar request for votes from fans around the same time as Pratt. Hemsworth’s post was more straightforward – please vote for me. At least one entertainment writer understood that Pratt’s post was all in fun and asks that others lighten up.
To clarify, I mean no offense to Chris Hemsworth here. (Loved Extraction by the way.) It just feels a little unfair that people are dumping on Chris Pratt because he may be a little bit different than the other Marvel (and DC in Chris Pine’s case) stars who fill out the superhero slate. In fact, it feels like any negative response to this post is mostly due to other reasons some people have expressed in the past for not liking Chris Pratt perhaps including his high-profile divorce, his openness about his religious beliefs and his hunting. I’ve seen complaints about him going shirtless after he got in shape for movies, which Chris Hemsworth has been known to do a time or two also. In the case of the People’s Choice Awards, he also asked people to vote for Extraction. He just didn’t have a couple sentences in front of it pretending to allude to the upcoming political election. It’s fine if you don’t like the guy and don’t want to support big budget movies like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 or Jurassic World: Dominion or heck, Onward at the People’s Choice Awards. I’m just saying, within the context of the mysterious case of the People’s Choice Award votes, Chris Pratt was clearly joking. Maybe cut him some slack.
Just one high profile celebrity in Hollywood dared to go a different way on a message about voting and here we are. There are 27 more days until Election Day. We can all use a chuckle right about now. If you are interested, “Onward” is streaming on Disney Plus.


hotair--2020-10-07--Philadelphia sued over gun permit backlog

A few weeks ago we discussed the situation in Philadelphia , where prospective gun buyers ( of the legal variety ) are being told that they will have to wait for months or , in some cases , a year and a half to apply for a permit .
The reason being offered by the city is that they have an unprecedented backlog of people looking to go through the application process and insufficient resources available to meet the demand because of the pandemic .
That comes as little consolation to all of the people who have suddenly taken an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their neighborhoods are engulfed in flames and street violence .
Perhaps that situation will be changing in the near future .
A group of frustrated shoppers , in conjunction with a gun-rights group , has filed suit against the city , claiming that they are in violation of a state law requiring permit applications to be processed within 45 days .
( Free Beacon ) A gun-rights group accused the Philadelphia Police Department of illegally forcing residents to wait up to 18 months to apply for a gun-carry permit in a lawsuit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the city has infringed on the rights of local residents by ignoring a Pennsylvania law that requires localities to process applications within 45 days .
Val Finnel , the group ’ s Pennsylvania director , said the lengthy wait times actively harm locals who are seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
“ They ’ re essentially denying the right to defend yourself , ” Finnel told the Washington Free Beacon .
When I first heard about this issue , I immediately suspected that the trick Philadelphia was using to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely illegal .
The city is aware that they have to process permit applications within 45 days .
To get around that inconvenient fact , they ’ ve been telling people that they have to make an appointment to even get an application .
And those appointments are being given for dates stretching out to 2022 in some cases .
All they ’ re doing is shortsheeting the law in this fashion .
Restricting access to applications is the same thing as denying applications with no valid reason being offered .
As the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the rest of Pennsylvania has handled this problem by moving the application process online or by allowing people to apply through the mail .
The workers who are tasked with processing the applications are able to do so while working remotely in most cases .
But Philadelphia has made no effort to adjust to the challenges posed by the pandemic in a similar fashion .
I will take issue with one aspect of the lawsuit , however , and that ’ s the comparison the plaintiffs draw between Philadelphia proper and neighboring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more suburban/rural area with a considerably lower population density .
It ’ s also a bit more conservative in nature , so more of the residents there probably already had permits before the current crisis struck .
The police departments in Bucks County generally have far fewer people showing up to apply for permits on a daily basis , so they ’ re probably not under as much pressure as the central part of the city .
The real question here is what Philadelphia will do even if a court sides with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the permits within the mandatory 45-day window .
If they say they don ’ t have the people and the resources to do that , how will they make those resources magically appear ?
They can move their application process online , which would certainly help speed things up when conditions return to “ normal ” but that ’ s not going to do anything to allow them to instantly clear a backlog of tens of thousands of applications .
And it ’ s possible that a judge hearing this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In that scenario , the backlog might be cleared before the lawsuit makes its way through the entire process .

A few weeks ago we discussed the situation in Philadelphia, where prospective gun buyers (of the legal variety) are being told that they will have to wait for months or, in some cases, a year and a half to apply for a permit. The reason being offered by the city is that they have an unprecedented backlog of people looking to go through the application process and insufficient resources available to meet the demand because of the pandemic. That comes as little consolation to all of the people who have suddenly taken an interest in their Second Amendment rights as their neighborhoods are engulfed in flames and street violence.
Perhaps that situation will be changing in the near future. A group of frustrated shoppers, in conjunction with a gun-rights group, has filed suit against the city, claiming that they are in violation of a state law requiring permit applications to be processed within 45 days. (Free Beacon)
A gun-rights group accused the Philadelphia Police Department of illegally forcing residents to wait up to 18 months to apply for a gun-carry permit in a lawsuit. Gun Owners of America (GOA) said the city has infringed on the rights of local residents by ignoring a Pennsylvania law that requires localities to process applications within 45 days. Val Finnel, the group’s Pennsylvania director, said the lengthy wait times actively harm locals who are seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. “They’re essentially denying the right to defend yourself,” Finnel told the Washington Free Beacon.
When I first heard about this issue, I immediately suspected that the trick Philadelphia was using to get around the law looked very shady and likely illegal. The city is aware that they have to process permit applications within 45 days. To get around that inconvenient fact, they’ve been telling people that they have to make an appointment to even get an application. And those appointments are being given for dates stretching out to 2022 in some cases.
All they’re doing is shortsheeting the law in this fashion. Restricting access to applications is the same thing as denying applications with no valid reason being offered. As the plaintiffs note in their suit, most of the rest of Pennsylvania has handled this problem by moving the application process online or by allowing people to apply through the mail. The workers who are tasked with processing the applications are able to do so while working remotely in most cases. But Philadelphia has made no effort to adjust to the challenges posed by the pandemic in a similar fashion.
I will take issue with one aspect of the lawsuit, however, and that’s the comparison the plaintiffs draw between Philadelphia proper and neighboring Bucks County. That’s a more suburban/rural area with a considerably lower population density. It’s also a bit more conservative in nature, so more of the residents there probably already had permits before the current crisis struck. The police departments in Bucks County generally have far fewer people showing up to apply for permits on a daily basis, so they’re probably not under as much pressure as the central part of the city.
The real question here is what Philadelphia will do even if a court sides with the plaintiffs and orders them to start processing all of the permits within the mandatory 45-day window. If they say they don’t have the people and the resources to do that, how will they make those resources magically appear? They can move their application process online, which would certainly help speed things up when conditions return to “normal” but that’s not going to do anything to allow them to instantly clear a backlog of tens of thousands of applications. And it’s possible that a judge hearing this case might be sympathetic to such a response. In that scenario, the backlog might be cleared before the lawsuit makes its way through the entire process.


hotair--2020-10-07--WaPo: Say, did you know Barrett considered herself a "handmaid"?

It ’ s time once again to play Ring Around the Rosary — Media Edition , and today we land on the Washington Post ’ s take on Catholicism … or more broadly , the Bible itself .
In an analysis published last night about one of the most accomplished women in the federal judiciary , the Post ’ s team of reporters manages to suss out the same tired story about People of Praise that has been bouncing around media circles for three years .
This time , though , they add a twist — that Amy Coney Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the organization .
Who wants to tell them ?
Holy Mary , mother of God , pray for us sinners … Barrett , a federal appellate judge , has disclosed serving on the board of a network of private Christian schools affiliated with the group .
The organization , however , has declined to confirm that she is a member .
In recent years , it removed from its website editions of a People of Praise magazine — first those that included her name and photograph and then all archives of the magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in the organization , as have her parents , according to documents and interviews that help fill out a picture of her involvement with a group that keeps its teachings and gatherings private .
A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “ handmaid , ” a leadership position for women in the community , according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post .
Also , while in law school , Barrett lived at the South Bend home of People of Praise ’ s influential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dorothy , who together helped establish the group ’ s male-dominated hierarchy and view of gender roles .
The group was one of many to grow out of the charismatic Christian movement , which sought a more intense and communal religious experience by embracing such practices as shared living , faith healing and speaking in tongues .
Not only is this a rehash of old news ( with one exception ) , the Washington Post acknowledges it ’ s a rehash of old news .
This all came up in Barrett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats into the same trap that media seems to be laying for them this time around .
This is WaPo ’ s way of saying that the dogma lived a little too loudly within Barrett for their taste : The only new nugget in this warmed-over hysteria is Barrett ’ s living arrangements while in law school .
Apparently , the thought of a Catholic student at a Catholic school living with charismatic Catholics well over twenty years ago is somehow a novelty which requires comment by national news publications .
At least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes that being a “ handmaid ” is somehow a subversively submissive act by a woman whose career has soared the heights of the legal profession .
It ’ s such a dumb argument that Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) has issued not one but two statements pointing out its idiocy .
This is the more succinct and recent of the two : This comment from National Review ’ s Rich Lowry is more humorous but just as pointed : All due respect to author Margaret Atwood and The Handmaid ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very different view of the term “ handmaid , ” one that apparently even escapes the WaPo ’ s religion reporters .
It ’ s modeled on Mary — not on her marriage to Joseph but on her submission to the Lord .
It comes straight out of Luke ’ s Gospel , in the very first chapter : Perhaps this is news to media organizations , but the handmaid concept applies to all Christians , not just the women .
We are all called to emulate Mary in her submission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His work can be accomplished through us .
Unfortunately , none of us have ever offered as perfect a “ yes ” as Mary , which the Catholic Church teaches was possible through Mary ’ s immaculate conception ( which , despite popular understanding , does not refer to Jesus ’ conception by the Holy Spirit ) .
The role of submission in marriage is a different matter , with a more complicated theology .
That teaching comes from epistles written by both Peter and Paul , but both also command husbands to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church .
None of these teachings , it should be pointed out , contain the term “ handmaid ” at all .
The letter to the Ephesians is the most on point to this teaching , which underscores the core teaching of caritas , the self-sacrificing love to which we are all called in Christ .
This passage is a typically florid and poetic way of telling spouses to subsume their own interests for the sake of the other , so as to form them both and their families for eternal life in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these are easy teachings ; if they were , we wouldn ’ t keep failing so badly at living them .
However , neither are they particularly esoteric teachings , regardless of how many media outlets omit the Christian context for them .
Or worse yet , attempt to splice Atwood ’ s context in place of that Christian teaching .
This WaPo story does all of this , while at the same time boring us with a rehash of the same bad reporting on Barrett and People of Praise that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
I ’ m not sure which is the more egregious sin at this point .
Update : Fixed my erroneous use of “ Atwell ” instead of “ Atwood ” for the novelist ’ s name .
My apologies for the error .

It’s time once again to play Ring Around the Rosary — Media Edition, and today we land on the Washington Post’s take on Catholicism … or more broadly, the Bible itself. In an analysis published last night about one of the most accomplished women in the federal judiciary, the Post’s team of reporters manages to suss out the same tired story about People of Praise that has been bouncing around media circles for three years. This time, though, they add a twist — that Amy Coney Barrett considered herself a “handmaid” in the organization.
Who wants to tell them? Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners …
Barrett, a federal appellate judge, has disclosed serving on the board of a network of private Christian schools affiliated with the group. The organization, however, has declined to confirm that she is a member. In recent years, it removed from its website editions of a People of Praise magazine — first those that included her name and photograph and then all archives of the magazine itself. Barrett has had an active role in the organization, as have her parents, according to documents and interviews that help fill out a picture of her involvement with a group that keeps its teachings and gatherings private. A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “handmaid,” a leadership position for women in the community, according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post. Also, while in law school, Barrett lived at the South Bend home of People of Praise’s influential co-founder Kevin Ranaghan and his wife, Dorothy, who together helped establish the group’s male-dominated hierarchy and view of gender roles. The group was one of many to grow out of the charismatic Christian movement, which sought a more intense and communal religious experience by embracing such practices as shared living, faith healing and speaking in tongues.
Not only is this a rehash of old news (with one exception), the Washington Post acknowledges it’s a rehash of old news. This all came up in Barrett’s previous confirmation hearing, which led Senate Democrats into the same trap that media seems to be laying for them this time around. This is WaPo’s way of saying that the dogma lived a little too loudly within Barrett for their taste:
Barrett’s ties to the group, which has conservative stances on the role of women in society and other social issues, did not come to light until after she was questioned by senators considering her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017. Senators are preparing to question her next week over her nomination to the high court.
The only new nugget in this warmed-over hysteria is Barrett’s living arrangements while in law school. Apparently, the thought of a Catholic student at a Catholic school living with charismatic Catholics well over twenty years ago is somehow a novelty which requires comment by national news publications. At least, it warrants that comment if one believes that being a “handmaid” is somehow a subversively submissive act by a woman whose career has soared the heights of the legal profession.
It’s such a dumb argument that Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) has issued not one but two statements pointing out its idiocy. This is the more succinct and recent of the two:
“Catholic believes Catholic stuff, story at eleven. This conspiracy theory that a brilliant jurist and an accomplished lawyer is secretly a subservient woman controlled by her husband’s ‘shadowy organization’ isn’t just stupid — it’s bigoted and sexist.”
This comment from National Review’s Rich Lowry is more humorous but just as pointed:
It’d be great to know the theory of what Amy Coney Barrett would have been able to achieve if she hadn’t been hampered by being a woman in People of Praise —would she be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court already? Secretary General of the U.N.? What? — Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) October 7, 2020
All due respect to author Margaret Atwood and The Handmaid’s Tale, but Christians and Catholics have a very different view of the term “handmaid,” one that apparently even escapes the WaPo’s religion reporters. It’s modeled on Mary — not on her marriage to Joseph but on her submission to the Lord. It comes straight out of Luke’s Gospel, in the very first chapter:
And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
Perhaps this is news to media organizations, but the handmaid concept applies to all Christians, not just the women. We are all called to emulate Mary in her submission to the will of God, so that His work can be accomplished through us. Unfortunately, none of us have ever offered as perfect a “yes” as Mary, which the Catholic Church teaches was possible through Mary’s immaculate conception (which, despite popular understanding, does not refer to Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit).
The role of submission in marriage is a different matter, with a more complicated theology. That teaching comes from epistles written by both Peter and Paul, but both also command husbands to serve their wives as Jesus serves the Church. None of these teachings, it should be pointed out, contain the term “handmaid” at all. The letter to the Ephesians is the most on point to this teaching, which underscores the core teaching of caritas, the self-sacrificing love to which we are all called in Christ. This passage is a typically florid and poetic way of telling spouses to subsume their own interests for the sake of the other, so as to form them both and their families for eternal life in the caritas of the Trinity.
None of these are easy teachings; if they were, we wouldn’t keep failing so badly at living them. However, neither are they particularly esoteric teachings, regardless of how many media outlets omit the Christian context for them. Or worse yet, attempt to splice Atwood’s context in place of that Christian teaching. This WaPo story does all of this, while at the same time boring us with a rehash of the same bad reporting on Barrett and People of Praise that’s been repeated for over three years now. I’m not sure which is the more egregious sin at this point.
Update: Fixed my erroneous use of “Atwell” instead of “Atwood” for the novelist’s name. My apologies for the error.


hotair--2020-10-07--Netflix indicted over "Cuties"

Netflix indicted over "Cuties"

Ever since Netflix made the fateful ( and awful ) decision to subject the world to the French film Cuties , outrage and condemnation have rained down upon them .
But we ’ ve now learned that at least some government officials weren ’ t satisfied with simply scolding them for promoting child exploitation .
A grand jury in Texas moved to indict the streaming giant several weeks ago .
The list of charges look appropriate enough at first glance , but any prosecutor attempting to move the case forward may have their work cut out for them .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a criminal charge that alleges the streaming giant promotes “ lewd visual material ” of a child .
The lawsuit centers on the release of the French film “ Cuties ” that has been mired by controversy since its release last month .
A Tyler County , Texas grand jury moved to return an indictment against Netflix on Sept. 23 , Fox News confirmed on Tuesday via court documents .
A couple of weeks ago , I looked at the defense offered by the film ’ s director and why her excuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny .
I still haven ’ t watched the film and have no intention of doing so , though I can at least sympathize with what the director claims she was trying to accomplish .
Of course , if she ’ s handled the project in a responsible fashion she almost certainly wouldn ’ t have attracted this much international attention .
With that said , however , this may be a tough case to prosecute for a couple of different reasons .
Netflix is being charged with a felony based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowingly ’ promoted visual material which depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created , which appeals to the prurient interest in sex , and has no serious , literary , artistic , political , or scientific value.
” I can agree with that assessment in principle , but how would that stack up in court ?
Government censorship of purported “ entertainment ” is always a dodgy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Leaving it up to a jury to decide what does or doesn ’ t have serious literary , artistic , political or scientific value means that a small group of people is defining those terms for everyone .
And while this film certainly appears to be garbage , such a ruling could wind up taking down any number of other productions that you might not view as being offensive .
Also , based on the reviews written by people who actually did sit through the film , the children remained clothed during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
If there ’ s no nudity or physical , sexual interaction taking place , does it truly qualify as child pornography ?
There has to be some sort of dividing line between what ’ s lewd and inappropriate and material that truly qualifies as underage pornography , right ?
Even if you agree that Cuties crosses that line , there are also questions of the appropriate venue for legal action .
This charge is being filed in Texas , but Netflix is based in Los Gatos , California .
And Netflix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the film .
The director lives in France .
Isn ’ t the director more responsible than Netflix ?
And if these charges are to be filed , wouldn ’ t they need to be handled either in California or in a federal court ?
For their part , Netflix is sticking to its guns .
The company released a statement saying that the charges are without merit and “ we stand by the film.
” If this case does actually make in front of a judge and jury at some point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch for anyone interested in censorship and related subjects .

Ever since Netflix made the fateful (and awful) decision to subject the world to the French film Cuties, outrage and condemnation have rained down upon them. But we’ve now learned that at least some government officials weren’t satisfied with simply scolding them for promoting child exploitation. A grand jury in Texas moved to indict the streaming giant several weeks ago. The list of charges look appropriate enough at first glance, but any prosecutor attempting to move the case forward may have their work cut out for them. (Fox News)
Netflix has been indicted on a criminal charge that alleges the streaming giant promotes “lewd visual material” of a child. The lawsuit centers on the release of the French film “Cuties” that has been mired by controversy since its release last month. A Tyler County, Texas grand jury moved to return an indictment against Netflix on Sept. 23, Fox News confirmed on Tuesday via court documents.
A couple of weeks ago, I looked at the defense offered by the film’s director and why her excuses really don’t hold up under scrutiny. I still haven’t watched the film and have no intention of doing so, though I can at least sympathize with what the director claims she was trying to accomplish. Of course, if she’s handled the project in a responsible fashion she almost certainly wouldn’t have attracted this much international attention.
With that said, however, this may be a tough case to prosecute for a couple of different reasons. Netflix is being charged with a felony based on the following premise. “Netflix “’knowingly’ promoted visual material which depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created, which appeals to the prurient interest in sex, and has no serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
I can agree with that assessment in principle, but how would that stack up in court? Government censorship of purported “entertainment” is always a dodgy affair when it comes to the courts. Leaving it up to a jury to decide what does or doesn’t have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value means that a small group of people is defining those terms for everyone. And while this film certainly appears to be garbage, such a ruling could wind up taking down any number of other productions that you might not view as being offensive.
Also, based on the reviews written by people who actually did sit through the film, the children remained clothed during the dancing routines, albeit highly inappropriately so. If there’s no nudity or physical, sexual interaction taking place, does it truly qualify as child pornography? There has to be some sort of dividing line between what’s lewd and inappropriate and material that truly qualifies as underage pornography, right?
Even if you agree that Cuties crosses that line, there are also questions of the appropriate venue for legal action. This charge is being filed in Texas, but Netflix is based in Los Gatos, California. And Netflix is just acting as a distributor for the film. The director lives in France. Isn’t the director more responsible than Netflix? And if these charges are to be filed, wouldn’t they need to be handled either in California or in a federal court?
For their part, Netflix is sticking to its guns. The company released a statement saying that the charges are without merit and “we stand by the film.” If this case does actually make in front of a judge and jury at some point, it will be an interesting one to watch for anyone interested in censorship and related subjects.


hotair--2020-10-07--Trump: I'm declassifying everything on "the single greatest political CRIME in American History"

Donald Trump is declassifying information on Fanny Foxe and Wilbur Mills ?
No , of course that ’ s the description Trump uses for the “ Russia hoax ” and its targeting of his 2016 campaign .
Last night , Trump announced that all material related to the investigation into Operation Crossfire Hurricane , including all intelligence notes , would be declassified : Why now ?
The catalyst appears to be a recently declassified — but still heavily redacted — set of notes from John Brennan from July 2016 .
In the notes , the then-CIA director documented his briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the Russia-collusion allegation .
According to the notes that weren ’ t redacted , Brennan told Obama that the Hillary Clinton campaign planned to use this allegation as a distraction from her e-mail scandal ( via Jeff Dunetz ) : “ We ’ re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [ REDACTED ] , ” Brennan notes read .
“ CITE [ summarizing ] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s notes read .
The notes state “ on 28 of July.
” In the margin , Brennan writes “ POTUS , ” but that section of the notes is redacted .
“ Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia , ” the notes read .
The remainder of the notes are redacted , except in the margins , which reads : “ JC , ” “ Denis , ” and “ Susan.
” ” The notes don ’ t spell out the full names but “ JC ” could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Susan ” could refer to National Security Adviser Susan Rice , and “ Denis ” could refer to Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough .
If this is accurate ( and if the redactions don ’ t contradict it ) , it means that the CIA tried to warn Obama and possibly the FBI that the Steele memo was a big red herring .
Nor was it apparently Brennan ’ s last attempt to warn the administration .
DNI John Ratcliffe also declassified another Brennan document , this one a memo to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the intelligence included information that this was a Clinton distraction effort : As Fox notes , this explains a sharp exchange between Lindsey Graham and Comey last week : Meanwhile , last week , during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee , Comey was asked whether he received an investigative referral on Clinton from 2016 , but he said it didn ’ t “ ring any bells.
” “ You don ’ t remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community ?
Sept. 7 , 2016 , U.S. intelligence officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Strzok regarding Clinton ’ s approval of a plan [ about ] Trump…as a means of distraction ?
” Graham asked Comey .
“ That doesn ’ t ring any bells with me , ” Comey said .
“ That ’ s a pretty stunning thing that it doesn ’ t ring a bell , ” Graham fired back .
“ You get this inquiry from the intelligence community to look at the Clinton campaign trying to create a distraction , accusing Trump of being a Russian agent or a Russian stooge.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , ” citing the fact that Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee , through law firm Perkins Coie , hired Fusion GPS and ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to author and compile information for the controversial and unverified anti-Trump dossier .
Either Comey lied , or he ’ s not good at reading his mail .
Can ’ t wait for his next tome on leadership to find out which it is .
Jeff has the documents themselves embedded at his site , as does Fox News in their article .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , that it prompts questions about what else might still be untold within them .
Did Brennan entirely dismiss Crossfire Hurricane in this briefing ?
Or did Ratcliffe selectively redact these documents to expose the most damaging to the FBI ( and Obama ) while keeping anything mitigating — such as actionable intel — under wraps ?
It ’ s a fair question , especially since this entire four-year affair has been characterized by selective and political leaks on all sides .
It ’ s such a fair question , in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prompted Trump to order the complete declassification of all this information .
That would lift all the redactions in these and other documents , with uncertain political and intelligence-gathering consequences .
It would also rob the manipulators of their ability to selectively leak material while hiding behind classified designations and perhaps even anonymity , which has benefits of its own .
However , one has to ask — why now ?
Why didn ’ t Trump order this declassification at the end of the Mueller probe ?
It will take weeks , perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the material and attempt to recreate what actually took place .
Had Trump done this even after the Senate impeachment trial on other grounds ( but still clearly driven by Russia-gate passions ) , it might have proven salutary in his re-election bid .
Had Trump declassified it even in July on the four-year anniversary of the launch of Crossfire Hurricane , it still would have left plenty of time to discover what Obama and Joe Biden knew and whether they helped perpetrate “ the single greatest political CRIME in American History.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s probably too late .
Even if everything came out in a rush and it proves Trump right about the “ crime , ” it will be colored by the obvious electoral implications — and ignored by the mainstream media for just long enough that it won ’ t matter .
Trump had the authority to act on this for the last four years , and the political room for it since Mueller testified in the middle of last year .
His hesitation may prove very costly .

Donald Trump is declassifying information on Fanny Foxe and Wilbur Mills? No, of course that’s the description Trump uses for the “Russia hoax” and its targeting of his 2016 campaign. Last night, Trump announced that all material related to the investigation into Operation Crossfire Hurricane, including all intelligence notes, would be declassified:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313640512025513984
Why now? The catalyst appears to be a recently declassified — but still heavily redacted — set of notes from John Brennan from July 2016. In the notes, the then-CIA director documented his briefing of Barack Obama and other administration officials about the Russia-collusion allegation. According to the notes that weren’t redacted, Brennan told Obama that the Hillary Clinton campaign planned to use this allegation as a distraction from her e-mail scandal (via Jeff Dunetz):
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED],” Brennan notes read. “CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service,” Brennan’s notes read. The notes state “on 28 of July.” In the margin, Brennan writes “POTUS,” but that section of the notes is redacted. “Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia,” the notes read. The remainder of the notes are redacted, except in the margins, which reads: “JC,” “Denis,” and “Susan.” ” The notes don’t spell out the full names but “JC” could be referring to then-FBI Director James Comey, “Susan” could refer to National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and “Denis” could refer to Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough.
If this is accurate (and if the redactions don’t contradict it), it means that the CIA tried to warn Obama and possibly the FBI that the Steele memo was a big red herring. Nor was it apparently Brennan’s last attempt to warn the administration. DNI John Ratcliffe also declassified another Brennan document, this one a memo to Comey and Peter Strzok that warned again that the intelligence included information that this was a Clinton distraction effort:
“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date,” the memo states. “An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of private e-mail server.”
As Fox notes, this explains a sharp exchange between Lindsey Graham and Comey last week:
Meanwhile, last week, during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey was asked whether he received an investigative referral on Clinton from 2016, but he said it didn’t “ring any bells.” “You don’t remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community? Sept. 7, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to James Comey and Strzok regarding Clinton’s approval of a plan [about] Trump…as a means of distraction?” Graham asked Comey. “That doesn’t ring any bells with me,” Comey said. “That’s a pretty stunning thing that it doesn’t ring a bell,” Graham fired back. “You get this inquiry from the intelligence community to look at the Clinton campaign trying to create a distraction, accusing Trump of being a Russian agent or a Russian stooge.” Graham questioned “how far-fetched is that,” citing the fact that Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS and ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to author and compile information for the controversial and unverified anti-Trump dossier.
Either Comey lied, or he’s not good at reading his mail. Can’t wait for his next tome on leadership to find out which it is.
Jeff has the documents themselves embedded at his site, as does Fox News in their article. Both releases have so many redactions, however, that it prompts questions about what else might still be untold within them. Did Brennan entirely dismiss Crossfire Hurricane in this briefing? Or did Ratcliffe selectively redact these documents to expose the most damaging to the FBI (and Obama) while keeping anything mitigating — such as actionable intel — under wraps? It’s a fair question, especially since this entire four-year affair has been characterized by selective and political leaks on all sides.
It’s such a fair question, in fact, that it seems to be what prompted Trump to order the complete declassification of all this information. That would lift all the redactions in these and other documents, with uncertain political and intelligence-gathering consequences. It would also rob the manipulators of their ability to selectively leak material while hiding behind classified designations and perhaps even anonymity, which has benefits of its own.
However, one has to ask — why now? Why didn’t Trump order this declassification at the end of the Mueller probe? It will take weeks, perhaps months, to sift through all of the material and attempt to recreate what actually took place. Had Trump done this even after the Senate impeachment trial on other grounds (but still clearly driven by Russia-gate passions), it might have proven salutary in his re-election bid. Had Trump declassified it even in July on the four-year anniversary of the launch of Crossfire Hurricane, it still would have left plenty of time to discover what Obama and Joe Biden knew and whether they helped perpetrate “the single greatest political CRIME in American History.”
At this point, however, it’s probably too late. Even if everything came out in a rush and it proves Trump right about the “crime,” it will be colored by the obvious electoral implications — and ignored by the mainstream media for just long enough that it won’t matter. Trump had the authority to act on this for the last four years, and the political room for it since Mueller testified in the middle of last year. His hesitation may prove very costly.


hotair--2020-10-08--Harris: You'll have to elect us to find out if we'll pack the court

As is the usual pattern on the morning after a political debate , with only a few clicks of the mouse , you can find expert analysts claiming Mike Pence or Kamala Harris “ won ” last night ’ s encounter… sometimes on the same page .
Others with a bit more of a sense of humor suggest that the real winner was the fly that landed on Mike Pence ’ s head and stayed there for over two minutes .
( That fly is no Pizza Rat , but still earned its fifteen minutes of fame . )
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exchanges between the two candidates .
Perhaps the most telling engagement of the entire affair , and arguably one of the Vice President ’ s best moments of the evening , came when the subject of Democrats potentially packing the Supreme Court came up .
Following in Joe Biden ’ s footsteps , Kamala Harris once again simply ignored the question and refused to answer .
( Free Beacon ) “ Your party is actually openly advocating adding seats to the Supreme Court , which has had nine seats for 150 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your way , ” Pence said .
“ Now you ’ ve refused to answer the question .
Joe Biden has refused to answer the question , so I think the American people would really like to know .
If Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States , are you and Joe Biden going to pack the Supreme Court to get your way ?
” Harris said the open Supreme Court seat should not be filled while an election was underway but would not directly answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his question and said it was clear to viewers that she and Biden would pack the Court .
Harris accused the Trump administration of packing the lower courts with what she deemed substandard judges , but she again dodged responding to Pence ’ s query .
“ I just want the record to reflect she never answered the question .
Maybe in the next debate Joe Biden will answer the question , ” Pence said .
I ’ m not sure when the decision to adopt this strategy was made at Biden HQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more tone-deaf choices in recent memory .
Both Biden and ( potentially ) Harris are asking to be placed in one of the most powerful positions in the world .
And among the many powers granted to presidents , one of the arguably most weighty abilities is the opportunity to select the people who will serve on the nation ’ s highest court , potentially for a generation .
How they plan to handle that responsibility is obviously of interest to the voters who are weighing their decision for November 3rd .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ trick is actually far more insulting to the public than what her running mate has done .
At least when Joe Biden was asked about court-packing he flatly stated , “ I ’ m not going to answer the question.
” While unhelpful to the voting public , at least he owned the fact that he ’ s refusing to divulge his intentions .
By contrast , Kamala Harris was asked the question multiple times and simply chose to answer a different question that hadn ’ t been asked .
The situation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask that the record reflect that Harris had dodged the issue yet again .
Of course , this really isn ’ t all that different from much of the rest of the Biden-Harris campaign .
There ’ s been so little substance offered on policy throughout the contest that it ’ s difficult for anyone to know what their plans are if they are elected .
Most of the time , Biden won ’ t commit to anything he actually plans on doing aside from a promise ( that was repeated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your taxes “ on day one.
” Aside from that , their joint platform is largely a mystery .
That ’ s not to say that both of them haven ’ t provided plenty of answers in the past .
But the problem is , they ’ ve promised everything to everyone .
Whether you ’ re talking about drilling for fossil fuels , eliminating private health insurance , or the Green New Deal , you can find clips and quotes from both of them taking each side of the position .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the audience of the moment , and subject to change as soon it ’ s inconvenient to hold the same position .
We saw plenty of that again last night from Kamala Harris , who has abandoned virtually all of the positions she took during the primary to get in line with whatever Biden ’ s agenda of the moment happens to be .
So did last night ’ s show move the needle for any significant number of potentially persuadable voters ?
I ’ d be very surprised if it did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ images of that house fly to amuse us until this long slog is finally over .

As is the usual pattern on the morning after a political debate, with only a few clicks of the mouse, you can find expert analysts claiming Mike Pence or Kamala Harris “won” last night’s encounter… sometimes on the same page. Others with a bit more of a sense of humor suggest that the real winner was the fly that landed on Mike Pence’s head and stayed there for over two minutes. (That fly is no Pizza Rat, but still earned its fifteen minutes of fame.) Still, there was actually some substance to the exchanges between the two candidates. Perhaps the most telling engagement of the entire affair, and arguably one of the Vice President’s best moments of the evening, came when the subject of Democrats potentially packing the Supreme Court came up. Following in Joe Biden’s footsteps, Kamala Harris once again simply ignored the question and refused to answer. (Free Beacon)
“Your party is actually openly advocating adding seats to the Supreme Court, which has had nine seats for 150 years, if you don’t get your way,” Pence said. “Now you’ve refused to answer the question. Joe Biden has refused to answer the question, so I think the American people would really like to know. If Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, are you and Joe Biden going to pack the Supreme Court to get your way?” Harris said the open Supreme Court seat should not be filled while an election was underway but would not directly answer Pence’s question. Pence repeated his question and said it was clear to viewers that she and Biden would pack the Court. Harris accused the Trump administration of packing the lower courts with what she deemed substandard judges, but she again dodged responding to Pence’s query. “I just want the record to reflect she never answered the question. Maybe in the next debate Joe Biden will answer the question,” Pence said.
I’m not sure when the decision to adopt this strategy was made at Biden HQ, but it’s one of the more tone-deaf choices in recent memory. Both Biden and (potentially) Harris are asking to be placed in one of the most powerful positions in the world. And among the many powers granted to presidents, one of the arguably most weighty abilities is the opportunity to select the people who will serve on the nation’s highest court, potentially for a generation. How they plan to handle that responsibility is obviously of interest to the voters who are weighing their decision for November 3rd.
The way that Harris pulled off this trick is actually far more insulting to the public than what her running mate has done. At least when Joe Biden was asked about court-packing he flatly stated, “I’m not going to answer the question.” While unhelpful to the voting public, at least he owned the fact that he’s refusing to divulge his intentions. By contrast, Kamala Harris was asked the question multiple times and simply chose to answer a different question that hadn’t been asked. The situation was bad enough that Pence was finally forced to ask that the record reflect that Harris had dodged the issue yet again.
Of course, this really isn’t all that different from much of the rest of the Biden-Harris campaign. There’s been so little substance offered on policy throughout the contest that it’s difficult for anyone to know what their plans are if they are elected. Most of the time, Biden won’t commit to anything he actually plans on doing aside from a promise (that was repeated by Harris last night) to raise all of your taxes “on day one.” Aside from that, their joint platform is largely a mystery.
That’s not to say that both of them haven’t provided plenty of answers in the past. But the problem is, they’ve promised everything to everyone. Whether you’re talking about drilling for fossil fuels, eliminating private health insurance, or the Green New Deal, you can find clips and quotes from both of them taking each side of the position. Their answers are situational, depending on the audience of the moment, and subject to change as soon it’s inconvenient to hold the same position. We saw plenty of that again last night from Kamala Harris, who has abandoned virtually all of the positions she took during the primary to get in line with whatever Biden’s agenda of the moment happens to be.
So did last night’s show move the needle for any significant number of potentially persuadable voters? I’d be very surprised if it did. But we’ll always have the images of that house fly to amuse us until this long slog is finally over.


hotair--2020-10-08--WaPo: Defund the Police movement backfiring in cities across the country

They ’ re not the first media outlet to notice this , but every little bit helps .
“ In Oakland , ” the Washington Post notes in its headline , “ ideology and practicality collide ” in the activist push to defund the police .
The body of their report makes it clear that “ homicides and violence are spiking ” in plenty of other cities as well , and that the activists are suddenly finding that their agenda isn ’ t selling among the people who are having to live with its consequences : The push to reshape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , but it is perhaps nowhere more evident than here in Oakland , where veteran activists want to sharply reduce the police budget but much of the broader community is struggling with what that could mean .
In a place that for the past decade has been dedicated to rethinking how it polices its people , the argument for a smaller force and larger social service agencies has gained momentum since George Floyd ’ s police killing in Minneapolis in May .
Floyd ’ s face and words — “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instantly became part of Oakland ’ s much-muraled streetscape .
The nearly immediate calls for cuts of up to half of the police department ’ s $ 300 million budget were popular among protesters .
But cutting a municipal police force in a large city has proved highly complex at a time when the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic has greatly reduced the amount of public money to go around and crime has spiked .
Ahem .
It doesn ’ t take long before the WaPo recalls that it ’ s actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the city council wanted to dismantle its police department .
After sending signals that the police department would soon disappear , police officers began retiring , taking disability , or just finding other work in record numbers .
Crime spiked , thanks to all of the signals of impunity the city council sent out , and their constituents angrily demanded more police resources on the streets .
Police-abolition advocate and city council president Lisa Bender demanded to know why Chief Medaria Arradondo wasn ’ t putting more resources into these neighborhoods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s council ally Phillipe Cunningham felt compelled to point it out .
The Post notes how well abolition efforts are playing in the Twin Cities : Some activists , including residents of the city ’ s predominantly Black north side , have accused the council of ignoring community sentiment at a time when police have been noticeably less visible and slow to respond to calls .
“ They ’ re playing with people ’ s lives , ” Jamar B. Nelson , a longtime anti-violence activist who was caught up in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Uptown neighborhood in June , said of the council .
“ These criminals feel like they can do anything , shoot people in broad daylight , because they aren ’ t scared of the police stopping them.
” Granted , there are echoes of this in Oakland too among police abolitionists .
“ Even as an abolitionist , I can say in this moment , and I get in trouble over this with my abolitionist friends , ” says activist Cat Brooks , “ I don ’ t know how to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s not my bailiwick.
” That has been emblematic of the defund and abolish movements ’ response to the question of crime .
They offer utopian ideas about cities without police , and then when people ask what to do about crime , the answer is usually some form of “ That ’ s not my bailiwick.
” Small wonder , then , that communities plagued with exploding levels of crime are losing whatever enthusiasm they had for these movements .
These communities have plenty of frustration with policing , much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , these radical movements want to pretend that police are worse for communities than crime itself , an absurdity that unfortunately has become the 2020 urban experiment for too many people .
At some point , that absurdity will hopefully get rejected , and with it the leadership of those promoting it .

They’re not the first media outlet to notice this, but every little bit helps. “In Oakland,” the Washington Post notes in its headline, “ideology and practicality collide” in the activist push to defund the police. The body of their report makes it clear that “homicides and violence are spiking” in plenty of other cities as well, and that the activists are suddenly finding that their agenda isn’t selling among the people who are having to live with its consequences:
The push to reshape police departments is occurring in cities across the country, but it is perhaps nowhere more evident than here in Oakland, where veteran activists want to sharply reduce the police budget but much of the broader community is struggling with what that could mean. In a place that for the past decade has been dedicated to rethinking how it polices its people, the argument for a smaller force and larger social service agencies has gained momentum since George Floyd’s police killing in Minneapolis in May. Floyd’s face and words — “I can’t breathe” — almost instantly became part of Oakland’s much-muraled streetscape. The nearly immediate calls for cuts of up to half of the police department’s $300 million budget were popular among protesters. But cutting a municipal police force in a large city has proved highly complex at a time when the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic has greatly reduced the amount of public money to go around and crime has spiked.
Ahem. It doesn’t take long before the WaPo recalls that it’s actually a much larger issue in Minneapolis, where the city council wanted to dismantle its police department. After sending signals that the police department would soon disappear, police officers began retiring, taking disability, or just finding other work in record numbers. Crime spiked, thanks to all of the signals of impunity the city council sent out, and their constituents angrily demanded more police resources on the streets. Police-abolition advocate and city council president Lisa Bender demanded to know why Chief Medaria Arradondo wasn’t putting more resources into these neighborhoods, a hypocrisy so blatant that even Bender’s council ally Phillipe Cunningham felt compelled to point it out.
The Post notes how well abolition efforts are playing in the Twin Cities:
Some activists, including residents of the city’s predominantly Black north side, have accused the council of ignoring community sentiment at a time when police have been noticeably less visible and slow to respond to calls. “They’re playing with people’s lives,” Jamar B. Nelson, a longtime anti-violence activist who was caught up in a mass shooting in the city’s Uptown neighborhood in June, said of the council. “These criminals feel like they can do anything, shoot people in broad daylight, because they aren’t scared of the police stopping them.”
Granted, there are echoes of this in Oakland too among police abolitionists. “Even as an abolitionist, I can say in this moment, and I get in trouble over this with my abolitionist friends,” says activist Cat Brooks, “I don’t know how to deal with pedophiles or rapists or real killers. That’s not my bailiwick.” That has been emblematic of the defund and abolish movements’ response to the question of crime. They offer utopian ideas about cities without police, and then when people ask what to do about crime, the answer is usually some form of “That’s not my bailiwick.”
Small wonder, then, that communities plagued with exploding levels of crime are losing whatever enthusiasm they had for these movements. These communities have plenty of frustration with policing, much of it legitimate, some less so. However, these radical movements want to pretend that police are worse for communities than crime itself, an absurdity that unfortunately has become the 2020 urban experiment for too many people. At some point, that absurdity will hopefully get rejected, and with it the leadership of those promoting it.


hotair--2020-10-08--Biden: You'll know my position on Court-packing the day after the election

This is a 2020 version of Pelosi saying during the ObamaCare wars that we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it .
The moment I answer this question , Biden complains in the clip below , the headline in every one of your papers will be about that .
Uh , correct .
That ’ s how it usually works when a presidential candidate gives his opinion about a pressing issue a month out from an election .
“ [ N ] ot sure I ’ ve ever seen a politician explicitly say I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about an important issue until after you vote for me , ” marveled Jonathan Swan .
Are there really progressives out there so stupid that they think Court-packing is feasible given the sort of majority Democrats are likely to have ?
Even if a blue tsunami wipes away red-state senators like Lindsey Graham , Democrats aren ’ t going to have anywhere near the 60 votes they ’ d need to beat a filibuster and expand the Court .
Which means Chuck Schumer , who ’ s spent the past four years lecturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shatter two norms to make this happen , not one .
First he ’ d need his caucus to nuke the filibuster .
Only then would they be in a position to essentially nuke the Court by turning it into a nakedly partisan institution via extra justices .
There ’ s a second political problem on top of that one , which I described in this post .
Many of the Dems who end up replacing Republicans in the Senate in a “ blue tsunami ” scenario will represent states where Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority .
If Biden blows the roof off nationally and M.J. Hegar ends up upsetting John Cornyn , how eager will Hegar be to have one of her first moves as Texas ’ s new senator be to go double-nuclear on a liberal Court-packing scheme that was considered out of bounds even for FDR when he ruled America ?
How eager will the many purple-district Dems in Pelosi ’ s House majority be to support a Court-packing bill ?
Would Pelosi even put that bill on the floor , especially since ( one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon into a Biden presidency ?
Placate the left with a young new appointee to fill Breyer ’ s Senate seat and that may satisfy many of them , even though it wouldn ’ t change the balance of power on the Court .
The entire Court-packing clamor is idiotic , especially in light of the polling .
But I guess there *are* progressives so stupid as to believe it ’ s on the table that Biden ’ s afraid to level with them .
He needs their votes .
Telling them “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court-packing fantasies might cost him .
So he and Harris continue to lamely dodge this question .
And the more they do , the more glaring the dodging becomes : With less than four weeks to go before the election , Americans are more tuned in to the future of the Supreme Court than at any time in recent memory .
Nearly six in 10 voters say the Court will be “ very important ” to their choices in November , and the issue now ranks among voters ’ top concerns , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Ginsburg ’ s death… Pence ’ s tactic here is familiar : tying the historically moderate Biden to the desires of the Democratic Party ’ s progressive wing .
But the Biden campaign may not be able to easily wave it away .
When Harris was vying for the Democratic presidential nomination , she said she was open to adding more justices to the Court ; so did multiple other candidates competing in the primary .
In the past , Biden has dismissed court packing , but he declined to answer whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the last debate .
The Senate minority leader , Chuck Schumer , has said that court packing will be “ on the table ” if Barrett is confirmed , and other members of Congress have rallied behind the proposal .
The pressure to take a position , not just from Republicans , but also from fellow Democrats , may only grow .
The only scenario I can imagine in which enthusiasm for the idea might spread from the left to more mainstream Democrats is if something happens to push Barrett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins in a mega-landslide , and then Republicans turn around and confirm her anyway in the lame-duck .
Even then I don ’ t think it would push the Dem leadership into feeling they had to pack the Court , as Americans seem okay right now with the idea of confirming Barrett and doing so ASAP .
But the spectacle of the GOP doing it immediately after voters handed a mandate to Democrats might anger enough people that suddenly this would become a real dilemma for Biden , Schumer , and Pelosi .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d start feeling out prominent progressives like Bernie and AOC to see if they ’ d be willing to say a few discouraging words about Court-packing .
Lefties who are hellbent on expanding the Court won ’ t be happy but Biden might not be blamed by them as much for inaction if he has some left-wing heat shields in place .

This is a 2020 version of Pelosi saying during the ObamaCare wars that we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
The moment I answer this question, Biden complains in the clip below, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that. Uh, correct. That’s how it usually works when a presidential candidate gives his opinion about a pressing issue a month out from an election.
It’s called “news.”
Not an acceptable answer:
.@JoeBiden: Voters “will know my opinion on court packing when the election’s over!" pic.twitter.com/hRH1X7rqoD — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 8, 2020
“[N]ot sure I’ve ever seen a politician explicitly say I’m not telling you what I think about an important issue until after you vote for me,” marveled Jonathan Swan.
Are there really progressives out there so stupid that they think Court-packing is feasible given the sort of majority Democrats are likely to have? Even if a blue tsunami wipes away red-state senators like Lindsey Graham, Democrats aren’t going to have anywhere near the 60 votes they’d need to beat a filibuster and expand the Court. Which means Chuck Schumer, who’s spent the past four years lecturing about “norms,” would need to shatter two norms to make this happen, not one. First he’d need his caucus to nuke the filibuster. Only then would they be in a position to essentially nuke the Court by turning it into a nakedly partisan institution via extra justices.
There’s a second political problem on top of that one, which I described in this post. Many of the Dems who end up replacing Republicans in the Senate in a “blue tsunami” scenario will represent states where Republicans are either a near-majority or an outright majority. If Biden blows the roof off nationally and M.J. Hegar ends up upsetting John Cornyn, how eager will Hegar be to have one of her first moves as Texas’s new senator be to go double-nuclear on a liberal Court-packing scheme that was considered out of bounds even for FDR when he ruled America?
How eager will the many purple-district Dems in Pelosi’s House majority be to support a Court-packing bill? Would Pelosi even put that bill on the floor, especially since (one assumes) Stephen Breyer would retire relatively soon into a Biden presidency? Placate the left with a young new appointee to fill Breyer’s Senate seat and that may satisfy many of them, even though it wouldn’t change the balance of power on the Court.
The entire Court-packing clamor is idiotic, especially in light of the polling. But I guess there *are* progressives so stupid as to believe it’s on the table that Biden’s afraid to level with them. He needs their votes. Telling them “get real, folks” about their Court-packing fantasies might cost him. So he and Harris continue to lamely dodge this question. And the more they do, the more glaring the dodging becomes:
With less than four weeks to go before the election, Americans are more tuned in to the future of the Supreme Court than at any time in recent memory. Nearly six in 10 voters say the Court will be “very important” to their choices in November, and the issue now ranks among voters’ top concerns, according to a Morning Consult poll taken shortly after Ginsburg’s death… Pence’s tactic here is familiar: tying the historically moderate Biden to the desires of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. But the Biden campaign may not be able to easily wave it away. When Harris was vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, she said she was open to adding more justices to the Court; so did multiple other candidates competing in the primary. In the past, Biden has dismissed court packing, but he declined to answer whether he wants to expand the Supreme Court during the last debate. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has said that court packing will be “on the table” if Barrett is confirmed, and other members of Congress have rallied behind the proposal. The pressure to take a position, not just from Republicans, but also from fellow Democrats, may only grow.
The only scenario I can imagine in which enthusiasm for the idea might spread from the left to more mainstream Democrats is if something happens to push Barrett’s confirmation past Election Day, then Biden wins in a mega-landslide, and then Republicans turn around and confirm her anyway in the lame-duck. Even then I don’t think it would push the Dem leadership into feeling they had to pack the Court, as Americans seem okay right now with the idea of confirming Barrett and doing so ASAP. But the spectacle of the GOP doing it immediately after voters handed a mandate to Democrats might anger enough people that suddenly this would become a real dilemma for Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi.
If I were Sleepy Joe, I’d start feeling out prominent progressives like Bernie and AOC to see if they’d be willing to say a few discouraging words about Court-packing. Lefties who are hellbent on expanding the Court won’t be happy but Biden might not be blamed by them as much for inaction if he has some left-wing heat shields in place.


hotair--2020-10-08--UK investigation of Cambridge Analytica appears to 'dispel' whistleblower claims

Cambridge Analytica became a huge story back in 2018 .
That ’ s when the UK company was accused of gathering personal data on Facebook users .
But the real concern over Cambridge Analytica was the claim that its micro-targeting of voters had played a role in helping elect Donald Trump , possibly in connection with Russian influence , and in helping pass Brexit in the UK .
Here ’ s a NY Times summary of the scandal from 2018 written by Nick Confessore : In March , The New York Times , working with The Observer of London and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents from inside Cambridge Analytica , the data firm principally owned by the right-wing donor Robert Mercer .
The documents proved that the firm , where the former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon was a board member , used data improperly obtained from Facebook to build voter profiles .
The news put Cambridge under investigation and thrust Facebook into its biggest crisis ever .
Here ’ s a guide to our coverage .
The Times reported that in 2014 contractors and employees of Cambridge Analytica , eager to sell psychological profiles of American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private Facebook data of tens of millions of users — the largest known leak in Facebook history… What was the Russia link ?
In a companion piece , The Times reported that people at Cambridge Analytica and its British affiliate , the SCL Group , were in contact with executives from Lukoil , the Kremlin-linked oil giant , as Cambridge built its Facebook-derived profiles .
Lukoil was interested in the ways data was used to target American voters , according to two former company insiders .
SCL and Lukoil denied that the talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil giant never became a client… Anger on both sides of the Atlantic The articles drew an instant response in Washington , where lawmakers demanded that Mark Zuckerberg , Facebook ’ s chief executive , testify before Congress .
Democrats looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election — already interested in Cambridge ’ s role in providing analytics to the Trump campaign — said they would seek an investigation into the leak .
They were echoed by lawmakers in Britain investigating Cambridge Analytica ’ s role in disinformation and the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Times and The Observer reported allegations that the 2016 “ Brexit ” campaign used a Cambridge Analytica contractor to help skirt election spending limits .
The story implicated two senior advisers to Prime Minister Theresa May .
Testifying to Parliament a few days later , a former Cambridge employee , Christopher Wylie , contended that the company helped swing the results in favor of Britain ’ s withdrawal from the European Union .
There ’ s more but hopefully you get the idea .
CA was seen by some as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit , Trump , Russia , Steve Bannon , Robert Mercer and Facebook .
It was an explanation for everything that had gone wrong in the world ( according to the left ) and became a fixation with tech journalists in particular and folks like Rachel Maddow .
Yesterday , a UK investigation into CA came to a close and the findings were , shall we say , somewhat different than the hype : After more than three years , Elizabeth Denham , the UK ’ s Information Commissioner , has closed her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SCL and Cambridge Analytica group .
At first glance her findings , which were released on Tuesday , dispel many of the accusations put forward by whistleblowers and digital rights campaigners over the course of 2018 .
The most serious of these was that the digital marketing specialist had colluded with Russia to steer the results of the Brexit referendum and broken US campaign rules during the 2016 presidential election .
Campaigners had also previously argued the company failed to delete contentious data sourced from Facebook without users ’ permission when asked .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday that “ on examination , the methods that SCL were using , were in the main , well recognised processes using commonly available technology ” … The scale of Cambridge Analytica ’ s involvement in the Leave.EU Brexit campaign is probably the question that has plagued UK digital rights campaigners ’ minds most in recent years .
But the conclusions from the ICO report are unlikely to be welcomed .
According to the Commissioner , the authority found ( our emphasis ) : .
.
.
no further evidence to change my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the EU referendum campaign in the UK — beyond some initial inquiries made by SCL/CA in relation to Ukip data in the early stages of the referendum process .
This strand of work does not appear to have then been taken forward by SCL/CA .
The same reporter who wrote that NY Times summary above back in 2018 wrote a thread on Twitter summarizing the new findings .
Oops , turns out most of that stuff was commercially available and the tech was pretty much what everyone had : Also no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional suggestion of Russian involvement : He wasn ’ t the only person flabbergasted by the sudden turnaround .
Matt Taibbi said the coverage of CA was of a piece with other big stories in the past four years that turned out to be bogus : Glenn Greenwald is right about these mistakes always happening in the same direction .
We all know why it happens : The media is made up of about 90 % progressives .
And as much as they try to deny that influences their coverage , it clearly @ @

Cambridge Analytica became a huge story back in 2018. That’s when the UK company was accused of gathering personal data on Facebook users. But the real concern over Cambridge Analytica was the claim that its micro-targeting of voters had played a role in helping elect Donald Trump, possibly in connection with Russian influence, and in helping pass Brexit in the UK. Here’s a NY Times summary of the scandal from 2018 written by Nick Confessore:
In March, The New York Times, working with The Observer of London and The Guardian, obtained a cache of documents from inside Cambridge Analytica, the data firm principally owned by the right-wing donor Robert Mercer. The documents proved that the firm, where the former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon was a board member, used data improperly obtained from Facebook to build voter profiles. The news put Cambridge under investigation and thrust Facebook into its biggest crisis ever. Here’s a guide to our coverage. The Times reported that in 2014 contractors and employees of Cambridge Analytica, eager to sell psychological profiles of American voters to political campaigns, acquired the private Facebook data of tens of millions of users — the largest known leak in Facebook history… What was the Russia link? In a companion piece, The Times reported that people at Cambridge Analytica and its British affiliate, the SCL Group, were in contact with executives from Lukoil, the Kremlin-linked oil giant, as Cambridge built its Facebook-derived profiles. Lukoil was interested in the ways data was used to target American voters, according to two former company insiders. SCL and Lukoil denied that the talks were political in nature and said the oil giant never became a client… Anger on both sides of the Atlantic The articles drew an instant response in Washington, where lawmakers demanded that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, testify before Congress. Democrats looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election — already interested in Cambridge’s role in providing analytics to the Trump campaign — said they would seek an investigation into the leak. They were echoed by lawmakers in Britain investigating Cambridge Analytica’s role in disinformation and the country’s referendum to leave the European Union. Another look at ‘Brexit’ The Times and The Observer reported allegations that the 2016 “Brexit” campaign used a Cambridge Analytica contractor to help skirt election spending limits. The story implicated two senior advisers to Prime Minister Theresa May. Testifying to Parliament a few days later, a former Cambridge employee, Christopher Wylie, contended that the company helped swing the results in favor of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
There’s more but hopefully you get the idea. CA was seen by some as part of a grand scandal that tied together Brexit, Trump, Russia, Steve Bannon, Robert Mercer and Facebook. It was an explanation for everything that had gone wrong in the world (according to the left) and became a fixation with tech journalists in particular and folks like Rachel Maddow.
Yesterday, a UK investigation into CA came to a close and the findings were, shall we say, somewhat different than the hype:
After more than three years, Elizabeth Denham, the UK’s Information Commissioner, has closed her investigation into improper data handling by the SCL and Cambridge Analytica group. At first glance her findings, which were released on Tuesday, dispel many of the accusations put forward by whistleblowers and digital rights campaigners over the course of 2018. The most serious of these was that the digital marketing specialist had colluded with Russia to steer the results of the Brexit referendum and broken US campaign rules during the 2016 presidential election. Campaigners had also previously argued the company failed to delete contentious data sourced from Facebook without users’ permission when asked. Denham told a parliamentary select committee on Friday that “on examination, the methods that SCL were using, were in the main, well recognised processes using commonly available technology”… The scale of Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in the Leave.EU Brexit campaign is probably the question that has plagued UK digital rights campaigners’ minds most in recent years. But the conclusions from the ICO report are unlikely to be welcomed. According to the Commissioner, the authority found (our emphasis): . . . no further evidence to change my earlier view that SCL/CA were not involved in the EU referendum campaign in the UK — beyond some initial inquiries made by SCL/CA in relation to Ukip data in the early stages of the referendum process. This strand of work does not appear to have then been taken forward by SCL/CA.
The same reporter who wrote that NY Times summary above back in 2018 wrote a thread on Twitter summarizing the new findings. Oops, turns out most of that stuff was commercially available and the tech was pretty much what everyone had:
3. All those things you read about the thousands of data points CA had on American voters? Most of it was commercially available to anyone with the $. Points to larger issues of data & privacy but not something unique to CA. — Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) October 7, 2020
Also no evidence of any Brexit campaign work or any additional suggestion of Russian involvement:
5. @ICOnews reiterated its earlier finding that Cambridge Analytica did not work on the Brexit campaign beyond some early discussions. pic.twitter.com/GIhBVltjNu — Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) October 7, 2020
Author and tech entrepreneur Antonio Garcia Martinez called Confessore’s Twitter thread “revisionist bulls**t.”
This is such obvious revisionist bullshit. The NYT and the rest of the tech journo circle covered the hell out of Cambridge Analytica for YEARS after the election, lending credence to what I and other ad tech insiders decried as overblown, laughable conspiracy theories. https://t.co/RmGxbaelKe — Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) October 7, 2020
And here he is with Carole Codswallop reporting breathlessly about the Cambridge Analytica/Russia connection he's currently citing journalism got right. Journalists: Conveniently amnesiac narcissists who know close to nothing about everything.https://t.co/p0AsSEIiDb — Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) October 7, 2020
Here's co-author Carole herself winning a British journalism award for "reporting on the links between Cambridge Analytica, the UK’s pro-Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump presidential election team." Links @nickconfessore now assures us didn't exist.https://t.co/3FEm0DASNL — Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) October 7, 2020
Secondly, those who've made entire careers purportedly warning about 'misinformation' and crusading against tech are precisely the ones most willing to believe that $100k in ads spend and 0.0001% of election media can win a national election in a 300M-person country. — Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) October 7, 2020
He wasn’t the only person flabbergasted by the sudden turnaround. Matt Taibbi said the coverage of CA was of a piece with other big stories in the past four years that turned out to be bogus:
Especially since they a) all go in one direction, b) never produce any accounting or consequences for those responsible, and c) never generate any increased caution to prevent it from happening, almost like they're happy with the benefits they get even from false stories. — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 8, 2020
Glenn Greenwald is right about these mistakes always happening in the same direction. We all know why it happens: The media is made up of about 90% progressives. And as much as they try to deny that influences their coverage, it clearly does.


hotair--2020-10-08--Thanks to Nathan Apodaca something positive happened on social media

This story has nothing to do with the election or politics at all .
Maybe that ’ s why it felt like a breath of fresh air .
That ’ s especially true because the whole thing basically took place on social media .
It started with a brief video clip on Tik Tok which then got posted on Twitter : If I ’ d given you three random elements from which to create a short video and they were : a man on a skateboard , cranberry juice and a hit song from 1977 , the changes that anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vanishingly slim .
And yet , somehow , this random little clip went viral and has been viewed more than 24 million times .
The clip featuring the 43 year old song was so popular that Fleetwood Mac was suddenly among the top downloads on iTunes this month : In particular , the song Dreams was streamed more than 8 million times in the past week .
One of the many people who really liked the clip was Mick Fleetwood who made his own version : Yesterday , the NY Times wrote about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name is Nathan Apodaca : About 8 a.m. on Sept. 25 , his 2005 Dodge Durango ’ s battery cut out as he was trying to get to work at an Idaho potato warehouse .
This was not a new experience for him : The S.U.V .
has more than 330,000 miles on it .
So , Mr. Apodaca grabbed his phone , his large bottle of Ocean Spray Cran-Raspberry juice and his longboard — the skateboard kept in the car just for such emergencies — and wheeled the rest of the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning vibe ” as he filmed himself coasting down the highway , boasting his mother ’ s Native American heritage with a feather tattoo on the side of his head , chugging juice and lip-syncing Fleetwood Mac ’ s “ Dreams.
” … “ It ’ s just a video on TikTok that everyone felt a vibe with , ” Mr. Apodaca , 37 , said .
“ I ’ m happy that I could chill the world out for a minute.
” The video was such a hit that Apodaca has an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers and compliments : Rapper Travis Scott asked Apodaca to make a promotional video for his new album .
Ocean Spray has hinted it is looking into a collaboration .
His inbox is flooded with celebrities letting Apodaca know how much they loved his vibes .
He now has a manager based out of Los Angeles who previously represented reality star Honey Boo Boo aka Alana Thompson .
Apodaca turned down agent Gina Rodriguez repeatedly before she finally convinced him to sign on with her .
People donated nearly $ 20,000 to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he quickly gave it away to his family : He gave $ 5,000 to his mother and bought his dad a truck .
Only his sister has turned his generosity down .
“ I was like I know you need a washer , a dryer , a stove , we can go get it right now .
… She ’ s like ‘ I ’ m stable enough , you do you , as soon as you get your house and you ’ re stable then you can go ahead and give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s been living in an RV on his brother ’ s property with no running water .
Now he ’ s thinking for the first time about buying a house .
But while he didn ’ t buy it for himself , Apodaca did get a new truck : So far , Apodaca is keeping humble even though he gets recognized now everywhere he goes .
“ I can ’ t go nowhere .
It ’ s movie star-ish I guess , but I ’ m not trying to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , ” he said .
Anyway , it was nice to have a break from the all of the tension in the world , even for 30 seconds .

This story has nothing to do with the election or politics at all. Maybe that’s why it felt like a breath of fresh air. That’s especially true because the whole thing basically took place on social media. It started with a brief video clip on Tik Tok which then got posted on Twitter:
I don’t use this verbiage often but this is a whole vibe. simple as that pic.twitter.com/NfdLsgLkxu — DrewFrog (@DrewFrogger) September 25, 2020
If I’d given you three random elements from which to create a short video and they were: a man on a skateboard, cranberry juice and a hit song from 1977, the changes that anyone would ever care about the result seem vanishingly slim.
And yet, somehow, this random little clip went viral and has been viewed more than 24 million times. The clip featuring the 43 year old song was so popular that Fleetwood Mac was suddenly among the top downloads on iTunes this month:
iTunes Top 100 Albums right Now #8 Fleetwood Mac Greatest Hits
#19 Fleetwood Mac Rumours
#51 Fleetwood Mac The Very Best Of pic.twitter.com/pLZcGpFx1J — FLEETWOOD MAC NEWS (@Nickslive) October 5, 2020
In particular, the song Dreams was streamed more than 8 million times in the past week. One of the many people who really liked the clip was Mick Fleetwood who made his own version:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CF7-GVDBHYz/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Yesterday, the NY Times wrote about the man behind the story. His name is Nathan Apodaca:
About 8 a.m. on Sept. 25, his 2005 Dodge Durango’s battery cut out as he was trying to get to work at an Idaho potato warehouse. This was not a new experience for him: The S.U.V. has more than 330,000 miles on it. So, Mr. Apodaca grabbed his phone, his large bottle of Ocean Spray Cran-Raspberry juice and his longboard — the skateboard kept in the car just for such emergencies — and wheeled the rest of the way to work. That was his “morning vibe” as he filmed himself coasting down the highway, boasting his mother’s Native American heritage with a feather tattoo on the side of his head, chugging juice and lip-syncing Fleetwood Mac’s “Dreams.”… “It’s just a video on TikTok that everyone felt a vibe with,” Mr. Apodaca, 37, said. “I’m happy that I could chill the world out for a minute.”
The video was such a hit that Apodaca has an agent now and has been flooded with offers and compliments:
Rapper Travis Scott asked Apodaca to make a promotional video for his new album. Ocean Spray has hinted it is looking into a collaboration. His inbox is flooded with celebrities letting Apodaca know how much they loved his vibes. He now has a manager based out of Los Angeles who previously represented reality star Honey Boo Boo aka Alana Thompson. Apodaca turned down agent Gina Rodriguez repeatedly before she finally convinced him to sign on with her.
People donated nearly $20,000 to him to help him get a new car but he quickly gave it away to his family:
He gave $5,000 to his mother and bought his dad a truck. Only his sister has turned his generosity down. “I was like I know you need a washer, a dryer, a stove, we can go get it right now. … She’s like ‘I’m stable enough, you do you, as soon as you get your house and you’re stable then you can go ahead and give me something,’” Apodaca said.
He’s been living in an RV on his brother’s property with no running water. Now he’s thinking for the first time about buying a house. But while he didn’t buy it for himself, Apodaca did get a new truck:
On Tuesday, a representative of the company went to the R.V. where Mr. Apodaca lives parked at his brother’s house in Idaho Falls with a surprise gift: a cranberry red Nissan pickup. The truck’s bed was filled with jugs of Ocean Spray juice.
So far, Apodaca is keeping humble even though he gets recognized now everywhere he goes. “I can’t go nowhere. It’s movie star-ish I guess, but I’m not trying to be that guy. It ain’t me,” he said.
Anyway, it was nice to have a break from the all of the tension in the world, even for 30 seconds.