Author Archives: Denyse O'Leary

Australia: Shutting down opposition to euthanasia at a medical conference

From Margaret Somerville at MercatorNet:

Last month, I was a participant in a Q&A panel on “Voluntary Assisted Dying” at the Australian Medical Association Victoria Congress 2017. I was pleased to have been invited and hopeful that there would be a balanced discussion, but also somewhat concerned that might not be realized in practice, given the membership of the panel.

The panel participants included the well-known advocate of the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide Andrew Denton and the leader of the Greens, Senator Richard Di Natale, who also supports its legalization in certain circumstances. The chair was Dr Sally Cockburn, another supporter of the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide. I oppose legalizing both doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Unfortunately, my concerns materialized.

First, my participation in the discussion was limited in several ways. The chair told me that the question of whether or not legalizing doctor-assisted suicide or euthanasia was a good or bad idea, ethical or unethical, was not open for discussion.

She explained that the only topic to be discussed was the conditions which should apply for access to assisted suicide and how it should be regulated. In short, the panel was based on an assumption that legalizing assisted suicide was inevitable in Victoria, even though legislation has not yet been tabled in the Victorian Parliament, let alone debated or enacted.More.

Reality check: It’s inevitable because Western populations are old and high maintenance. The increasingly globalist governing elite can make better use of bots and rights-absent Third World workers. Even unskilled migrants may be more useful than Western pensioners if the migrants are centres of need so that the outer party, the ‘crats and sob sisters can stay busy doing something that interests them more than the old folks do.

An unprecedented challenge we face today is that governments can be very powerful without needing very many people. Consider the illustration from the Bible:

“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Luke 14:31

In this parable, Jesus assumes the historically usual situation that the bigger army has an advantage. But today’s warfare is increasingly fought with drones and, soon, bots. A bigger army is a bigger useless expense. And there is no controversy about euthanising bots, as there will be about euthanising veterans.

Global elites will still need the outer party, to be sure, but mainly to stoke their ego by approval and obedience of the sort that a bot cannot give. Orwell, recall, had supposed that the Inner Party would always need proles to work. but Huxley was more correct in seeing that automation could obviate any relationship between aqdult existence and usefulness.

Meanwhile, the outer party is being trained methodically at Asshat U for its duties.

Note: Numbers will remain for some generations a huge advantage at the ballot box but that is because only humans can vote. Whether there will be pressure to minimize the human advantage remains to be seen.

In the burgeoning anti-hate crime industry, however, expect proposals for laws against abortion-phobia and euthanasia-phobia – to prevent people feeling bad if their choices for their children or their parents are questioned. More on that later.

See also: Always remember, in the age of euthanasia, We’re all “the fetus” now

and

The churches of Europe, having accepted abortion, are training their replacements Their growing acceptance of euthanasia will move things along. The surviving great-granddaughters of Church-hating feminists will live under sharia law. And no similar rebellion against religious authority will be possible. It’s almost like a divine judgment on abortion advocacy, but I digress.

The churches of Europe, having accepted abortion, are training their replacements

From Giulio Meotti at Gatestone Institute:

The contemporary historian of ancient Greece and ancient Rome saw their civilisations begin their decline and fall, both the Greeks and the Romans attributed it to falling birth rates because nobody wanted the responsibilities of bringing up children,” said Britain’s former chief rabbi, Lord Sacks.

Everywhere in Europe there are signs of a takeover. Muslim students now outnumber Christian students in more than 30 British church schools. One Anglican primary school has a “100 percent Muslim population”. The Church of England estimated that about 20 of its schools have more Muslim students than Christian ones, and 15 Roman Catholic schools have majority Muslim students. In Germany as well, there are fears of a massive Muslim influx into the school system, and German teachers are openly denouncing the threat of a “ghettoisation”.

France saw 34,000 fewer babies born last year than in 2014, a new report just found. The number of French women having children has reached its lowest level in 40 years. A low fertility rate has become a plague all over Europe: “In 1995 only one country, Italy, had more people over 65 than under 15; today there are 30 and by 2020 that number will hit 35.” Welcome to the “Greying of Europe”. More.

Reality check: Their growing acceptance of euthanasia will move things along.
The surviving great-granddaughters of Church-hating feminists will live under sharia law. And no similar rebellion against religious authority will be possible. It’s almost like a divine judgment on abortion advocacy, but I digress.

See also: Always remember, We’re all “the fetus” now

and

Top honours for Australian euthanasia comedyIn the burgeoning anti-hate crime industry, expect proposals for laws against abortion-phobia and euthanasia-phobia.

No room for baby Democrats, it would seem

From Matt Vespa at Townhall:

Last week, MSNBC’s Morning Joe had former Vermont governor and DNC chair Howard Dean to discuss the new direction for his party. Co-host Joe Scarborough said he had interviewed former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, who reminded him of the old school southern Democrats who dominated the South and the border states. A dying breed of Democrats who didn’t veer too far left on abortion, Second Amendment rights, and other cultural issues. Scarborough noted Dean’s call for Democrats to launch an offensive into the rural areas, which yielded political dividends for the party during his tenure as DNC chair. Scarborough asked Dean if there was room in the Democratic Party for people to be progressive on economic issues, but conservative on social ones (i.e. abortion)?

“No. Because the young generation isn’t that way. I think the old left/right is an anachronism. It exists in Washington. It exists in the media. Young people don’t think that way. They are not ideological. They are extremely interested in social justice, so we are never going back to maybe making compromises on abortion, and gay rights is another one,” he said.

Scarborough seemed shocked, noting that a large chunk of the country is pro-life. More.

Reality check:  It takes a really bright person to be unable to see that killing our kids for the sake of a better society makes us vulnerable over time to any group that does not do so, whether they have a better future in mind or not. They are the future and we are not.

And yes, a large chunk, including young people, is pro-life. Over time, even more may “get it” that we are all “the fetus” now

Maybe the Dem elite deserve this. They deserved their recent electoral defeats. On the other hand, do all their followers deserve it?

See also: The churches of Europe, having accepted abortion, are training their replacements Their growing acceptance of euthanasia will move things along. The surviving great-granddaughters of Church-hating feminists will live under sharia law. And no similar rebellion against religious authority will be possible. It’s almost like a divine judgment on abortion advocacy, but I digress.

and

Always remember, in the age of euthanasia, We’re all “the fetus” now

Another fake hate flyer hoax?: Quit playing their game!

From Katherine Timf at National Review:

The Diversity Leadership Council at Gustavus Adolphus College admits that it — with the help of other social-justice groups — planted fake racist flyers on campus “to educate” people about racism.

On Monday, the Diversity Leadership Council published a Facebook post explaining that it had posted the fake flyers to “promote, preserve, and protect on-campus diversity” and “to help educate our peers and campus community about issues of bias, and the importance of being an active bystander.” “We want to help put an end to bias-related incidents that happen on our campus, social media, and in our communities by forcing individuals to have dialogues about forms of hate and bias,” the post stated. More.

Reality check: What they really wanted was some kind of incident demonstrating agreement with the posters that would be their cash cow for years.

Overall, I didn’t like Timf’s NR article because it is full of prissy outrage when what we need now is a blunt confrontation with facts. For example, she writes:

These groups’ little stunt wasn’t merely stupid; it also has the potential to create long-term harm. For one, it likely has hurt the school’s reputation. There are almost certainly people who heard only the news about the flyers, and not that the flyers turned out to be a hoax. What’s more, it may actually hinder these groups’ aim of achieving racial justice on campus.

I can’t believe I read this. Is Timf an unusually dense intern? The fake outrage machine does not need the information to be correct because the information will be acted on whether it is correct or not.  Producing the needed cash. That’s precisely what demonstrates the power of the machine.

Well we can’t waste time trying to educate her. As when assessing other varieties of contaminated information, assume all such reports are false. React to nothing. Fund nothing. Believe no one. Careful sifting will reveal what is true.

Is National Review going downhill?

See also: Mark Steyn on the legacy media fact-checking farce You know, four Pinocchios, and all that?

Media avoid discussing own approval ratings

For good reason. From Brent Bozell at Townhall:

The media talk about [Donald Trump’s] unpopularity all the time.

It’s an obsession with them actually. The guy has only been at his desk for about two months.

But here’s what they don’t talk about: their own numbers. Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of their job performance. A whopping 50 percent have an unfavorable opinion.

Look at the numbers by party identification. Republican unfavorable opinion of the media? It’s 78 percent. Only 10 percent have a favorable opinion. The Democrats are the opposite: Sixty-nine percent hold a favorable view, and 19 percent hold an unfavorable view. More.

Reality check: In short, traditional American media are the Dem’s party newsletter. The problem is, the Dems already have a party newsletter. The traditional media are not aiming at a wider base than the well-served Dems because they are cultural relics and do not have the creative power. Watch for migrations from dying traditional media into the Dem party apparatus.

See also: New York Times markets the “truth” Thanks, but I’ve already got the Bible. I’ve also got fifty different sources of news (not “truth”) who do not have the effrontery to pretend they are unbiased.

US: Coverup of increasing student loan failures

From Judicial Watch:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that it today filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Education seeking records relating to then Obama administration’s “coding error” that resulted in masking that most borrowers are failing to pay down their federally-subsidized student loans (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Education (No. 1:17-cv-00501)).

The Obama administration’s Obamacare legislation also included provisions that resulted in the federal takeover of the student loan industry, which radically increased taxpayer subsidies of higher education loans.More.

Reality check: Student loan default dovetails with the blizzard of toxic snowflakes whirling around universities these days. People whose only job skills amount to freelance fascism will never have real jobs that would pay back those loans. They have every incentive to create public disorder until they are paid off to go do something with the government, with some type of loan forgiveness involved.

See also: You mean those college terrorists are not snowflakes? Those kids’ only hope of employment, given their lack of workplace-relevant skills, is as the (Orwell’s) Orwell’s Outer Party of a permanent progressive government.

But prof, campus riots aren’t even intended to influence the public favourably The prof is doubtless a smart guy but he may have missed the point here: The nuclear snowflakes’ purpose is not to get attention but strike fear, not to persuade but to force others to shut up—or shut down.

ESPN ratings in free fall. Why?

From Jeff Reynolds at PJMedia,

This new report comes mere months after a report showing that ESPN is losing subscribers at an alarming rate. In November 2016, ESPN lost over 600,000 subscribers, its worst month ever. ESPN has historically been a workhorse performer, one of the most successful cable channels of all time. Driven by live events, previously unavailable sports updates, an offbeat delivery, and compelling content, ESPN reached must-watch status and stayed there for a couple of decades. At the height of their popularity, in 2011, ESPN was available in over 100 million homes. A few years ago, however, the tide began to ebb. As of December 2016, that number had dropped to 88.4 million — a steady, inexorable decline.

This has resulted in a precipitous drop in ad revenue at ESPN and its corporate parent company, Disney. This is what is driving the next round of layoffs.

A number of factors play a role but one naturally wonders about the recent drift into social justice warfare:

One of the most vocal critics of ESPN’s embrace of progressivism is Clay Travis, a national radio host on competitor Fox Sports Radio. Travis is no conservative himself, having worked on Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000. Travis has nonetheless been relentless in his criticism of ESPN in both his on-air broadcasts and on his blog, Outkick The Coverage. He wrote in February that “ESPN decided to become a social justice warrior network, treating all liberal opinion makers as those worthy of promotion and casting aside all those who had the gall to challenge the new Disney world order. ESPN became MSESPN.” Or as a friend of mine puts it, they have become ES(JW)PN. When you alienate half of your potential consumers, why should you expect their uninterrupted loyalty? More.

Reality check: Progressives thrive better in government monopoly media than anywhere else and, where they gain power, they will simply eliminate the loyalty factor. But in the case of a sports channel, the growth of in-house progressivism absent any market demand suggests other underlying economic weaknesses, such as the ones Reynolds notes.

See also: Are Hollywood’s wounds self-inflicted? As noted earlier, when Hollywood types started demanding that we all listen to them rant, they were competing with every bore on the planet. No wonder their financial fortunes are tanking. Failing to understand their situation, they did it when the digital universe makes them just one alternative among many. If they haven’t figured all that out by now, they are just not going to pull out of their dive.

Are Hollywood’s wounds self-inflicted?

From Joel Kotkin at OC Register:

The preference of sophisticated opinion may be quintessential to Europe’s boutique film industry, but the blending of popular tastes with art has long propelled Hollywood’s historical success. This separation between audience and the Academy was not always the case. Films like “Gone with the Wind” (1939), “Around the World in 80 Days” (1956), “Ben-Hur” (1959), “The Sound of Music” (1965), “The Godfather” (1972), “Forest Gump” (1994) and “Titanic” (1997) all managed to be both blockbusters and best picture winners.

Hollywood, wrote author Leo Rosten in 1940, was “the very embodiment” of “magic success,” allowing a truck driver to dream of being a hero, or a small-town waitress “to compare herself to a movie queen.” Hollywood was Middle American to the core, which appealed not just to our own audiences, but also to those around the world. More.

Reality check: As noted earlier, when Hollywood types started to demand that we all listen to them rant, they were competing with every bore on the planet. No wonder their financial fortunes are tanking. Failing to understand their situation, they did it when the digital universe makes them just one alternative among many. If they haven’t figured all that out by now, they are just not going to pull out of their dive.

See also: In other non-news, Hollywood comedy still doesn’t get it

Big Gay: Hollywood a flop as a progressive lecture series. They can’t yet force everyone to pretend we care and find them interesting, the way a prof could.

Ambitious gay rights drama flops Until progressives can control what the rest of us are allowed to watch, they will not be able to advance their agenda very significantly hereafter.

and

Academy Awards protest hooplah masks declining public interest

Science marching away from its real problems

At Marchin’, marchin’: The experts are right, it’s the facts that are wrong, I responded to some comments and offer a linked version here:


johnnyb, Upright Biped, and rvb8, my principal concern is that people, including people in science, can’t better their game if they won’t address their weaknesses.

The Marchin’, Marchin’ for Science movement is dangerously deluded if it thinks that the public is against science, “hates science,” etc.

I’ve followed science stories for over two decades now. As so often, the answer is simpler, clearer, and less comfortable*:

Most people who do not work in science or follow science news interact with it in areas like medicine. Medicine matters.

Even if the Higgs boson were shown to be a fraud, it would be nothing more than the Piltdown Particle. Most people who didn’t care before won’t start to care now.

Cancer diagnoses, by contrast, get everybody’s attention immediately.

So here’s what really happens: People like myself who have dear friends fighting breast cancer find out that treatment drugs failed replication. But, worse, that replication is not usually even risked. Or else we find out stuff like this: Ideological nonsense around gender equality harms, possibly sometimes kills, women patients. Could that have played a role in the death of someone we know?

Anyone who thinks that people who want change are just anti-science should stay clear of public policy for now. Their blinkers will not do them or their causes any good.

Face your desk.

(On the other hand, if I don’t support the cause, maybe I should cheer them on.)

* People facing unaccustomed challenges resort to conspiracy thinking. In politics, for example, recent changes in leadership are blamed on the alt right,fake news, and various conspiracies when the reality is often that people who were trusted were asleep at the switch and didn’t give good answers or advice. Something similar is happening with the marchin’, marchin’ phenomenon in science.

See also: Marchin’, marchin’: The experts are right, it’s the facts that are wrong Reynolds: “According to Foreign Affairs magazine, Americans reject the advice of experts so as “to insulate their fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong.” That’s in support of a book by Tom Nichols called The Death of Expertise, which essentially advances that thesis.” Hmmm. Sounds like Nichols is another candidate for our Blinkers Award.

Blinkers Award goes to… Tom Nichols at Scientific American! On why Americans “hate science”

Was the exposed Piltdown Man fraudster framed?

Are polls scientific? Well, what happens when human complexity foils electoral predictions?

Reproducibility problem a serious threat to medicine

and

The high cost of marchin’, marchin’ for Science: If female, you could be road kill yourself It’s good that social sciences are not really sciences anyway. But seeing how their point of view has spread into medical sciences, which can actually help people, is disconcerting

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Marchin’, marchin’: The experts are right, it’s the facts that are wrong

Cover for The Death of Expertise Further to marchin’, marchin’ for science: From law prof Glenn Reynolds at USA Today:

According to Foreign Affairs magazine, Americans reject the advice of experts so as “to insulate their fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong.” That’s in support of a book by Tom Nichols called The Death of Expertise, which essentially advances that thesis.

Hmmm. Sounds like Nichols is another candidate for our Blinkers Award. Reynolds touches on many topics, including some raised here, such as:

By its fruit the tree is known, and the tree of expertise hasn’t been doing well lately. As Nassim Taleb recently observed: “With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers.” More.

Probably, but it’s best that the instincts consulted actually be ancestral instincts—and real grandmothers.

Any time now, the evolutionary psychologist will chime in with a pop science retro about why we evolved so as not to trust experts and what a shame that is. One can count on them not to even envisage the possibility that if we had trusted experts, most of us would be dead, not running the planet. For… they are Experts, right?

See also: The high cost of marchin’, marchin’ for Science: If female, you could be road kill yourself It’s good that social sciences are not really sciences anyway. But seeing how their point of view has spread into medical sciences, which can actually help people, is disconcerting

Shades of “Blinkers Award goes to… Tom Nichols at Scientific American! On why Americans “hate science”

and

“The evolutionary psychologist knows why you vote — and shop, and tip at restaurants”

New book Under Siege looks at Canadian governments targeting Christians

From lawyer Don Hutchinson,

Don Hutchinson is a husband, father and grandfather who graduated from Queen’s University in Kingston and the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law a long time ago. The author of Under Siege: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada at 150 (1867-2017), Don is a strategic thinker and planner who has been a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada since 1990. Not coincidentally, he is also a long time member and former board chair of Canada’s Christian Legal Fellowship. More.

The book is a compendium of religious freedom issues. Tellingly, Hutchinson writes,

Can you imagine the Supreme Court being the final authority on matters of religious belief and practice? How would they decide on the issue of holy communion: transubstantiation (the bread and wine of communion become the actual body and blood of Christ) vs. consubstantiation (the bread and wine co-exist with the body and blood of Christ in communion) vs. representation (the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ in communion) vs. using grape juice instead of wine vs. those Christians who practise a love feast with a full meal instead of just bread and wine/juice vs. those who do not practise sacramental communion in any manner? (P. 106)

Well, um, yes. We can imagine that. Parliament is setting out on that road this very day, slow but sure, with Bill M103.

The outcome will prove an excellent job opportunity for graduating, otherwise unemployable, campus social justice warriors.

Hutchinson will be speaking in Ottawa Saturday, April 1, 3:00 pm, at Greenbelt Baptist Church, 839 Shefford Road

Reality check: It’s an astonishing fact that the Canadian government is about to pass laws paving the way for a crackdown on “Islamophobia.” Essentially that amounts to criminalizing the repudiation of a religious belief.

Throngs of Christian airheads who claim to believe in freedom of religion voted Liberal. They, at least, deserve all this. What’s annoying is that many will treat the results as a persecution sent by God and compare themselves to genuinely persecuted ancestors. That’s shameful. Their plight will be the result of making churches into therapy groups and entertainment complexes full of people who just want to be liked and do not want to know what is happening.

As Anthony Furey explains, what rejecting Islamophobia really means:

A quarter of the countries in the world have some form of anti-blasphemy and apostasy laws, many of which are fuelled by a broad definition of Islamophobia. For too many of their citizens, opposing Islamophobia means locking up contrarian bloggers or cartoonists who draw the prophet. This is what we’re at risk of normalizing.

The motion was previously slated for second reading in April but is now set to appear in the House of Commons on Tuesday. The scheduling change means the fallout from M-103 will be drowned out by the federal budget, which will be tabled on Wednesday. More.

The Cool, who enjoy mocking Christians (and circumscribing their rights, cf Trinity Western), will soon discover how different mocking Islam will be. But they’ll accept that, of course, so long as they are allowed to continue to assault their preferred, easier targets. They have little to lose at first.

See also: Anti-Islamophobia legislation is just the beginning, of course.

and

Puzzled by leftists and Islamists working together?

Islamic stoning caricature pulled after Quebec premier complains

Charles Montpetit (Montreal) has told the Book and Periodical Council’s Freedom of Expression Committee that

On March 8 (Women’s Day) in the weekly Courrier du Sud, caricaturist Jean-Marc Phaneuf drew Quebec PM Philippe Couillard in a djellaba, about to throw a stone to former Liberal MNA Fatima Houda-Pepin while yelling “Happy birthday, Fatima” (thereby summarizing the ambivalent attitude of the government toward this prominent Morocco-born woman).

There may have been a financial motive:

The cartoon might have gone unnoticed if a La Presse reporter hadn’t asked the PM’s office to comment five days later, and if the office hadn’t phoned the Courrier’s owner (TC Transcontinental) to complain about this “poor-taste” depiction of a “murder.” Unwilling to antagonize the PM in the midst of a widespread protest against a proposed bill that would free municipalities from the obligation of buying ad space for their public notices, Transcontinental’s direction expressed its “agreement” with the goverment and pulled the caricature from the paper’s website, even though this action hadn’t been requested.

Here’s a link to the offending cartoon at the Montreal Gazette (for now).

Couillard was, of course, a “Je suis Charlie” poseur.

New French word daily: “stoning” = lapidation

Reality check: Just for once, the government has found a way to get the public interested in at least one type of art and, predictably, not by funding it. And just think how much better off we’ll all be when the government’s job includes policing this kind of thing for “Islamophobia.”

See also: Anti-Islamophobia legislation is just the beginning, of course.

The high cost of marchin’, marchin’ for “Science”: If female, you could be road kill yourself

Political correctness decreed that there were no important brain differences between men and women but tests were done mainly on male animals. And, because the resulting problems didn’t help various political causes, they were dangerous to publicize. From Claire Lehmann at Commentary:

The insistence that gender differences were and are immaterial to the proper functioning of a free society has been a feature of our common conversation since the 1970s. It was the key to “second-wave feminism,” the political and social movement that took women’s liberation beyond issues of suffrage and wages and employment to the question of how a just society orders itself.

By the close of the 20th century, however, the insistence that gender differences be treated as inconsequential had ossified into orthodoxy precisely at the moment when the biological sciences were uncovering differences between the sexes that had hitherto been unknown. An ongoing tug-of-war has resulted between scientists who investigate sex differences and activists who oppose such research. This battle over theory has had horrific real-world consequences. The minimizing of sex differences in areas of health and medicine in particular has led to sweepingly harmful and often fatal results, especially for women.

I’d always wondered about that. I remember suffering through laborious explanations in social psychology texts that I proofread and indexed, as to how all such differences were artifacts of sexist bias in testing. For example, even differences in violent crime rates might just be bias…

Everyone on the project knew that such claims could not possibly be true because the ordinary experience of survivors, not their biases, contradicted it. Survivors of violent crime worked among us! Yet no one dared say a thing.

It’s good that social sciences are not really sciences anyway. But seeing how their point of view has spread into medical sciences, which can actually help people, is disconcerting:

It’s worth noting that historically, the hostility toward such research came not from the laboratory but from the humanities and social sciences. A 1986 paper in American Psychologist titled “Issues to Consider in Conducting Nonsexist Psychological Research” gives us a snapshot of the attitudes prevalent at the time. The authors state that “[sexist] bias need not be introduced into research intentionally or consciously” and that “even well-established findings can harbor unsuspected sexism.” They question whether objective scientific methods were even appropriate for use on women as women. Perhaps most troubling was their assertion that a male scientist studying female subjects is, by definition, “sexist.” Consider the following fiasco. More.

Well, if naturalism rules, maybe it is science’s destiny to be governed by cranks, crackpots and ideologues. We did not evolve so as to perceive reality, right?

See also: Blinkers Award goes to… Tom Nichols at Scientific American! On why Americans “hate science”

Objectivity is sexist.

Marchin’, marchin’ for Science (Hint: the problems are back at your desk, not out in the streets)

and

Even Michael Shermer thinks social science is politically biased

Midseason TV a massive flop

From Michael O’Connell at Hollywood Reporter,

The year 2017 hasn’t been forgiving to the broadcast networks. With a whopping 17 scripted launches since Jan. 1, nearly all new series are languishing with low ratings, even by today’s modest standards. But that may not be entirely the new shows’ fault: The root of midseason’s problem, some say, is the middling fall that preceded it.

“In the past, midseason success was typically built on the foundation established in the fall,” says Sam Armando, lead investment director at MediaVest-Spark, noting all but NBC (and sports-lifted Fox) are down this year. “Since only This Is Us popped in the fall, there just aren’t any coattails to ride on.”More.

Reality check: To the extent that people have appropriated traditional broadcasters’ outlook on life, they no longer need them as their dealers; they can buy it anywhere on the internet, often for free and without ads. To the extent that we have never adopted their outlook, we never will. Their slide into oblivion could be long and miserable but it is not likely to be halted. Especially now that, in a panic, they have taken to making their Messages ever shriller and more plain.

See also: Big Gay: Hollywood a flop as a progressive lecture series. They can’t yet force everyone to pretend we care and find them interesting, the way a prof could.

Ambitious gay rights drama flops Until progressives can control what the rest of us are allowed to watch, they will not be able to advance their agenda very significantly hereafter.

and

Academy Awards protest hooplah masks declining public interest

In other non-news, Hollywood comedy still doesn’t get it

Still worth recording though: From Brent Bozell at Townhall:

Just as the liberal “news” media have doubled down on fierce liberal activism since President Trump’s inauguration, Hollywood is pushing the leftist agenda. Variety celebrates the crusade — that is what this is — in an article headlined “TV Gets Woke: How Scripted Series Are Confronting Social Issues Like Never Before.”

It is not that Hollywood should be political; it is that the industry must be political. Even the sitcoms need to be political. “Social media is in a constant conversation about things,” proclaimed NBC Entertainment President Jennifer Salke. “It doesn’t feel authentic to not address what’s going on in the world and what people are really talking about. I think that’s a sweet spot for comedy in general.” More.

Reality check: People who cannot learn from tanking ratings are doomed. The problem isn’t whether comedy is or should be political. The problem is that Hollywood’s politics and concerns don’t connect with those of mainstream viewers so much now. Viewers want to work and pay their debts, not to celebrate the gay lifestyle. That said Hollywood should produce whatever it wants. People are finding their own answers now anyway, especially while the internet remains free.

See also: Big Gay: Hollywood a flop as a progressive lecture series. They can’t yet force everyone to pretend we care and find them interesting, the way a prof could.

Ambitious gay rights drama flops Until progressives can control what the rest of us are allowed to watch, they will not be able to advance their agenda very significantly hereafter.

and

Academy Awards protest hooplah masks declining public interest