Author: Steve Prestegard

Presty the DJ for Sept. 21

First, the song of the day:

The number one song today in 1959 was a one-hit wonder …

… as was the number one song today in 1968 …

… as was the number one British song today in 1974 …

… but not over here:

The number one song today in 1985:

Today in 2001, ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC and 31 cable channels all carried “America: A Tribute to Heroes,” a 9/11 tribute and telethon:

The first of the three birthdays today is not from rock and roll, but it is familiar to high school bands across the U.S. and beyond:

Don Felder of the Eagles:

Tyler Stewart, drummer of the Barenaked Ladies:

Presty the DJ for Sept. 20

The number one British single today in 1969 wasn’t from Britain:

The number one U.S. single today in 1969 came from a cartoon:

The number one British album today in 1969 was from the supergroup Blind Faith, which, given its membership (Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker of Cream and Steve Winwood), was less than the sum of its parts:

Continue reading “Presty the DJ for Sept. 20”

Democrats vs. men

Readers might remember that in the wake of 9/11, there was a school of thought that the Republican Party was the “daddy party” and the Democratic Party was the “mommy party.”

Alex Perez might have something like that in mind:

A year after the 2016 election, I overheard my first conversation in which two young men of color discussed the political issues of the day. I don’t remember what they were going on about, but the fact that they were going on about politics—and with such fervor! — was what struck immediately, as young men discussing politics was a rarity in my working-class Miami neighborhood, where typically it was older men who engaged in these sometimes heated discussions.

Sitting across from them at Starbucks, I noted their interaction as an entertaining anomaly and chalked it up to the current hyper-politicized cultural moment in which anyone, at any time, might surprise you with their clearly newfound interest in politics. Which is to say that I expected to encounter no more than a handful of these political squabbles between young men of color in the ensuing years of the Trump era, as the possibility of a broad political realignment driven by this traditionally disinterested demographic went against all conventional wisdom and seemed far-fetched, even to someone on the ground witnessing its inception — boy, was I wrong.

In the months and years to follow, all over Miami, in bars, coffee shops, and at the gym, I would overhear–and was sometimes pulled into — these rudimentary political conversations between young men of color. What was immediately obvious was that a majority, if not all, of these young men were brought into their nascent political awareness by issues relating to their masculinity and manhood. An archetype emerged: these were young men who never thought about politics until politics knocked on their door and made them aware of its existence. Like so many, personal grievance is what drove them into the political arena and what was driving their politics. The gist of their beef: When the hell did it stop being okay to be a regular dude?

My initial impulse was to think that these encounters were statistical outliers, the product of living in a community that sometimes suffers from overly chauvinist tendencies, but as their frequency increased, I realized that if you come up against enough anecdotal evidence, at a certain point it stops being anecdotal. There was clearly a trend, and my amateur hypothesis at the time was that this phenomenon wasn’t localized to Miami, but that young Hispanic and African-American men all over the country were politicizing, and whether they knew it yet or not, would play an important role in the next presidential election. I suspect that this trend has been obvious for some time now to anyone who lives in an urban center, but recently, New York Times columnist Charles Blow was recently caught off guard by the new reality and tweeted:

“Today my friends in Atlanta (black) saw a Facebook message from their old barber (black) imploring them all to vote for [President Donald] Trump. Don’t think that Trump’s message doesn’t resonate with a certain sector of black men. Also, barbers have a lot of sway in the black community.”

Blow’s alarm comes from the realization that this new voting bloc — a young, multicultural male coalition — might not be traditionally conservative, but on account of the progressive left’s post-2016 stance on masculinity, definitely won’t be voting democratic if they vote at all. The size of this coalition is not yet known, but if the polls showing Trump drawing support with Hispanics and slightly increasing approval among African-Americans are accurate, we might already have the answer — large enough to play a significant role in the election. The upcoming election will be won on the margins, and if this multicultural male coalition shows up and votes, there’s no doubt who they’ll be pulling the lever for—Trump.

The responses to Blow’s Twitter warning range from disbelief to outright rage, but what these hardcore progressives are really saying is, “Why? How can this be? Aren’t all minorities and people of color on our side?”

The race-essentialist line of thinking that has taken over the Democratic Party in which race determines worldview and political affiliation — and everything else for that matter — leaves one blind to other traits and beliefs that play a significant role in constituting a person’s identity. In this case, they missed what is painfully obvious to anyone who isn’t blinded by race obsession: most men, irrespective of color or creed, think of themselves as traditionally masculine. The political awakening of young men of color, then, can be traced to the media’s treatment of white Americans, and more specifically, white men, after Trump’s victory in 2016. Unable to look inward and reassess as to why they’d completely misread what was going on in the country, the media and its acolytes in the Democratic establishment needed a villainous scapegoat in order to explain the catastrophic failure of understanding that had delivered the final blow of obsolescence to the expert class. The new narrative was as quickly constructed as it was lacking in nuance: white Americans, seeped and soaked in white rage and white privilege, wanted to take the country back to its racist past.

“Toxic masculinity,” a new catchphrase that had escaped academia and taken root in the demented Internet hive-mind, was added to the mix, and the post-2016 explanation was set in stone: white men, who suffer from toxic masculinity more than other men — due to the weakness of their whiteness, of course — were specifically to blame for Trump and the rest of the country’s ills. If you were online during this time, I don’t have to remind you that for months on end, a steady stream of articles and essays and tedious explainers were published on a near-daily basis by mainstream outlets.

In short, the idea behind toxic masculinity is simple: traditional conception of masculinity, even in its most benign facets, is at the root of all civilizational rot — men must be rehabilitated, lest they continue ruining the country and the planet. The mainstreaming of this narrative cleared the way for what would become a full-on assault on masculinity and the cultural uprisings that followed. There was the rise of the well-intentioned Me Too movement and the overreach of said movement; the derangement of the Kavanaugh hearings, in which anything said by a woman, no matter how unbelievable it may sound, was to be believed.

And on top of all of this, the media landscape, academia, the corporate world, and other institutions which had been feminizing and increasingly catering to an effete woke mindset, accelerated their efforts in creating spaces devoid of men and masculinity. All of this cultural engineering was framed as a way to remove toxically masculine white men from positions of cultural and political power, but once again, the expert class was blind to a major unintended consequence of all their maneuvering: young men of color started to catch wind that this anti-white male hate would soon come for them. What had started as a project to get rid of those evil white men had transformed into a war against masculinity itself.

The Aziz Ansari case, in which the comedian/actor was pilloried and Me-Too’d for what was essentially a bad date, signaled to men of color that they weren’t going to be exempt from the anti-masculinity crusade on account of their POC status. This was a huge problem for men of color — specifically African-American men — as they’ve historically been the greatest victims of false rape accusations.

Much ink was spilled during this time by cultural critics and blue-check experts on the masculinity scourge that must be eliminated, but the “toxic masculinity” narrative was codified when, in early 2019, the American Psychological Association released a document stating that “traditional masculinity ideology” often negatively affected the mental and physical well-being of young men — the APA, shockingly, had said the quiet part out loud.

The cultural engineers declared victory, completely unaware that a multicultural male coalition had been watching and coalescing. These young men who grew up online and attended the institutions that first cultivated and disseminated this anti-masculinity ideology were the same young men I was encountering on my rambles around Miami—the very same men Blow fears might now vote for Trump.

Is this demographic of young multicultural men the new “hidden Trump voter” that might deliver him a victory? Blow, and others in his cohort, seem to think it a distinct possibility.

Even if the Me Too movement hadn’t gone off the rails and if the APA hadn’t pathologized traditional masculinity, young men of color were already drifting toward the right anyway, if at a less accelerated rate. For years now, the Democratic Party has rejected any masculine sensibility in favor of a gung-ho girl power aesthetic that caters strictly to the highly feminized, whether male or female. The Democratic National Convention was the apotheosis of this progressive feminization, a four-day event that resembled a weepy all-girl sleepover more than a political function. I was half-expecting Joe Biden to give his convention speech wearing a dress, but mercifully the old coot was allowed to wear a traditionally masculine and toxic suit.

All this to say that the Democratic Party is now the party of women and those who identify with the overly feminine sensibility. There’s nothing wrong with this being your cup of tea, of course, but Democrats shouldn’t be surprised when young men of all stripes are turned off by a party that is completely devoid of any masculine energy.

This is obvious to anyone who has ever associated with young Hispanic and African-American men, but as the Democratic Party is run by ultra-white and woke coastal elites who only ever pander to, but never actually associate with people of color—especially men—let me spell it out for them: Black and Hispanic young men, most of whom don’t reside in progressive coastal cities, are traditionally masculine and do not respond to the overly feminine posturing found in progressive circles. To most men of color, traditional masculinity isn’t a toxic ideology, or, for that matter, an ideology at all, but simply the natural order of things. They think and behave like men because it is what’s demanded of them and what it is necessary for survival in the real world. To tell a young man of color living in the inner city that his way of thinking is toxic is to place him in peril, as his survival depends not on buzzwords or the tampering down of his masculinity, but on signaling masculine strength when confronted by a world that is not beholden to the passive-aggressive femininity of elite cultural spaces.

It’s an open question as to whether young men of color will turn out for Trump, but if the Republican National Convention was any indication, the Republican Party is making a play for their vote. Much has been said of the convention’s America-is-great message, but what was played up almost as much, whether intentionally or not, was the power and virtue of traditional masculinity.

There was Sen. Tim Scott’s speech, in which he traced his family’s rise from slavery to the highest reaches of American power, delivered in the oratory style of a man who had never given up, whose familial legacy of overcoming nearly insurmountable odds would make the thought of accepting his plight inconceivable. The speech spoke to all Americans, of course, but it can’t go unnoticed that it was delivered by a man of color who had risen to the top, in large part, due to classic masculine virtues — stoicism and stick-to-itiveness.

Then there was Cuban-American old-timer Maximo Alvarez, a self-made businessman, and like Scott, the epitome of the American Dream, who spoke with the masculine ferocity and power of Vince Lombardi. Here was a man who other men would listen to, unlike Billy Porter, the actor who sang at the Democratic Convention and is best known for parading up and down red carpets in dresses, who is seemingly only famous among the brunch-attending career gals who make up the Democratic Party.

The greatest example of masculine strength at the Republican Convention occurred when Madison Cawthorn, the disabled young man running for North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District, stood up from his wheelchair after delivering a barnburner of a speech. It was an incredibly moving moment, made all the more so by the fact that he was flanked by two friends who assisted him as he stood. Here was a prime example of masculine strength, as well as brotherly kinship, being displayed for all the young men of America to see. It was not toxic or problematic, but simply good and true, and it hearkened back to times when such virtues were considered indispensable and undoubtedly American.

These three speeches — two delivered by men of color — made a case for the nobility of traditional masculinity, and I have no doubt, spoke to young men of color in a way they can understand: You are an American man. Stand up. Do what needs to be done.

I can’t imagine a better message, not only for men of color, but all men—a message that might drive them to vote in record numbers in November.

“Introducing your Beloit _______!”

Wisconsin had a whole batch of so-called “organized” minor league baseball teams.

There now are two — the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers, an affiliate of the Brewers, and the Beloit Snappers.

That is, they were the Snappers (and before that the Brewers when they were a Brewers affiliate). The team is moving to a new ballpark next year, and with that they are changing their name.

To what, you ask? Well, that may depend on you. The franchise is conducting an online poll through next Friday. The five finalists, chosen out of more than 1,000 fan-submitted ideas, are:

Beloit Cheeseballs: Residing in the nation’s cheese capital, dive into the cheese life with the Beloit Cheeseballs. Producing over three billion pounds in 2019, Wisconsin has been America’s largest cheese-producing state for over 100 years straight years. The New York Times once wrote about Wisconsin that “Cheese is the state’s history, its pride, its self-deprecating, sometimes goofy, cheesehead approach to life” and the Beloit Cheeseballs will add a fun new slice to Wisconsin’s cheesy pride.
Beloit Moo: With its affectionate “America’s Dairyland” nickname, over 1.2 million dairy cows call Wisconsin home, living on more than 7,000 dairy farms across the state. Cows help power a bovine-based economy in the region, helping Wisconsin hold a leading spot in the production of cheese, milk, and agricultural products across the nation. Pay homage to the farmers whose fields surround Beloit and the cows that help feed families across America with this catchy team name.
Beloit Polka Pike: Wisconsin residents have been tapping their toes to polka, the state’s official dance, as long as they’ve been pulling fearsome pike from the Rock River. Grab your accordion and your fishing pole and head to the ballpark where every night will be a music-filled festival as the Polka Pike pay tribute to the river that neighbors the stadium and the state’s history.
Beloit Sky Carp: A slang term for a goose that would rather stay home in Beloit in the winter than migrate south, the Sky Carp name whimsically represents the future of our city, a flourishing, innovative town so strong that no one wants to leave. With the new stadium’s riverside views, flyovers from flocks of sky carp will be common at games for years to come. Join the gaggle of geese fans as this creative team name takes flight next year.
Beloit Supper Clubbers: From relish trays to Old Fashioneds, supper clubs represent an iconic and traditional part of our region’s culinary character. Just like our new ballpark will, supper clubs serve as a popular gathering spot for families young and old, offering great food, great music, and great times night after night. Join the club and place your order for extra fun in 2021.

Two are dairy-based, which puts them in competition with two one-time Timber Rattlers alternates:

Promotions Watch: Turn Back the Clock Nights | Ballpark Digest
The Timber Holsteins?

Wisconsin Udder Tuggers: Timber Rattlers rebrand makes a splash

That isn’t even close to the ultimate T-Rats alternate …

Wisconsin Brats Lineup & Game Notes: June 9, 2018 | by Christopher J Mehring | Rattler Radio

… the Wisconsin Brats.

 

The news social media doesn’t want you to know

Fox News:

The Chinese government intentionally manufactured and released the COVID-19 virus that led to mass shutdowns and deaths across the world, a top virologist and whistleblower told Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday.

Carlson specifically asked Dr. Li-Meng Yan whether she believed the Chinese Communist Party released the virus “on purpose.” “Yes, of course, it’s intentionally,” she responded on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Yan said more evidence would be released but pointed to her own high-ranking position at a World Health Organization reference lab as a reason to trust her allegation.

“I work[ed] in the WHO reference lab, which is the top coronavirus lab in the world, in the University of Hong Kong. And the thing is I get deeply into such investigation in secret from the early beginning of this outbreak. I had my intelligence because I also get my own unit network in China, involved [in] the hospital … also I work with the top corona[virus] virologist in the world,” she said.

“So, together with my experience, I can tell you, this is created in the lab … and also, it is spread to the world to make such damage.”

Yan’s comments conflicted with the opinion of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and White House coronavirus adviser, who previously cast doubt on the idea the virus was artificially created. In May, he told National Geographic: “If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what’s out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated — the way the mutations have naturally evolved.”

Other scientists have panned the idea that COVID-19 served as a sort of bioweapon or was released by a lab.

Fox News previously reported on Yan back in July, when she blew the whistle on China’s alleged attempts to suppress information about its handling of the virus. With a vast network of contacts in Chinese medical facilities, Yan attempted to gather more information about the virus as China blocked overseas experts from conducting research in the country.

Her revelations fueled ongoing complaints that the Chinese government failed to tell the world early on about the virus’ threat. Specifically, she believes the Chinese government ignored research that could have saved lives. The State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

In response, her former employer, the University of Hong Kong, criticized her account. A press release noted “that the content of the said news report does not accord with the key facts as we understand them.”

“Specifically, Dr Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at [the University of Hong Kong] during December 2019 and January 2020, her central assertion of the said interview.”

Yan, who said she was one of the first scientists in the world to study the novel coronavirus, fled China and currently fears retaliation. She was allegedly asked by her supervisor at the University/WHO reference lab, Dr. Leo Poon, in 2019 to look into the odd cluster of SARS-like cases coming out of mainland China at the end of December 2019.

What was social media’s reaction to this? Fox News again:

Facebook and other tech giants have engaged in a troubling pattern of censoring speech surrounding major issues in the coronavirus debate, Fox News host Tucker Carlson argued during his Wednesday night monologue.

Carlson’s comments came after Facebook slapped a warning label on video of his Tuesday interview with Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who claimed to have evidence showing China “intentionally” released COVID-19 onto the general population.

“Within a few hours of her interview last night,” Carlson said, “a video of the segment reached 1.3 million people on Facebook.”

“And why wouldn’t it? The coronavirus pandemic has touched the life of every American. And justifiably, people want to know where it came from. But Facebook still doesn’t want you to know that. So Facebook suppressed the video, presumably on behalf of the Chinese government. Facebook executives made it harder for users to watch our segment. Those who found the video had to navigate a warning that the interview ‘repeats information about COVID-19 that independent fact-checkers say is false,” he added.

“Instagram, which Facebook also owns did the same thing. Twitter suspended Dr. Yan’s account entirely. It did not explain why. Nor did the tech companies explain how they would know more about disease transmission than an MD, PhD virologist like Dr. Li-Meng Yan. Instead, Facebook and Instagram linked to three so-called fact checks which supposedly proved Yan was lying.

“But if you clicked on the provided links, you’d noticed something odd. The fact checks were all published months ago, many months — in January, February, and March, and they had nothing whatsoever to do with what Dr. Li-Meng Yan said on our show… One of the fact checks attacks a completely unrelated claim, the virus was patented and that a vaccine was prepared and ready to go.

“What does that have to do with the interview we did last night? No one will tell us that. The truth is, and you know it if you’ve watched carefully, experts have been wrong frequently throughout this pandemic … They have changed their prescriptions many times.”

Carlson argued that the solution to experts being fallible was more speech. “The solution to this age-old problem, and we used to understand this intuitively is more informed voices in the conversation. That’s how you make wise decisions, that’s how you get to the truth. Diversity of view. Facebook doesn’t believe this,” he said.

“They believe in censorship. Censorship does not make us wiser. It does not make us better informed. If it did, we’d be speaking Russian right now, the Soviet Union would run the world. It would have worked. But instead the Soviet Union is extinct. It collapsed under the weight of its own absurdities — absurdities abetted by censorship. And that’s the most basic lesson of dictatorships, all of them. Anything built on lies falls apart over time.”

Carlson also defended Yan and her research. “COVID-19 is not from nature, she said. It was created in a lab in Wuhan, China. The Chinese government intentionally unleashed it on the world. Those are her claims. Are they true? We have no way of verifying them. We do know that Dr. Li-Meng Yan is not a quack,” Carlson said.

“She’s authored peer-reviewed papers on coronavirus transmission in both Nature Magazine and The Lancet. Those are two of the most respected publications in all of science. Her paper on the origin of COVID-19, which she has published online, is not frivolous. In it, she points to specific evidence for the claims that she makes. She identifies so-called cut sites which are frequently used in genomic engineering that would allow scientists to swap in sequences from other viruses to create what she described last night as a Frankenstein bioweapon.”

Whether or not the doctor is correct, Carlson certainly is. The solution to speech you disagree with has never been censorship. The solution to science you think is incorrect is more science. Liberals used to believe these sorts of things.

Kind of ironic for this to take place the week of Constitution Day, isn’t it?

 

Book ’em, Tubbs

Those who watched “Hawaii Five-O” (the original, as I did) and “Miami Vice” (as I recently did) will be amused at this:

Which shouldn’t be a surprise. These are the top two opens to TV shows in history.

And it’s pretty obvious that Reza Badiyi’s titles for Five-O were the inspiration for Vice, and when Five-0 was remade, that and Morton Stevens’ theme music could not be extensively remade.

And, well, two were hit singles.

It turns out the original Five-O music was more versatile than Stevens could have ever thought.

 

Presty the DJ for Sept. 18

We begin with the National Anthem because of today’s last item:

The number one song today in 1961 may have never been recorded had not Buddy Holly died in a plane crash in 1959; this singer replaced Holly in a concert in Moorhead, Minn.:

Britain’s number one album today in 1971 was The Who’s “Who’s Next”:
Continue reading “Presty the DJ for Sept. 18”

When your governor gets your national party’s attention, and not in a good way

Politico:

Tony Evers pulled off one of the Democratic Party’s biggest feats of 2018: ousting liberal villain Scott Walker after earlier attempts to take out the Wisconsin governor fell short.

But having one of their own atop the critical 2020 battleground isn’t turning out to be the boon that Democrats hoped or expected.

Evers, a longtime school administrator who’s prone to peppering his speech with “by golly” and “holy mackerel” — and who voters chose in part for his no-drama approach to politics — has been thrust into a cauldron of racial tension and violence. It’s an awkward fit for the subdued 68-year-old, and the reviews of his response to the turmoil in Kenosha — among other facets of his job performance — aren’t encouraging.

Evers is drawing heat from some in his own party for not moving quickly enough to tamp down rioting in Kenosha. Like Walker before him, Evers is facing a nascent effort to recall him from office. He’s been steamrolled by Republicans who dominate the legislature and have repeatedly blocked his initiatives, including police reform.

And while Evers is still above water in polls, his approval rating slid 6 points after his handling of the Kenosha unrest.

Democrats say it’s obviously better to have Evers at the helm than Walker heading into November — if nothing else, to protect against what they said would have been an assault on voting access if Republicans controlled both legislative chambers and the governorship.

But interviews with more than two dozen activists, strategists, local officials and voters surfaced serious concern that in such a pivotal year, in such a pivotal state, Evers is diminishing what should be a significant advantage for the party. Rather than act as an attack dog or savvy politico who helps amplify Joe Biden’s message to combat President Donald Trump, they say, Evers instead has allowed Republicans to cast him as weak and ineffective.

That is because Evers is weak and ineffective.

Wisconsin makes the New York Times, and it’s not about politics (but it is)

The graphic du jour comes from the New York Times:

About The Times, Tom Woods:

Every once in a while a bit of truth leaks out from the New York Times.
Don’t worry, though: the next day the Times will just pretend they never said it, and continue with the official nonsense.
So on one day they’ll say: lockdowns are going to lead to 1.4 million excess TB deaths, 500,000 excess HIV deaths, and 385,000 excess malaria deaths over the next five years.
Then the next day they’ll say: lockdowns sure are super.
Or one day they’ll say: up to 90 percent of all so-called “cases” of COVID turn out to be of people who are not infectious, because in America the tests have been calibrated to be absurdly sensitive.
Then the next day they’ll say: look at all the cases in the Midwest! Panic!
[Tuesday] there were 38,000 new “cases” in the United States.
That means as many as 34,200 people who are not infectious were forced to quarantine — with all the dislocation and wealth destruction that involves — for no reason.
[Today] it will have been six months since “15 days to slow the spread.”
Meanwhile, Adar Poonawalla, chief executive of the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest manufacturer of vaccines, just said that “it’s going to take four to five years until everyone gets the vaccine on this planet.”
So the deranged “wait for a vaccine” people just got more deranged. Life-giving pleasures must now be canceled for years?
And they propose measures against the virus that clearly lead to the loss of other lives, and which take away (especially from young people, who cannot get their youth back once it’s gone) so many of the joys that make life worth living, and are therefore themselves a kind of death.
All this over a virus that clearly does not overwhelm our hospital capacity, and certainly appears to be manageable (to say the least).
The so-called experts genuinely have no idea what they’re doing, but their white coats, advanced degrees, and clipboards have superstitious Americans convinced that this particular priesthood will save them.
Punish every politico who encouraged this, and (much as I hate to say “reward” and “politico” in the same sentence) reward the handful who kept their wits about them.
I hope South Dakota booms as a result of all this.
Surely there are still some people out there who want alive. I cannot be alone in this.

I wonder when The Times will report how Gov. Tony Evers’ unconstitutional shut-down-the-state mandates and his administration’s failure to address COVID properly (as in a disease that has hospitalized 7 percent of people who test positive and killed — depending on your definition of that word — 1.32 percent of the people who test positive so far, instead of a disease that, if you believe the blathering of the Department of Health Services, will kill 100 percent of people who test positive) killed one of Wisconsin’s iconic tourism destinations.

 

%d bloggers like this: