The Progressive American

Morning Podcast Uploaded

Check out The Progressive American podcast linked here

Tucker Carlson’s career is an exercise in unearned smugness and prejudice.

Tucker Carlson is in the news again. This time for a segment involving women in the military. Needless to say, Carlson’s statements were not as illuminating about military policy as they were revealing about Carlson’s prejudice. If anything, the segment that Carlson decided to air, seemingly with no degree of self-reflection, is a symbol of what Carlson can’t stand in the world: change. 

Beginning his diatribe, Carlson posed the idea that Biden was elected as a pseudo-moderate who is now making radical changes to the United States. The implication in such an argument is that Biden’s positions are fundamentally separate from the common people. Of course, that is not true as Biden’s approval rating is strong, with 60 percent of Americans’ approving of his administration. But I digress. 

Carlson’s bit, at its core, was not about approval ratings, the actual beliefs of the American people. It was about sexism. From the very beginning, Carlson’s segment was dedicated to the idea that America was weakening and that China was growing stronger, but it was his choice of words that were so revealing. Indeed, Carlson described the Chinese military as “masculine.” However, when discussing the American military, Carlson described it as feminine, a characterization that he did not portray positively. 

It should be self-evident that Carlson’s comments are prejudiced. The feminine is seen as weak and unreliable, while the masculine sphere is seen as strong, ironclad, and traditional. One can’t help but wonder if Carlson would make such an insinuation to the women who served in the military despite their pregnancy. Perhaps he would, as the sacrifices that many of those servicewomen endured seem to be easy for Carlson to cast aside, especially if the servicewoman was pregnant at any time during her service. 

When discussing the changes that the Biden administration was making to the military, Carlson brought up the proposed idea of “maternity flight suits,” which Carlson mocked, saying:

“So we’ve got new hairstyles and maternity flight suits. Pregnant women are going to fight our wars. It’s a mockery of the U.S. military.” 

Of course, Carlson did not mention the reason for having those suits in the first place. Instead, he went with the most insane and insulting position he could’ve taken, insinuating that pregnant women were going to fight our wars from the cockpit with babies in their bellies. What those suits do is far more reasonable and dignified than Carlson could ever admit to his audience because the person who was calling for more of it was on the other side of the aisle. 

The maternity suits are specifically for women who are not authorized to fly at the moment or are on non-deployed jobs are fulfilling other duties. Women who want children but serve in the military can plan their pregnancies around that nondeployment period in which they serve in other positions, and during that time, these pregnant women can wear the suits for their convenience. Nothing more. 

Thankfully, military officials have taken Carlson to task for his arrogance, but I suppose it is too late for such nuance. Carlson has his snappy phrase to condemn the Biden administration, making millions while he does so. But if there is one thing that we can learn from this, it is this: if a man can insult the very people he claims to respect and make millions while doing so, something is fundamentally broken about our society. Carlson is but a symptom, a symbol. Sexism is the disease, and it is not so easily cured. 

The trial of Derek Chauvin is a reminder that the tension over George Floyd’s death remains alive and well.

It has been almost a year since George Floyd’s death in what prosecutors now allege was an act of murder by the police. The case surrounding his death served as a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to address inequities in enforcement by the police. After the infamous video showed Derek Chauvin with his knee on George Floyd’s neck, Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, while his fellow officers were charged with aiding and abetting said murder. With months of protests—both in the United States and globally—it is hard to understate the level of passion and pain poured into this story. Where one man died, and another became a pariah, but more than being a story about death and tragedy, the case of George Floyd has been a reckoning for many Americans. A reckoning that is sure to come to a difficult close in the following months. 

Chauvin, a 19-year officer of the Minneapolis police department, was not without issues before his deadly meeting with Floyd. During four previous arrests that Chauvin was involved with, Chauvin was noted to use neck restraints “beyond the point when such force was needed under the circumstances.” In one of those arrests, Chauvin allegedly pinned a young juvenile to the floor. In another instant, Chauvin was reported to have kneeled on a woman’s neck as she laid on the ground underneath. 

Said behavior had been the subject of scrutiny for many Americans, but federal investigators have also been examining the nature of Chauvin’s previous conduct. Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury on civil rights to examine the aforementioned incident with the young boy. Chauvin allegedly grabbed the young man by the throat and struck him with his flashlight. The young boy briefly lost consciousness during the incident. All of this suggests a pattern of behavior. 

Despite this, the grand jury’s analysis has been considered inadmissible to the court’s ruling in Chauvin’s upcoming trial as ruled by Judge Peter Cahill, who oversees the trial. 

Those in defense of Chauvin will note his history of commendations and awards for his service. Indeed, he received multiple medals for his responses to violent suspects, including his shooting of one suspect who attempted to draw a gun.

But none of those things change what happened to George Floyd or that Chauvin was consistently criticized for his conduct, both on duty and off duty. Nor does it change that former employers of Chauvin noted that, as a security guard, Chauvin was consistently more aggressive with Black patrons. In yet another incident, Chauvin and several other officers were recorded restraining another man they later determined was innocent, much like Chauvin would later restrain Floyd just three weeks later. 

Chauvin is sure to be a lightning rod as a defendant, as his conduct and what he symbolizes has and will continue to pose a challenge for America as it struggles to address law enforcement’s role in society. 

Perhaps even more complicating is how best to proceed with the trial. Already, difficulties have arisen surrounding the selection of jurors, with only three jurors currently selected. Much of the problem comes from the jurors’ impartiality, as 20 or so potential jurors were rejected. Chauvin is entitled to a jury of his peers, but finding those peers may prove difficult. As Robin Givhan of the Washington Post noted, the issue at hand is that: 

“Chauvin is entitled to a jury of his peers, but it may well be that he has none, not because he is a rarefied creature, but because for so many people, law enforcement was never viewed as a corps of fallible humans and community servants and courageous protectors. They’ve always been warriors, overseers, and members of a closed-door club from which he has been banished.”

At the core of the trial’s configuration is America’s greatest problem: How do we think of law enforcement? How do we hold them accountable when our society has traditionally shown them such a strong level of difference? And perhaps more importantly, how do we as a society ensure that this doesn’t happen again? 

Though the trial is only beginning, the consequences are already being felt. And as the trial continues, it will be forced to address many of these questions and more. Whether or not they will answer them successfully is another thing entirely. 

Hi all,

Due to last week’s issues and this week’s scheduling issues, I have decided to continue podcast episodes next week to organize things a little better. I hope to have another guest on the show, but I will let you know soon.

Thanks,

Conor

Myanmar’s people fight for democracy while militants crackdown.

Myanmar is in crisis. The once controversial but free nation was rocked to its core in early February when the military turned against the very democracy they were supposed to protect. The military, known as the Tatmadaw, alleged without evidence that the November elections were rife with fraud. In response, armored vehicles and military personnel marched through the streets as members of the popular National League for Democracy were arrested, including State Counsellor Aung San Suu and President Win Myint, along with numerous parliament members. The Tatmadaw’s move came a day before parliament was supposed to certify the election results, which would have meant fewer seats for the military and its allies. A month later, it is clear that Myanmar’s democracy is slipping back into a military dictatorship, as the military has officially taken the reigns, appointing Commander in Chief Min Aung Hlaing as the de facto leader of Myanmar. 

 The coup, though shocking, was always a possibility. The Tatmadaw, though officially loyal to the democratically elected government, has always been troublesome. The military’s attitudes towards democracy have long been the source of distrust in the country. Myanmar only became recently, and civilian leadership was lacking until Aung San Suu won immense support in the 2015 elections, shocking military leaders at their lack of popularity. At the time, the head of the army promised to ensure a peaceful and constitutional government would exist, but even then, the government’s success was far from guaranteed. Years prior, the military nullified Aung San Suu’s victory in 1988 despite its vast public support. Still, a tentative peace was arranged.

As time went on, there was a slow transfer into democratic rule, but the military remained a constant concern. With veto power over constitutional amendments and a guaranteed quarter of the parliament’s seats, the military held immense sway. Add in allegations of military profiteering, and the relationship between the government has remained rocky. Indeed, Myanmar’s name came from General Saw Maung, which has caused the name itself to be a source of controversy. 

By 2017, the military was the subject of controversy that put the civilian under intense scrutiny. Having ramped up its attacks against Rohingya, a Muslim minority in the country. Incidents of rape, murder, and genocidal attacks began to spread rapidly, further complicating the military’s role in the country. 

Turn back to the modern-day, and multiple countries have denounced the military coup for its overthrow of the government. The Biden administration announced sanctions on military officials involved in the coup. The United Nations human rights chief Michelle Bachelet has also called on the military to stop their crackdowns on protesters, but so far, the military is not listening. 

In Mandalay, troops have occupied universities, hospitals, and other locations. Hospitals are reported to be of particular importance, as troops can arrest wounded patients they presume to be protesters. The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners reported that 54 people had been killed since the coup’s beginning. On Sunday, police in Bagan, the former capital, opened fire on protesters. Arrests have also galvanized increased opposition in Yangon, the country’s biggest city, where the military police arrested 200 students. The protests have put further pressure on the police and the military, but what happens next remains a mystery.  

As the situation evolves, the challenge of responding to the increasingly common military incursions will fall onto the entire international community. It will take time before a common response is established, but in the meantime, the people of Myanmar still struggle.  

The scandals surrounding Gov. Andrew Cuomo could mean the end of his administration

           New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, is on thin ice. For the last month, scandal after scandal has rocked his administration. Not six months ago, Americans faced the East Coast governor through rose-tinted glasses. After months of quite literal brotherly coverage from CNN, Cuomo was hailed as the transparent leader that the previous president lacked. 

           Chris Cuomo, the brother to the now embattle governor, interviewed the governor multiple times, many times engaging in familial banter between the two. Now, however, Chris can no longer provide such rosy coverage of his brother. Instead, he has been off to the sidelines, saying that he can’t cover his brother. 

           The shift in public opinion came after a report accused Cuomo of covering up the death count for nursing homes, an accusation that hits at the very heart of the governor’s reputation. With over 500,000 people dead of COVID nationally and at least 47,857 deaths in New York alone, the alleged cover-up could sink his governorship. It was COVID-19 that made Cuomo a symbol of responsible governance and transparency. Still, with that image now falling apart, his future is growing perilous, especially when partisan support is far from guaranteed. 

           Some New York Democrats are turning on Cuomo, calling for his resignation. New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and House Speaker Carl Heastie have now come out against Cuomo, arguing that his behavior has become disruptive and should resign. In her statement, which was released yesterday, Stewart-Cousins wrote, “New York is still in the midst of this pandemic and is still facing the societal, health and economic impacts of it,” Stewart-Cousins wrote in a statement. “We need to govern without daily distraction. For the good of the state, Governor Cuomo must resign.” Heastie eventually would announce his concurrence with that position. 

           The intra-party opposition to Cuomo’s continued governorship signifies that the winds are turning on his administration, especially after five women accused him of sexual misconduct and harassment. With one of them working for his office in the past. 

           In addition to the abuse of trust created by his alleged misconduct, Cuomo also faces an investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office. She will choose someone to lead the investigation soon, reports suggest. However, that is not the only investigation that Cuomo is facing. The FBI and Department of Justice are investigating whether or not Cuomo and his affiliates actively covered up nursing home death numbers, as reports suggested. 

           While the investigations are ongoing, new information is coming out every day, and more revelations are sure to follow. While Cuomo’s fate is far from certain, it appears his star is fading for good. 

Hi everyone, I have to cancel the Saturday podcast this week. There are some complications this weekend. Thanks for understanding.

There will be articles instead.

Thanks,

Conor

Welcome to the weekly podcast.

On this Saturday’s episode of The Progressive American, we analyze the recently passed Equality Act, the current state of the minimum wage and the reports of Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination  by the Saudi government.

Podcast news.

Hi everyone!

It’s Conor here. As some of you may have noticed, the podcast has had some complications related to the RSS feed, but don’t worry, you will get every episode still delivered to your email. With the new RSS feed being worked out, podcasts won’t be uploaded here anymore. However, the link will be provided to you via a standard post that will be sent directly to your email, including bonus episodes. All you have to do is look at the link in your email and click it.

Sincerely,

Conor

America’s current death rate guarantees that the death count will surpass half a million.

On Monday, John Hopkins University’s Coronavirus tracker reported that COVID-19 deaths had accumulated to a horrifying 498,901, all but guaranteeing that the total death count of the pandemic would be over half a million Americans. For most, the deaths are experienced through announcements and statistical reporting from the news, but the loss is all too real for those whose loved ones have died.

In May of last year, it was considered a horrific milestone for 100,000 Americans to have died. So much so that the New York Times dedicated their entire front page to remembering those lost to the virus. Each name was printed out to let the American people know who was lost. To the Times and the families whose loved ones were ripped from them, it was a hole in their hearts. 

Not since 1918 has a disease ravaged the United States with such deathly vigor. With nearly 675,000 deaths from the once unfamiliar pandemic, the Pandemic of 1918 and the Pandemic of 2020 will go down in history as a tragic moment in American history. 

Unlike the pandemic of 1918, however, the U.S was not at the end of a war, nor was it bringing troops home on a mass scale. It had time, resources, and research to respond to our crisis, but the results were the same. Mass death and tragedy scourged the United States as it did before, ripping holes in once happy families and robbing men, women, and children of their futures.

Deaths will likely rise for many more months, but one thing is for certain: America will be weeping for years to come.