Friday

Laura Ingraham: An epitome of hypocrisy and a walking contradiction of privileged ignorance

Laura Ingraham
CC™ Editorial 

By Deji Fashola (Contributing Editor)

One of the most consistent things in life is time. Time never fails to tell the story. The story of the day, the story of your life and the events that have shaped that very life; but even more importantly, time never fails to remind us of our past, with historical and poignant markers that speak to how our past actions ultimately determine where and who we are, or will become.

For Laura Ingraham, a talk show host of Fox News and someone whom I had never heard of until she name dropped basketball superstar, Lebron James, a few years ago by telling him to shut up and dribble, time has essentially encapsulated the very essence of her being, as it relates to her place in the evolving but contentious conversation about Americas contract with people of African descent, in particular.

I am not a consumer of American news as a matter of principle, be it CNN, Fox, MSNBC or any other alphabet news organization, but one thing I will say having had a glimpse of Fox news in particular, is that the latter (Fox news) is the most brazen attempt at instituting State-run TV in a country that is supposed to be the very epitome of democracy.

Time and time again, we are inundated with the Republican mantra that seemingly serves to eschew the tenets and principles of so-called conservative values. But, what exactly do these values entail. 

According to Laura Ingraham et al, conservative values seek to:

a) Preserve the sanctity of life pre-birth but seemingly abuse and devalue it after birth, especially if the life in question is of the wrong hue.

b) Promote avaricious greed that encourages limitless profit by a very limited few to the detriment of the overwhelming majority.

c) Encourage and promote governmental interference in the lives of others with the exception of those who profess a divine following of a God, whose commandments and ordinances they (the so-called conservatives) never abide by, but project and force on others who merely seek to live and let live.

d) Bully, vilify, slander, defame, abuse and in some cases, seek to intimidate with threats of violence those they disagree with, including defying constituted authority even though the latter's conduct and ordinances are within the framework of the laws and statutes of the land.

A perfect example of this vilification is the Republican messaging of referring to those who ask why the wealthiest nation on earth has more than half of its population without basic healthcare, as socialists.

These same conservatives (Republicans) have no problems though with the government giving away billions of dollars in corporate welfare to big corporations, deemed too big to fail. To them, the average American is too irrelevant and too small to succeed or be cared for, so long as Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Tom "call in the troops" Cotton, Josh "inordinate ambition" Hawley and the always opportunistic Rafael Ted Cruz line their pockets and those of their corporate benefactors.

e) Extol the virtues of democracy and civility when in the majority or win elections but then turn the same institution on its head, refusing to concede when you lose, and then seek to undermine and subvert the will of the people by judicial fiat. And when the latter fails, incite a violent insurrection against the duly elected leadership of the country, namely the Vice President and Congress, a co-equal branch of government, by a sitting President of the United States of America.

The four years of the Trump misrule of incompetence, laced with brazen nepotism, cronyism and racism, as well as unbridled corruption, was undoubtedly egged on by State TV (Fox News), with Sean Hannity (the former construction worker and high school dropout) and Laura Ingraham as the unofficial spokespersons of the Trump-led civilian junta. 

It remains to be seen if the resulting socio-political scars remain embedded in the mental and institutional psyche of the nation, for decades or even generations to come.

Monday

British Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch triggers Kashim Shettima and the leadership of Nigeria’s kleptocracy

CC™ VideoSpective

Editor’s Take:

At the recent International Democracy Union (IDU) Forum dinner, firebrand leader of the British Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch touched on several issues (video below) including that of her connection to Nigeria (she was born in the United Kingdom to Nigerian aristocrats). 

In response to her speech, Nigeria’s Vice-President Kashim Shettima, took exception to his perceived slight or denigration of Nigeria and proceeded to essentially declare her persona non grata, as far as Nigeria was concerned. 

In her response to Shettima’s vile and rather uncouth remarks toward her, Badenoch made it clear to Shettima (a known sponsor of Islamic terrorists including Boko Haram, like majority of the Northern Nigeria political class) that she was Yoruba and held no allegiance to the geographical contraption called Nigeria, or the terror ridden and Islamist North Shettima and his ilk originate from. 

In listening to Badenoch’s speech, her vision for the United Kingdom is clear. While I may disagree with most of her salient points (and categorically if I might add), she should be left alone and allowed to pursue her goals and aspirations without the unnecessary distractions and hissicuffs from a rudderless kleptocracy, steeped in debilitating corruption.  

In a sane society with true human values and the rule of law, Kashim Shettima would be throwing stones behind bars rather than from the podium. 

Kemi Badenoch is British and her future lies in the United Kingdom, regardless of whether or not she becomes the Prime Minister. 

Nigeria’s loss is Britain’s gain and what Shettima and his band of marauders should be more concerned about is creating a conducive climate that allows for the nurturing, development and retention of our most prized asset, our people. 

Sunday

Barbarians at the gate - How America mortgaged its future on the altar of MAGA

CC™ Editor’s Sunday Review

By Editor-in-Chief

The incoming administration of Donald J. Trump has predicated its policies on ‘cleaning the swamp’. 

Here are the facts:

1) 8 of Trump’s cabinet picks donated almost half-a-billion dollars to his (Trump’s) re-election campaign. While the influence of large campaign donors on policy making is a recurring concern across administrations, the scale of these donations with regard to the incoming Trump administration, raises valid concerns about cronyism and how these relationships might shape policymaking. 

2) Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

The establishment of the DOGE with figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy underscores broader concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Tesla’s historical receipt of government funds to innovate in clean energy contrasts with any policy that undermines competitors like Rivian. Canceling Biden-era funding for Rivian, as Ramaswamy has intimated, could:


•Stifle competition in the EV market, undermining innovation.


•Harm Georgia’s economy if the promised 8,000 jobs fail to materialize.


•Reinforce perceptions of favoritism, potentially benefiting Tesla.

3) Regulation Rollbacks

A loosening of regulatory oversight, particularly in critical sectors like healthcare and aviation, could indeed have far-reaching consequences. Historical examples suggest that deregulation:


•May increase corporate profits but often at the expense of public safety or service quality.


•Risks weakening consumer protections, as seen in sectors like banking and energy following similar moves in the past.


4)  Broader Implications


My concern (and that of many well-meaning folks) is about how concentrated wealth and political influence can blur the lines between public service and personal gain. While Trump’s policies have long championed deregulation as a driver of economic growth, the balance between efficiency and accountability will ultimately define public perception of his governance.

Policy Implications for the EV Industry as a result of the possible actions of DOGE and the impact of deregulation, using the Healthcare and Aviation industries as test cases:

Policy Implications for the EV Industry


The competition between Tesla and newer players like Rivian is central to understanding the potential effects of DOGE’s decisions. Here are the key points:


1. Market Competition and Innovation

•Favoritism Risks: If Rivian loses the $6 billion promised by the Biden administration while Tesla continues benefiting from previous subsidies, the playing field could tilt significantly in Tesla’s favor. This reduces competition, which is vital for innovation and cost reduction in the EV market.


•Job Loss and Economic Impact: The proposed Rivian factory in Georgia would generate around 8,000 jobs, directly boosting the local economy. Its cancellation could harm not only the state’s workforce but also U.S. efforts to expand domestic EV manufacturing capacity.


2. Global Leadership in EVs


•Policies favoring one company over others may hinder the U.S.’s ability to compete globally, especially with countries like China, which dominates the EV supply chain and production. A diverse domestic EV ecosystem is critical to achieving energy independence and global competitiveness.


3. Public Perception and Policy Credibility


•Rolling back Rivian’s funding while Tesla remains dominant could spark accusations of bias or corruption, undermining public trust in government energy policies.


Impact of Deregulation


Deregulation in sectors like healthcare and aviation often has mixed results, with both short-term gains for businesses and long-term risks for consumers and workers.


1. Healthcare


•Impact on Safety Standards: Deregulation could loosen controls on drug approvals, hospital standards, and medical device quality. While this might accelerate innovation and reduce costs for companies, it risks patient safety if oversight is weakened.


•Access and Affordability: If deregulation leads to the consolidation of insurance companies or healthcare providers, patients may face fewer options and higher prices in the long run.


2. Aviation


•Safety Concerns: The aviation industry is highly regulated to ensure passenger safety. Reduced oversight could increase the risk of accidents or mechanical failures, as was seen in the aftermath of deregulation in the 1980s.


•Cost vs. Quality Trade-offs: While deregulation might lower ticket prices, it often comes at the cost of service quality (e.g., reduced legroom, increased fees, or overbooked flights).


With no guard rails in place for the incoming Trump administration, balancing efficiency and oversight will be a tall order as Trump will not be favorably disposed to the concept of independent watchdogs. 


Furthermore, policies that support fair competition, especially in the EV industry, through the encouragement of a diverse marketplace that engenders innovation across multiple players, will be abandoned for archaic and authoritarian policies that promote favoritism and stifle competition.


The basic premise for the creation of the DOGE was to promote  transparency around funding and policy decisions. It was supposed to help rebuild trust and reduce perceptions of corruption.


Under Trump, with Musk and Ramaswamy as the anchors, realizing that aforementioned noble premise will be at best, an illusion. 


America and Americans are in for a long and painful ride.