For a moment, forget every narrative and focus only on the children. Babies beheaded. Burned in their cribs. Toddlers torn away from their parents, taken as hostages, thrown in cages, and currently being tormented like zoo animals. Infants in body bags. Children, but a few years old. Alone, confined, and terrified. The most innocent of lives.

If your first reaction - let alone any reaction - was analogous to “this is resistance,” or “this is justified because of…” or “you can’t look at this in a vacuum,” or “I condemn this but understand why Hamas did it,” take a deep breath and do some soul searching. Anybody attempting to justify or contextualize decapitating an infant or a three-year-old taken hostage and held captive in a cage not even fit for a farm animal makes them grossly and willfully misinformed, demented, or abjectly anti-Semitic.

Chopping babies heads off – and let us be clear, be them Jewish babies, Palestinian babies, any babies - and holding children hostage, and there is no need to preface with “innocent” - because all babies and children are innocent - is never justified, not a form of resistance, and not understandable because of A, B and C, or X, Y or Z, or ever.

Imagine if it was an African child, an Asian child, an Irish child, or any child. Imagine if it was your baby in a body bag or in a cage. Ask yourself, would your response be the same? Would your silence still be heard everywhere?

Hamas

Racism, self-serving lies shaped to conform to a predetermined narrative, and sheer laziness in learning about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict have created a gaping asymmetry between the grasp of facts and strength of opinion on this topic.

Many of our readers make the valid argument that Palestinians in Gaza are suffering mightily. At TQC, we agree - Palestinians are suffering, but why are they are suffering? This is the most important question, yet it is constantly neglected.

Palestinians anguish in Gaza is because of Hamas – a globally designated terrorist organization - and their political leaders, not Israel, Jews, or the United States. This is one of the most significant but neglected facts. Regrettably, too many “human rights” activists, politicians, and journalists refuse to accept this fact, and other key facts below, that might not conform to their own ideology:

In June 2020, Anna Wintour, editor in chief of Vogue Magazine and chief content officer for parent company Conde Nast, argued that the publishing giant failed to give enough space to “Black editors, writers, photographers, designers, and other creators.”

On March 5, Conde Nast hired a young black journalist with an excellent pedigree named Alexi McCammond. On March 24, she was to take the reins as editor & chief of the popular periodical, Teen Vogue. Unfortunately, before she even had an opportunity to place photos of her family in her new office, she was forced to resign (aka was fired).

The reason: offensive tweets Ms. McCammond made a decade earlier while a teenager catalyzed a mutiny by Teen Vogue staffers and readers.

The cowardly decision by those involved at Conde Nast to oust Alexi McCammond is regrettable and, quite frankly, pathetic.

Alexi McCammond

Alexi McCammond was a rising star in journalism. She began her career while completing her studies at The University of Chicago, writing articles for a school paper called The Gate. Her first journalistic foray after college was doing freelance work, primarily for Cosmopolitan magazine.

Afterward, McCammond served as an editor for an online platform called Bustle. Next, she joined the politically-centric news organization Axios. During McCammond's tenure there, she was a key contributor to NBC and MSNBC. Her early achievements were recognized in 2019 when Ms. McCammond was named emerging journalist of the year by the National Association of Black Journalists. The following year she was named to Forbes 30 Under 30 list.

Heats For Tweets

In 2011, when Alexi McCammond was seventeen years old, she posted several offensive, politically incorrect tweets targeting Asians and the LGBTQ community. She also used the N-word to address a friend and wore a Native American Indian costume on Halloween. A sampling of the tweets is below:

• “Outdone by Asian. #Whatsnew.”

• “Give me a 2/10 on my chem problem, cross out all of my work and don’t explain what I did wrong… thanks a lot stupid Asian TA [teaching assistant]. You’re great,”

• Retweeted a news story about professional baseball umpire Dale Scott coming out as gay, and added : “Why is this ‘newsworthy?’ It’s not.”

The history of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is fiendishly complex; it goes far beyond the scope of this post. Indeed, becoming an authority on this matter would require hundreds, if not thousands of hours of due diligence. It is a topic so intricate and granular that it could easily be the subject of a Ph.D. dissertation. To that end, anybody so foolish in attempting to explain this multifaceted situation, generations in the making, via a few pro/anti-Israel or pro/anti-Palestinian tweets or Instagram posts is at best blissfully ignorant and at worst, a complete fraud.

The objective of this post is to call out abject anti-Semites, dispel some biased falsehoods about Jews and Israel that have spread across social media like wildfire, and explain the façade behind Hamas. We will also critique some self-proclaimed civil rights advocates for their gross hypocrisy, self-serving lies, and willful neglect as it pertains to this issue.

The Catalyst Behind The Latest Violence

Per the norm when it encapsulates Israeli / Palestinian conflict(s), the mainstream press in America and throughout the world has yet again craftily repurposed this “new” news item to make Israel look like the culpable aggressor. (So much for Jews controlling the media).

Unbeknownst to most, the issue surrounding the latest escalations is not new news at all; it is an ongoing landlord/tenant dispute involving just a few properties in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, ~40 years in the making. During which time Israeli Courts have taken every possible step to avoid evicting Palestinian residents. Indeed, most people devoid of basic knowledge, full of expert opinion, and quick to opine online have no interest in understanding and appreciating the facts surrounding the property dispute in Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem.

Tensions were simmering early last week as the Israeli Supreme Court was due to adjudicate on the longstanding dispute. Simultaneously, police had put up barriers at Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate, where Palestinians congregate during Ramadan. (They were subsequently removed after requests by Islamic religious leaders). Israeli police entered the Al Aqsa mosque in response to stones and other items being thrown from the complex, TikTok videos of Jews being slapped in the face, and attacks on Jewish students.

Hamas, a terrorist organization whose own governing charter (you can find it online) in 1988 called for Israel’s destruction and whose leader, Fathi Hammad, recently urged militants to “cut off the heads of Jews,” issued an ultimatum to vacate the premises or face repercussions.

The Violence

Shortly thereafter, from hospitals, schools, and other civilian locations within Gaza and without warning Hamas indiscriminately fired hundreds of rockets at Israel, including Tel Aviv and other large urban areas. Many of these projectiles were intercepted by Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense shield. Some penetrated Israeli defense systems, maiming and killing private citizens and destroying property. A few missiles fell short of their intended targets(s), landed in Gaza, and killed Palestinians.

Israel was under bombardment. As any other sovereign nation would do if under attack, Israel defended itself. Like few other sovereign nations would do, Israel exercised tremendous restraint. Before launching a counteroffensive, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) warned over loudspeakers, via SMS text messages, leaflets, phone calls and other methods that they would be targeting specific locations in Gaza known to house Hamas militants and military gear. In short, the IDF said to private Palestinian citizens, “evacuate, an attack is imminent.” Then, Israel hit back.

Proportion

Hamas launched a rocket attack from Gaza into Israel targeting civilian areas. Again, let us be very clear, Hamas fired first. Israel responded and only after warning their adversaries that they would do so. And a ship of fools including the comedian Trevor Noah, lambast Israel for responding “out of proportion.” Perhaps there is no irony that Mr. Noah is a comedian; his reasoning is as flawed as it is laughable.

Ok, Mr. Noah, let us talk about proportion. Is an appropriate response by Hamas to police refusing to vacate a mosque until they deduced who was hurling rocks from the venue to launch a military offensive firing hundreds of rockets on Israel? How “proportionate” is that?

Israel always shows restraint when responding to Hamas’s terror attacks. The stark reality is that the IDF could vaporize Gaza in a nanosecond. But they do not. Unfortunately, through the lens of the anti-Semitic eyes of the international world order, Jews are never allowed to defend themselves. Indeed, when Jews commit any kind of violence – even when responding to violence in self-defense, not purporting violence - it is labeled as “oppression.” When Hamas launches rockets into Israel or Jews are blown up on buses, it is labeled as “resistance.” Below is a sampling of responses across social media:

“I would have killed all the Jews of the world…but I kept some to show the world why I killed them.”
-Veena Malik, a verified Twitter user quoting Adolf Hitler

“From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free!”
– New York Democratic Socialists of America

“As a black woman in America, I am no stranger to police brutality and state-sanctioned violence…We have been criminalized for the very way we show up in the world … Palestinians are being told the same thing as black folks in America: there is no acceptable form of resistance.” - Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)

“Israeli air strikes killing civilians in Gaza is an act of terrorism. Palestinians deserve protection. Unlike Israel, missile defense programs, such as Iron Dome, don’t exist to protect Palestinian civilians. It’s unconscionable to not condemn these attacks on the week of Eid…Many will tell you Israel has a right to defend itself, to safety and security, but are silent on whether Palestinians have those rights too.” - Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

“What they are doing to the Palestinian people is what they continue to do to our black brothers and sisters here ... So I want you to know this, as you all are marching for freedom of Palestine, please know that you must be marching for everybody’s freedom. It is all interconnected.” - Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)

“Americans are scared to stand up to the incarceration of children in Palestine.”
– Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)

“We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. Israeli forces are forcing families from their homes during Ramadan and inflicting violence. It is inhumane and the US must show leadership in safeguarding the human rights of Palestinians.” - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)

"Regarding protections, opportunities for advancement and recognition of women and minorities, Big Tech finds itself today where Wall Street was a generation ago". -TQC

When Bloomberg news anchor Emily Chang published “Brotopia: Breaking up the Boys Club of Silicon Valley” in February, 2018, the timing was ideal. This book was published in the aftermath of Harvey Weinstein’s devastating fall from grace and the growing influence of the #MeToo movement. Although the book received a healthy endorsement from reviewers, its central topic, the sexist and misogynist culture of Silicon Valley, fell by the wayside. That most of the general public, and many women in particular, did not include Big Tech in its call to arms defies logic. The “boys club” culture of Silicon Valley has been well documented and not just by Ms. Chang but many others. So how is it that this particular segment of industry is somehow exempt from the basic tenets of society’s improved professional mores? Have the power players of the tech sector been spared simply as a result of the massive wealth they have generated for themselves and their shareholders coupled with the “cool” factor missing from old economy companies?

By comparison, largely-vilified Wall Street has made a lot of progress by acknowledging its culture problem and then taking action to foster a more inviting workplace environment for women and minorities. Regarding protections, opportunities for advancement and recognition of women and minorities, Big Tech finds itself today where Wall Street was a generation ago. Ironically, many of the same people who work in the technology sector -- which politically leans disproportionately Left -- while quick to express outrage over even an inkling of malfeasance at banks and brokerage firms, are less inclined to call out members of their own community for identical sins.

A week before Christmas, the New York Times delivered a sobering gift to congressman Elect George Santos: an expose of lies, nefarious business dealings, and potential campaign finance violations.

Certainly, George Santos is far from the first lawmaker to lie about his credentials. Indeed, if we listed every U.S. senator and congressperson that fibbed on their resume, we would be writing for far longer than our readers would stay interested (please at least finish this post!). However, the degree to which Congressman-Elect George Santos embellished his credentials is nothing short of mendacious political prostitution.

After he was exposed, Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said, “The Ethics Committee MUST start investigating immediately.” His tweet made us chuckle. A “political ethics committee” is nothing short of an oxymoron. Additionally, Torres plans on introducing a bill that would make it a crime for candidates to fib about their qualifications. This then begs the question: if Torres’ bill becomes law, would enough honest candidates be left to fill all the vacancies?!

While being interviewed on television, Santos issued an unremarkable, canned apology, conceding that “my sins here are embellishing my resume. I’m sorry.” In our view, that should not suffice.

The House of Representatives has the “ways and means,” excuse the pun, to investigate and issue civil penalties before a congressperson-elect is inaugurated. In this egregious case they should exercise that option. Most likely, they will not.

Unfortunately, Santos’ lies and the most common response to them represent a microcosm of what ails American politics. When a member of a political party sins, most members of their own party either clam up, shamelessly defend the subject, or deflect blame. Representatives of the rival party call for the subject to be guillotined. And vice versa. There is a gaping lack of consistency across political lines.

A Summary of Congressman-Elect Santos’ fantastical (and sort of amusing) lies are below:

• Claimed he is Jewish but was raised a practicing Catholic.

• Claimed his mother fled socialism in Europe.

• Claimed he attended the prep school Horace Mann.

• Claimed he graduated from Baruch College.

• Claimed he worked at Goldman Sachs.

• Claimed he worked at Citigroup.

• Claimed 9/11 took the life of his mother.

• Claimed he founded the not-for-profit organization Friends of Pets United.

I am Jew-ish

In his biography, George Santos claimed that he was a “proud American Jew.” When pressed, Santos said, “My heritage is Jewish, I’ve always identified as Jewish. I was raised a practicing Catholic…Even [though] I’ve not, not been raised a practicing Jew, I’ve always joked with friends and circles — even in the campaign, I’d say ‘Guys, I’m Jew-ish.’ Remember, I was raised Catholic.” Umm, say what?

To compound his gibberish, Santos also stated his familial name was Zabrovsky – proceeded to raise money under it – and that his grandparents changed their last name to Devolder. However, many sources could not find any evidence to substantiate this. A genealogist found “no sign of Jewish and/or Ukrainian heritage and no indication of name changes along the way.”

Socialism

In a radio interview in 2020, Mr. Santos claimed his mother left Europe to flee socialism. In another interview that year he said his mom immigrated to the US from Belgium. However, genealogical records reviewed by multiple news agencies show that his mother was born in Brazil. Said Santos, “My father fled socialism in Brazil. My mother fled socialism in Europe, and they came here and built a family. And today they can be proud to have a son who is a well accomplished businessman, who is now running for United States Congress. That’s something that wasn’t in the cards for my family.” The part about Santos running for congress is true. The rest is a farce.

Horace Mann

George Santos claimed he attended Horace Mann, a prep school in the Bronx, but had to withdraw four months before graduating because his family fell into financial distress during the housing bust in 2008. His explanation, “We were hit a little earlier on with the overleveraging of real estate. And the market started to implode. Um, and the first thing to go was the prep school. You know, you can’t afford a $2,500 tuition at that point, right? So anyway, um, I left school, uh, four months to graduation.” When contacted, a spokesman for Horace Mann said there was no evidence George Santos ever attended the school. Additionally, the tuition at Horace Mann is about 20x higher than $2500. And we could not find any lies about him receiving a scholarship!

On April 10, yet another mass shooting occurred in America. This one, in Louisville, KY. A 25-year-old gunman named Connor Sturgeon walked into his employer, Old National Bank, armed with an AR-15 that was legally purchased, and opened fire. The gunman killed five colleagues and wounded others, all while live-streaming his rampage on Facebook. Sturgeon was subsequently killed by responding police officers but not before shooting two deputies, critically injuring one.

Immediately following the shooting, politicians predictably talked past each other. Democrats reiterated their call for stricter gun control and more resources for mental health. The GOP stressed that random acts of gun violence are rare, and the bigger problem lies with soft-on-crime prosecutors that fail to punish criminals in a manner commensurate with their crimes, thereby perpetuating an increasingly violent crime cycle.

As You Were

The shooting in Kentucky was the 146th mass shooting in America in 2023. According to the Gun Violence Archive, a mass shooting is “any incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are wounded, or killed.”

Regrettably, the increased number of these incidents has rendered them unremarkable, so much so that they can all but be pre-scripted: A disgruntled perpetrator commits a senseless act of violence with a firearm, live streams it on social media to draw attention to himself (most perpetrators are men), Democrats and Republicans blame each other, the social media platform that hosted the content absolves itself of any responsibility, while the public has become so desensitized as to collectively shrug their shoulders and move on.

Gun Control

What can be done? Few issues are more divisive and held hostage by the extreme wings of both parties than the debate about guns in America. The sensible middle where compromise is often discovered – and perhaps surprisingly, where most Americans’ viewpoints lie regarding gun control - has been relegated to irrelevance.

A minority of staunch gun rights advocates are incorrigible and unwilling to entertain even the most benign ideas pertaining to gun control. This includes the need for any type of licensure, background checks, or making military grade-weapons that have no practical purpose other than for illicit activities illegal.

Certain anti-gun activists are equally as unreasonable. They refuse to consider anything but a blanket ban on both the sale and possession of all firearms. Their arguments are usually overly general, lack substance and are buoyed by silly statements such as “just get rid of guns” or “there should be no guns.” The fact is there are ~400 million guns in circulation in the United States, the vast majority of which are owned by law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, the probability of legislation being passed to confiscate those guns is zero. We must work with what the facts are, not what we may (or may not) like them to be.

Unbeknown to many on both sides of the political divide, most gun owners do support thoughtful regulation and consistent licensing procedures regarding the purchase, sale and usage of firearms. Many are in a moral quagmire, stuck between what they support – thoughtful streamlined rules and regulation – and the legitimate worry that new laws introduced to curb gun rights will set off a cascade of ever more restrictive legislation; with the end game being an outright ban on private firearm ownership.

Our view is that U.S. citizens should maintain the right to purchase and utilize most firearms subject to federal regulation including being licensed and undergoing a background check. The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, when James Madison penned the 2nd Amendment, machine guns, military-grade assault rifles and bump stocks – which effectively turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons - did not exist. Hence, we must apply common sense and rationality when applying text written in 1791 to the present.

To that end, military grade assault rifles should be outlawed. These weapons have no place in society except for law enforcement and the military. They serve one primary purpose - to hurt and kill people. These weapons are not useful or needed to hunt, shoot skeet, or for target practice. They should not be available to private citizens. Indeed, in 2008 as part of the District of Columbia v. Heller, The Supreme Court found “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

In short, at The Quintessential Centrist (TQC), our view is that the “Body Positivity” movement should support and encourage obese and overly thin people in their objective to love themselves enough to live a healthier lifestyle; not encourage people suffering from dangerous conditions to love the way they are without question.

Whether it’s an individual attempting to garner attention and trend-set or someone who is a genuine advocate for a cause, does it not seem like every other week, a niche or subculture is pushed into the limelight?

This could apply to politics, religious sects, sexual preferences and orientations, body modifications, odd hobbies -- you name it – somewhere, there is probably an editor at a major media outlet saying: “I found our ‘thing’ of the week!’”

At The Quintessential Centrist (TQC), we believe that as long as our fellow citizens aren’t infringing on the rights of others, promoting violence and/or engaging in criminal activity, they should be able to live the life they so desire, free to express themselves, argue for any cause no matter how trivial it might seem, and assemble to protest (unless lawless action is imminent) without fear of retribution.

That said, we think it’s prudent to highlight the dangers and hypocrisies of one movement that’s been gaining momentum, the “Body Positivity” movement: The recent movement rooted in the belief that all human beings should have a positive body image and be accepting of their own bodies and others as well.

By no means are we arguing that body positivity is a bad thing. Quite the contrary. At TQC we believe everyone should practice proper self-love and self-care. However, where do today’s “trendsetters” draw the line between promoting a healthy self-image and enabling a self-destructive lifestyle?

In the United States, obesity is a serious epidemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), approximately one third of American adults, or ~90 million people, are obese. Let us be clear, that’s not just overweight, that’s obese. By definition, a person is obese if their Body Mass Index (BMI) exceeds 30%. In addition to the dangerous health conditions linked to obesity, the economic damage is stunning. For the year 2008 – the last year in which data from the CDC is furnished on its website - the reported dollar cost of obesity to our economy was $147 billion.

Forbes Magazine posits that, at 21 years of age Kylie Jenner is the youngest “self-made billionaire ever,” effectively besting Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg who previously held the record; Zuckerberg made his first billion by the age of 23 in 2006. A few months prior to Forbes' most recent feature, Ms. Jenner graced the cover of a previous issue for being the “youngest self-made almost-billionaire, with a net worth of $900 million.” There is no question that Kylie Jenner is an extremely successful entrepreneur. We applaud her success, but take issue with Forbes' assertion that she is “self-made.” To draw such a conclusion is laughable, egregious and even irresponsible.

We credit Ms. Jenner for leveraging her ~175 million social media followers (this includes over 100 million followers on Instagram alone) to build a formidable cosmetics empire. Kylie Cosmetics generated an impressive $360 million in revenues in 2018 via the sales of lip kits, eyeshadows, eyeliners and more to her fan base. Jenner’s latest business extension involves a partnership with the popular cosmetics retailer, Ulta Beauty, which will mark her first foray into the brick and mortar retail space.

A GQ profile on the young entrepreneur highlighted that,“it's important to remember that Kylie's cosmetics business was built by grinding. It started with her consistent assault on social media.” Indeed, achieving a critical mass of followers is paramount when building a brand online (take it from us, we know!). The significant difference between Kylie Jenner and most other young entrepreneurs looking to utilize social media is that Ms. Jenner’s foundation had already been laid, so building the house that encompassed her empire was considerably easier. At The Quintessential Centrist, we do not discount the hard work Ms. Jenner clearly has devoted to her business. However, we do think it is important for young budding online businesspersons, to understand and appreciate the following: Scale is imperative when leveraging social media to build a profitable brand. In fact, Ms. Jenner herself alluded to the importance of scale, telling Forbes, "it’s the power of social media…I had such a strong reach before I was able to start anything.”

Wealth and its associated privileges afford much insulation and protection. However, it cannot safeguard against unexpected tragedy or death. Yet in the aftermath of the devastating Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka that have, to date, claimed 359 lives, the mainstream media has allocated a disproportionate amount of news coverage to the wealthiest victims. This subtly implies that rich lives matter more, or at least sell more newspapers and online advertising. At TQC, we find this troubling to say the least.

The day after the bombings, multiple news organizations highlighted the death of three of the four children of Danish billionaire Anders Hoch Polvson, who operates retail giant ASOS. Overnight, his story became - albeit indirectly – in part that a billionaire was not insulated from this act of terror. Of course, having to attend the funeral of ones’ own children under any circumstance is unfathomable. Our heavy hearts go out to, and we sympathize with, the Polvson family and all those affected by this senseless act. Unfortunately, the subtext of some media coverage implied that his loss was somehow greater because of his wealth. Mr. Povson’s story was not the only example of the mainstream press allocating an abundance of reporting resources on privileged persons affected by this terrorist attack.

There was considerable media focus on student Kieran Shafritz de Zoya, a fifth grader at the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. The school’s alumni include the children of several Presidents. In his grief, the boy’s father spoke of how Kieran aspired to be a neuroscientist but those dreams ended when terrorism claimed his life. Other prominent victims included Sri Lankan celebrity chef Shantha Mayadunne and a young relative of Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. These were among the figures given notable mention in the press coverage. Indeed, the media seemed astonished that the affluent were among the victims.

One of the supposed virtues, ostensibly, of social media, is to forge dialogue and bridge divides between people. It is, however, increasingly doing the opposite. Online discussions are morphing into something more sinister where civic-minded individuals are lambasted for even constructive criticism of those flaunting rules. To boot, the First Amendment is rapidly becoming a victim of the political correctness movement.

Generally, despite highly publicized cases of hate crimes and anti-Semitism, America is more racially equal and harmonious now than it was generations ago. That said, there is no doubt that African Americans and certain other minorities still receive the short shrift in many areas of life. Those of us historically literate and socially aware, irrespective of our political leanings, are rational enough to acknowledge this. Furthermore, before the advent of body cameras, smart phones and other recording devices, the level of abuse that disproportionately affected people of color was materially higher. Technological advancements have prodded most members of our society to hold themselves to a higher standard. However, in this case of Natasha Tynes and The Washington, DC Mass Transit Authority (MTA), technology was a contributing factor in degrading all parties involved.

This recent “scandal” was precipitated by Jordanian American World Bank employee Natasha Tynes, who reported a black female employee of the Washington, DC MTA for eating while on the job, a violation of MTA rules. When Tynes singled out the MTA employee, she was effectively told to mind her own business, at which point she took a picture of the employee eating and posted it along with a complaint to the DC MTA, on Twitter. The ensuing backlash – against Ms Tynes, a minority in her own right – was as absurd and misguided as Tynes’ own overreaching action against a fellow citizen for a trivial violation. Ms. Tynes was accused of being a snitch, a racist, and compromising the employee’s livelihood.

More importantly and as equally unbelievable, Tynes’ spineless book publisher, California Coldblood, and its distributor Rare Bird, suspended working with the author on her new novel, They Called Me Wyatt. California Coldblood tweeted: "Natasha Tynes ...did something truly horrible today in tweeting a picture of a metro worker eating her breakfast on the train this morning and drawing attention to her employer…Black women face a constant barrage of this kind of inappropriate behavior directed toward them and a constant policing of their bodies…we do not condone (Tynes') actions and hope Natasha learns from this experience that black women feel the effects of systematic racism the most and that we have to be allies, not oppressors." We disagree with their decision. Tynes did not deserve to lose her book deal. Even if her actions were motivated by racism – and we have no reason to believe they were - her publisher and distributor have no proof that race was a motivating factor in her action.

On October 27, President Trump announced that U.S. Special Forces, at his behest, carried out a heroic raid in northern Syria that resulted in the death of one of the most savage terrorist leaders to date. As U.S. troops closed in, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, detonated his suicide vest taking three of his presumed-children with him. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump announced that the U.S. had also taken out al-Baghdadi's likely successor, Abu Hasan al-Muhajir.

At The Quintessential Centrist, we have often been critical of our Commander in Chief. His judgment is often lacking; his behavior, unbecoming and sometimes downright embarrassing. However, the aforementioned events deserve the heartiest of applause.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Since ISIS declared its caliphate in 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi commandeered over at least 140 terrorist attacks in nearly 30 countries in addition to those carried out daily in Iraq and Syria. He was as vicious as he was dangerous. Notorious for brutally torturing his victims, including fellow Muslims, al-Baghdadi was responsible for the genocide of Yazidis and Christians. His cruelty included forcing these groups into sexual slavery. He ordered mass beheadings of many others including foreign journalists and aid workers from the U.S., the U.K. and Japan. He burned a Jordanian pilot alive in a cage. The list goes on.

The ISIS leader's reign of terror extended to Western targets inspiring the Paris, Nice, Orlando and Manchester terror attacks to name but a few. He inspired countless smaller, yet equally horrific lone-wolf attacks globally in the forms of shootings, slashings and car ramming incidents. Al-Baghdadi left hundreds of thousands of Yazidis, Christians, and Muslims a “heads” he wins “tails” they lose choice: join him and his barbaric comrades or flee their respective homelands and become refugees.

The point cannot be overstated: the world has much to rejoice at the demise of al-Baghdadi. Unfortunately, the authoritative Washington Post chose to eulogize the barbaric terrorist with a headline that read: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

Excuse us?

As if Mr. Baghdadi were merely a university professor and dean of a famous seminary who just happened to succumb to a long battle with cancer. The "obituary" went on to read that "when al-Baghdadi first rose as a leader of ISIS, he was a relatively unheard of 'austere religious scholar with wire-frame glasses and no known aptitude for fighting and killing.’"

At the Quintessential Centrist, our goal is to furnish you with fresh perspectives from across the political, economic and social spectrum. We strive to promote ideals and tenets of the center - where compromise is often found - through our in-depth columns, articles and analysis.

The internet, print, broadcast, and social media can all be sources of interesting and timely information. However, TQC believes that books often times contain some of the most pertinent and thought-provoking facts, figures and opinions. Some books are packed with quantitative information and hard data. These books we find help us buoy (or challenge) our arguments and in some cases, tightly held beliefs. Other books are more qualitative in nature; typically adding value from a top down perspective, incorporating ideas and values across the ideological spectrum. The very best titles challenge us to think objectively, critically, self-reflect, and potentially change our minds. Below we highlight a few of our favorite books we have read over the past year.

Energy and Civilization: A History by Vaclav Smil

The 35th of an incredible 36 books penned thus far in his illustrious career; Vaclav Smil, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba in Canada, offers his readers a fascinating history lesson on mankind, their relationship with, and consumption of, energy and natural resources. Be forewarned, this book is data heavy and granular in presentation. It requires the readers undivided attention. That said, it is well worth investing the time to read it as it is jam packed with important facts and figures. Energy and Civilization helped us examine more critically man’s relationship with the planet he lives on, and off.

Spousonomics: Using Economics to Master Love, Marriage, and Dirty Dishes by Jenny Anderson & Paula Szuchman

Authored by New York Times reporter and Gerald Loeb Award winner Jenny Anderson and Paula Szuchman, former managing editor of The Daily Beast and Page 1 editor at The Wall Street Journal, Spousonomics is a very fun and informative book that uses classic economic principles to target, tackle and remedy issues that arise in almost every marriage. Do not be deterred if you have never studied finance or economics. The examples given in this book are in layman’s terms (not theoretical numeric formulas), easy to understand, and applicable to “real life” situations.

Solitary by Albert Woodfox

Albert Woodfox, is a human rights activist and part of the “Angola 3.” Woodfox spent 40 years in solitary confinement at Louisiana’s infamous Angola Prison for a crime he did not commit. During his time at Angola, Woodfox endured unimaginable physical and psychological torture. This book captures the endurance of the human spirit, America’s (often) unfair and biased legal system, it’s (sometimes) ugly history, as well as progress. We do not agree with all of Woodfox’s arguments, especially concerning capitalism, but we recommend reading his memoir.

My birthday was on December 2nd. Before sunrise, my phone blew up with “Happy Birthday” texts, many of which were likely prompted by Facebook reminders. These continued at a steady pace throughout the day. Some people chose to wish me a “Happy Birthday” via Facebook itself. A few “Birthday emails” made their way into my inbox. Traditionalists picked up the phone and rang, one (ready for this) from a land line. I even received a letter in my (gasp) physical mailbox.

Texts were the easiest to respond to. The majority of my well-wishers did not say “Happy Birthday Chris.” They simply texted what seemed to be a canned “Happy Birthday.” Thus, “Thank you, I appreciate it” was generic enough a response that cutting, pasting and using it to acknowledge those acknowledgments more than sufficed. Most of the balance of the texts read “Happy Birthday Chris.” Alas, these required individualized responses. I had to say, “Thank You (insert name here), I appreciate it.” Facebook posts were easy to “like” - err - respond to. Emails required a more in-depth retort. “Happy Birthday Chris, I hope you are well” obliged me to ensure my well-wishers via this medium that, indeed, all was ok in my world.

Mom’s Should Receive Our Happy Birthday Wishes

Most of us, myself included, feel obliged to wish friends and family members a “Happy Birthday.” Rarely, if ever, does anybody say “thank you” on our birthdays to the women that were primarily responsible for bringing us into this world: our respective mothers. We should make a point to do so. Moms endure stress, physical trauma, often get sick during pregnancy, put careers on hold and generally sacrifice so much to usher us into this ecosphere. They should be the recipients of our “Happy Birthday” wishes.

At The Quintessential Centrist, we always think of new and relevant ways to engage our readers and provoke meaningful dialogue. Music, film, theater and TV productions as well as other forms of media are some of the most powerful conduits that shape our culture. Artistic expressions are often a reflection of the society in which they’ve evolved, yet conversely serve as catalysts for influencing future cultural trends.

In 2020, TQC will occasionally offer thoughtful reviews of important films, music, television, art installations or theatrical releases that we believe harbor important themes or messages relevant to our cultural dialogue. The first two films we reviewed in 2020 were in fact released at the very end of 2019: The Two Popes, and Uncut Gems.

The Two Popes

The Two Popes is a semi-fictionalized account of conversations between former Pope Benedict XVI (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and the current pontiff, Pope Francis (Jonathan Pryce). The two men, though ideologically opposed, discuss their concerns and hopes about the current state of the world, the church’s future and their own.

Irrespective of one’s views on the church, the papacy, or organized religion in general, this is undoubtedly a beautiful movie worth every accolade. The scoring, the cinematography, directing, dialogue, and above all, acting, are magnificent. Jonathan Pryce embodies the humble strength of then-archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and his delivery in Spanish, in Italian and Latin, with perfect dialect, is sublime. Sir Anthony Hopkins lives up to his past accolades with a performance that accurately conveys the sobriety of the former pope while surprising us with a touch of irony.

The film requires no suspension of disbelief as these two craftsmen embody their characters so effortlessly. For this alone, the movie is well worth viewing to absorb the fine performance of two brilliant actors. In an era where gratuitous violence, sexual content and vulgar language permeate most films, it is refreshing to see a movie that thoroughly entertains and delights without resorting to Hollywood trappings and other lowbrow optics.

The Catholic Church is currently the subject of much controversy. As such, there are challenges to separating art from the subject matter at hand. Some people argue that the current pope is too liberal, too political; others contend that the former pope was too conservative. In recent years we have become painfully aware of the various scandals, hypocrisies, and shortcomings that have cast serious aspersions on the sanctity of the Catholic Church. The Two Popes addresses these topics using an approach that satisfies movie buffs but likely will not satisfy church-detractors.

The exchange between the two Popes of different eras in a rapidly changing world where the Church is no longer as sanctified needs to be appreciated without vilification. The Two Popes serves as a reminder that there are many fine people who have dedicated their lives to serving God. Indeed, to only focus on the shortcomings of the church would miss the entire point of the movie itself, which, at its core, is a story of how even those who are ideologically opposed can open their hearts and minds to one another and form, even if at first grudgingly, respect and appreciation for the other’s point of view.

The Twitter handle that became an epithet for something far more powerful turned into a double-edged sword with unintended consequences. - TQC

In the days after Brett Kavanaugh’s controversial confirmation to the Supreme Court, former First Lady Michelle Obama noted in an interview “she was surprised at how much has changed but how much has not.” She was referring to the landscape in the year since The New York Times damning expose on Harvey Weinstein which segued into the #MeToo movement.

Weinstein’s sexual abuse of women in entertainment unified women across all strata and industries in the US; fear was taken out of the equation and replaced with strength in numbers. Yet, the Kavanaugh accusations had the opposite polarizing impact as the maelstrom surrounding his nomination prompted President Trump to conclude that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America." The First Lady, meantime, declared that “women need to show the evidence” when making such bold allegations against a man.

The Twitter handle that became an epithet for something far more powerful turned into a double-edged sword with unintended consequences.

This was not anticipated. The purported advancement and increased inclusion of women in all industries was thought to be sufficient enough to counter a backlash against #MeToo. At The Quintessential Centrist, we have alluded to this in the past. Not only has the women’s rights movement made tremendous strides in the past five decades, but also the data and statistics indicate that in the US, women are, at the very least, outpacing men in education. They are closing the gap in career trajectory and income. As a corollary, until recently, there were scores of sociological articles expressing concern that boys and young men were at greater risk of being financially, socially and professionally marginalized. Girls and women had made enormous strides in upward mobility in every aspect. Hence, the alarm that one of the unintended consequences of #MeToo is potentially leading to a renewed divide in the workplace and elsewhere. Does bitter political divisiveness since President Trump was elected to office threaten to unravel us?

We will kick off our TQC Q&A Series with a question and answer session regarding the current environment of the art world, market, and related subject matter, with Suzanne Geiss. Ms. Geiss brings over 25 years’ experience in the industry advising ambitious private and corporate collections and curating gallery & museum exhibitions.

In 2010, Geiss founded the Suzanne Geiss Company, specializing in post-1960s artworks and private collection building paired with a dynamic public exhibition and performance program. In addition to her activities as a curator and consultant, Geiss currently serves as President of the Board of Performance Space New York and is pursuing a graduate degree in art, performance, and social justice.

tQc: Before delving into our subject matter, please share with us how you established yourself in the art business?

It was never my objective to be on the transactional/advisory side of the business and own a gallery. My intention was to be an artist. However, following my college graduation in order to convince my parents that I was doing something “productive”, I got a job at the Andre Emmerich Gallery on Manhattan's Upper East Side, as the receptionist.

It was the mid 1990's, the art market was experiencing a downturn; sales were few and far between. One afternoon a gentleman came in inquiring about works by Hans Hofmann. The gallery director thought it was just a "tire kicker" so they sent me - the receptionist - to deal with the visitor. I thought to myself, why are they sending in a 22-year-old to try and sell a painting, but I figured, what the hell, let me give it a go. So I picked out a Hans Hofmann painting, with a title that particularly resonated with me and I just riffed on it. To my own disbelief, and the disbelief of most of the other people that I worked with, I sold the painting for a record price (for a Hofmann) at the time. Magically, my title changed from secretary to "assistant director." It was a unique opportunity and one that would be unlikely to happen in today’s art world.

tQc: Generally, what are some of the biggest changes you have witnessed in the art business since beginning your career almost 30 years ago?

The art market has become more professionalized, more corporate. When I first entered the business, it was a much smaller ecosystem centered around a core group of collectors making Saturday afternoon gallery visits. Presently, collectors are increasingly using art as a financial instrument and thus require analysis based on criteria that is often mutually exclusive from the art itself.

Of course, the other big change has been on the technology side. The internet shifted the balance of power away from all but the very largest galleries. For the first time collectors could easily research and compare prices between galleries, access previous auction results, and observe what other market participants (collectors, speculators, dealers, etc) were collecting. Offering work through email was revolutionary. (Previously if you wanted to connect with a client outside your city you mailed them a slide or transparency)!

Lastly, social media has given artists a medium to connect directly with their audience, squeezing out more and more intermediaries.

tQc: “Conservatism” and art seem to be at loggerheads. Can an individual be both "conservative" and "accepted" in the art world today? If so, how? If not, do you consider that hypocritical of what the art world espouses to be?

Good question and not one I’ve been asked before. Thinking about “conservatism," well yes, it seems to be diametrically opposed to art. I am generalizing here but I think it’s fair to say that most artists are interested in more progressive issues, while some collectors land on the more conservative end of the spectrum. That said, the art world is unique because you have a place where these communities come together. Artists are often at the forefront of social and political engagement putting them in a position to be effective change agents. Sometimes (again I want to be clear that this is an oversimplification, I’ve met and dealt with many progressive collectors) collectors are at the other end of the social or political spectrum. Art provides an opportunity for people that might not otherwise mingle to do so. That is wonderful.

"Conservatives sometimes resist change when change makes good sense; liberals sometimes yearn for change when change makes little sense."

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but a working clock can be wrong 23 times a day."

"When somebody is emotionally incapable of doing what’s rationally obvious, it’s impossible to effect change."

"A man who juggles too many balls in the air is bound to end up with his head down."

"If you try and dance in-between raindrops, most likely you will end up getting soaked."

“I'm Casey Kasem.” That simple phrase was a mainstay of the 1980’s. It marked the beginning of Casey Kasem’s weekly radio show, American Top 40 (AT40). For a few hours each week, Kasem commanded the attention of music fans across America as he counted down the top 40 hits in the USA. During his show, Kasem intertwined a treasure chest of music and biographical trivia. Each week, he chose a letter from a fan and read it on the air. Indeed, Kasem had an uncanny ability to weave a cheesy, poorly written letter, into a heartfelt story that captivated his listeners. At its conclusion, Kasem would call out the author by name, “…Katie in Nebraska…Robert in Wyoming…”etc, and dedicate a song to them. After the countdown was complete, Kasem signed-off the same way each week, reminding his audience to "Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars."

An Abbreviated History

Kemal Amin "Casey" Kasem was born on April 27, 1932 in Detroit, Michigan. His initial foray into radio was at Northwestern High School where he announced sports. After high school, Kasem attended Wayne State University where he pursued a degree in education. He was drafted into the military in 1952 and subsequently sent to Korea where he served as the DJ on the Armed Forces Radio Network.

Following the Korean War, Kasem toiled at several different radio stations and locations including WJBK in Detroit, WBNY in Buffalo, KYA in San Francisco, and KRLA in Los Angeles. He also appeared on screen securing bit parts in a few low budget films and appeared on network TV, in Hawaii-Five-O. While hosting a TV show on a local station, Dick Clark noticed him and offered him a position to host a teenage music show. It was, however, Kasem’s voice that would be his ticket to success. In 1969, he landed a role that would make him famous, serving as the voice of Shaggy on the popular show, Scooby-Doo. In the 1970’s, the decade AT40 was born, Kasem continued acting, doing voiceovers and narrating.

American Top 40

In 1970, Casey Kasem co-founded and launched American Top 40. The show was initially aired on seven stations and soon thereafter went nationwide. Since its inception, AT40 has experienced multiple iterations. Kasem hosted the show from 1970 to 1988 and from 1998 to 2004 (he was replaced by Shadoe Stevens in 1988 because of a contract dispute). In 2004, Ryan Seacrest took over and is the current host of AT40. However, the apex of the show's success was in the decade of the 80’s

So much for welcoming in the New Year with an innocuous post of fun facts or trivia. The events of Wednesday, January 6, 2021 effectively scuppered those plans while leaving a permanent scar on American history.

That morning, President Donald Trump urged his supporters to head to Washington, “fight” and “take back our country.” He unilaterally declared that “we will never concede (because) you don’t concede when there is theft involved.” His disgraced lawyer Rudy Giuliani instructed the crowd to follow a path of “trial by combat.” Not to be outdone, Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks chimed in and told the audience of Trump supporters that it was time to begin “taking down names and kicking ass.” They dutifully obliged.

Later that day, a mob of Trump loyalists overwhelmed a woefully underprepared U.S. Capitol Police force, breached The Capitol, disrupted president-elect Joe Biden’s confirmation, and ransacked the building. One rioter, a retired air force veteran, was shot to death by police. Three other Trump supporters died from trauma stemming from altercations with officers. One Capitol Police officer was killed; others were hospitalized.

Stunning photos soon emerged of insurgents – make no mistake, these were not protestors – marching through the House Chamber, including one man carrying a confederate flag, another sitting at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk with his feet up, looking like he was getting ready to crack open a beer and watch a football game.

This sad day in American history marked the first time The Capitol had been breached since The War of 1812 by British soldiers.

Too Little Too Late

The next day, at the urging of his rapidly thinning circle of dutiful advisors, Donald Trump condemned this reprehensible act calling it a “heinous attack,” and said those who broke the law would pay. He assured he would leave office without incident on January 20, per law. Congressman Brooks also released a statement condemning the violence.

To all but the most unreasonable Trump loyalists, this was simply too little too late. In the past, TQC’s position was that Trump is a depraved human, but we credited him – and agreed with - many of his policies. Now, forget the latter. They do not deserve to be mentioned in this post. The leader of the free world incited a riot. Impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.

GOP leaders, including some of Mr. Trump’s closest former allies strongly rebuked the president. Members of Trump’s Cabinet, including Secretary Elaine Chao and Betsy DeVos, resigned along with the head of the Capitol Police and the Sergeants at Arms for the House and Senate. Below is an array of quotes from prominent Republicans:

“It’s past time for the president to accept the results of the election, quit misleading the American people, and repudiate mob violence.” – Senator Tom Cotton (R:AK)

“The President bears responsibility for today’s events by promoting the unfounded conspiracy theories that have led to this point.” – Senator Richard Burr (R:ND)

“There’s no question the president formed the mob, the president incited the mob, the president addressed the mob -- he lit the flame. Trump’s response so far has been completely intolerable and insufficient.” – Liz Cheney (R:WY)

“The president of the United States has been lying to his supporters with false information and false expectations. He lit the flame of incitement and owns responsibility for this.” – Former FBI Agent & Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R:PA)

Said conservative pundit John Podhoretz, “Donald Trump unleashed a mob on Capitol Hill. What he has done is without precedent in American history. Even if he had seven minutes left in his presidency, he should not be permitted to spend another second as the president.” Again, and we stress, we agree.