Latest news with #HillbillyElegy
Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mirror
VP JD Vance's new Bluesky account 'suspended' just 10 minutes after launch
JD Vance celebrated joining Bluesky on X - but his account almost immediately appeared to be suspended and replaced with a "not found, account suspended" message Vice President JD Vance's Bluesky account suddenly faced suspension, a mere ten minutes after he jubilantly announced its activation. The proactive advocate for online free speech, Vance broadcasted on his X profile his venture into Bluesky - a burgeoning adversary to X, the latter gaining the stamp of approval from the left-leaning online community as a sanctuary post its acquisition by Trump's mate and tycoon Elon Musk. On his X feed, Vance posted: "Just set up my page on @bluesky, hope to see you guys there!". Yet, Politico's Ben Jacobs discovered the fresh account seemingly axed, replaced by a stark "Not found, account suspended" message. Jacobs' followers didn't delay their chortles:, reports the Express. Robert Beatey chimed in, " That deserves a Senate Hearing" paired with an emoji in stitches. Constellation Finder tossed in, "Wow, already? Wonder what happened. @JamesWolniecz would probably have some wild theories about this." Crowds swarmed Vance's original announcement, bringing waves of commentary. Marelda remarked "Already the account has been suspended, damn that was quick." Nick Sortor updated, "UPDATE: BlueCry banned the sitting VP for hurting their feelings." Reports suggest Vance's Bluesky presence has made a comeback since the disruption. Vance remains a headline regular with his vociferous crusade for unbridled speech rights, staunchly supporting the expression of edgy views. The 'Hillbilly Elegy' writer has sounded the alarm on an escalating menace to civil liberties in the US, alleging that political bigwigs are quashing open discussion. Vance has taken a swipe at social media behemoths and business magnates for what he perceives as the muzzling of right-wing viewpoints. His vigorous championing of the First Amendment has garnered him accolades as well as criticism, yet the Ohio senator remains steadfast that freedom of speech is "a cornerstone of democracy" that needs safeguarding, no matter one's political leanings.
The Guardian
12-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Yes, protesting can help tyrants like Trump, with its scenes of disorder. But that's no reason to stay at home
When Donald Trump was elected the first time round, the works of the German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt flew off the shelves in the US. It wasn't all good news – JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy was also enjoying a surge in popularity and Trump was, of course, still about to be president. But Arendt's famous 1951 work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, was selling at 16 times its usual rate, which meant that by the time of the protests centred on the inauguration in January 2017, at least some of those people had read it. Arendt's view of popular demonstrations was complicated. She wasn't blind to the way authoritarian rulers use public protest as an excuse for a display of physical power, embodied in the police, which turns the state into an army against its people, altering that relationship. If it's no longer government by consent, it's rule by force, and they have the equipment. Yet 'how many people here still believe', she wrote of Germany in the 1930s, quoting the French activist David Rousset, 'that a protest has even historic importance? This scepticism is the real masterpiece of the SS. Their great accomplishment. They have corrupted all human solidarity. Here the night has fallen on the future.' It's an elegantly drawn lose-lose situation: if you lose the will to protest, you have been 'morally murdered', but if you don't, you play into the tyrant's hands. But the Women's Marches of January 2017 didn't spark police violence. Not a single arrest was made across the 2 million protesters gathered in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and Seattle. Commentators wondered whether this was due to the essentially peaceable nature of women and their allies, while academics drew comparisons with the hundreds of arrests made during the Ferguson uprising of 2014 (which, of course, happened under President Obama). 'Tanks and rubber bullets versus pussy-hats and high-fives' was how one scholar, Abby Harrington, described the contrast, making the case convincingly that protesters were treated differently on essentially racist grounds. It would be wrong, and actually quite sexist, to say that the women weren't considered worthy of violent suppression because they didn't seem serious enough. It would be wrong, too, to say that they made no impact – they were enormous, dispersed across 408 places in the US, rallying by some estimates more than 4 million Americans, and spawning protests in solidarity across seven continents, including one in Antarctica. The demand was very broad and consequently pretty loose, however: protesters wanted 'vibrant and diverse communities' recognised as 'the strength of our country'. They wanted reproductive rights and tolerance and protection from violence; mutual respect; racial equality; gender equality; workers' rights – it was a call for decency, to which the leader felt no need to respond, almost by definition, since he is not decent. The recent US protests were sparked last Friday at about 9am, as border patrol agents massed outside a Home Depot in Paramount, a predominantly Latino area in Los Angeles. An assembly member, José Luis Solache Jr, happened to be driving past, so stopped and posted the scenes, which looked chillingly militaristic even days before the arrival of the national guard. Protesters started to arrive, not in huge numbers but with a vast purpose – to prevent what looked like an immigration raid of people trying to do their jobs. It came on the back of the arrest of a senior union official in the Fashion District, and one father arrested in front of his eight-year-old son. The message, when border guards sweep a workplace or a courtroom where people are doing regular immigration check-ins, is quite plain: this isn't about deporting hardened criminals. The protestrs' demand was correlatively plain: don't arrest our friends, neighbours or colleagues, when they pose no danger to anyone. Since then, 700 marines have been deployed to the city, and the number of national guards doubled to 4,000. The situation recalls Arendt's later work, On Violence, in which she argues that power and violence are actually opposites – the state creates tinderbox situations when it has lost the expectation of public compliance. So if the protests were symbolic, they would be playing into the government's hands: an abstract resistance creating justification for concrete suppression. But the protests are not symbolic – the alternative to protesting against a raid by border guards is to let the raid go ahead and lose those neighbours. The Russian-American columnist and author M Gessen cites a distinction made in political science between faith, where you believe that justice will simply prevail, and hope, where you observe and participate. Gessen wrote in the New York Times: 'You can't take action without hope, but you also can't have hope without taking action.' Everyone has a line over which they'd be spurred to action – there's no one who wouldn't lie down in front of the government van if their child were kidnapped and put inside it by masked men. So the real art of the autocratic state is not just to weaken protective institutions, but also to foster the conditions of fear and hopelessness ahead of a critical mass finding its hard limit. It's not clear, yet, whether the repression is a deliberate spectacle in order to create that fear, or whether, conversely, it's the accidental creation of conditions that demand action. Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
Business Times
10-06-2025
- General
- Business Times
Why is modern commerce corrosive?
YOU'RE not imagining it. There is something shallow about modern life – a sense that traditional virtues, from craftsmanship to professionalism to loyalty, have somehow been hollowed out. Don't get me wrong: I love living in the 21st century and believe that the world is a far better place in 2025 than it was in, say, 1975. Still, there is something amiss. You can see it in long-term trends such as the demise of communities built around fishing, mining or manufacturing, and in more recent calamities such as the Internet's descent into a hellscape of fraud, manufactured anxiety and artificial intelligence slop. You can see it in serious matters such as the sewage flowing into the Thames, the decay of high streets or the precarity of many modern jobs. You can see it in more trivial worries such as the way each new casual dining concept so quickly goes downhill. You can see it in the fact that every single one of these social ills is intimately connected to commerce. There is no shortage of books to consult on the matter. This hollowing out has been explored in works as varied as Sherry Turkle's Alone Together, Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy, Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone and Cory Doctorow's forthcoming Enshittification. But for the deep analysis, turn to the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, published in 1981. MacIntyre articulated an utter disenchantment with three centuries of moral philosophy all the way back to the Enlightenment, and argued that it was hardly a surprise that modern society itself lost its way. He argued that clear thinking and virtuous action couldn't be unmoored from a social context – it had to be embedded in a community with shared values, goals and practices. His fellow philosophers found the book impossible to ignore. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up MacIntyre died in May at the age of 96, which prompted me to turn back to a piece of his writing (in the 1994 essay A Partial Response To My Critics) that has stuck with me for decades: the tale of two fishing crews. One crew is 'organised and understood as a purely technical and economic means to a productive end, whose aim is only or overridingly to satisfy as profitably as possible some market's demand for fish'. The crew members are motivated to work hard, innovate and hone their skills, because that way lies profit. The other crew has developed 'an understanding of and devotion to excellence in fishing and to excellence in playing one's part as a member of such a crew'. This excellence is about skill, to be sure – but also about character, social bonds and courage. These fishermen are risking their lives and are dependent on each other. And, adds MacIntyre, 'when someone dies at sea, fellow crew members, their families and the rest of the fishing community will share a common affliction and common responsibilities'. The values of this second crew are what we seem to be losing when a private equity group 'rolls up' hundreds of small independent vets; or when an old-fashioned private partnership such as Lehman Brothers becomes a publicly traded company; or when a business embraces a mission statement that could equally describe the aim of any other business. Try this: 'Our objective is to maximise value for our shareholders by focusing on businesses where we have market leadership, a technological edge and a world-competitive cost base'. Any guess as to the industry? It could be anything, so it means nothing. I was introduced to MacIntyre's ideas not by my philosophy tutors, but by the economist John Kay. In The Truth About Markets (2003), Kay quotes MacIntyre's description of the fishing crews, and then asks a question: which crew would make more money? MacIntyre assumed the answer was depressingly self-evident: the profit-maximising crew will be an unstoppable force, which is why modern commerce is so corrosive. Organisations that offer the riches of friendship, community, loyalty, craft and professionalism are sure to be driven out of business by the relentless economic logic of the profit-maximiser. They make money, and destroy what really matters. But do they really make money? Kay argues that narrow profit-maximising is often a failure, even by its own denuded standards. A 1972 Harvard Business School case study examines a real-world example of MacIntyre's profit-maximising fishing crew. The Prelude Corporation, the largest lobster producer in North America, aimed to become the General Motors of the fishing industry. It went bankrupt shortly after the case study was written. Lehman Brothers is another example – was it really more successful after jettisoning the traditional structure in which the capital at risk was provided by partners who best understood the business? A third example is the chemical giant ICI, which in 1994 published that vacuous mission statement about 'market leadership'. A titan of 20th-century British manufacturing, it faded and, in 2008, was absorbed and broken up by a Dutch paint company. Perhaps ICI would have done better had they paid less attention to making money, and more attention to making chemicals. This should not really surprise us, as Kay explains in The Corporation in the 21st Century (2024). To be solidly profitable, companies need some kind of competitive advantage. That might rest on network effects, intellectual property or even political connections. But it might equally rest on a trusted brand and well-worn habits of making the right kind of decision, quickly. In other words, profitability can rest on shared values, goals and practices too. An organisation that MacIntyre himself might admire, one that has developed the right kind of culture, may well be more attractive to customers, more appealing to potential employees and simply more effective at doing all the things a particular business in a particular industry must do. Consider the Financial Times itself. I dare say everyone involved in the business prefers to be paid, and the FT aims to be profitable. Yet we didn't come here with the hope of printing money; we came with the aim of printing newspapers. If the FT's entire operation, day to day and top to bottom, was predicated on maximising profit, this would be a different newspaper. It is not obvious that it would be a more profitable one. FINANCIAL TIMES
Time of India
10-06-2025
- Automotive
- Time of India
Musk-Trump spat entangles MAGA prince JD Vance
Musk-Trump spat: The fallout between Donald Trump and Elon Musk has ignited a MAGA civil war, with JD Vance caught in the crossfire. Musk's call for Trump's impeachment and suggestion of Vance as a replacement has reportedly fueled Trump's paranoia. Vance now walks a tightrope, balancing loyalty to Trump with his Silicon Valley connections, as Trump demands unwavering allegiance. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Vance, the MAGA prince in Trump's cross hairs Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Vance does a tightrope walk Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads In a presidency already defined by internal volatility and external shockwaves, the recent falling out between President Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk marks a significant rupture in the power structure. But the MAGA civil war , which flared up with an open spat between Trump and Musk on social media is still smouldering even though Musk has deleted the controversial posts he aimed at Trump. Vice-President JD Vance has emerged as a target in the Trump-Musk Michael Wolff, who has written several books on Trump, has said on the Daily Beast Podcast that Trump is getting paranoid after Musk turned Vance into an existential threat to his power. During their explosive spat last week, Musk called for Trump's impeachment and urged that Vance take his place. Wolff, the best-selling Trump biographer, suggests that Musk's demand struck fear into Trump and made him even more suspicious of is a fascinating political figure. Once a critic of Trump, he pivoted hard during his Senate run, aligning himself fully with the MAGA movement and earning Trump's coveted endorsement. His 'Hillbilly Elegy' background gives him working-class appeal, while his Silicon Valley experience (as a venture capitalist funded by Peter Thiel, a tech billionaire) makes him a rare bridge between conservative populism and tech-world Musk, Vance may represent the ideal vessel: loyal to Trumpism's nationalist message but not bound to Trump's personal baggage. This may explain why he would reportedly float Vance's name as a successor, or alternative, to says that Trump has always been ambivalent about Vance, an 'unlikely Republican' whose 'hardcore support is in the tech bro community". Trump chose Vance as his running mate, Wolff said, in part because Musk made his backing of Trump, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, conditional on that in Trump's world, loyalty is everything. The president would view any attempt to discuss succession as an act of betrayal. If Vance is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as fit to replace Trump, he risks being sidelined from Trump's inner circle. According to Wolff, Trump now wants to put Vance through a 'loyalty test' — a familiar ritual for those within the MAGA president's high-profile fallout with Musk -- a 'central pillar' of the tech world's incursion into right-wing politics -- leaves him vulnerable and will push him to scrutinize his Vice President ever more closely, Wolff said. 'He will set up what we will see as a set of tests that Vance is going to have to endure and pass,' Wolff told host Joanna Coles. '(Vance has) got to profess his absolute loyalty to Trump, or he will just be marginalized within the administration.'In a statement to the Daily Beast, White House Communications Director Steven Chung slammed Wolff as 'a blithering idiot who has been widely discredited due to his blatant lies and fabrications".'He is an imbecile of the highest order and his Trump Derangement Syndrome-addled brain has caused him to lead a miserable existence devoid of reality,' he continued. 'Nothing he says is the truth and he resorts to outlandish falsehoods in order to stay relevant since Father Time has passed him by 20 years ago.'For Vance, it's a tightrope walk. If he alienates Trump, he will be sidelined from everything important in Trump's inner circle. If he distances himself from Musk, he could lose his future prospects and a significant stream of Silicon Valley-aligned a podcast appearance with comedian Theo Von posted on Saturday, Vance said, 'First of all I'm the Vice President to President Trump; my loyalties are always going to be with the President. Elon is an incredible entrepreneur. I think DOGE was really good. The effort to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in our country was really good.''I hope that eventually Elon kind of comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear. I hope it is,' Vance tried to downplay Musk's blistering attacks as an "emotional guy" who got frustrated. "Look, it happens to everybody," Vance said during the podcast. "I've flown off the handle way worse than Elon Musk did in the last 24 hours."Vance told Von that as Musk for days was calling on social media for Congress to kill Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," the president was "getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon, but I think has been very restrained because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk." "I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine," he the interview, Von showed Vance Musk's claim that Trump's administration hasn't released all the records related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. Vance responded to that, saying, "Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein." "This stuff is just not helpful," Vance said in response to another post shared by Musk calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance. "It's totally insane. The president is doing a good job."If Wolff's claims are accurate, the implications go beyond tabloid drama. Trump can increasingly feel lonely and cornered as he alienates his close aides. What's worse for him, he can also end up losing support of certain sections of his MAGA base as the emergence of Musk and Vance means there are now other popular conservative leaders too.
Time of India
08-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy: 10 quotes from US Vice President's memoir
Image: Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance is part memoir, part social commentary, and entirely compelling. It tells the story of Vance's turbulent childhood growing up in a working-class Appalachian family in Ohio, shaped by poverty, addiction, and instability. But more than just a personal journey, the book digs deep into the cultural and emotional struggles of white working-class Americans. Recently, Indian MP for Thiruvananthapuram, Shashi Tharoor, posted about Vance's book. "On a personal note, let me add, as a reader & writer, what a pleasure it was to exchange thoughts with Vice-President @JDVance . His 'Hillbilly Elegy' is a remarkable account of an individual rising above the cultural limitations of his socio-economic situation and achieving transcendent success. It's an authentically American story, with deep resonance for those struggling to overcome similar challenges in their own countries," Tharoor wrote. With raw honesty, Vance explores how cycles of dysfunction persist, even amid opportunity. Whether you agree with his politics or not, Hillbilly Elegy sparks tough conversations about class, identity, and what it really takes to break free from your roots. Here are 10 quotes from Hillbilly Elegy 'What separates the successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for their own lives. Yet the message of the right is increasingly: It's not your fault that you're a loser; it's the government's fault.' Vance criticizes a victim mindset: blaming external circumstances rather than taking responsibility. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like เทรด CFDs ด้วยเทคโนโลยีเทรดสุดล้ำ และ รวดเร็วกว่า IC Markets สมัคร Undo He argues that believing in your own potential matters more than politics. While free-market rhetoric looms large, Vance reminds readers that empowerment starts within: in setting high expectations, not expecting handouts. 'Psychologists call it 'learned helplessness' when a person believes, as I did during my youth, that the choices I made had no effect on the outcomes in my life.' That quote captures the emotional weight of poverty: the subconscious belief that nothing you do can change your destiny. Vance battled this mindset until the Marine Corps offered structure and purpose. It's a dramatic illustration of how discipline and stability can transform perceived fates. 'Whenever people ask me what I'd most like to change about the white working class , I say, 'The feeling that our choices don't matter.'' Here, Vance zeroes in on mindset again—the power of internal belief. His critique isn't just about economics or policy; it's cultural and psychological. Breaking out of a trapped mindset, he argues, requires internal work: valuing personal agency even when wider systems feel stacked against you. 'They want us to be shepherds to these kids. But no one wants to talk about the fact that many of them are raised by wolves.' This line reveals Vance's frustration with simplistic solutions. Teachers are asked to uplift children from chaotic homes, but society refuses to address family dysfunction. His metaphor emphasizes how deep-rooted social issues lie beneath surface-level fixes—requiring a holistic approach, not just educational funding. 'If you believe that hard work pays off, then you work hard; if you think it's hard to get ahead even when you try, then why try at all?' Vance differentiates between cultural beliefs and self-fulfilling outcomes. Hard work only works in a cultural environment that values and expects effort. His wider message: society must cultivate beliefs that propel individuals forward—otherwise, the effort dies before it starts. 'For kids like me, the part of the brain that deals with stress and conflict is always activated… We are constantly ready to fight or flee.' V ance describes the physiological effects of growing up in chaos. His body was always on high alert. This hyper-vigilance extended into adulthood until he learned coping mechanisms. It's a powerful illustration of how childhood environments physically shape our stress responses. 'Pajamas? Poor people don't wear pajamas. We fall asleep in our underwear or blue jeans.' This quirky line speaks volumes about cultural stigma. Clothing becomes a marker of class and self-worth. Vance shows how poverty isn't just a lack of money—it's also a lack of perceived self-esteem. Small habits like pajamas become symbols of aspiration or shame. 'We don't study as children, and we don't make our kids study when we're parents… We might get angry with them, but we never give them the tools—like peace and quiet at home—to succeed.' Here, Vance criticizes his own culture's approach to education. Discipline isn't enough; supportive environments matter. Poverty isn't just external—it's also internalized in home tensions. He argues that upward mobility requires learning structures, not just financial means. 'Social mobility isn't just about money and economics, it's about a lifestyle change… almost everything about your old life becomes unfashionable at best or unhealthy at worst.' Vance pushes back against the "American Dream" myth by emphasizing culture shock that accompanies upward mobility. It's not just money that changes—it's peers, behaviors, values. Integration into new socio-economic circles demands adaptability—something purely economic solutions often ignore. 'I don't believe in epiphanies… Transformation is harder than a moment… I've seen far too many people awash in a genuine desire to change only to lose their mettle when they realized just how difficult change actually is.' A powerful final note. Vance condemns the myth of overnight transformation. True change is slow, hard, and sustained. His own climb from chaos to Yale exemplifies less a lightning bolt and more a marathon. He's urging readers: forget quick fixes—commit to consistent action. One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
