In July 2018, after much chasing of his publisher, I managed to get an interview with polarising professor and rock star intellectual Jordan Peterson. It was for a new show which would go out first as a video and podcast and later on the radio station 4FM; I got the time with Peterson by promising that the interview would go out in full, as live.

Id recently finished his book 12 Rules for Life and was fascinated by the surge of fame that had engulfed him. Id read enough features and listened to enough podcasts with the 57-year-old Canadian to know he was displeased with how his words, as he saw it, had been twisted in different ways to besmirch his name and misrepresent him.

When Peterson arrived into our small studio that day it soon became clear how polarising he was; two workmates wanted to meet him and told me theyd do anything to make that happen; one excitedly met him and brought him up the three storeys, while the other waited outside the building, hoping to grab a picture. But others in the office were appalled that he was even there; when I asked one co-worker why, he spoke passionately about Petersons views on the Muslim religion. It soon becoming clear he had mixed up Peterson with American neuroscientist and author Sam Harris, who would be joining him on stage the following night in the 3Arena for a discussion about religion and the War of Ideas. Others branded him transphobic and misogynist offering quotes and derided the picture-seeker for asking for a snap.

Over 70-odd minutes, we discussed everything from Petersons depression, equality of outcome, his rise to fame, Chris Rock quotes (hes right, were all fools) and Donald Trump.

The US president was even more all-consuming than usual in Irish news due to a trip to London at the time, so I took that as a starting point. At the time, I didnt realise it, but he hadnt spoken at length about Trump before and a clip from our interview went viral, getting more than 2.5 million views and about 9,000 comments. He didnt say anything groundbreaking as far as I could tell, only that we would soon return to normative (political) incompetence .

Other clips, and indeed the full interview, accumulated huge views and engagement very quickly. Petersons parting words to me as he left the studio that day, were that Id likely get flak from both sides after I made a Jordan destroys joke (referring to the endless clickbait-y YouTube video titles featuring edited footage of him dancing intellectual rings around someone who dares question his views).

He was right; some comments were thoughtful and appreciative about the density of the conversation; others didnt think too much of me, or that I was worthy enough to talk to the professor. The commenters on the Trump clip were next-level, attacking everything from the shape of my head to my voice I had to Google to find out what exactly a soy boy was.

But they also went after Peterson too, and not in the more obvious ways. Some were disappointed he didnt fully condemn Trump, others that he even dared question him. It was clear, at least in the murky world of YouTube comment sections, that he had fans on both sides of the political divide, not just perpetually angry alt-right incels (who, granted, were still by far the loudest).

A few months ago I was contacted by Petersons assistant, who told me a documentary, The Rise of Jordan Peterson, was in the final stages of production and the film-makers wanted to use a clip from my interview. The producer, Maziar Ghaderi, subsequently showed me the finished film with a short clip of yours truly included.

I sat down to watch it, with more than a decade of objective movie criticism behind me, and was genuinely impressed. Director Patricia Marcoccia had followed Peterson for several years after initially approaching him in the spring of 2015 with a more specific idea. We had a meeting with him and his wife and learned more about what was happening in his life, and he told me that he was adding a third storey to his home, modelled after an indigenous longhouse, she tells me over email. The initial plan was to focus on the house build and his relationship with the craftsman whod help him do it.

A year and a half later, though, Jordan released the Professor Against Political Correctness videos on YouTube. I had no idea they were coming, says Marcoccia. Before the videos came out, we had talked a bit about political correctness, but I didnt know how much he was thinking about it. I also hadnt previously heard him express political ideas or even his personal views on religion and God.

Marcoccia admits she was surprised by the much-publicised stand Peterson took on Bill C-16, a law passed by the Canadian parliament which added gender expression and gender identity to Canadian human rights legislation, making it illegal to promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression. Peterson hadnt included much on the subject in his videos or lectures, I quickly realised I needed to put the initial story I was working on on hold and create something new that would help me make sense of what was going on.

Marcoccia calls that period, uncomfortable, but the new direction of the documentary quickly took shape. We went to campus rallies and started reaching out to students who supported him him and those in opposition.

Having seen the film, I find it surprising that The Rise of Jordan Peterson has had screenings cancelled after staff members in theatres objected. Id recently viewed Alison Klaymans superb fly-on-the wall look at Steve Bannon, The Brink. Bannon is another figure who has been the subject of widespread protests, but there werent protests at screenings of The Brink.

I asked producer Ghaderi why he thought that was. My theory on why The Brink didnt face the same market limitations as our film is that Bannon is easier to label as a far-right crazy which is what he is but Jordan is more obscure to them due to his decades of research and authorship, he says.

Peterson was a far more amiable subject, according to Marcoccia. However, there was an issue when the films executive producer suggested Peterson sign an exclusivity contract, The restrictiveness of the agreement did not sit well with Jordan and this created some tension. This interaction actually enabled me to see the seriousness with which he interprets legal documents really thinking through worst-case scenarios, she admits. Ultimately, despite Petersons new-found fame and a cluster of other documentary film-makers approaching him, they continued without the contract, Our filming had been working out just fine without it and I thought it would be best to continue that way. Then everything went back to normal.

Has Peterson seen the finished film? We watched the film after it was completed with Jordan, his mother Bev and his wife Tammy, who was in hospital at the time, Ghaderi says.

It was clear that parts of it were stressful for Jordan to watch. For him, watching it was like reliving tumultuous parts of his life. I think he needs to see it again in order to see it as a film. All three of them said they respected it and thought it an honest portrayal of what happened, Marcoccia adds.

Having felt firsthand the viciousness of some of those who align themselves with Peterson online, its pretty obvious to me why hes such a beacon for controversy. As the documentary explores, Peterson has not done himself any favours with his choice of language. But this film is not a judgment on Peterson. Nor is it propaganda for his legions of followers. Its a balanced piece of work that offers a nuanced look at someone who, like it or not, is now firmly in the public eye. As Ghaderi succinctly puts it: Theres a difference between Jordan Peterson and a film about him.

The Rise of Jordan Peterson is screening at Omniplex Cinema, Rathmines, Dublin on November 13th and is available on iTunes

More:

Theres a difference between Jordan Peterson and a film about him - The Irish Times

Ben Carson, secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) said on Tuesday that political correctness will destroy the nation.

The official was referring to the harsh criticism he received for an out-of-context comment he made at a staff meeting at homeless womens shelters in September that was allegedly offensive to the transgender community, the Western Journal explained.

The Washington Post published an article accusing Carson of referring to transsexuals as big, hairy men during the meeting.

However, a HUD official told the Post that although Carson said those words, he was referring to men who, pretending to be transgender people, were trying to gain access to federal shelters that were reserved for women.

Jennifer Wexton of Virginia urged the official to apologize to the transgender community during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on housing policy, CNN reported.

Carson clarified again on Tuesday that he did not use those words to describe transgender people, according to CNN.

I was relating a story that a womens group told me about big, hairy menwho are not transgender women, by the waycoming into your facility and having to be accepted because of the rules that were in place, Carson said.

No, added the HUD secretary, refusing to apologize for his words.

I think this whole concept of political correctnessyou can say this, you cant say that, you cant repeat what someone saidits total foolishness, and its going to destroy our nation and we need to be more mature than that, he added.

The danger for women

Currently and in the name of nondiscrimination against LGTBI individuals, male offenders, including violent offenders and sex offenders, are serving sentences in womens prisons in several Western jurisdictions, according to Quillette.

This is known as self-ID and means that their status as a man or woman is determined by their belief and what they claim and not by their actual biology.

Transgender prisoners enjoy privileges in prisons, such as the right to shower alone, to separate cells, and to request a change between male and female prisons.

Recently, the number of male prisoners who begin to perceive themselves as women and request their transfer to womens prisons is skyrocketing, leading to serious incidents that put the integrity of women prisoners at risk, according to The Telegraph.

A very symptomatic case is that of Karen White, a male rapist who was held in a womens prison in Wakefield, England, in 2017 and who in his first three months raped three women prisoners, according to Quillette.

In the UK, currently 1 in 50 male prisoners now claim to be women, according to an official prison control survey shared by The Telegraph.

See more here:

Political correctness will destroy our nation, says Ben Carson - thebl.com

What does it take to run for City Council in Long Beach?

Some might tell you having a screw loose, because no one in their right mind would run for local public office.

I can say almost categorically, most of the time, that's not the case. During my time in Long Beach, we've been blessed with candidates who truly do want to help our community. Yes, I know there also have been a few who like the concept of having "power," who live for making decisions that impact other people or who have the mistaken impression that a City Council member lives a glamorous life with lots of perks and maybe even a bump in the bank account occasionally.

The one or two or three with that kind of attitude typically get brought back down to earth quickly. But those tales are for another column.

Back to what it takes to run for election.

The basics are, well, basic. This from City Clerk Monique De La Garza's website:

"A candidate must be: A U.S. citizen 18 years old on or before election day A registered voter living in the jurisdiction identified on the Nomination Paper at least 30 days prior to the end of the nomination period (Long Beach City Charter Sections 201 and 502). A candidate may not be in prison or on parole for a felony conviction."

That bit about living in the jurisdiction a candidate is running from has tripped up several California and one or two Long Beach politicians over time. There's a state law that makes it illegal to live outside your district. And I can recall at least one instance in Long Beach where gerrymandering (changing, for you non-political types) City Council district boundaries took a fairly formidable opponent out of the running for the incumbent's next election.

Still, pretty simple requirements most Long Beach adults interested in being a public official can meet. The bar is so low precisely because we believe that in a real democracy, pretty much anyone should have the chance to run for public office and that's a good thing.

That's in a perfect world. There are a few more requirements to have much of a chance to win a City Council election.

Some experience in serving the public commissions, task forces, even being president of the school PTA is helpful. Support from others, particularly other Long Beach leaders, is a big plus. And there's money, or the ability to raise some. It doesn't have to be much, particularly in the less active council districts, but there are some bills filing fees, for example you have to pay.

Oh, did I mention having a spotless background? I'm not talking showing you are a convicted felon here. These days, spotless means having never taken a wrong step from college on, based on the current morality and political correctness. There's not a lot of deep background digging amongst council candidates, but if you go any farther up the political ladder

There's one last thing that's a prerequisite for becoming a City Council candidate. I call it fire in the belly. Others call it passion for a cause. It comes down to the same thing a desire to make a difference.

I saw quite a bit of that fire in the belly Monday night at a candidate forum for those running in a special election to fill the vacant First District council seat. I was one of a panel of questioners quizzing seven of the eight people who want to take now-State Senator Lena Gonzalez's place at City Hall.

I believe only one of the group has ever run for public office before. One or two have specific axes to grind, and they all have the causes near and dear to their hearts. That's as it should be. It takes that crusading feeling to light the fire in the belly.

I may be a Pollyanna, or maybe its just the faith I have in the essential goodness of people (that's pretty much the same thing), but I saw a sincere desire in each and every one of those candidates to help make Long Beach a better place to live. We might disagree on the definition of "better," but the motivation is in the right direction.

Give them the respect they deserve, and find out who's running and why. And if you live in the First District, cast a vote. It's the least you can do.

Read more:

IN CLOSED SESSION : What It Takes To Run - Gazette Newspapers

MADRID (AP) The grandson of late dictator Gen. Francisco Franco said that Thursdays planned exhumation of his grandfathers body is a profanation and that Spains interim government wants to turn it into a rally before a Nov. 10 general election.

Francisco Franco Martnez-Bordi spoke to The Associated Press hours before Francos remains were due to be moved from a grandiose mausoleum to a more discreet cemetery.

Its an all-out desecration, said Franco Martnez-Bordi, accusing Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of the government the Catholic Church and center-right Spanish parties who didnt impede the reburial of being accomplices of prime minister Pedro Snchezs Socialists plan.

The government, he said, had to hop over several obstacles with the complicity of those people to arrive on time and be able to use the exhumation as part of the electoral campaign.

Spain, he said, is under the dictatorship of political correctness.

Associations of relatives of those who died in the 1936-39 Civil War and the ensuing dictatorship regard Francos presence at the gargantuan Valley of the Fallen as an insult.

The government says that its also against Spains standing as a modern democratic state and that no dictator should be enshrined in a state mausoleum. Snchez had initially promised to get the exhumation done by the end of 2018, but he faced a long legal battle with Francos seven grandchildren and political opposition.

Franco Martnez-Bordi, 64, and 21 other relatives will be attending Thursdays exhumation behind closed doors and a private Mass at the reburial graveyard in the outskirts of Madrid. Authorities have banned protests in the area and cameras will only be allowed outside of both sites.

What they want is to humiliate as much as possible, said Franco Martnez-Bordi, who criticized that the government has not allowed state honors in tomorrows ceremonies despite Franco having been Spains head of state and government for decades.

But the family has plans to use a Spanish flag with a black eagle, symbols associated with the Franco regime, over their grandfathers coffin on Thursday, when the hearse heads from a helicopter to the Mingorrubio cemetery. The flag is the same used for the original burial on Nov. 23, 1975.

The Supreme Court last month granted the government the right to rebury the dictators remains in the Mingorrubio cemetery, where Francos late wife Carmen Polo has been resting since 1988, over the relatives choice of Madrids Almudena Cathedral, where they own a grave slot. Authorities feared the cathedral could become another pilgrimage site for nostalgic fascists.

Franco Martnez-Bordi said the family planned to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights hoping to be granted permission to move Francos remains to the cathedral.

He also dismissed as a lie that relatives of victims buried alongside the dictator at the Valley of the Fallen had been asking for Francos removal from the site for decades.

Nobody, or almost nobody, gives a damn where my grandfather is buried, he said. Im not going to say that there isnt somebody around, but both winners and losers (in the war) are all dead. Their grandchildren are being influenced by the media and the associations who represent their grandparents.

Francos exhumation stems from amendments of a 2007 Historical Memory Law that aimed to seek redress for the estimated 100,000 Franco victims who are buried in unmarked graves across Spain, including thousands at the Valley of the Fallen.

Continued here:

AP Interview: Franco grandson blasts Spain over exhumation - The Associated Press

The stereotypes and aesthetic associated with leftist activistsespecially liberal menare annoying, low-hanging fruit, but are not entirely out of touch with reality: Cucks. Snowflakes. Betas. The list goes on.

It is incredibly hard to be articulate and precise on this issue, but you know what I mean. The left has a perception problem that its not willing to admit.

Although this topic seems ridiculous, its undeniable that these representationswhether or not we may exercise significant control of themturn off many moderates and uninvolved political participants from the left. Our insistence on politicking to signal virtue and the manner by which we self-righteouslyand often hypocriticallyconduct ourselves shape these representations and certainly hold us back.

Although one can take the moral high ground and want to believe that we dont want those votes anyways, the reality of the situation is that the status quo is a hellscape for vulnerable populations and Democrats need to come into 2020 swinging. That means establishing themselves as confident, assertive, yet uncompromisingly progressive. We desperately need a makeover in 2020, but Im not exactly sure what that process looks like and whether it can ever be an ethical prescription.

But I do know that Im tired of supporting a movement that unequivocally defends the belief that when they go low, we go high. Im tired of insisting upon the innocence of corrupted institutions when the current state of affairs empowers deceit, outrage and spectacle in politics. We restrain ourselves, attempt to understand the other and ultimately forgive instead of seriously confronting them on Twitter or cable news and hardly attempt to change the rules of engagement entirely.

Democrats need to play to win because anything else condemns us to the status quo: a pitiful, whiny existence that always seems to place us on the losing side of political scandal. Im not arguing that we should collude with foreign governments to improve our representations, but simply to critically think about perception and to refuse to be a group of pushovers. People are counting on the left in 2020 and Im ready to engage in some McConnell-level tactical maneuvering and scheming if thats what it takes to deliver.

45 was rewarded with the presidency for his vulgarity. I dont think that the left or even the country as a whole wants to see us fix that by showing compassion. Im tired of a liberal politics obsessed with being virtuous and ultimately boring in the name of not offending those with disagreements.

The current political sphere is anything but business as usual and its entirely unconvincing to respond by suppressing our natural human emotions. For instance, Betos raw speech about Trumps comments on the El Paso shooting was a huge turn-on for voters and is probably the only thing keeping him alive at this point; dropping f-bombs wont necessarily win us seats, but I think its safe to say voters minimally want their politicians to be authenticand thus outraged.

Moreover, the right has successfully branded itself as the party of sexy big-businesses and independent thinkers fixated on telling the truth when blue-pilled liberals cant step outside of their fantasy land. Internet trolls and conservative influencers poke fun at the liberal participation trophy culture, safe spaces from outside criticism, and our obsession with losing often, but at least ethically. And quite honestly, these strategies work really well.

I feel a strong, internal embarrassment, for instance, when thinking about Democratic candidates pandering to people of color, Portland Antifa dressing up as bananas, and Hillary desperately pleading for us to Pokemon Go to the polls. Voters can easily sense whos being real and whos trying way too hard to take the moral high ground by being woke. Its hard to point to specific examples, but the method by which so many on the left self-righteously conduct themselves, particularly on the internet to appeal to young voters, is blatantly cringe-worthy.

However, this issue with the lefts representations doesnt stem from its core values of compassion or empathy. The basic tenet of empathy is not mutually exclusive with being inspiring and assertive. The fight for emancipatory politics can and should be made sexy through a deliberate refocusing from issues like political correctness to energizing struggles against unjust authority and political elites.

Groups like Black Lives Matter and policies like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, for instance, are certainly controversial but definitely not cringy. In fact, the right often plays to romanticized and nostalgic narratives about police officers, veterans, blue-collar workers and natural disaster survivors to garner sympathy and compassion just as often. The relevant difference is certainly an issue of our energy and framing.

Signup for our editorially curated, weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.

On the internet, the logic of cancel culture, the focus on microaggressions, and the Ellen & Bush debacle are all excellent examples of how liberals empower an unconscious system of desire that ultimately restrains leftist politics and empowers Donald Trump. The right finds immense pleasure in name-calling because it ruptures and trolls the social authority that out-of-touch liberals have mandated. In this sense, there exists a masochistic structure of enjoyment. Knowing that Trump is bad for people is not enough to lessen the enjoyment of his regime and realizing oneself as problematic is irrelevant when the right offers a more appealing method of living; for many, it almost seems impossible to imagine liberals having fun without constantly talking about how ethical they are. Liberals will argue that they are nevertheless on the right side of the issue and that they claim a truer vision of politics but such concerns are at best merely tangential for those not already sold on the left.

We cant control what the right calls us, but we can certainly alter the behaviors that enable such stereotypes. My vision is not a shift away from our current policy stances, but rather a refusal to solely rely on seeming trendy and virtuous. Those tangibly affected by the enactment of progressive policies dont care about our perceived moral high ground, or at least not enough to choose being ethical over a leftism that is fed up and willing to do what it takes to win back the White House and Senate.

David Min is a Trinity sophomore. His column, "milk before cereal," runs on alternate Thursdays.

Link:

'Cucking the libs' - The Chronicle - Duke Chronicle

It is hard to objectively judge comedy what makes someone funny greatly depends on the audience, and every comedian has the potential to offend someone.

But when the entire basis of a comedy act is based on stereotypes, one should rethink laughing at these jokes.

Jeff Dunham will be returning to the Bryce Jordan Center this Friday, where he can easily reach his target audience of conservative white folks the population generally found in central Pennsylvania.

Dunham is one of the worlds wealthiest and most successful comedians, and the majority of his scripts are based on stereotypes and racism. And while he does have a character mocking old white men, this does not justify the blatant racism behind his other characters.

As a ventriloquist, Dunhams performances consist of him having conversations with a variety of puppets, all created from his own mind. His most controversial characters include Achmed the dead terrorist and Jos Jalapeo, a Mexican immigrant.

Dunham has specifically stated that he knows making fun of 9/11 will never be funny, and Achmed was created to make fun of Osama bin Laden instead but making any jokes associated with the terror attacks on 9/11 should be condemned.

In his latest Netflix special which is tagged as politically incorrect on the streaming site Dunham jokes that he has been hesitant to bring out his beloved Jos Jalapeo since President Trump was elected. He also said in todays politically correct climate, some people dont think it is okay for him to talk to Jos.

It is not okay to make insensitive jokes about Mexican immigrants especially when this special was filmed in Dallas, a city that relies greatly on its immigrant populations and is greatly affected by Trumps policies.

Clearly, people find Dunham funny, and this probably will not change considering his ongoing success. But his fans should be sure to understand how problematic his characters are.

Dunham pokes fun at politicians as most comedians do, and has created a new character who serves as one of Trumps advisers. When telling Cincinnati.com about the character, he even said he has to be careful due to the political-correctness garbage present in the United States today.

He is also quoted saying he has only offended a small percentage of people, but how is it possible for him to know this for sure? How does he define offending someone and where are these numbers coming from?

It is impossible for comedians to understand the experiences of every individual, so this should not be a standard for what is acceptable in comedy. But Dunham and his supporters need to better acknowledge that his jokes are offensive to many populations.

If you're interested in submitting a Letter to the Editor, click here.

See original here:

EDITORIAL: Jeff Dunham's comedy act is more offensive than what should be accepted - The Daily Collegian Online

A bill to outlaw the B-word the term for a female dog that is commonly used to slander women is being slammed on both ends of the political spectrum as a case of government overreach and censorship.

While I detest the use of the B-word and the N-word and the word fag, etc., I love the Constitution more and question the constitutionality of bills like this, said Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. The concern is specifically about the right to free speech, including speech that I hate.

Its a very, very slippery slope and at the end of the slippery slope is the anti-Websters, the dictionary of words we can never use, conservative political consultant Chip Jones told the Herald. We continually replace the right and responsibility of people to defend themselves from physical and emotional harm with government intervention. When we replace an individuals right or responsibility to defend themselves, we weaken people and society.

The bill, along with about 70 others, went before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary for a hearing Tuesday at the State House. House and Senate Chairs Rep. Claire Cronin and Sen. Jamie Eldridge did not respond to requests for comment.

The legislation titled An Act regarding the use of offensive words, states: A person who uses the word bitch directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person. Penalties for a disorderly conduct conviction include a $150 fine for a first offense and $200 or 6 months in prison for subsequent offenses.

Rep. Daniel Hunt(D-Dorchester) told the Herald Monday that he filed the measure upon request from a constituent, who he did not identify. He took to Twitter late Tuesday afternoon to defend his decision.

One of the responsibilities of all Representatives is to serve as a conduit for direct petitions from our constituents to the General Court. Its a long-held tradition that gives every Massachusetts resident a voice inside the halls of the State House and a chance to raise their personal interests before the legislature, Hunt wrote. While this specific instance may amuse some and alarm others, it remains a important process for self-representation.

Jones argued that the legislation would not pass constitutional muster and speaks to a national trend of political correctness. He also questioned whether the measure reflects gender equity.

If were going to ban the word bitch, why are we only protecting 51% of the population from having their feelings hurt, Jones posed. Why are my feelings less important than a womans? And the answer is, men have become second class citizens. Toxic masculinity. People dont like men much anymore.

Jones emphasized that it is absolutely unacceptable to call a woman the B-word and that he believes men and women are equal, but I also know that men and women are not equivalent and that the differences between men and women make the world a better place.

See the original post:

Bill to ban the B-word heard at State House - Boston Herald

HUD Secretary Ben Carson warns political correctness will DESTROY the US (VIDEO) Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson took aim at political correctness at a contentious committee hearing, warning that the impulse to control speech and expression would destroy the country.

During Tuesdays House Financial Services hearing, Representative Jennifer Wexton (D-Virginia) raised previous comments Carson had made about big, hairy men, widely understood to be directed at transgender women, inviting him to apologize, but the secretary was having none of it.

I think this whole concept of political correctness you can say this, you cant say that, you cant repeat what someone said is total foolishness and its going to destroy our nation, Carson shot back, adding: We need to be more mature than that.

Carson, a Republican, went on to deny that he was referring to transgender women in his prior remark made at a HUD meeting last month arguing that he was merely relating a story a womens group told him about men entering their facility and having to be accepted because of the rules that were in place.

While he said he could not recall the group who told him that story, Carson added that they were based in Alaska.

Wexton later took to Twitter to lament the exchange, slamming Carson for his refusal to apologize and stating that hateful words translate into discriminatory policy.

The Democratic representative has previously quarreled with Carson, decrying a new HUD policy rolled out earlier this year which allowed federally funded homeless shelters to turn away transgender people on religious grounds, a move she called incredibly dangerous.

Carson has been something of an anti-PC warrior for years, well before the highly politically incorrect president entered the Oval Office in 2016, regularly shredding the concept in media appearances and warning of a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe at times even drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Continue reading here:

HUD Secretary Ben Carson warns 'political correctness' will 'DESTROY' the US (VIDEO) - Conrad Courier

Tuesday, 22 October 2019, 12:46 pmColumn: Gordon Campbell Gordon Campbell on Simon Bridges trying to painthimself as a warrior against political correctnessFirstpublished on Werewolf

Having failed all year atbeing a credible alternative Prime Minister, National leaderSimon Bridges has lowered his aspirational target this weekto something more within his range. On radio yesterday,Bridges did his best to come across as Nationalsalternative to Shane Jones. Yep, another prince of ordinaryblokery willingto take a crack at the forces of PoliticalCorrectness:

The National Party leader told MagicTalk he wants to "make sure that people can say what theythink even where it's a bit un-PC [politically correct] Ithink we've got a situation through education and the media- certain parts of the media - there's things that areoff-limits in New Zealand that we're not allowed to talkabout, and I think that's not healthy.

No, perishthe thought. Perish the thought that we should be at allconcerned about extremist speech online. These days, blokesin Parliament and blokes in boardrooms, and ordinary jokersin the nations pubs never get a chance to get a word inedgeways, what with the feminists and the gays and thegreenies and the migrants from Lord knows where hogging themike. All of them making a bloke feel bad about chucking offat them, and for saying whatever they want to whom so-everthey like.

Thats the New Zealand way. Blokes talk,sheilas listen and gays and Chinamen are nowhere to be seenoutside of hair salons and Chinese restaurants. Perish thethought that in the increasingly diverse 21st century, thatour budding Prime Minister should be trying to take the leadin avoiding us giving unnecessary offence to one another.Bugger the PC brigade, Bridges told his radio audienceinstead. Hes such a maverick.

Bridges chose a peculiarexample to convey to his radio listeners the evils of thepolitically correct. Earlier this year, he explained, hedcopped flak for criticising PM Jacinda Ardern as apart-time leader for visiting the Tokelaus during asitting week of Parliament. But no other sitting PrimeMinister, Bridges noted scornfully, had visited the Tokelaussince 2004! Perhaps the comments below by the government ofTokelau might explain what had really annoyed Bridges aboutthe whole episode:

The Ulu o Tokelau, FaipuleKelihiano Kalolo, on behalf of the Council and people ofTokelau, acknowledges with deep appreciation the recentvisit by the Prime Minster of New Zealand, Rt. Hon. JacindaArdern, to Tokelau.

It was only the fourth primeministerial visit to Tokelau in their 93-year constitutionalrelationship. And Tokelauans have noted that all of thesevisits were by sitting Prime Ministers from Labour-ledgovernments.

The people of Tokelau felt the warmempathy shown by the Prime Minister especially towards ourschool children. Her visit served to remind ordinary Kiwisthat Tokelauans are also New Zealand citizens and part ofthe Realm of New Zealand with Cook Islands, and Niue,stated Hon Kalolo.

Climate change impacts in thePacific. Regional diplomacy. New Zealands personal role(in unison with Australias aid and defence efforts) incombatting Chinas inroads in the Pacific. In short,Arderns visit to these New Zealand citizens in our nearneighbourhood was an entirely legitimate part of the PMsworkload. None of it evidently, had registered with thisparticular blokey bloke.

Week after week the fawningover the Chinese Communist Party, the scoring of anown-goal over an immigration case that actuallyoccurred on Nationals watch etc Bridges has amplydemonstrated his incapacity for the top job. He now seems tobe trying to turn his liabilities into virtues: it is to betreated as just the natural fallout from a straight shooterspeaking his mind. Let the cards fall where they may. Judgehim not by what he says (usually rubbish ) but on how hesays it. Hey, in 2016 it got the current US Presidentelected.

P.C. and History

Politicalcorrectness may have become the phantom menace of the IdiotRight, but it actually began life in the 1970s as a termused by the moderate left, to describe those further totheir left. On one level it is obviously absurd that themost privileged and powerful groups in society whitemales in politics and business should be claiming tobeing muzzled by a few feminists, trans activists andacademics. But that is to ignore the psychological dynamicsof the situation. As the article below reminds us, everydemagogue needs an enemy, and the liberal elites happen toprovide a convenient one. Donald Trumps message on thecampaign trail was that not only had the liberal elitescaused the problems being faced by ordinary folk, but thatthe same elites were now conspiring to prevent thepeoples champion (ie, himself) from even talking aboutit.

The special interests, the arrogant media, and thepolitical insiders, dont want me to talk about the crimethat is happening in our country, Trump said to aSeptember 2016 rally. They want me to just go along withthe same failed policies that have caused so much needlesssuffering. But bugger the PC brigade hewould not be muzzled from speaking out on behalf of ordinaryfolks!

Trump claimed that Barack Obama and HillaryClinton were willing to let ordinary Americans sufferbecause their first priority was political correctness.They have put political correctness above common sense,above your safety, and above all else, Trump declaredafter a Muslim gunman killed 49 people at a gay nightclub inOrlando. I refuse to be politicallycorrect.

Thats the difference. Liberals mayfeel concerned about the impact of language on thevulnerable, but the populist right sees the Language Policeas part of a conspiracy by the elites to keep them down, andto muzzle even the expression of their righteous anger.Routinely, the ideologues of the right in Britain,across Europe and in the US use the politicalcorrectness accusation to exonerate themselves forexploiting that bottled-up anger for their politicaladvantage :

In June 2015, after Trump referred toMexicans as rapists, NBC, the network that aired hisreality show The Apprentice, announced that it was endingits relationship with him. Trumps teamretorted that, NBC is weak, and like everybody else istrying to be politically correct.

In August2016, after saying that the US district judge Gonzalo Curielof San Diego was unfitto preside over the lawsuit against TrumpUniversities because he was Mexican American and thereforelikely to be biased against him, Trumptold CBS News that this was common sense.He continued: We have to stop being so politicallycorrect in this country.During the second presidential debate, Trumpanswered a question about his proposed ban on Muslimsby stating: Wecould be very politically correct, but whether welike it or not, there is a problem.

So thatsthe playbook Simon Bridges was referencing yesterday, albeitwithout the overt expressions of racism and sexism. (Thosefactors lie just below the surface here too, though.) Railing against p.c. is a way of weaponising the widespreadfeelings of blokey inadequacy and hostility to the changesin social and cultural norms. Expect to hear more of itfrom National during the 2020 election campaign.

Jojo Rabbiting

Any negative responseto Taika Waititis new film Jojo Rabbit will alsorun the risk of being treated as political correctness gonemad. With that in mind and since the film hits localtheatres this week, here are a couple of thoughtful reviewsworth your while. First, heres A. A. Dowd inthe AV Club and also heres JonathanRomney in Film Comment.

In case those fairly damningreviews dont wash with you, heresthe happy face response:

Laurie Anderson,invited back

Great news and also kind ofironic that Laurie Anderson should be coming back here toco-curate next years International Arts Festival inWellington. Because in 1986, when Laurie Anderson broughther stunning visual/aural extravaganza to the same ArtsFestival the McGarrigles were also on the programme thatyear the (infamous) response from the organisationalhierarchy was that this kind of rocknroll stuff(Anderson, the McGarrigles) didnt belong in the ArtsFestival, and should never, would never, be a part of theFestival fare ever again. Those darned art elites justdidnt get it. Now they do.

So from those distantmid 1980s, heres her tribute to William Burroughs. Sorrythat the sound quality isnt so great on this clip. Butthe visuals compensate and they do evoke what got peopleso excited about Laurie Anderson, back in the day.

Scoop Media

Scoop Citizen Membership ScoopPro for Organisations

See original here:

Gordon Campbell on Simon Bridges and political correctness - Scoop.co.nz

I am never quite sure, when I sit down to write this column each month, whether its going to be a jeremiad or an exercise in looking as much on the bright side as my retinas can stand. At the moment my outlook is generally positive, though I always keep dread within arms reach. To get rid of anxiety entirely is like inhabiting a home without smoke detectors. This is especially true if we occasionally amuse ourselves by setting the couch on fire.

As I stated in a response to a letter last month, I have always been compelled by my own nature to push the envelope. I have never been able to leave well enoughor bad enoughalone. Taking chances is an essential part of creativity. At any rate, it has been for me. Ive loosed dozens of literary and musical creations into the world that range from silly to edgy to frankly offensive. I wont disown my children and I wont apologize for them. These works for the most part were not borne of any political or philosophical agenda, or even of any strong point of view. They were ideas that made me laugh that I carried beyond the threshold of good taste.

I try not to inflict my questionable humor on readers of The Syncopated Times, since this is not the place for it. I used to run a few milder items as filler before I had enough contributions (from more conscientious writers than I am) to plug those wide open spaces. Readers who follow me on Facebook do see some of my characteristic commentary. And yet, there is so much that I dont say there. Bad boy that I am, I realize that certain of my unfiltered observations would not go unpunished.

The freewheeling days before social media do evince a feeling of real nostalgia, even in one who recoils at the word. A generation ago I could read a poem or sing a song and offend a whole room full of people; today the outrage would travel halfway around the world almost instantaneously. And the denizens of the internet have developed the ability to detect and call out all who merely appear to behave untowardly. Villagers today have brighter torches and sharper pitchforks.

Moral outrage is a hell of a drug, and there is enough of it on both sides to keep things unduly warm. To be irreverent without faction, one might as well just paint a target on oneself. During the recent Dixie controversy covered in these pagesand which we address (I hope) one last time this month before moving on to other businessripe produce and brickbats came at us from both directions.

One commenter expressed the wish that I die slowly and painfully from a lingering disease. Others no doubt regarded me as the nasty uncle they have to physically restrain themselves from strangling at Thanksgiving dinner. No one knows quite what to make of a gadfly without portfolio. Thats why God made flyswatters.

And this essay is not aimed simply as a polemic against Political Correctness. Certain people have a legitimate grievance, having been marginalized and beaten up on for ages. As scurrilous a humorist as I am, I wont heap my satire on the pain of others. And as for my stumbling and blurting in the course of my (all-too infrequent) revels, I can understand how my maladroitness might be perceived as abusive. Comparing clumsiness to actual evil, evil comes across as the lesser of the two evils.

In a quote usually attributed to Oscar Wilde (though, like everything else he said, he probably never said it), A gentleman is one who never hurts somebodys feelings unintentionally. The editor of this periodical is certainly no gentleman, though he admits to being a poet and a peasant; a troubadour and a troublemaker. And he never can tell just how his jokes will land. Cleverness is its own reward; frequently, there is no other.

I chose an illustration for page 14 in this issue. I think its brilliant and illustrates the point of the surrounding text eloquently; it asks the question and answers it. Yet I do keep my dread by my elbow. By including it, its hard for me not to come across as a smart aleck (or a smart something else that begins with the letter A). But there it is. If you didnt want me to push that particular envelope you shouldnt have left it out on the counter.

Perhaps too late in lifeand as one whose alleged wit ensures he is a target for such attentionsI begin to realize that it hardly matters what anyone says to me. I find that while Ive constantly agonized about everyone elses feelings, I can honestly say Ive been roundly scolded by the absolute best. However benign my intentions, I was there to take itand I took it. As a wielder of a considerable public megaphone, it really is my business to be sensitive to the sensibilities of others while toughening my expansive hide to their abuse. The Editorial Office is also the Complaint Department. Its part of the job and one gets used to it.

I still cant say whether this is a litany of woe or a hosanna. Whatever turmoil Ive experienced over the past two months, Id say the bright side somewhat prevails.

The envelope may indeed push back, but we maintain our prerogative to push it slyly forward again when the opportunity presents itself. And for that, at the very least, we may be thankful.

Originally posted here:

The Envelope Pushes Back - The Syncopated Times

With Halloween just a week away, many military families will be hurriedly picking through civilian department store and Base Exchange sales racks in the days to come, looking for the perfect trick-or-treating outfit.

Im always amazed by the unbelievable selection of reasonably priced costumes for kids and adults nowadays. Anything goes, from Attila the Hun to Sexy Mr. Rogers, and superhero frocks aplenty. With so much selection, its really not hard to track down the desired duds that will impress friend and candy-distributing homeowners on Oct. 31.

Those of my generation, however, remember it wasnt always this easy.

When I was a kid, well-made costumes were a privilege of the well-to-do. They were not only pricey for our budget-strapped, middle class families, but also hard to find in department stores that, gasp, didnt even have Halloween displays until early October. This left us with two options: the mass-produced boxed sets containing stamped plastic resemblances of a character that sort of looked like Casper, Fred Flinstone or Bugs Bunny, or wait for it the dreadedhomemade costume.

While quite affordable, the option A of my childhood meant purchasing a product of the lowest quality imaginable. Each came with a mask and a sheath that tied in the back. The latter was nothing more than a 100-percent polyester, paper-thin hospital gown. Not only did the kids wearing these outfits look nothing like the characters they longed to portray, they couldnt go near open flames lest they catch fire and melt into puddles of synthetic goo.

The masks had two round holes to see through and a tiny slit at the mouth not quite big enough to allow breath to fully escape, making it a steamy, uncomfortable affair. Made of eggshell-thin plastic, the masks cracked with the slightest pressure, and the thin elastic band that went around the head had a working life of about 20 minutes.

Wearing one of these masks was like shooting craps. While trick-or-treating, you might gingerly lift the mask to take a bite of yourCharleston Chew, and SNAP, the elastic breaks, the plastic cracks, and youre left with no disguise and a huge, red welt on your face for the rest of Halloween night.

Throughout my childhood, I never got to wear a boxed costume. My first-grade-teacher-mother refused to buy them because, according to her, They require no creativity. Instead, we were set adrift to create our own homemade characters from what we could find around the house. For kids of our Charlie Brown generation, a white sheet with two holes cut in it would do the trick. Unfortunately, all of our sheets had daisies or model Ts printed on them.

So, for a few years, I used my grandmothers grey wig as the basis for disguising myself as an old lady. I added a crocheted shawl (not hard to find in the 70s) and little glasses I fashioned from pipe cleaners. Voila! I looked just like Aunt Bea wearing Converse tennis shoes. Other Halloweens, I was politically incorrect before anyone worried about political correctness, dressing as a hobo or an Indian squaw.

With his paper route money, my brother once ordered a Creature of the Black Lagoon mask from a Mad Magazine ad. He felt it alone sufficed as a costume and wore it with jeans and a sweatshirt. Despite the human clothing accompanying his mask, my brothers get up terrified me because I had recently seen the movie. We watched Chiller Theater double-features every Saturday night after The Carol Burnett Show. One Saturday, we saw The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) followed by The Torture Chamber of Dr. Sadism (1967). Or was it The Man Who Reclaimed His Head (1934)? Either way, my life was never the same.

Those old horror movies definitely added fear factor to my Halloween experience. My rational side knew the ghouls and zombies in the street were just my brother and his mischievous friends, but my instincts told me they could very well drag me off to a laboratory to be dismembered.

Looking back on those experiences, I now realize it didnt matter whether the costumes were boxed or homemade because trick-or-treating was less about the apparel and more about beingscary. Or, if you were like me, beingscared. And like the Chuckles, Necco Wafers and popcorn balls on Halloween night, there were plenty of each to go around.

View original post here:

Halloween for the 'Charlie Brown generation' | Commentary - Public Affairs Office of Headquarters, US Army Combined Arms Support Command and Fort Lee

Richard French is a senior fellow at the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. He spent nine years as an MNA in Quebec.

With Donald Trump in the United States and Boris Johnson in Britain, why does the re-election of Justin Trudeau leave us all feeling so empty?

He is a nice enough fellow, a relief after the lugubrious Conservative government that preceded him. One cannot doubt the sincerity of his commitment to gender equality and protection of minorities. He is getting better behind a lectern. We can hope that recent revelations of his past may calm his ardour for sharing the pieties of political correctness. He is a masterful retail politician, an artist who surfs on the 30-second encounter, selfie included.

Story continues below advertisement

He is not hard to like, but he is hard to respect. He leaves us hungry for some depth and some gravitas, and, it would seem from the evidence, he leaves his ministerial colleagues in the same state.

The first requirement for a prime minister in a Westminster system is to keep his cabinet and his caucus together, all more or less united and pulling in more or less the same direction. But our Prime Minister apparently does not talk to his colleagues; they have to deal with his staff in the Prime Ministers Office, who apparently protect him from being unduly involved in his own government, even while they engage in the detailed policing of ministers and MPs speech and behaviour.

Whether one considers the SNC-Lavalin affair a matter of corruption or simply the product of a well-meaning but clumsy attempt to protect employment, it clearly establishes one sobering conclusion: the Prime Minister is out of touch with his colleagues, his government and his own staff.

In his defence before the ethics commissioner, he pleads ignorance of his underlings actions and, indeed, of the progress of the file in general. It is not, apparently, his fault if they were too keen in pursuing his objectives. Instead of their falling on their swords, he pushes them. So he just did not know. Another thing he apparently did not know is exactly how damaging such an admission is.

Weve heard of ministerial responsibility. Mr. Trudeau is writing a new chapter in the unwritten Westminster constitution: prime ministerial non-responsibility.

The entire unedifying SNC debacle showed, first and foremost, that he had no idea of the person he had named as his minister of justice, no sense of who she was and how she thought and behaved. This is stunning.

It was not as if the crisis emerged in the months following her appointment. There was lots of time and many occasions for the Prime Minister to get to know her. An intimate knowledge of the character and personality of fellow politicians is the bread and butter of public life.

Story continues below advertisement

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Trudeaus political heritage and his attractive persona may have absolved him of such a requirement during his political apprenticeship; if so, this was an unfortunate flaw in his preparation for higher office.

Advisers can palliate lack of substantive knowledge. High political office involves such a diversity of issues that no one can master any significant proportion of them. We pay our politicians to take expert advice and decide how to reconcile it with a myriad of other factors they must legitimately consider, certainly including public opinion, the global environment, the legislature, the caucus and so on.

But only the politician can evaluate the motivations, values, reflexes, abilities and pressures of other key political actors. Here, the Prime Minister has failed spectacularly.

Someone has to explain to Mr. Trudeau that he is not the head of state of a republic, whence he can embody the nation while floating above the gritty realities of politics; rather, he is the head of government and the captain of a team deeply and necessarily enmeshed in those same realities.

Once Mr. Trudeaus father, Pierre Trudeau, was humbled by a minority government in 1972, he recovered. He brought some important new personalities into his entourage. He went on to become one of our longestserving and most influential prime ministers.

Justin Trudeau will never have his fathers intellect. He is indeed our Prime Minister, but it remains to be seen if he has the courage to become a true leader.

Story continues below advertisement

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

See the rest here:

He won. Now Justin Trudeau has to do better - The Globe and Mail

When Ed Morrissey wrote about the story of seven-year-old James Younger in Texas, the outrage among readers was immediate and palpable. Thats completely understandable, given the circumstances. A jury recently decided against his father, Jeffrey Younger, in his attempt to gain custody of his twin sons to prevent their mother from transitioning James into a girl. This would be done through a process of administering dangerous puberty-blocking drugs, female hormones and eventual chemical castration. The story made national headlines and people were up in arms.

The judge in the case has postponed the final ruling and perhaps there is still hope for James. Governor Greg Abbott has announced that the state is investigating the case, hopefully as potential child abuse. (Washington Examiner)

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said that two government departments are investigating after a jury returned a verdict against Jeffrey Younger, who was petitioning for full custody of his son, in part to avoid his ex-wifes plan to infuse him with puberty-blocking hormones.

Abbott waded into the controversy surrounding Mondays verdict, which gave Anne Georgulas sole custody of James and his twin brother, Jude. Georgulas, who has been telling her son he was a girl since he was 3, supports giving hormones that would block his adolescence. She also wants the court to mandate that the boys father call James Luna.

FYI the matter of 7 year old James Younger is being looked into by the Texas Attorney Generals Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Abbott said on Twitter Wednesday night.

Launching an investigation is one thing, but the state will need to act quickly. If the jurys verdict is allowed to stand and the father is denied his parental rights, young James could be off to whatever deranged doctor the mother is working with before anyone is the wiser. If theres ever been a case crying out for intervention by child protective services, its certainly this one.

The doctor should be investigated as well. The medical profession has succumbed to some form of mass hysteria over the past few years, driven by political correctness more than science. If the AMA wont step in on this matter then some form of legal remedy should be sought in Congress.

While I dread saying this aloud, this case may turn out to be precisely what the nation needs. James Younger is still in jeopardy and we dont yet know if he can legally be rescued, but an important issue is finally being brought to light at the national level. How any civilized human being can hear this story and not be outraged is beyond belief and this unfolding tragedy may be what it takes to finally spur Congress to action.

This childs unbalanced mother began telling him he was a girl at the age of three. Allow me to emphasize that. The child was three years old. How on Earth is any three-year-old child possibly mature enough to start making decisions about things like gender? Most teenagers struggle with issues of puberty and sexuality. And at only seven years of age, the mother is preparing to have her son filled up with unnatural hormones and puberty-blocking drugs, followed by chemical castration that can never be undone. By the time the boy is old enough to actually become interested in sex, he will be permanently sterile and likely unable to engage in sexual activity.

And all of this would be allowed to happen under the hands of a licensed medical professional. The woke brigade and the trans mafia have managed to throw centuries of progress in medical science out the window and turn some doctors offices into the Island of Dr. Moreau.

These practices need to be outlawed nationally. What adults choose to do to their own bodies is up to them, even if they wish to permanently mutilate themselves. But the government has an obligation to protect children who are unable to provide informed consent for such horror shows.

View original post here:

Texas investigating mom turning 7 year old boy into a girl - Hot Air

With a 96% critic score and a 46% audience score, the public opinion on HBOs Watchmen is noticeably divided. Critics applaud Watchmenfor the artistic and creative avenues Damon Lindelof travels down. They like how it confronts racism, corruption, and gun control things that are all top of mind in 2019.

So why does the audience think Watchmenis 50% worse than the average critic?

Ever since press releases came out forWatchmen, a chunk of Alan Moore loyalists have canned responses to why the HBO sequel is a disgrace. They say things like:

Theres a reason Alan Moore didnt put his name on this project. The movie was horrible. So why bother with another lame attempt? The comic was very specific to when it came out in 1986what makes you think it can be adapted today?

These people think the comic book is perfect as it is. They dont want any prequels, sequels, adaptations, continuations, or remixes. Theyre somewhat right. Why didnt Lindelof just make his own show, with everything but the baby squids, Rorschach masks, and Robert Redford?

Watchmenis a complicated comic. Morally messy, symbolic, and political, its the kind of literature that leaves a lasting impression on readers whether they love it or hate it.

Watchmen series creator Lindelof is a loyalist to the comic book, and hes directing the show from that perspective. He tries to fill in the gaps for people who havent read the comic. There are newspaper headlines like Adrian Veidt Confirmed Dead. Theres tributes to Richard Nixon in classrooms and trailer parks. Theres ads for a TV show about Americas first vigilantes like Hooded Justice and Silk Spectre. Its established early on that Vietnam is a state.

But these clues come in quick flashes on the screen. Without reading Watchmen before watching Watchmen, the average viewer is walking into a surprise party where everyone in the room is naked. The show (like the comic) is too surreal or too subtle for their taste.

The most significant group of people who dont like Watchmen cant properly debate about political or social issues. These people have extreme political beliefs on opposite sides of the spectrum, yet theyre one-and-the-same.

Both kinds of people in this one group agree that political correctness goes beyond being respectful to marginalized people. But to one side, it means shaming people who have controversial or (as they deem it) unacceptable opinions on social media. To the other side, political correctness is a symptom of an overly-sensitive generation of people, and an unconstitutional constraint on their speech.

These people cant debate about politics. They cant listen and respond to those with different beliefs. Instead, they lose their temper and hijack the conversation.

They cant sympathize with the masked police in Watchmen who have to request permission to use firearms during a life-threatening situation. Or they roll their eyes at how the show has another female protagonist especially a black one.

Watchmen Asks: Is the World Black and White?

View post:

"Watchmen": Some Aren't Ready for THIS "Watchmen" [OPINION] - Bleeding Cool News

Hercule Poirot may soon have to be played only by a Belgian actor, David Suchet has suggested, as he warns the pendulum of political correctness can swing too much the other way.

Suchet, the British actor known for his portrayal of Agatha Christies detective, said there must be limits to the modern demands placed on actors to play parts only similar to themselves.

Speaking of his own career, which saw him black up to play Caliban in a 1978 stage production of The Tempest, he said it was right that the world had moved on but suggested the industry risked going too far.

The world has changed, he told the Mail on Sunday. It has to change. It's not my world. I'm trying to catch up with it.

But I think there are limits. How much do you change of a play - dialogue or character-wise - to suit political correctness?

I'm a character actor. I don't want who I can play to become small because of political correctness.

Excerpt from:

Political correctness in acting could mean Poirot can only be played by a Belgian, David Suchet warns - The Telegraph

Deeply caustic and supremely confident, Bill Maher is the kind of satirist who causes even his many admirers his HBO talk show Real Time draws more than four million viewers per episode to throw up their hands now and again. Avoiding the public comfort of a party line, Maher lights into the political excesses and orthodoxies of the left as well as the right, on an anti-P.C., antihypocrisy crusade that skewers Democrats and Republicans alike. My whole career, Maher says, has been this battle: Why cant I talk on TV the way I talk at home or with my friends? My goal was to take that gap, which on most shows you can drive a truck through, and close it to nothing.

Most late-night hosts dont criticize both the right and the left as much as you do. Why do you think that is? Its hard to answer that question without sounding self-serving. I will say this: Our studio audience is not representative of liberals across the country. Your paper and The Atlantic had long articles1 in the last year saying that 80 percent of Americans think this politically correct BS has gone too far. But the people on Twitter are the people who control the media a lot. Theyre the millennials who probably grew up with helicopter parents who afforded them a sense of entitlement. They are certainly more fragile than previous generations. Trigger warnings. Safe spaces. Crying rooms. Microaggressions. That crowd feels like anything that upsets their tender sensibilities is completely out of line.

Isnt it important to distinguish between the fundamental arguments being made in favor of those sensibilities and the people being loudest on social media about them? Yes. The most important thing that the Democrats can do to win the next election is to broom this element out of their party and stand up to the Twitter mob and the ultrawoke. And I dont like the term woke, because it implies I am asleep. I was woke before some of these people were born. I grew up in a household with two liberal parents who were ahead of their time.2 My father and mother told me about civil rights. I knew what the right thing was. The difference is that liberals protect people, and P.C. people protect feelings. They dont do anything. Theyre pointing at other people who are somehow falling short of their standards, which could have changed three weeks ago. Theyre constantly moving the goalposts so they can go, Gotcha! For example, when I was growing up, the most liberal thing you could do is not see color. Well, thats wrong now. You see color, always, so you can register your white privilege. But I grew up in the Martin Luther King era: Judge by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I still think thats the best way to do it. Not see it.

But we do see color, and no one is arguing that people shouldnt be judged by their character. So what problem is being caused by the shift you just described? If someone walks in the room, after a minute, I should not be thinking about color. And I am not. Thats how I have always been. I have actual black friends. I dont think they want me to be always thinking: Black person. Black person. Im talking to a black person. Look, I tried to drive a stake through political correctness in the 90s.3 I obviously failed dismally. Its worse than ever.

Youve talked about the negative effects of the Twitter mob on your show, but youve also talked about how most people dont care whats on Twitter. If people dont care about the Twitter conversation, why bother railing against it? Because the Twitter-mob mentality has an effect on the rest of the world. Everyone fears the wrath of the Twitter mob and the social justice warriors and the P.C. police. Religions always talk about the one true religion. Now on the left we have the one true opinion. If you go against that, you do so at your peril. Thats why the air on the left is becoming stale. I railed for years against the Fox News bubble, and that is as strong as ever, but I didnt think it would get this bad on the left. Comedians are afraid to make jokes in clubs, because somebody will tape it and send it out on Twitter and get the mob after you.

Thats a concern we often hear from comedians these days. How much of that fear is coming from comedians still adjusting to the reality of there being possible consequences for their material? You can still make whatever joke you want. The difference is that more people are calling you out if they find it offensive. Thats nave. You can make the joke if you dont mind giving up your career or being fired. Come on. The politically correct people are not concerned about social justice. They care about putting scalps on the wall. Liam Neeson. Remember that?4 Are we at this place where we cant admit that weve ever had bad thoughts and gotten over them and become a better person? You cant judge today by yesterday. We evolve.

Lets take the Liam Neeson thing. Who I dont even like, by the way.

Whats your problem with Liam Neeson? Hes for horse-drawn carriages in Central Park. And Im a PETA board member.

I didnt know that. But the controversy around him was a story for a day, and then the world moved on. His career is fine, isnt it? The world doesnt move on for Megyn Kelly5 and Roseanne,6 and Aziz Ansari7 had to fly below the radar for a year. I think youre downplaying how serious this stuff is. We live in an age where people want to cancel other people and disappear them. Whos going to be left?

Youve had two big controversies during your career. The first was in 2001 when you said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards.8 The second was two years ago, when you made that joke using the N-word.9 Did it feel different to be at the center of a controversy during the social media era? Controversies are never pleasant to go through. On the second controversy, Im saving an in-depth discussion for my memoirs. If we were living in a country that could handle nuance, Id be happy to talk about it, but were no longer in that country. Theres no winning there. Youre going to have to read my memoirs. We live in an era where I dont think peoples main focus is the truth and/or sussing out something valuable or teachable. We live in a time in which people are more concerned with scalps and clicks.

Did the discussion that happened after you made that joke reveal anything new to you about our cultures or your own understanding of that language? I just think theres no way to have that conversation with you, David. Im sorry, I dont blame you for trying. Its a shame, because there is lots of learning that can be happening. As I said at the time, anytime someone is hurt by a word like that you have my sincere apology. But thats the beginning of a discussion, and its too bad that we dont live in a place where you can have the end of it.

Well, so my next question is related to the 9/11 controversy. Youve always been critical of all religions, but is there something distinct about your criticism of Islam? Fairly or not, youve been called an Islamophobe a few times over the years. Its ridiculous to label criticism of a religion as a phobia of a religion. Im going to criticize any person or group that violates liberal principles, and so should you. Almost all religions, by their nature, are intolerant and supremacist. At any time in history one religion will be the most fundamentalist. At this moment I think its pretty evident that religion is Islam. Of course, intolerance exists everywhere, but the places where, lets say, human rights workers have their work cut out for them the most are probably traditional Islamic societies. To conflate thinking that with Islamophobia is a facile and unconvincing trick.

I do wonder if, at least in the past, youve done some conflating of your own as far as, for example, treating theocracies or dictators as exemplars of Islamic rank and file. I think you have it backwards. The government of Pakistan is more liberal than the people. Their senate recently passed legislation to end child marriages and local police forces have intervened. Yes, we have things in our country that are at odds with liberal values, but someone once said that, at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. Its frustrating for me. I know that people who ask me these questions actually agree with me, and yet theyre like, Are you crazy? Its like, Can I just be real?

It could be that there are complexities that your criticisms of Islam dont address. There are many factors, none of which Ive ever denied. Poverty has been shown to have little to do with terrorism. You can always bring in a million things to make this look like a phobia. But what about white supremacy? Also a bad thing! Never said it wasnt. Its interesting to me that even the people who criticize me about this sometimes have used the word cancer. As in, Islamism is a cancer upon Islam. And to those who say, when I mention instances of Islamism, But its not everywhere, I say, If a doctor tells you you have cancer, do you go, Yeah, but its not everywhere?

Do you see any way out of this cultural and political tailspin were in right now, in which everyones default stance is If you dont agree with me, then screw you? You have to find a way to begin with what you share and then explore why you differ so vehemently on other issues, and thats what we seem to have lost the ability to do. I dont see a lot of desire for people to talk to each other, to accept that, O.K., this person doesnt agree with me on a lot of stuff, but I dont have to think hes a monster. We want to beat our chests and vanquish the other side. Compromise seems like a dead concept.

On the Real Time anniversary special last year, the things people were saying about why they like you especially your fearlessness about saying what you really think reminded me of the things people say about why they like President Trump, whom youre no fan of.10 Is there any way to productively channel peoples enthusiasm for those qualities? So much of it seems like its mostly about the pleasure we get from seeing our opponents insulted. During the second year of Politically Incorrect we had a contest: Politically incorrect or just stupid? We were trying to make the point that saying something thats contrary is not necessarily politically incorrect. Its sometimes just stupid. I define political correctness as the elevation of sensitivity over truth. Thats my beef with it. Were not getting to the truth, because were too sensitive.

Let me totally switch subjects. I went and read your novel.11 Im verklempt. Thats something no interviewer has ever said to me.

It has this lovingly detailed evocation of a very particular time in the comedy world, back when the boom was starting to happen in the late 70s, and how that was a real moment of change for comedians and their work. Have you seen any similar sea changes since? Im probably not the best one to ask, because it has been a long time since I was in the comedy clubs. I do hear a lot of complaints that comedians are frustrated that they cant freely try out new bits. When I was coming up, the great thing about the comedy clubs was that they were laboratories for our experimentation. That was the deal. They didnt pay us, and we didnt have to be good and werent but thats how we honed our craft. Now people are afraid, and comedy does not function well in that atmosphere of fear. We want to be saying whatever, especially if its funny, and it hurts us that the audience wont trust us. Do you really think Im on the side of the bad people? Chris Rock, Larry the Cable Guy and Jerry Seinfeld a few years ago all were talking about the fact that they dont work campuses anymore. Jerry Seinfeld is too out there? His act is so clean it whitens teeth. Comedy is about saying those true things that everyone else isnt saying. Thats where the fun is.

You mentioned colleges. Students are another group that you talk a lot about on the show. There has been no time over the last 50 or so years when people havent been criticizing college kids social and political ideas. But isnt that a reaction to the fact that college is a place where students are pushing hard and figuring out their ideas about the world? Isnt that what these kids are supposed to be doing at that age and in that setting? I dont think someone whos at Harvard is a child, and I do think they should know that everybody in America gets a lawyer. Yet they did not understand that.12

The students at Harvard werent saying Harvey Weinstein wasnt entitled to a lawyer. They were objecting to a residential dean being his lawyer. Thats different. Well, thats wrong, too. Everybody gets the lawyer that they want. Harvard doesnt understand the very basis of the Sixth Amendment? I dont think a lot of us who are criticizing that are criticizing the kids as much as the administrators.

Who you think are spineless. Very spineless. The way parents have been spineless in disciplining their kids. When I was growing up you could never drive a wedge between your parents and the teacher. Now the parents always back their precious darlings, and thats why you have grade inflation and kids who leave school without knowing anything. Its not the kids fault that he doesnt know anything. Its the teachers fault. Thats not helping our country. Being brought up this way is going to lead these kids to ruin. Of course, theyre not all brought up the same way. I dont think in the middle of the country theyre raising their kids like that. I saw Mario Lopez got in trouble, did you see that?

I didnt. I saw this headline: Mario Lopez Apologizes. It was this groveling apology to the L.G.B.T.Q. community. You know what the problem was? They asked him about this trend in Hollywood of letting your 3-year-old decide their gender and Mario Lopez said maybe 3 is a little young for that decision.13 Monster!

This is making me think of when you had Dr. Debra Soh14 on the show talking about gender dysphoria, and you were pointing to what you see as the problem of parental permissiveness towards gender identification and transitioning. You were saying that parents let their kids gender reidentify because its easier than telling them not to. That seemed pretty glib. It was.

Its a bit hard to imagine that parents who support a childs transitioning are doing it because they think its the easier path. Thats not true. I know people whove done it, and that is exactly what it is. They never discipline their kids. They think theyre making it easier by giving the kid what they want. I mean, youre right, what I said was glib, but I am serving many masters. Real Time is an entertainment show on an entertainment network, and Im a comedian. Not everything I say can stand up to the scrutiny of the ultimate fact-check. But I think that there is some truth to this. There are kids and this is what Dr. Soh was saying and I wasnt disagreeing with who have transitioned who were really just gay. I dont think its the worst thing in the world to wait a few years to find out whats going on. Im not a doctor. Im not a scientist. But if I had a kid I would tell them: As long as youre living under my roof youre not cutting anything off. Until youre 18. Then you cut off whatever you want. Here I am, being glib again.

Whats something encouraging to you about millennials? And whats the most disappointing thing about your own generation? Aside from ruining the world environmentally. Weve left a dark, stinking husk of a planet, havent we? My generation started this mess. The Baby Boomers were the first Me generation. They were the first spoiled kids. There definitely was more discipline, but there was also more indulgence, and that seemed to continue on and on. So I think we have to look in the mirror as to when that trend started. As for the most encouraging thing about millennials, its idealism. You need people to look at anything with a fresh pair of eyes. That sort of idealism is essential to temper the necessary cynicism.

And you dont see any idealism in the identity politics of younger people? I dont know how thats connected to idealism. What Im complaining about is fragility. What Im complaining about is people who were overindulged as children and somehow believe that they should not have to endure even the slightest measure of discomfort.

Im sure Im overly Pollyanna-ish about all this, and obviously not everyone is arguing these issues in good faith, but isnt the root of what youre identifying just peoples attempt to figure out how to get through life with more dignity and less pain? But there are negative repercussions. People get disappeared. When I was a young person the conservatives were the ones who I dont know what youd call it.

Drew hard lines about what was or wasnt culturally acceptable? Thank you, yes. Now its reversed, and I feel like thats backwards. Young people should be the free ones pushing the boundaries and not the ones inhibiting us. Well, Im not a woman, so I could not possibly know that experience. Im not a person of color, so I cant speak about that. Professors are afraid to speak, because what they say, even if its science, might go against the politically correct notion. This is pernicious. Im sorry, but I have to lay that at the doorstep of the far left and the younger generation. Its not the worst thing in the world to hear something you find somewhat offensive. You can turn the channel. Look at something else. Go to a puppet show; youll never be offended.

Im curious about how your own comedy has evolved. Back when you were doing Politically Incorrect you used to do a lot more hubba hubba jokes about women. Its funny you mention that. When I turned 50, I had a talk with my writers and I said, no more Im-in-the-hot-tub-with-twins jokes. Back in the 90s it was a different point of view to say, Im single, and that is not a bad choice. I stood up for that idea and it was not well accepted at the time that you can have children, thats fine, but I do not want them. I was a bit of a militant single person. But when I was 50, I said, Im too old to be doing these jokes. At a certain point its not funny anymore. Its creepy. I never did those kind of jokes again.

Do you still have a stripper pole in your house? Its not in my house.

Guest house? Well, yes. I bought my house in 2001, and in 2004 my next-door neighbor was selling his bachelor pad. He had a small house he lived in, and there was this other little bungalow on the property that I use if I have a party. I dont know how you knew that I had a stripper pole put in.

Let me ask you a nonpolitics, noncomedy question. I know that youre a big Beatles fan. In one of your books you said you could probably do a better job interviewing them than anybody has yet. I definitely could.

So if you could snap your fingers and have Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr on your show, what would you ask them? I would love to present my theory as to why the Beatles really broke up. Which is that John Lennon could not keep up in the battle for A-sides. Imagine writing a song as great as Revolution and it loses out to Hey Jude. Thats, I think, why John Lennon didnt want to continue going with the Beatles. I dont think he liked losing. Paul McCartney would never admit that, by the way.

Well, there you go. O.K., back to your work! For more than 25 years youve been going on TV and making jokes about Republicans being hypocritical and corrupt and Democrats being too PC and lacking backbone. Does it ever feel like youre banging your head against a wall? These people dont change. Yes but I never thought that people would hear my jokes and go: Hes right! Ive got to amend my behavior right now. But Im very fortunate as a standup comedian who still goes on the road a lot, because Im always given new material. I had John Boehner jokes, and now I have Mitch McConnell jokes.

I wonder if you could get away with Mad-Libbing your material. Just swap new names into old jokes. I have repurposed junk. I think I had one about Newt Gingrich having the moral compass of an opportunistic infection. Who doesnt that apply to? I have a plethora of material, but if an old joke perfectly fits somewhere Im not above repurposing. You know, John Lennon wrote a song called Child of Nature, and it was a great tune. He repurposed it with different lyrics a few years later as Jealous Guy. Artists are blue jays. We find little scraps here and there and build a nest. Were shameless about it.

Here is the original post:

Bill Maher on the Perils of Political Correctness - The New York Times

Comedy is dying and political correctness is killing it. Nobody can joke about anything any more without triggered liberals screaming racism and cancelling them.

Ill stop there because Im sure you have heard this screed before. Conservatives love complaining about how millennial snowflakes cant take a joke and dont understand edgy humour. In September, for example, the comedian Shane Gillis was dropped from Saturday Night Live after footage surfaced of him making racist, homophobic and misogynistic gags. Gillis responded to the outrage with a non-apology in which he explained that he pushes boundaries and takes risks.

Comedians should obviously push boundaries and take risks. But punching down has never been remotely risky or funny. This isnt a development of our woke era; its a principle the worlds best comics have always acknowledged. Just look at the 30-year-old video of George Carlin that recently went viral. In the clip Carlin criticises bigoted jokes made by his fellow standup Andrew Dice Clay. Comedy has traditionally picked on people in power, Carlin says. Women and gays and immigrants, to my way of thinking, are underdogs. He adds: I think [Clays] core audience is young, white males who are threatened by these groups.

Around the same time that Carlins comments were going viral, the New York Times published a new interview with Eddie Murphy, who is returning to standup. Murphy, 58, told the Times he isnt afraid of current controversies over humour, pointing out that he was picketed for homophobic jokes he made in the 1980s. It took Murphy a long time to apologise for those jokes and the backlash was partly why he stopped doing standup for years. But you know what? He still has a career. Whats more, he says he cringes when he thinks of his old, ignorant material.

So there you are: Murphy is living proof that political correctness hasnt killed comedy. He shows that its perfectly possible to apologise and evolve, even if it takes a while. I hope Gillis is paying attention.

Read the original here:

Eddie Murphy shows you can evolve, apologise and still be funny - The Guardian

Jeremiads about the state of liberal democracy and its institutions have been the dissonant theme of 2019. The West as a whole is in decline; NATO is obsolete; once proud and powerful parliaments and congresses have been rendered superfluous. Autocratic rulers like Russias Vladimir Putin, Chinas Xi Jinping and North Koreas Kim Jong-un seize the day while Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro seem more inclined to emulate their governance than to stand up for the idea and the practice of liberty and a pluralistic society.

In Germany, the parties at the center are struggling to deal with the growing appeal of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is less a political body than the manifestation of a hodgepodge of racism, resentment and radical right-wing ideas. The party, barely six years old, has made considerable gains in recent regional elections, finishing second in two states (see page 1) without offering any coherent ideas of how to govern. Their slogans follow the drumbeat of most international far-right movements; they target immigrants and perceived elites while railing against what they refer to as the establishments tyranny of political correctness.

The AfD is built on the cult of the strongman, the crude longing for an authentic leader able and willing to put an end to the tedious game of politics and all the never-ending debating, negotiating and countervailing. They want their followers to believe that politics, the ever-muddy practice of true democracy, is practically and morally depraved and should be replaced by the dogged determination of a chosen one.

Sure enough, the dualistic conception of politics as either a game of eternally bound-to-fail compromise (played by those driven by the desire to debate another day) or ruling by fiat and forever is not an autocratic fad of 2019.

This dualist view of politics is reflected in Samuel Johnsons Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1759, which describes politics as the Science of Government, the art or practice of administering public affairs. Elsewhere in the dictionary, Johnson describes the politician not as an artist but one who is cunning and a man of artifice.

The contemporary German philosopher and political scientist Wolfgang Fach takes a modern view of Johnsons dichotomy. The contrast couldnt be greater: there the divine action, here the devilish actors, he writes in his treatise titled The Disappearance of Politics. Fach denotes the difference as POLITICS (in all caps, because of its quasi-divine nature), understood as the transcendent care of and for the entirety; on the other hand, common politics, engaged in by self-appointed Machiavellian men, whose thinking is engulfed by immoral haggling without prospects.

Fach diagnoses this tendency in all people, no matter their political affiliations: we want to believe in POLITICS, yet we despise the rigmarole of politics and find ever-new ways of forgetting or suppressing the latter, without acknowledging the intertwined nature of the two concepts. We are blinded, Fach notes, by the magic effect of the otherworldly promise.

In this vein, countries long proud of their mature democracies, including Germany since 1949, may be said to be witnessing a rather vulgar re-enchantment of the great political idea by a faction of strongmen in the last 10 years. The promise of transcendence through political action is increasingly secularized. The aspiration to lift up every citizen not to mention refugees from war and poverty around the world is discarded in favor of a more particular promise of salvation. Or, as Adam Gopnik writes in his recent book on the moral adventure of liberalism, A Thousand Small Sanities, everywhere we look, throughout Europe as much as in America, patriotism is being replaced with nationalism, pluralism by tribalism, impersonal justice by the tyrannical whim of autocrats who think only to punish their enemies and reward their hitmen.

Deprived of its universal claim, something once upheld by both liberal and conservative notions of democratic politics, todays strongman politics has embraced and indeed relies on simplistic concepts.

This is not just the ordinary argument for the necessity of expertise, impact analysis and inclusion of a plethora of perceptions in policymaking. The tax code, environmental regulation and government programs of all stripes rarely fit neatly into even the traditional categories of left and right, let alone the cruder ones of good and evil.

Nor is it the assertion that politics just happens to be a complicated technical affair better left to the elites and their dabblings in obscure jargon. The disapproval of political huskers and industry proxies rigging the game for the various 0.1-percenters can be spot-on; look no further than the global financial crisis of 2008, which was brought on by too much deregulation and unsound safeguarding by the state.

What appears to be perplexing about the electoral success of the strongmen is that few of their supporters actually believe their proposed policy ideas will help make their lives better. They share the oft-repeated grievances, the feeling of neglect, the perceived slights by proverbial liberal elites, the assumption that immigrants and minorities have been moved ahead of them to the top of the queue a version of this story is told in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and elsewhere.

The proposed countermeasures, if there are any, like walls, mass deportation or no-deal Brexit, are too expensive, impractical or sometimes even counterproductive.

And yet todays autocratic appeal, following Wolfgang Fachs theory, lies not in the actual substance, and not even in symbolic meaning that is, owning the libs or any other right-wing armchair battle cry.

In 2018, the historical anthropologist Thomas Bauer published a short yet weighty essay on the loss of ambiguity and diversity, The Disambiguation of the World. He traces the story of how modern societies lost their will and their ability to handle or even tolerate pluralist meanings from religion to the arts and politics. In many areas of life, the most attractive spiritual offerings are those promising release from the unnavigable ambiguity of the world. Bauer notes all the impersonal factors for this tendency: bureaucratization, technical advancements, mass-market consumer culture. But he also sees an express will of people to live in a more conclusive world.

Translated back into the world of democratic politics, it becomes clearer why a growing segment of the electorate in Western societies chooses to deny or obfuscate the science of climate change, the fact that minorities still face discrimination or that a strong government must level the playing field of the so-called open market in myriad ways.

In other words, whats needed is the normal, untidy and always tentative business of democracy. Democratic decision-making cannot claim to embody the sole truth such a claim would be counterintuitive to the essence of its undertaking. It is a series of temporary fixes, good only for as long as a new and hopefully better solution doesnt come along.

Compromise is not a sign of the collapse of ones moral conscience. It is a sign of its strength, for there is nothing more necessary to a moral conscience than the recognition that other people have one, too, writes Adam Gopnik. A compromise is a knot tied tight between competing decencies.

On the face of it, this version of democracy will always be less sexy than the siren songs of the strongman. In the struggle for democracy one might say the idea of the republic there is no reverse-engineering the transcendent act of turning politics into POLITICS. Democracys advocates politicians, voters and citizens can only engage in the conciliatory manner that has been lying at the core of the concept since its inception.

Lutz Lichtenbergeris senior editor of The German Times.

Read more:

Live to debate another day not having easy answers is a liberal asset, not a moral failing - The German Times Online

This year, the universitys chapter of the College Republicans painted a sort-of homage to Pink Floyd: a grid of brown bricks captioned Donald Trump: The Wall. Each brick contained a reference to one of Trumps accomplishments, such as fighting political correctness, appointed SC Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, undoing Obamas mistakes, and safer borders.

To top it off, the panel also included a small illustration of what appears to be the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an oft-maligned partial quote from Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (Some people did something,) and the phrase Keep America Great.

The College Republicans completed their panel on Friday. Almost immediately after they left, it had been tampered with. A picture posted to Reddit shows the panel besmirched with a crude drawing of someone flipping the bird and the caption Fuck shits. Mere hours later, it was completely covered in red and black spray paint, the word BORDERS crossed out, and the caption, White supremacy kills.

This marks the fourth year in a row that the Republican panel has been vandalized. The Minnesota Daily catalogues the years-long tradition, giving a post-mortem on panels containing everything from the slogan, Build the wall to The [universitys] proposed pronoun policy mocks real social issues. One year, during a joint panel between the College Republicans and Turning Point USA, someone called conservatives the least popular minority on campus. Several conservative groups panels got painted over that year.

By all accounts, theyd seen this coming. This year, theyd even painted a second panel with the caption, Please vandalize this panel and NOT our other panel. It was decorated with saccharine hearts and smiley faces and the phrase, This is a safe space.

College Republicans invited potential vandals to focus on this mural rather than their "wall" tribute. Twitter

While we are obviously upset about this situation, we are not surprised, the groups newsletter said. This sort of thing happens every year, but what was special about this year was that they had the gall to do this in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people.

Chapter Chair Nathan Harman wrote a lettercondemning what he saw as the ugliest type of disagreement and closed-minded thinking: one that equates dissent to sin and that seeks censorship over discourse.

The group was a little glibber on Twitter.

Reactions on social media werent exactly sympathetic.

Thoughts and prayers, one Reddit user said.

Womp womp, someone added helpfully on Twitter.

Keep putting it up itll keep getting vandalized, another Twitter user said.

Other commenters were confused about what the College Republicans were expecting or what they thought they were accomplishing in the first place.

When will you all get it? one Twitter user asked. Your opinions arent valid or welcome, especially when you endorse and defend the racist rhetoric of your party and do nothing to speak to the concerns of students. Like, what do you people think youre doing?

I cant imagine being 21, seeing the modern Republican party and going, yeah, this is for me, one Reddit user said.

Its true Democrats by and large have a bigger claim over millennials by the numbers, and the up-and-coming Gen Z has proven to be similar. In 2017, the Pew Research Center determined that 59 percent of millennials whod registered to vote leaned left, while 32 percent leaned right. Both Gen X and the Boomers tend to be more split down the middle.

Harman gets it, to a degree. He understands there is a burning distaste on campus for the president and the current trajectory of the party, and even agrees that some of the things Trump has done such as brag about grabbing women by the pussy should not be excused.

I dont want to defend Donald Trump on the same panel where we criticize Ilhan Omar, because hes said some awful things, he says. What he wants is for people to think about why they believe what they believe, and where their facts are coming from.

When asked about what he and others see in the party these days, he talks about a potential future for the GOP. Younger Republicans, he says, are not like their conservative grandparents some are pro-choice, or queer, or anti-Trump. His hope is that the party is going to trend in a more socially-conscious, inclusive direction while still maintaining its fiscally responsible roots.

Even though today it is hard sometimes to talk over some of the more populist members of the party, hes hopeful cooler heads will win out in the end.

But when students walked by the mural, they didnt see a hopeful spectrum of socially progressive Republicans. All they saw was the Omar quote, a drawing of a plane sailing toward the Twin Towers, and a list of some things Trump has done. Student Nick Knighton, one of the protesters sitting by the mural pre-vandalization, told the Daily he saw rhetoric that fuels acts of white supremacy and violence across the country.

The story has since been picked up by conservative outlets like the College Fix and Breitbart, where commenters called the vandals fascists and vile animals, and asserted the left is the enemy.

Excerpt from:

University of Minnesota College Republicans' mural is vandalized for fourth year in a row - City Pages

Climate desk: Down With Green Hypocrisy & Hype

From politicians who fly in private jets but tell the rest of us to consider a world without planes to activists preaching that America has to cripple our economy while posting on their iPhones made in China, its clear that the climate-change movement is full of hypocrites, fumes Scott Walker at The Washington Examiner. But what about their hyped claims? Relax: The world is not going to end in 12 years, even though hypocrites like Al Gore will keep using massive amounts of energy. What the greens really want is to change the nature of the entire economy, as a former AOC staffer all but admitted. Keep that in mind the next time you see a climate-change protest in the news.

Economy watch: NY Feds Flawed Wage Report

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently published a report pooh-poohing the impact of Gov. Cuomos 2013-2018 minimum-wage hikes on employment in Empire State counties bordering Pennsylvania. But those findings were deeply flawed, argues the Empire Centers E.J. McMahon. In fact, the regions job numbers were inflated by major job-creating casinos in two of those counties and by the inclusion of prosperous Big Apple exurb of Orange County, which differs greatly from nearby counties in both states. Allowing for these factors, job losses in the New York counties relative to the Pennsylvania ones were worse than painted. Far from a slam-dunk case for raising the minimum wage, the study was a quickie and all too simplistic. The report itself noted, Longer-term effects, if any, remain to be seen.

Conservative: Impeachers Beclown Themselves

In general, muses Roger Kimball at American Greatness, one tends to admire perseverance. But Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Get-Trump media edging toward impeachment are making fools of themselves. After all, they spent nearly three years pushing wall-to-wall lies about Donald Trump colluding with the Russians to no avail. They tried the same thing, twice, against Brett Kavanaugh. Again, nothing. Now they are back to trying to unseat a duly elected president again in vain, since voters know the score: A sliver of the population the antifa thugs, the Hollywood brats, the media sissies, the beautiful people with expensive degrees and, of course, the radical fringe of the Democratic Party all refused to accept the results of the last election. Still, Kimball concludes, to recognize their impotence isnt to play down the threat these forces pose to what we used to be able to call, without irony, the American dream.

Iconoclast: Shall We Impeach Trump?

The Weeks Matthew Walther recounts an old Northumbrian joke involving jurors debating the meanings of the words will and shall in the cry of a drowning man: I will drown, and nobody shall save me! Only one juror, McTavish, wonders why nobody bothered rescuing the poor fellow. The case for impeaching Trump may likewise turn, in part, on a grammatical curiosity. At a House hearing last week, Democrats grilled Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire over his supposed failure to submit a whistleblower report to Congress. The relevant whistleblower law says that the DNI shall submit his findings to Congress. But does shall here imply futurity with an additional element of promise or intention, or is it denoting plain old facts about the future? Depending on the legal authority you consult, shall in statutory language could mean may or must. Walther shrugs: We need a McTavish.

Culture beat: Who Killed the Sitcom?

A recent Slate piece examined the current state of comedy, and somehow the author came to the conclusion that were much, much funnier than we used to be, guffaws Mitchell Blue at the Federalist. In fact, Todays sitcoms, which feature political correctness or flashy costume design instead of humor, are simply not as funny as past sitcoms as Netflix and other streaming services that are paying about a half a billion dollars to air old shows know. But why? The biggest culprit is cancel culture, exemplified by SNLs firing of comedian Shane Gillis before hed started on the show because his humor included racial stereotypes. Perhaps people will find out how to be funny again one day, but for now, it sure seems like everyone is afraid to try.

Compiled by Karl Salzmann and Sohrab Ahmari

View post:

Down with Green hypocrisy and other commentary - New York Post