Monthly Archives: March 2022

Some say my generation has had it easy, and that thats made us soft. More easily offended. And I can't deny that. Many people, including me, are more sensitive or more cautious about what they say because they dont want to upset people.

But I ask you: Is that a bad thing?

Ashton Anderson

(I apologize ahead of time to those I might offend with this article, but I do hope you read this with an open mind. If youre not willing to look at things from a different perspective, please stop reading this. I do not appreciate people like that.)

To start things off, Ill talk about political correctness. Some of you might think, You can't say anything anymore because of political correctness. And that, I have to admit, is kind of true. Speaking your mind can be a tricky thing these days.

But I believe it all depends on what you say, and the context you say it in.

The difference between a friendly joke and an offensive joke, for example, is whether the person whos being joked about is okay with it, and that usually amounts to whether the joke is told from a place of respect or disrespect.

The big question naysayers of my generations political correctness often overlook is: Why do we try to be so politically correct?

I believe the most simple answer is, respect.

Growing up, I and many others in my generation were raised to respect our elders. But I, for one, never felt very respected by many of my elders, or even my older peers, due to my younger age or grade. Because of that, I eventually developed the philosophy that you should respect those who deserve respect, regardless of age.

I believe respect is the wheel that peace rolls on. When people respect each other, even when they disagree or dont fully understand one another, theyre more able to form relationships and work together.

This brings me to the offending side of things. Yes, some people take political correctness way too seriously and go too far, but they are not the majority. In fact, these sorts are usually disliked by the general populace of the very groups they think theyre defending groups like the LGBT+ community, as an example.

The LGBT+ community has a reputation for being easily offended. But, as a member of this community myself, I believe the main reason behind that is the lack of respect weve dealt with for so many years. Homosexuality was illegal in the U.S. until not that long ago (it was decriminalized nationwide only 19 years ago, in 2003). Its still frowned upon in some circles today, and many people still refuse to treat trans people like the gender they say they are.

Its only been in the last couple of decades that weve finally been able to be more open and proud of who we are, with the legalization of homosexual marriage and continued advancement of gay and transgender rights.

But when someone makes an unwarranted and unwelcome comment or joke about an LGBT+ person which still happens it can make that person feel as if they are wrong or bad. If someone told you that all you know about yourself is wrong or bad, how would you feel? You would feel disrespected, wouldnt you? And when people feel like they are being disrespected or under attack, they usually get offended, and they often fight back.

Dont take this as me defending those who get offended by every little thing those people dont deserve respect, in my book. Instead, take this as me defending those who get offended because someone has done or said something disrespectful to them thats not being easily offended, its being rightfully offended.

View post:

COLUMN FROM THE INTERN: Please take it easy on us - Detroit Lakes Tribune

With Russias onslaught against Ukraine in full swing, officials of US President Jo Bidens administration continue to sidestep a question that is posed to them daily: do they still view Vladimir Putin as Russias legitimate leader, and therefore a man with whom it remains possible to develop a relationship however difficult once the Ukraine war ends?

Regime change in Moscow is not Americas official policy. But just three weeks after French President Emmanuel Macron was trying to broker a last-ditch Biden-Putin summit to defuse tensions over Ukraine, White House officials are hesitant to indicate publicly whether they are willing to recognise that the Kremlin leader has a long-term role to play.

Blame some of the reticence on competing viewpoints in Washington about the Russian leaders mental health. Its been 36 years since former President Ronald Reagan publicly described Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi as the mad dog of the Middle East, and political correctness today might prevent that kind of phrase tumbling from a US Presidents lips. But voices both inside and outside Bidens inner circle believe that Putin is no longer the man he used to be.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, suggested earlier this month that Putin is suffering from some kind of illness. Some people say he has cancer and some people say he has brain-fog from Covid, she told reporters, conceding that others just think hes a complete, raging bully.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida argued that its pretty obvious that something is off with Putin, adding that it would be a mistake to assume that this Putin would react the same way he would have done five years ago.

Former National Security Council official Fiona Hill herself a Putin biographer describes the Russian leader as isolated during the pandemic and developing a distorted perception of reality. Her old boss, former National Security Adviser HR McMaster told CBS News that Putin is no longer a rational actor.

That, of course, presumes that he was a rational actor in the first place. Yet some observers of the Russian leaders career argue it is far too easy for western policymakers many of whom have misread the Russian leader for years to suggest that Vlad has suddenly gone mad.

In the reduction of Ukrainian cities to rubble, they point to clear parallels with Russias scorched-earth military conduct during two separate wars in Chechnya and the flattening of Aleppo in Syria.

It was the Chechen conflict that led Putin to begin his crackdown on independent media in Russia that has now lasted more than two decades and left the entire population not just its leader isolated from reliable information.

Former Russian foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev a staunch Kremlin critic argues that Putin is a rational actor and that the invasion of Ukraine is horrific but not irrational.

Kozyrev argues Putin spent the last 20 years believing that Ukraine is not a real nation and, at best, should be a satellite state. He says Kremlin insiders lied to the Russian leader about the countrys military strength for fear of admitting military budgets were stolen and spent on mega yachts in Cyprus.

Kozyrev also claims Putins top lieutenants persuaded themselves that President Biden is mentally ineptand that the EU is weak, conclusions underpinned by the Wests lame response to Russias 2014 annexation of Crimea.

US intelligence agencies have vast departments responsible for maintaining psychological profiles of world leaders and tracking their behavioral changes. Those overseeing the Putin profiles at both the CIA and the NSA are either struggling to keep up with the Russian leaders mood swings, or arguing that his behavior is not wildly at odds with his extensive track record.

Their work, of course, is secret. But when the White House decides whether Putin is mad or just bad, we may get a sense of what theyve concluded.

View original post here:

Is Putin mad? US debates if there's 'something off' with Russia's president and how it affects the Ukraine war - iNews

Umberto Ecos The Name of the Rose centers on the lost second part of Aristotles Poetics. The surviving part of the philosophical treatise deals with tragedy, while the part dedicated to laughter mysteriously disappeared. In Ecos novel, the manuscript about laughter is hidden in a monastery in 14th-century northern Italy. The imaginative novel stresses that laughter symbolizes liberty and doubt and protects against all forms of extremism which poses a danger to the church. Therefore, it must be hidden from the eyes of believers.

French attorney Richard Malka fights for the right to laughter, doubt and freedom from all dictates of faith or religion. He represented the prosecution in the December 2020 trial of the conspirators in attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices and Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in Paris.

Seventeen people were murdered in the two attacks that took place on January 7, 2015, including eight Charlie Hebdo employees. Malka has represented the satirical weekly since its founding in 1992.

Good luck, Malka says, after I tell him about my difficulties in translating the name of his new book, Le Droit Demmerder Dieu, which takes its verb from a modification of the French word for shit. After some deliberation, I settled on The Right to Annoy God.

Youre not the only one, he says by way of consolation. I just got back from a weekend in Naples, where I lectured about the book. The Italian publisher also said they were uncertain about how to translate it.

The word annoy is a somewhat softer version of Malkas angry yell against giving in to political correctness and manufactured Anglo-Saxon good taste. In January, the book won the prestigious National Assembly Political Book Prize an impressive honor from an organization whose members do not all identify with Malkas absolute secularism.

The book is the full version of the final argument he delivered at the trial against the conspirators on December 4, 2020. The French press compared his remarks to 19th century French novelist Emile Zolas famed J'Accuse! open letter. The right to criticize religious opinions and beliefs is the lock on the cage that keeps totalitarian monsters confined, Malka writes. What is this war that pits satirists armed with pencils, or teachers at the classroom blackboard, against radicals armed with Kalachnikovs and cleavers?

Common language

Malka, a 53-year-old childless bachelor, is considered one of Frances top lawyers. Among others, he has successfully represented authors Marek Halter and Christine Angot, philosopher Pascal Bruckner, politicians like former Prime Minister Manuel Valls, former chairman of the International Monetary Fund Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Carla Bruni.

Malka was born in Paris to Jewish parents who immigrated from the city of Meknes in Morocco. Last November, when the Secular Republican Committee awarded him a Secularism Prize, he said that his parents were modest people who came from Morocco, from a different culture and religion. And still, every year, on July 14, they made sure to watch the military parade on the Champs Elysee on television.

They were part of a long tradition of Jews who, before the war, chose to live in France the country of Victor Hugo, a country of equal rights, and the country that acquitted Alfred Dreyfus of treason and awarded him the Legion of Honor. Receiving this prize moves me because it has been granted by the French republic, out of respect for the values of the public and strengthening secularism. Afterall, I have been fighting for that principle for over 30 years.

Youre a long-time collaborator of Charlie Hebdo.

I was a young lawyer, just starting out, and I was working for the well-known Georges Kiejman law firm, when three men from Charlie walked in: The legendary founder Francois Cavanna, Philippe Val, who would be the editor at the time of the attacks, and the cartoonist Cabu, who was killed in the massacre. The weekly had already been shuttered for a decade, after the rise of the left in 1981. They had come to consult on a legal matter on behalf of the newspaper. We immediately found that we shared a common language. We became good friends, went on vacations together. I wrote scripts and texts with them for comics. I shared their way of thinking, their liberated sense of humor. I belong to the generation of Charb, Riss and Luz, he says, referring to the abbreviated names adopted by Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.

Charlie Hebdo has its roots in the satirical weekly Hara-Kiri the foolish and wicked newspaper. Hara-Kiri was established in 1960, during the tenure of President Charles de Gaulle. Its tagline was If you cant buy it, steal it. Its editorial board was composed of a band of sharp journalists and cartoonists headed by Francois Cavanna.

Hara-Kiri was shut down in 1970. Shortly before, a fire had broken out at a club outside Paris, killing 146 people. A week later, President De Gaulle died in his hometown of Colombey. That week, Hara-Kiri ran the headline A Tragic Party in Colombey, One Person Died. As a result, the paper was shuttered by government order.

The editors eventually decided to start Charlie Hebdo (named after Charles de Gaulle), a satirical weekly offering black humor, which became the most widely-sold weekly in France.

As the left came to power in 1981, the papers sales declined and it closed down. In 1992, Cavanna reopened it with journalist Philippe Val and several famous cartoonists. The editorial board agreed to refrain from attacking religion, but that it was acceptable to criticize leading personalities no matter their religious affiliation.

The 2004 murder of ultranationalist film director and pundit Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam sparked protest throughout northern Europe. Danish author Kre Bluitgen, who had written an illustrated biography of Mohammed, couldnt find an illustrator who was willing to take the risk of drawing the prophets image. The editor of the Danish weekly Jyllands-Posten posted an open call through the Danish Association of Illustrators for illustrations of the prophet.

Some of the submissions were published in Danish newspapers and Charlie Hebdo in 2006.

The Grand Mosque of Paris sued Charlie Hebdo over the cartoons publication. Meanwhile, members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Denmark assembled a file of crude and provocative cartoons, and disseminated them among Muslim believers, arousing a wave of protests in Islamic circles and eventually leading to the 2015 massacre.

Burning revenge

Additional cartoons began cropping up. The crude and insulting illustrations were forged and publicized by extremist imams from Denmark, seeking to stoke the rage against the heretics. Demonstrations took place throughout Europe. French Islamic leader Sheikh Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, called for a Day of Rage.

U.S. President Bill Clinton, French President Jacques Chirac and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned the journalists abuse of their freedom of expression. Already then, Malka writes in his book, Al-Qaradawis deputy called for the murder of those who slander the prophet, to satisfy the vengence burning in our souls. During the trial held in 2006, philospher Elisabeth Badinter, an expert on the Age of Enlightenment whom Malka describes as his spiritual mother, testified in defense of freedom of expression. She voiced concern that if Islamist demands were met, it would endanger the entire free press.

Youve paid a high price for your principles, you live under tight security.

Ive been under guard for seven years, since January 8, 2015, the day after the massacre. When they called and told me about the attack, I jumped in a taxi and went straight to the site. I didnt want to go see the horror in the editorial room. We were friends for 30 years, the tragedy was personal for me. Afterwards I did my best to keep the newspaper going, although the boardroom is still in a bunker, because the employees are still under threat. 2015 was the hardest year of my life, along with the November terror attacks in Paris."

You write in your book that these were not simple acts of murder: They had political, philosophical, metaphysical significance. In what way?

They wanted to murder an idea, a democratic society, and that goes beyond the murder of human beings. Already in the 18th century the authors of the Encyclopedie of the Enlightenment Diderot, Rousseau and dAlembert wisely identified the essence of man and a central tool for liberation from prejudice and belligerent egoism. They promoted universal scientific and critical principles, and in doing so they sanctified tolerance and progress. The Church proclaimed them heretics.

In 1789, the architects of the French Revolution, the heirs to the Enlightenment, published the Declaration of Human Rights and of the Citizen, and for the first time in the history of mankind they sanctified freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is one of the most precious rights of man, declared the revolutionary Honore Mirabeau.

In 1881 the Freedom of the Press Law was passed, and its one of the pillars of the French republic. Insulting religion is still a sore spot, and in that regard, statesman Georges Clemenceau answered it in the National Assembly with his immortal statement: God can defend himself, he doesnt need the National Assembly for that. To refrain from criticizing religion, to give up the cartoons of Mohammed, means giving up our history.

To whom are you referring when you criticize the academics who adopted Anglo Saxon communitarianism and describe them as heirs of the supporters of tyrants such as Stalin and Pol Pot?

Im referring to the academics in France, the Maoists and the Trotskyites of the 1960s. They didnt engage in de-Stalinization, instead they have adopted theories such as woke culture and cancel culture, an inheritance of the American Protestant circles that sanctify an ideology of victimized communities. In their opinion, Islamists are the weak ones, victims of the liberal society, and they should not be criticized even when they are extremists. Professors, politicians and recently people on the left as well who have adopted this ideology, are shocked at any criticism against the violence of extremist Islam, claiming that this is a weakened and oppressed community.

According to French-Moroccan author Rachid Benzine the Koran is not a book that encourages violence: In both the Koran and the Torah there is violence, execution, and stoning of adulterous women. The truth is that only in the New Testament is there no violence, only giving though that failed to prevent the Inquisition and the Crusades from killing millions of people in the name of Christianity. But in Judaism there is the Talmud that interprets the laws, updates them and in effect constitutes criticism of sanctified laws. In Sunni Islam as well, there is a direct connection between God and man that leaves room for interpretation. But now any criticism of Islam is seen as an insult or as racism, and that gives rise to violence, he says.

Thats also the case of the Mila affair a 16-year-old French teenager who dared to criticize the machismo of Islam after she refused to accept an indecent proposal that she received on Instagram from a Muslim follower. Since January 2020 she has received hundreds of thousands of threats of rape and murder for being an Islamophobe, a racist and whatever. Her picture was published and even a former presidential candidate from the socialist camp identified with those who threatened her. Such a girl deserves a slap in the face, she firmly declared. Mila was forced to drop out of school, she is shut up in her home and is under legal protection.

As a total secularist who identifies with freedom of expression, what would you tell a secular Israeli who travels to the beach on Yom Kippur, risking injury by stone throwers?

Those who observe the tradition of Yom Kippur, and in my family home they respected the Jewish holidays and ate kosher food, have to know how to respect the secularists who choose a different path.

What is your opinion of the debate in France on the subject of Muslim women who are covered with a hijab in the public space?

Its a complicated problem. On the one hand, we have to respect their freedom of choice to dress as they wish. But theres a French law that forbids clothing that emphasizes religious affiliation in the public system. But according to the principle of victimization, any insult to those women becomes an insult to Islam and reopens the debate.

Read the original here:

He stood up to radical Islam. Now he targets the lefts forgiveness - Haaretz

Being a comedian these days has become a hazardous occupation. I looked up my friends show the other day and it just said Cancelled. I couldnt tell if they had said something stupid or if it just wasnt on.

Sometimes, in these turbulent times, I think back to the days when I was writing and performing on Irish Pictorial Weekly on RT. For those too young to remember, it was a weekly TV show that satirised politics and media through sketches. I played Ursula McCarthy, an RT reporter who delivered diplomatically written accounts of madcap courtroom scenes. People still send me newspaper articles of similar real-life situations which usually prove the point that, if anything, in our writing of the scripts, we were too tame.

God, doesnt it feel like such a long time ago though? Since IPW aired, politics and media are pretty much unrecognisable. We have seen a Trump presidency, Brexit, the election of authoritarian leaders across the world, cyberterrorism, fake news, culture wars, and even open unabashed Nazi-ism. Faith in political institutions is damaged, perhaps beyond repair. The idea of a political and financial class whose worst vice is to syphon off a few quid for themselves seems positively quaint now.

Comedy has played a part in the trouble that has befallen the world. In many cases, humour has been used as a means to advance the agenda of anti-democratic forces in society. The satirical panel show Have I Got News For You? was used by Boris Johnson to hone his bumbling fool persona. The Apprentice allowed election-results denier Donald Trump to force his powerful brand of a gauche, wealthy, hard man into US homes. Many of the loudest sources of facetious talking points and misinformation now are former comedians and theyre not in that position because of how well their comedy careers were going.

It pains me to admit it but comedy can be a gateway drug for non-democracy. Comedy and satire done badly have the potential to not only fail at holding power to account but worse, reinforce that power.

There are shows that get it right. Andy Zaltzman, the presenter of the News Quiz on BBC Radio 4, is a shining beacon of political commentary done well. Hes successful because he acknowledges the complexity and intelligence of people who disagree with him. Many of his peers, especially on US TV, act like theirs is the only logical opinion to be held. For the comedian, the smug, entitled know-it-all isnt a good look.

At least theyre trying though. I have colleagues who respond to criticism by ridiculing dissenting voices for nothing more than daring to object. They cast audience members who take offence at jokes as thin-skinned and whiny. But its comedy! these comedians yell, pointing to the sign above the stage as if that absolves them of all responsibility. Are they naive enough to expect audience members to be able to switch off their emotional faculties when they enter a venue? Or do they want them to just shut up? Drowning voices out sounds a lot like exactly what they say is happening to them.

Like many others, I have been following the fortunes of the Ukrainian president and former comedian Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While other comedians are moaning about political correctness and cancel culture, hes gone on to lead his country against an aggressor who may well not let him live. That feels like a pretty strong commitment to democracy to me.

And because we cant all run for president, then the least I can do is take a leaf out of his book. For me, his sacrifice makes accountability less scary. Im not signing up to some standard of purity that binds me to never again hurt anyones feelings. Its only reaffirming my commitment to being willing to listen and engage in a process of self-reflection. Who knows? I might even find after that process that my critics were wrong. That would feel pretty good. I might even allow myself a cheeky Instagram Live. There Id be, thanking my supporters while simultaneously asking people to respect my privacy and all the while blaring Taylor Swifts Shake It Off at full volume.

In any case, comedy has always adapted to shifting values in society and it can now too. And listening to someone whose perspective is different to yours cant be as scary as defending your country in a war.

See the article here:

Eleanor Tiernan: 'Comedy has played a part in the trouble that has befallen the world' - Irish Examiner

Its possible many of the woes that plague us today derive from an unexplored dimension of the human psyche. Call it blame-seeking.

When times are unsettled and upsetting, when things go against us, when we feel powerless in the face of immense forces, when we seem to be playing against a stacked deck we want someone to blame. We need someone to blame.

Its not a new phenomenon. The ancient Greeks and Romans invented an entire panoply of gods and goddesses to blame for otherwise inexplicable events. Mars took the heat for war, Venus was behind passions excesses and love gone wrong, Discordia sowed anger and conflict, Vulcan stoked up fires and volcanos, Neptune stirred angry seas and sent ships to the briney deep.

Later, evil spirits, sorcerers, witches and various ethnic groups were charged with responsibility for human misery. More recently, Flip Wilson had a simpler, all-purpose explanation for his own offenses: The devil made me do it.

Finding someone to blame for misfortune provides a flood of relief. We can stop worrying and wondering. Anxiety and uncertainty, both distressing emotions, dissipate.

People are also reading

Sometimes theyre supplanted by anger, but anger is perceived as an invigorating emotion. Anger demands action and today many of us would rather act than think.

How does blame-seeking play out in 2022? America and the world find themselves confronted with disturbing trials and tribulations, circumstances unprecedented in number, gravity and confluence. This has generated a tsunami of blame-seeking.

Worse, our problems have been exploited by unscrupulous politicians eager to harness our discontent to their own agendas by pointing the finger of blame at political opponents. In this context blame-seeking is better known as scapegoating.

Nobody wants to get sick or live in fear they or a loved one might sicken or die in the pandemic, so COVID becomes the Chinese Virus. China is to blame.

We tire of being told to get vaccinated and boosted, were unhappy wearing masks and staying home, so we ironically blame Dr. Anthony Fauci, Big Pharma or just government in general.

Some of us didnt like the result of the 2020 election so it must have been rigged. The election had to have been stolen by the same groups responsible for our changing demographics, evolving economy, lost jobs, gender issues, an opioid epidemic and rampant political correctness.

Its those darn liberals, progressives, the deep state or all of them acting in concert. Plus now theyre the ones ramping up inflation. Blame it all on one big conspiracy. Thats handy.

You dont have to do the work of thinking through more complex issues. You dont have to face the painful realization that sometimes no-one is to blame as the old bumper sticker advised: Sometimes Sh** Happens.

Blame-seeking doesnt solve problems, doesnt find real answers. Were just having childlike tantrums, stamping our feet and demanding to get our way.

As in the 1976 movie Network we want to scream Were as mad as hell and were not gonna take it any more!

Were understandably angry but the problem is anger can balloon into rage and rage coupled with misdirected blame-seeking can result in irrational behavior, such as attacking the Capitol and threatening your own elected representatives.

Then theres the invasion of Ukraine. Its a rare American who doesnt side with the Ukrainians standing up against a far superior Russian military. We all feel a need to help those brave people.

Most of us feel our country isnt doing enough but at the same time we dont want to send our kids in harms way or risk setting off World War III by going head-to-head with Russia.

We wish there were some solution to this dilemma and because none presents itself, blame-seeking kicks in. Whose fault is this? Is America weak? Is that the problem? If so, whos to blame?

Maybe the president ought to, well, do something. Something more than he has. We have no idea what he should or could do, but we dont like having a feeling of helplessness free-floating around us.

It has to settle somewhere. It has to be directed against someone.

And so, for many Americans, the search for someone to blame, perversely enough begins and ends not with Vladimir Putin, but with Joe Biden.

Nobody said blame-seeking was logical.

Tom Kiske lives in College Station.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read more here:

We think: Oh, woe is us! | Columnists | theeagle.com - Bryan-College Station Eagle

LITTLEBritainmay have returnedwith edits which reflect the cultural landscape but theBBC have left in some sketches which have still shocked viewers.

Last year, the hit comedy - written by Matt Lucas, 48, and David Walliams, 50 - was removed from the streaming service over blackface controversy.

4

4

But now it's back with certain characters axed. They includeThai bride Ting Tong Macadangdang, played by Matt, and Pastor Jesse King and Desiree DeVere, which both saw David do blackface.

But Desirees pal at the spa, Bubbles De Vere, has been retained, along with other potentially controversial characters including Bristolian Vicky Pollard, wheelchair user and carer Lou and Andy, Welsh gay villager Dafydd Thomas and trans character Emily Heward.

But other sketches deemed racist and bigoted have remained in the episodes.In series two, university counsellor Linda Flint describes a Chinese student to her boss Martin.

She says he has: straight black hair, yellowish skin, slight smell of soy sauce....thats it, the ching-chong Chinaman.

In another she describes a feminist poetry student as having: quite short hair, a few piercings, wears a lot of black, combat trousers...thats right, the big, fat lesbian. and also describes alittleperson as: He looks up a lot, gets his clothes from Mothercare...thats it, the Oompa-Loompa. and calls a Sikh in a turban Ali Bongo.

But a BBC spokesperson said: LittleBritainhas been made available to fans on BBC iPlayer following edits made to the series by Matt and David that better reflect the changes in the cultural landscape over the last twenty years since the show was first made.

As a result of certain sketches being removed some episode have been cut from almost half an hour running to time to just 23 minutes.

A warning message also appears before some episodes, letting viewers know there could be discriminatory language.

But that wasnt enough to appease many viewers who took to social media to vent their frustration that only some sketches and characters which could be considered offensive had been removed.

One Tweeter said: Can we just leaveLittleBritainin the comedy bin where it belongs next to Love Thy Neighbour? Or condense the episodes down including the genuinely good sketches and leaving out all the racism and transphobia.

Another Tweeted: Its not GOOD ENOUGH. what about the disabled and inpatient characters?... the transphobic skit? cut the whole show, or do more without discriminating minorities.

Others felt it shouldnt have been changed at all to remind us how times have changed.

A tweeter said: Im gladLittleBritainis back but dont agree with editing art to match modern standards of political correctness.

"(They) show our progress as a multi-ethnic nation and are part of our history.

4

4

View post:

BBC brings back Little Britain after blackface controversy and keeps racist and bigoted sketches in... - The Sun

By Rob Schofield

It seems certain that one of the contributing factors in the disastrous calculus that led Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to believe he could get away with his murderous and criminal invasion of Ukraine was his perception of weakness and division in the United States.

It was not a completely unreasonable perception to hold.

Like others around the world, Putin was watching carefully on Jan. 6, 2021, as American democracy appeared to teeter for a moment on the apex of the Washington Monument. Hes seen how the COVID-19 pandemic helped deepen the fractures in our already divided nation.

He was fully aware of the way the U.S. has disengaged in recent years from its traditional post-World War II European friendships. And you can bet your bottom dollar that hes also been aware of the waya certain former U.S. presidentand some of his noisiest sycophants have consistently voiced admiration for his ruthless tactics, while doing everything within their power to undermine the current inhabitant of the White House.

In Putins deeply twisted mind, it probably seemed like the optimal time to do the thing hes always done violently bully other humans he perceives as weaker in order to accumulate more power.

A funny thing has happened, however, in the days since Putin launched his brutal and unprovoked blitzkrieg. Contrary to what had seemed to be the case, the Kremlin despots principal adversaries have shown themselves to be notthatdivided or dysfunctional.

First off, it turns out that 14 months of sober and coherent national leadership in Washington have helped change the U.S. national landscape in some important ways.

With Ukraine War, Republicans get religion on democracy | John L. Micek

U.S. unemployment has plummeted. Wages and incomes are up. Poverty is down. The pandemic has been greatly tamed. The climate emergency is once more an important national priority. And thanks to the current presidents timely and utterly essential action, the nations European alliances have been rebuilt just in time.

Meanwhile, as he marshaled his troops and launched his brutal invasion, Putin found the Biden administration wasskillfully exposing his every move to the light of dayand almost universal international derision and condemnation.

But perhaps even more important, the last few weeks have brought to the fore something Putin probably hadnt counted on: The American people are not as divided as it might have seemed.

Yes, weve got some enormous challenges to overcome. Americas ideological, political, racial and geographic divides are as formidable these days as theyve been in decades.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Progressives detest the American rights enabling of massive economic inequality, its denial of science and refusal to respond to the environmental crisis, its willingness to spur and capitalize on white fears, its backward-looking social agenda, and its tolerance of Trump.

Conservatives hate the rapid social change thats overtaken the country in recent decades, the political correctness they see on the left, the environmental and pandemic regulations that theyre convinced are merely designed to control their lives, and the lost primacy of traditional Christianity.

But doggone it, its also been made clear in recent weeks that the overwhelming majority of Americans have absolutely no taste for genuine tyranny.

Donald Trump and a few genuine extremists may harbor, or even express, a deeply troubling admiration for Putins murderous machismo, but most Americans right and left passionately hate what Putin stands for. We look around and see what we have and the life we enjoy or aspire to (and that which is being brutally stolen from the courageous people of Ukraine, and put at risk in other Eastern European countries) and agree that, for all its flaws, the U.S. has always stood, and should always stand, for something different and better.

As North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis has repeatedly and rightfully observed, Putin is a force of great evil in the world. This is froma March 2 report in RaleighsNews & Observer:

Anybody who compliments Vladimir Putin, is complimenting a mass murderer, Tillis said during a news conference. There are no compliments coming from me or my office.

In other words, first things first.

Americans have many, many monumental challenges to tackle and difficult debates in which they must engage going forward, but its also clear that we are broadly and strongly united in our opposition to Putinism.

Much as was the case prior to World War II, many have been slow to this recognition and inexcusably blind to other crises around the world in which other peoples have been the victims of similarly horrific wars of aggression.

Now, however, that circumstances have awakened us, it seems there is at least a better-late-than-never chance for us to recognize that we have a lot more in common with each other and all others who oppose despotism than we had previously imagined.

The world looks on anxiously to see if our national light bulb clicks on.

Rob Schofield is the director of North Carolina Policy Watch, a sibling site of the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, where this column first appeared.

Read more here:

Putin's war in Ukraine is a reminder: Maybe we're not as divided as we think | Rob Schofield - Pennsylvania Capital-Star

Republicans are attacking President Biden for having the political courage to ban the import of Russian oil and gas to stop putting our money in Vladimir Putins pockets to finance his human slaughter and destruction in Ukraine.

Never mind Bidens continuing escalation of the economic war against Russia by world democracies was overwhelmingly welcomed by Americans regardless of political party. Seventy-nine percent said they supported the ban in aWall Street Journalpoll even if it led to higher gas prices.

Republicans briefly joined with congressional Democrats in a bipartisan call for Biden to ban Russian gas imports until he did. Then they reverted to form blaming Biden for rising gas prices instead of Putin. Announcing the ban, Biden noted U.S. gas prices already had gone up 75 cents a gallon since Russia began massing troops on Ukraines border before the invasion and would only get worse. He called it Putins price hike.

These arent Putin prices, railed Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy. Theyre President Bidens prices. Gas prices started rising the day President Biden took office when he canceled the Keystone Pipeline and halted new drilling on federal lands. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee tweeted: Russia isnt responsible. Bidens shutdown of American energy is.

Republicans are demonstrably wrong about which American president crashed U.S. oil production. Oil production fell off a cliff when President Trumps failure to protect Americans from the pandemic shut down the economy. It slowly came back as highway and air travel resumed. PolitiFact reported Bidens oil production in 2021 was on par with Trumps in 2020 and exceeded every other year he was president.

The claims Biden destroyed energy production by halting drilling and pipelines also are provable lies. Biden approved 3,557 permits for oil and gas drilling in 2021 compared to 2,658 in Trumps first year. Oil companies have another 9,000 approved drilling permits they havent used, choosing to return higher profits to shareholders instead of drilling for more oil. Also, someone should tell Republicans pipelines carry oil, they dont produce it.

The most positive outcome for the entire world, literally, from Putins horrific war would be if it finally begins speeding all of us toward the transition to clean, renewable energy.

Republican politicians dont appear to be worried about nightly television coverage of Putins atrocities in Ukraine building even more American support for Bidens leadership of world democracies at this frightening moment in our history that could easily escalate into a world war. They probably should be.

LEARN MORE

Its a reminder of how important it is for the U.S. to have competent, intelligent leadership during dangerous times. Right on cue, former President Trump got a big laugh by babbling insanely to Republican donors with his hilarious joke about painting Chinese flags on the sides of American planes to bomb the shit out of Russia so the U.S. can sit back and enjoy a nuclear war between Russia and China.

It was only slightly more deranged than congressional Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar (on video) addressing a white supremacy rally where the crowd gave Russias president a big round of applause, chanting Putin! Putin! Putin!

Republicans believe American hostility toward Putin will fade as their party continues to blame Biden instead of Putin for higher gas prices. Thats the steady drumbeat on Fox News from Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts who consider Putin just another violent Trump supporter annoyed by the political correctness of American democracy.

Republicans are convinced their hottest political issue against Democrats in the midterms will still be rising inflation under Biden and gas prices in big numbers along every highway will be the biggest advertisements for that. They expect the anger and hatred for their fellow Americans who are Democrats pumped up under their former president will, pardon the expression, trump any moral objections Americans with short attention spans will have about the horrific atrocities being committed by a villainous communist adversary against human beings living in a foreign country they couldnt find on a map.

I think theyre wrong. Most Americans really do think theyre better than that. And living with the very real threat of Russian aggression sparking World War III is different from living under any other recent American war.

Since the draft was abolished after Vietnamwhich I wholeheartedly endorsed after our tragic involvement in that warits been far too easy for America to go to war with an all-volunteer military. Thats because most of us were never touched by it. President George W. Bush asked us to support two wars by going shopping.

A war threatening the entire free world has to upend some of the divisions in American politics. We still have no idea how that war will end, but it could be quite a while before any of us can look away.

Joel McNally is a national-award-winning newspaper columnist and a longtime political commentator on Milwaukee radio and television. Since 1997, Joel has written a column for the Shepherd Express where he also was editor for two years.

Mar. 14, 2022

9:37 a.m.

See more here:

Republicans Attack Biden for Making the Right Move on Gas Prices - Shepherd Express