Category Archives: Political Correctness

The five main characters of Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia are often described as the worst people in the world. And, sure, they pretty much are. Scanning around their Paddys Pub HQ most weeks, one can hear the ghostly echoes of Ben Kenobis pronouncement about Mos Eisley as a wretched hive of scum and villainy bouncing off of the ill-washed glasses and even iller-washed regulars. And the Gang, of course, variously huddled in ever-changing factions to hatch whatever plot they imagine will satisfy the selfish needs of their twisted psyches.

Still, the Gang arent really the worst, are they? Making a sitcom about actual evil people would be an even harder trick than the one the creators of Sunny have pulled off for 12 seasons. The secret of Sunnys dark comedy is that the main characters live in their own awfulness. They create it, they cause it, theyre product and victim of it, and, ultimately, they can never escape it. The Gang is a gang because there are no other people in the world who would, or could, have them.

That interdependent hell that is the Gangs daily existence comes to a hilarious head in Hero Or Hate Crime, where a stray breeze, a wayward $2 scratch ticket, a falling piano, some dog shit, and a gay slur cause Dee, Charlie, Frank, Mac, and Dennis to run through a series of very expensive professional arbitrators in order to settle their latest dispute. Normally, the argument over ownership of a potentially worthless (they havent scratched it yet) lottery ticket would be taken care of, as Charlie puts it, in-house. Like their legendarily nonsensical and horrifying rainy day board/endurance game CharDee MacDennis (The Game Of Games), over the years the Gang has developed an elaborate system of jurisprudence to hash out their constant, hysterical squabbling. Motion for sub-arbitration to determine whether or not thats sad!, cries Mac, after Dee explains that she hadnt scratched the lottery ticket because, As long as you dont scratch it, then youre not a loser.

As arbiter here, Ill say that is sad, although less in the mocking way that Mac, Dennis, Charlie, and Frank accuse Dee of being, and more in keeping with the idea that, on some level, the Gang is aware of how awful their awfulness makes their lives. As Dennis explains to the first of their referees tonight, This ticket represents hope, okay? Potential. Promise. The very foundation upon which this group rests. Glenn Howerton gives Dennis spiel the maniacal edge of one brazening out a position to avoid the yawning abyss of ugly truth, something that goes a long way toward explaining the Gangs signature, hair-trigger enthusiasms. Every scam, every scheme, every newfound obsession and pursuit is the thing that will lead them out of the darkness that is their daily existence. As we see, eventually tonight, even the genuine victory of a $10,000 winning scratch ticket will ultimately be consumed by the inescapable reality of the fact that their 17 hours of professionally arbitrated backstabbing to obtain it have eaten up all the money they were fighting over. The pursuit has to be the point, because the reality is that happiness is simply not something these people will ever know.

Luckily for us, theres plenty of joy in watching these characters and these actors play out the inevitable. The circumstances surrounding the lottery ticket form a filthy Rube Goldberg device of disaster, as Charlie and Mac interrupt their argument about whether Charlie intentionally stepped in a pile of dog crap (he did) to almost get creamed by a falling piano. Fortunately(?), Frankout looking up womens skirts with his trusty shoe-mirrors like the dirtbag he issees this and screams out the full-throated warning, Look out, faggot!, allowing Charlie to karate kick Mac out of the way. Sue, this leaves a shoe-shaped dog crap imprint on Macs shirt, but alives alive. And potentially rich. Well, potentially potentially rich, as Dees windblown, unscratched ticket ends up in Macs hands, sending the Gang off to the lawyers offices. (Sadly, we dont get an appearance from Brian Ungers unnamed, always-funny Lawyer. Hed find a way to cheat the Gang out of that ticket, especially after they may have blinded him.)

As far as the legal arguments go, the labyrinthine circumstances surrounding the tickets ownership are enough to test the wisdom of Solomon, including as they do: Dennis bribing Dee to overtip the barely-legal shopgirl hes grooming as sexual conquest; Franks offensive but life-saving warning; Charlies heroic (if poopy) kick; and the fact that Mac actually has possession of the thing. The actors playing the lawyers (especially Karen McClain, whose character hears the bulk of the argument) are all excellent at deadpanning their way through the shenanigans. (As is revealed, they know theyre getting well-paid.) As for the arguments themselves, the pressures of avarice and a ticking clock sees the Gang turn on each other with the all the chaotic ingenuity their feverish minds can muster. Which is a lot.

A major theme in the arguments is Franks slur against Mac. Macs tortured relationship with his sexuality has been mined for jokes for well-on a decade, and, yes, the revelation that hes constructed a makeshift pleasuring device out of a decrepit exercise bike and a fist-topped dildo isnt the subtlest gag. (There is a moment where the seat-mounted dildo rises unexpectedly that is timed to absolute comic perfection, though.) But the joke, as the rest of the Gang asserts, has never been that Mac is gay (Hes into the closet hes out of the closet, we dont like you either way, explains Dennis), but that Macs contortions to deny his homosexuality have turned him into a joke. (He explains that hes been working out on the machine with assless bike shorts for air flow.) Like Dennis desperate assertion of the meaning of that unscratched ticket, Macs denial about just what he gets up to down in Paddys basement partakes of that strain of humanizing denial that keeps the Gang, for all their undeniable awfulness, relatable.

The same goes for the Gangs long digression here about hate speech. Like most social issues that Sunny incorporates into its plots, political correctness isnt on trial as much as its used to examine the Gangs various double-standards and blind spots. When Frank protests that his use of the word faggot wasnt disqualifyingly offensive, its due to Franks adherence to old-school, pragmatic assholery. There was a lot going on. I needed something that would cut through. As soon as I said the slur, everybody knew to look at Mac, says Frank. Macs response that a bigot should not be entitled to a heros payout, is self-serving (he really wants that ticket), but also points to how, within the Gang, finding offense in the others actions is often the best offense against them. When Dennis cautions, You know what, were treading on some dangerous territory, his objections to hate speech are more about standing (in the Gang and as the upstanding citizen he fancies himself) than about whether Franks assertion that Youre allowed to use any language to save a mans life extends to using the word nigger in a similar situation. (McClains arbitrator, who is black, still manages to maintain her impartiality, which deserves some sort of medal.) So when all four of the guys turn on Dee for trying to apply the same logic to the word cunt, the shouting match that ensues (We cant lose that! Especially when its directed towards a woman when youre trying to insult her, yells Charlie), illuminates the shifting nature of the Gangs outrage. On Its Always Sunny, morality is, indeed, a moveable feast, depending on whos doing the eating.

In the end, the ticket comes down to Frank and Mac, the final arbitrators ruling finding that they have to split the ticket, since Franks claim can only be nullified if his hate speech was actually directed at a gay person. (Again, Im not saying these are necessarily good arbitrators.) Heres where things get just a little bit tricky, explains Dennis, before bringing in that bike (The Asspounder 4000, according to the deliberately oblivious and proud Mac) to show that Mac is, indeed, gay. (Or, at least, as Dennis puts it, a sexual deviant.) Sunny lives on the edge, and, if the bike gag is crude, the payoff of Macs dilemma is transcendent.

Seeing a way to get the whole ticket (now worth 10 grand), Mac quickly proclaims his gayness to snatch the prize. (Gay Mac rules! Rich, gay Mac!) But, given the chance to renege on his claim once the cash is safely in hand, Mac demurs. Rob McElhenney makes Macs hesitation one of those improbably affecting character moments that Sunny can wield so expertly. After the others sneer that hell retreat back into the closet now that hes won, McElhenneys look of clear-eyed relief is genuinely heartening as Mac says softly, I dunno, maybe Ill just stay out. No, I think Im out now. Yeah, Im gay. Actually... it feels pretty good. See you guys. Naturally, the Gangs momentary, shocked silence is swept away by the revelation that all the fighting has cost them all but $14 of Macs winnings (which theyll make him pay), but, even then, Dennis says, Maybe lets make him pay this tomorrow. Lets let him have this. In the Gangs Philly, the smallest of victories are not victories at all. Not if youre trapped there.

Previous episode Its Always Sunny cant commit to Making Dennis Reynolds A Murderer

Go to the A.V. Club homepage

Follow this link:

Political correctness is life and death on a hilarious It's Always Sunny - A.V. Club

Just how big is the size of the state in the UK?

A simple question you might think. Surely all you need is a numerator (a tax or public spending measure) and a denominator (a GDP measure)? Divide one by the other and hey presto theres your size measure as a proportion of GDP. Based on that approach, public spending is projected by the OBR to fall to 38 per cent of GDP by 2020.

Unfortunately its not that simple. If you use a factor cost measure of GDP, as opposed to a market prices measure, the share rises by around 5 percentage points of GDP to 43 per cent. This reveals how technical details can mask powerful truths.

And it doesnt end there either. The total intervention of the state isnt measured by tax and spend alone. There is also regulation to consider. If the government pays income related benefits on day one, but then mandates a national minimum wage on day two, public spending could fall but the total intervention of the state would be unchanged.

Read more: Leviathans tentacles: How the state hides its true size

Of course, the impact of regulation extends far beyond the replacement of benefits. The costs of regulation encompass a whole swathe of labour and product market activity.

Assessing the costs and benefits of such activity is fiendishly complicated with regard to individual regulations. Aggregating such impacts across the whole economy is downright impossible. But that doesnt mean we should ignore it. Some of the best aggregate work has been undertaken in the US, with an estimated cost around 10 per cent of GDP rather dated now. The working assumption since has been that EU membership means the UK figure will be significantly higher. But how much higher, nobody knows.

So we have a total intervention measure, so far, of at least 53 per cent of GDP (38 per cent plus 5 per cent plus 10 per cent). Unfortunately this is not the end of the story. Theres more.

Read more: Regulation, regulation, regulation: What to expect in 2017

Political correctness is a tumour at the heart of our culture. Recent decades have seen an explosion in political correctness, as regulation of our behaviour (product and labour market regulation) was added to by the regulation of our minds (what we think and say). And while it is utterly impossible to quantify the impact of such encroachment by the state, it doesnt make the tentacles of control any less real.

Political correctness also interacts with other areas of state intervention, making it difficult to curtail spending, cut taxes or undertake a bonfire of regulations. But if the UK is to achieve its economic potential in the twenty-first century, it will need to take a scythe to tax and spend and regulation, and apply a wrecking ball to political correctness.

Political correctness is embedded in our culture, and culture shapes institutions (the rules of the game, such as law, taxation and regulation), which then shape economic performance (such as productivity and competitiveness). An analogy might be a River of Prosperity, with culture upstream, institutions mid-stream and economic performance downstream. Political correctness risks blocking the river, far upstream.

Research on the impact of freedom such as by the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute on economic success is powerful and compelling, and the conclusion is clear. If we just look at tax and spend measures alone, we will delude ourselves as to the true scale of economic and political freedom in the UK.

Read the original post:

We must take a wrecking ball to political correctness to achieve our true economic potential - City A.M.

As a community, we choose which values to affirm. Political correctness can promote kindness and sympathy, or intolerance and violence.

Authoritarian political correctness can only create the latter. It is the antithesis of kindness as it polices language, conflates morality with political perspectives, and enables violence. Forty percent of millennials support censorship of speech that offends minorities, yet our right to free speech and assembly necessitates allowing speech some may find hateful.

For example, the phrase undocumented worker obscures reality; they are illegal aliens under the laws of the United States. (Note: Mexico has strict border control.) Describing their circumstances unapologetically neither ascribes policy nor hurts them. Illegal immigrants who have lived here productively can and should be assimilated, but I reject the euphemism undocumented worker because acknowledging reality is important in changing it.

Students must be able to discuss todays issues without being demonized at an institution of higher learning. The term safe space is too vague. I accept the concept of reaffirmation areas, where students can go for emotional support or safety, but not homogenous thought zones, which silence dissent.

How can the validity and constructivity of a position be known without entertaining it?

Jordan Peterson, a personality psychologist at the University of Toronto, has faced intense backlash for standing up to Ontario Human Rights Code Bill C-16. It allows the government to police language with fines of up to $250,000, regarding refusal to use preferred pronouns as a human rights violation, which is alarmingly totalitarian. Identity is an integral part of the human experience, but compelled speech breeds contempt and undermines a free societys ability to resolve conflicts.

Ben Shapiro, a more credible, less inflammatory, and unapologetic conservative journalist, has also faced relentless censorship. Moderate conservatives like Condoleezza Rice, having served as provost at Stanford and Secretary of State, have had their university talks cancelled from authoritarian pushback.

In Red Square on Jan. 20, bricks were thrown at people who went to see Milo Yiannopoulos, and a full-blown riot broke out at UC Berkeley to silence him. Even if Yiannopoulos is fascist, political violence remains wrong and is fascist in itself. Some claim his words threatened and oppressed them. What I saw was the inverse.

Those who wanted to hear Yiannopoulos were ruthlessly persecuted by masked extremists in Red Square. Yiannopoulos speaking revealed a strong authoritarian presence on campus. Even if his speech truly was hateful, did that warrant punishing the thought-crime of wanting to hear Yiannopoulos with bullying and force?

I find much of what Yiannopoulos says disgusting and pointless, but authoritarianism produces violence and therefore I defend his right to speak. I applaud those who peacefully protested him. Had the protest remained peaceful, Yiannopoulos could have taken their questions.

His words sting, but bricks break bones. Authoritarianism is not progressive; it is regressive and oppressive.

In an increasingly polarized nation, it is important to both reaffirm the right to speak and organize freely, as well as to reject political violence and ad hominem attacks. I have yet to find evidence of a single neo-Nazi on campus and am tired of this witch hunt. Ironically, Yiannopoulos himself has denounced white supremacy.

I am open to proof, but have seen no damning evidence of a Mein Kampf reading, neo-Nazi march, or similar event on campus. There will be bigotry in any institution due to our tendency to congregate, but I do not operate on rumor and implore students to demand evidence before repeating lies and deceit.

As an atheist, libertarian, moderate conservative, and constitutional fundamentalist, I believe Adolf Hitler is in hell with Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Karl Marx. But I support equal rights and protection under the law for everyone, even for those whose speech disgusts me.

Humankind will never agree on ideal governance. This debate is healthy and necessary for democracy and freedom. Utopian and authoritarian philosophies enforce monocultures where ends justify means. Consequently, coercive utopianism is inherently authoritarian and dystopian.

Jakob Ross, a writer for The Daily, promoted political violence in a call for Maoist revolution: Inherently violent movements, be it the Third Reich or the pasty fascist wannabes who make up the alt-right cannot be reasoned with in a peaceful manner. The inherently violent alt-left cannot be met with concessions. The only violent movement I saw had masked communists and anarchists seeking to impose mob rule censorship by force.

Yiannopoulos did not advocate violence. Your words are truly violent, Jakob. Painting others as problems and suggesting violence as a solution is not only unethical, but is also exactly what Hitler and the Hitler Youth did. Both racial and political violence are unadulterated evil.

The term political correctness was created by Soviets and Soviet sympathizers. Its authoritarian form grants an unearned sense of moral superiority and relentlessly targets those who resist the collective.

Communist Mao Zedong killed tens of millions in China for political dissent. We move toward this extreme with each concession to authoritarianism. Any collective which ostracizes, penalizes, and harms its dissenters, must be resisted.

The peaceful protesters I spoke with denounced the violence. Many Young Democrats expressed interest in collaborating with College Republicans and vice versa. Perhaps cooperation can emerge from this mess. I hope so.

Please join me in resisting political violence.

Reach writer Samuel Bakken at development@dailyuw.com. Twitter: @BakkenSam

Original post:

Authoritarian political correctness - Dailyuw

Political correctness is akin to golden rule

Im always perplexed when I hear folks complain that political correctness is out of control. A Google search defines political correctness as the avoidance of forms of expression or actions that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. Way back in my early childhood, this was expressed very simply and effectively as do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Failure to follow this golden rule would result is swift punishment from a parent, teacher, grandparent or other authority figure.

If I am to function in the 21st century and shed this oppressive cloak of political correctness, Im going to need the list of groups it is now permissible to exclude, marginalize or insult. Anybody?

Mike Lukasik

Kenmore

Read the original here:

Letter: Political correctness is akin to golden rule - The Buffalo News - Buffalo News

But nevertheless, illegal aliens Im sorry, I mean, um, undocumented immigrants my classmate started. His cheeks turned red and his voice started to trail off. In a classroom surrounded by well-educated, politically-versed and highly diverse students my classmate immediately withdrew his question, unwilling to risk any further demonstration of ignorance. Luckily, our professor wouldnt have it. Rather than simply acknowledging the proper language for a person of that group, our professor instead launched a discussion about how language relates to preconceived notions and stigmas about groups of people.

Even in our course, Conversations on Race and Ethnicity, a class specifically devoted to necessary conversations about diversity like the one that could have been sparked by whatever my classmate was about to ask, the ever-updating beast known as political correctness hinders dialogue. When students feel as though theyre walking on eggshells in a learning environment, it makes it risky to participate in discussions on controversial topics.

This does not mean that political correctness is wrong or inherently bad. Its just that its not conducive to open dialogue. Nevertheless, although political correctness presents some barriers, it is still a valuable tool. Theres nothing wrong with not wanting people to use terminology that incorporates racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or Islamophobic undertones. Its a problem that we live in a world where these kinds of comments are acceptable. However, the real problem isnt the actual language of the statements the real issue lies in the implications of the statements and the problematic kind of thinking behind them.

For example, consider the highly charged word retarded. Typically, users of this word equate it to irritating or generally stupid rather than characteristic of a mental disability. While telling someone to replace the word retarded with something more PC may change the language used, it wont change the underlying, harmful and untrue premise that people with intellectual disabilities are stupid.

Furthermore, political correctness at times causes more problems than it solves. A definition for political correctness is avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive. Sounds pretty fair on the surface, right? Wrong. By implying that unacceptable statements are simply a matter of the feelings of the person on the receiving end, we present an opportunity for perpetrators to brush off their statement as unacceptable in that specific moment. In other words, political correctness becomes all about subjectivity. A better judgement of acceptable language would be to test not whether it offends a person, but whether it offends a persons values. While the former definition makes it an issue about a personal negative reaction from a listener, the latter makes it an issue about violating widely accepted morals. Our desire to change behavior would be much stronger if we equated non-PC statements to breaches of moral standards rather than damage to feelings. If non-PC statements were ridiculed not for making individuals feel discomfort, but instead for deviating from universal truths regarding the way humans should behave, people might think more critically about these issues.

In addition, the pervasiveness of political correctness in our society has effectively blocked off all effective conversation regarding hot-button topics. Because people are more concerned with being called racist, sexist or any other kind of ist than they actually are with the ism, they avoid confrontation on these fronts at all costs.

If you dont talk about race, you cant say anything ignorant, right? Well the problem is, this kind of thinking implies that we can continue pushing these issues to the side when this is clearly not the case. We do not live in a politically correct society with no problems, so why continue turning a blind eye to these issues?

Still, its easy to point out problems and much harder to find solutions. If we could simply flip a switch and make everyone change their mindset about all marginalized groups, we would do so. However, there is no magic switch. In order to change our ways of thinking, we must engage honestly and openly with others, acknowledging our own personal ignorance and moving through it.

One method that is a good starting point is the oops, ouch concept for group discussions. It begins with a disclaimer that every participants goal is to learn and understand tough concepts and that all intentions are pure. Throughout the conversation, if somebody says something offensive to a persons moral premises, he interrupts with ouch and then explains the underlying harmful premises behind such a phrase. The wrongdoer then replies oops and continues with his point. This method allows for everyones voices to be heard and promotes deeper conversation. As participants try to understand how the potential prejudices, they hold are causal factors behind their language they consider the barrier between victim and perpetrator.

Instead of avoiding conversation about sensitive topics, we need to do just the opposite. Talk with others, work through the uncomfortable discussion, consider new viewpoints and hopefully work to understand the stereotypes and prejudices that go into non-PC language. Language is a powerful tool, but when concerns over language impede our ability to have necessary conversations, its detrimental for everyone.

Contact Sabrina Medler at smedler at stanford.edu.

Read more from the original source:

Fixing political correctness - The Stanford Daily

Being considerate of others identities does not need to conflict with discussion of issues.

Dear Griffin,

My names Isabella. I am Latinx, brown, queer, genderqueer and Im writing to you not in anger, but in concern that your piece (Political correctness silences vital discourse) in the last issue of the Collegian (1/26) is irresponsible and reflects a lot of the dangerous mental slippery slopes white people can sometimes get themselves into.

Political correctness isnt a term used by the liberals you condemn in your article. We just call it respect. But if you need an explanation as to why we ask for certain things, here it is: What you call PC culture did not rise out of collective over-sensitivity and inability to discuss issues that are difficult or contentious. What you condemn is actually just a call for respecting peoples identities and how they intersect with each other. Its a way to protect marginalized peoples from the very real dangers they face every moment of their lives.

Example: Have you ever hesitated to respond to the professor in class because racism, sexism, queerphobia or transphobia, colonialism, etc. have made you believe that you cannot take up the intellectual space that straight, cis, white people always have access to?

Have white men ever yelled the n-word at you as they celebrate Trumps victory?

Have you ever been called a spik twice in two weeks for speaking your native tongue? Once in front of dozens of students in Ascension while you were on the phone with your mother? Is your family living under a colonial dictatorship in Puerto Rico?

Have you ever been afraid of speaking your native tongue?

Have you ever had to live in a world that was not built for you? Had to plan every move because you are not able-bodied? Have you ever been laughed at, gawked at, torn apart for your disability or neurodiversity?

Have you ever had to wonder when your next meal would be? Have you ever had to give up your medication because you can no longer afford it?

Have you ever wondered if youll be able to finish your degree?

Have you been walking and feared someone attacking you for your race, for being a woman, for your gender identity, for being with your samesex partner or for wearing a hijab? Do you see your friends and family being brutalized in the news by police, white supremacists, etc., and then see the news blame your community for making people want to hurt you?

Do you have to constantly remind yourself that you dont deserve to be hurt?

Has someone ever told you that youre making up your gender? That your pronouns are wrong when they are a radical act of self-love? Of letting yourself be the person, the gender, you are?

Have you ever feared deportation? Have you ever stayed up at night wondering if the life you have built is going to be taken away from you by immigration forces that storm into your house and take you and your family away?

This is why marginalized people need PC culture. PC culture is us reminding ourselves that we matter. That were worth as much as straight, cis, white people are. That we dont deserve to be beaten down every day. So when we identify ourselves as Latinx, as queer, as trans, as brown or black, as immigrants, as Muslims, as disabled, etc., and ask other people to respect us, it is not from a place of fear. Were not afraid to talk about difficult topics. We live those difficult topics every day. When we identify ourselves, were telling the world that, in spite of it all, we love ourselves and demand the same love and respect everyone else gets everyday.

If we survive fighting everyday against a system that wants us dead, alone, mangled or converted, sick and tired and still succeed in this school, then its time we reevaluate who the fragile one is.

As a fellow Kenyon student, if I can take the time to educate myself and respect your identity, you can take the time to educate yourself about our identities. And maybe, if you learned something in the process, you would understand why were angry.

With respect,

Isabella Bird-Muoz 18

Go here to see the original:

Political correctness exists to build respect for the oppressed - Kenyon Collegian

So why did Trump enact these measures, in particular given that numerous experts believe they will weaken, not strengthen, our national security? Feelings. Nothing more than ...sorry. Trump, and many other Republicans, have long sought to fire up their base with charges that, for example, President Obama wouldnt use the words radical Islam when talking about terrorist acts committed by Muslims. That was 100 percentabout politics, about playing on fear to gin up anger.

Obama, like George W. Bush before him, made a sober, strategic assessment that not saying those words would make us safer, stronger, and help us in the fight against ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups acting in the name of Islam. Would you like to know who else agrees with Obama and Bush, and thinks Trump is just plain wrong? Vladimir Putin:

I would prefer Islam not be mentioned in vain alongside terrorism, he said at a news conference in December, answering a question about the Islamic State, a group he often refers to as the so-called Islamic State, to emphasize a distinction with the Islamic religion.

At the opening of a mosque in Moscow in 2015, Mr. Putin spoke of terrorists who cynically exploit religious feelings for political aims.Terrorists from the so-called Islamic State are compromising a great world religion, compromising Islam, sowing hatred, killing people, including clergy, and added that their ideology is built on lies and blatant distortions of Islam.

He was careful to add, Muslim leaders are bravely and fearlessly using their own influence to resist this extremist propaganda.

Putin is an authoritarian thug, to be sure. I am loathe to cite him for, well, anything. The point is that if he, Bush, and Obama all agree on which approach works best on this issue, that says something. What it says is that Trumpno doubt influenced by his own personal Rasputin, i.e., Steve Bannon, is pursuing a policy that makes the American people less safe. Hes doing so because it makes a segment of his base feel good, feel like they are the ones whose ideas are in charge. Its nothing more than right-wingpolitical correctness.

Along similar lines, Judge James Robarts order that blocked Trumps travel ban gave him another opportunity to play to the emotions of his base. He attacked the judge, and thus the constitutional principle of an independent judiciary, in incendiary terms. The clear message hes able to send is that he wants to keep you safe, but the establishment just wont let him.

If Democrats want to beat Trump, its not enough to talk only about the fact that his policies are immoralas important as that is. People are scared of terrorism, specifically coming from Muslims, especially after San Bernadino and Orlando. From the perspective of political strategy, to deny that reality is unhelpful to say the least. We must talk about morality and American values, but we also have to talk about effectiveness.

Like it or not, there are Americans who are willing to sacrifice their morality for their safety. We can convince them that Trump is making them and their loved ones less safe by targeting Muslims with his policies, and that hes doing so in a cynical way to appeal to their fears and win their votes. In a close election, that could make the difference between a one-term failed Trump presidency that discredits everything he stands for, and a re-election that is painful to evencontemplate.

Ian Reifowitz is the author of Obamas America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity (Potomac Books).

See original here:

Trump's right-wing political correctness makes us less safe - Daily Kos - Daily Kos

"Some Americans see religious liberty as code for discrimination," a reporter asked Spicer at a daily briefing. "Can you comment, give us a sense of how the President views this tension?"

"I think there is a line," Spicer said."I think people should be able to practice their religion, express their religion, express areas of their faith without reprisal. And I think that pendulum sometimes swings the other way in the name of political correctness."

He said that "too often" small business owners and employees are not allowed to express their faiths.

"Too often those voices get pushed out in the name of political correctness," Spicer said. "So he is going to continue to make sure that we not only speak up for it but find ways in which we can keep that line a little less blurred and make sure that the pendulum doesn't swing against people."

"If you could give us an example, if you could, of a pendulum swinging in the direction of political correctness?" a reporter asked.

"I think if you look back to the Little Sisters case, if you look back to other businesses that were under Obamacare" Spicer began.

"Would you put Hobby Lobby in that category?" the reporter pressed.

"I would, yeah, absolutely," Spicer said. "I think there is several businesses and several institutions, Catholic institutions and others, that have been mandated or apparently attempted to mandate certain things that they may or may not do or how they have to treat their employees."

He said those are "instances where clearly the pendulum is swinging a different way" as an effect of federal "regulations and policies that have frankly denied people the ability to live according to their faith."

The two cases he cited both involved institutions which brought lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate on the basis that it ran counter to Christian beliefs.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that "closely held" for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to abide by Obamacare's mandate to cover contraception for female employees in their insurance plans at no extra cost.

And in May 2016, the Supreme Court sent Zubik v. Burwell, a consolidation of cases brought by religious nonprofits including The Little Sisters of the Poor, back to lower courts.

See original here:

Spicer Says Religious Liberty Is Getting 'Pushed Out' By Political Correctness - TPM

To the Editor:

Heres an update on an old joke I heard in the early sixties. Two politically correct people were on a dude ranch watching two horses in the corral.

One said he favored the taller horse to ride. The other asked if he thought the taller one was the one on the left or right. The first P.C. man said the taller one was on the right. The second man said he thought the black one on the left was taller than the white one on the right.

If that sounds silly, think about the white singer or actor in a Popeyes restaurant. One server asked another who was next. The second said the white boy was. In the sea of black faces it was the obvious remark to make.

Isnt it silly to make a big deal out of trying to differentiate who is next by the color of skin and not by the color of socks or height? I say political correctness has gone too far when you cant use skin color to identify a person. Thats why the news gives a detailed description of a criminal people should be looking for and leaves out skin color.

Chuck Johnson

Morris

Get breaking and town-specific news sent to your phone. Sign up for text alerts from The Herald-News.

Continue reading here:

Letter: Political correctness has gone too far - The Herald-News

USA TODAY 5:03 p.m. ET Jan. 31, 2017

Cub Scouts in New York's Times Square.(Photo: Mary Altaffer, AP)

The Boy Scouts of America announced Monday that, effective immediately, it will accept and register transgender youth into its organization. Facebook comments are edited for clarity and grammar:

How long before any one of the new gender types sues to change the name from Boy Scouts of America to Snowflake Scouts?

Jackson Wilson

Its called Boy Scouts of America for a reason. Just start another one called the misinformed!

Stanley Baker

First you begin to wobble, then you fall. The U.S. is on a downward trajectory. There is no good that can come from supporting this kind of recognition from the Boy Scouts.

I think it is child abuse to allow a child to pretend to play the role of the opposite sex, and it is even worse when parents and school officials support and encourage it.

A child living under my roof will follow my rules, until he is of legal age and can live on his own. Thats the way it has always been. That is what a normal parent would do. But we live in a very sick society today. Parents do not want to parent, they want to be a childs friend.

Larry Hubble

USA TODAY

Policing the USA

I agree that forcing a child to play the role of the opposite sex is bad. But transgender children have been forced to pretend to be something they are not for a very long time.

It is time for that nonsense to stop, and let trans children be who they are without having to pretend to be someone they are not.

Bryan Oakley

As an Eagle Scout, Im proud of this decision from Boy Scouts. It was long overdue.

Andy Linn

This is absolutely sickening. It seems like every parent wants his child to grow up a fruitcake.

Politically correct culture is destroying American youth and emasculating our young men. Get some guts and stand up to this liberal agenda.

Edgar Fuss

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2jSpoZR

Read more:

Boy Scouts ruined by political correctness: Your Say - USA TODAY