Category Archives: Political Correctness

Earlier this month, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel joked about Floridians who have died of COVID-19, snarking, "All those orphaned ferrets, it's a shame."

What might have been a stunningly cutting remark for the "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" host a decade ago feels more standard now for the comic who's embraced the same liberal politics of the rest of his late-night colleagues.

Kimmel's pointed aside about dead Floridians was the latest political broadside from a host who has become increasingly hard to distinguish from an overwhelmingly left-leaning, Democrat-boosting late-night lineup. Hosts like Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Samantha Bee, Trevor Noah, and John Oliver have made GOP-bashing a central part of their brands.

"Late-night used to be about escapism. Now its basically an extension of CNN meets MSNBC under the guise of comedy," Fox News correspondent Joe Concha said.

JIMMY KIMMEL MOCKS FLORIDIANS WHO HAVE DIED OF CORONAVIRUS: 'ALL THOSE ORPHANED FERRETS, IT'S A SHAME'

Jimmy Kimmel has attacked conservatives on a regular basis in recent years. (ABC/Randy Holmes)

Kimmel has come a long way from his more everyman, apolitical persona.

He first rose to prominence as a co-host on Comedy Central's "Win Ben Stein's Money" from 1997 to 2000 and then "The Man Show" with Adam Carolla from 1999 to 2003. The latter, gleefully politically incorrect show both celebrated and lampooned typical male stereotypes;; one of its most famous segments was each show concluding with "girls jumping on trampolines."

In an article about Kimmel becoming "Late Night's Woke Dad," left-wing outlet Jezebel chided him for some of his controversial moments, such as him donning blackface to imitate celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and NBA star Karl Malone. Kimmel has apologized for the "embarrassing" segments from his past and says much of his earlier work makes him "cringe," but he's self-aware, telling Vulture in 2017 if he did "The Man Show" now, it would be an even bigger hit.

"Theres more back to lash against. Theres more scrutiny. Theres more political correctness. That always offers more opportunity to run counter," he said.

Kimmel left Comedy Central and took his current gig on ABC hosting "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" in 2003, where for years he was known less for politics and more for his sarcastic style and pranks, such as his long-running "feud" with actor Matt Damon. His emotional reaction in 2015 to the killing of a famous African lion by an American hunter surprised observers given his usual style.

JIMMY KIMMEL SAYS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE SHOULDN'T GET ICU BEDS IN HIS RETURN TO HIS LATE-NIGHT SHOW

Even after Trump's rise to the GOP nomination the future president was a guest on Kimmel's show during the campaign, along with several other late-night programs Kimmel had more of an amused detachment than stern demeanor during his ventures into political humor.

A major shift for the comedian seemed to coincide with a frightening moment for his family, when his son Billy was born in 2017 with a congenital heart defect and required life-saving surgeries. An emotional Kimmel told the audience about his family's plight and went on to push for the defeat of Republican attempts to overturn Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act, that year.

He called out Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, S.C., and Bill Cassidy, La., for their health care proposal, and he used talking points opposing the reform measure sent from then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

CAITLYN JENNER CALLS OUT JIMMY KIMMEL AFTER HE MOCKED HER CANDIDACY FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR

Kimmel, who moved to Las Vegas as a child, then drew liberal media plaudits when he used his entire monologue on Oct. 3, 2017, to call for gun control and attack Republicans in the aftermath of the Vegas massacre. During his remarks, he made several misleading remarks, such as suggesting semi-automatic rifles which fire one bullet per trigger pull and make up the vast majority of rifles in the United States - aren't used in home defense. He accused Republicans who disagreed on the Second Amendment of not caring about who lived or died.

"We have a major problem with gun control in this country, and I guess they don't care," he said. "And if i'm wrong on that, fine, do something about it, because I'm sick of it. I want this to be a comedy show. I hate talking about stuff like this."

The Washington Post published the full "emotional, scathing monologue," and liberal journalists praised it as one of his most "emotionally searing" routines. CNN declared him "America's conscience.""

Kimmel's political lurch even attracted the attention of a network rival. "CBS Sunday Morning" profiled his foray into liberal activism in 2017 and how it turned off GOP viewers, which he admitted wasn't "ideal."

JIMMY KIMMEL USED 'N-WORD' IN IMITATION SNOOP SONG IN 1996, IMPERSONATED COMIC GEORGE WALLACE IN 2013: AUDIO

"I want everyone with a television to watch the show, but if they're so turned off by my opinion on health care and gun violence, then I probably wouldn't want to have a conversation with them anyway." he said.

In 2020, he pushed for viewers to vote out Republicans he accused of wanting to gut pre-existing condition measures in health insurance laws. Kimmel celebrated President Joe Biden's inauguration in January, saying he personally felt "great again" and gushing over the "beautiful" ceremony.

Kimmel has recently mocked Floridians who have died from COVID, declared unvaccinated people shouldnt get ICU beds and even mocked Caitlyn Jenners bid for governor of California, calling her "Donald Trump in a Caitlyn Jenner wig."

"Piousness has replaced punchlines, and Kimmels viewership reflects that. Hes currently fourth behind Gutfeld, Colbert and Fallon," Concha said.

Indeed, Kimmel averaged 1.3 million viewers in September, which is behind "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," Fox News' "Gutfeld!" and "The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon."

Concha thinks Kimmels comedy from "The Man Show" wouldnt fly these days anyway, but avoiding humor altogether isnt exactly paying off.

"Look, The Man Show was a younger Kimmel. People mature. And The Man Show wouldnt be green lighted in 100 years today given how politically correct things have become. But Kimmel now plays directly to half an audience. He literally declared he doesnt want Trump supporters to watch," Concha said. "Thats a bold business model. Lets see if that works out for him. To date, its not."

Political satirist Tim Young used to be a fan of Kimmel but those days have long passed.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Kimmel, even in the early days of his show on ABC, used to be an innovative comic that I would even regularly tune in to watch," Young told Fox News. "In the pilot for the Man Show, he had one of the most innovative and hilarious sketches ever getting people who didnt know what the term suffrage was to sign a petition to end women suffering."

Kimmel told The Hollywood Reporter in 2019 he wished late-night didn't have to get political so "frequently." He's now the longest-running current late-night host after Conan O'Brien left the airwaves earlier this year, and whether he remains as political with a president he supports in office remains to be seen.

Young feels that during the Trump era, Kimmel and ABC executives "capitalized on Trump Derangement Syndrome fear-porn watchers that tuned into CNN and late night comics to hear the same blathering about Trump being an 'evil fascist leader'" in order to attract liberal viewers.

"In the middle of that, he and his writing staff stopped being funny and started getting woke and they'll never go back," Young added."It's just DNC talking points and pretending he never objectified women, drank heavily and wore blackface for laughs to create his career."

Read the original here:

One of the crowd: Jimmy Kimmel's evolution from 'The Man Show' to another liberal late-night voice - Fox News

COMMENTARYby State Rep. Mike Sparks

Recentlyon WGNS Rutherford Magazine Show heard Sunday nights at 5p.m. on 100.5 FM, 1450AM and online at WGNSradio.com I had invited guests Joni Bryan, Director and founder of the 917 Society, Nashville attorney Ramona DeSalvo and John Taylor, a Franklin realtor, both of whom are leaders with the Convention of States. Both leaders were in the studio to talk about the COS initiative for Constitution Day and how we all can work together with others like 917 to share the Constitution with the next generation.

I appreciate the passion and conviction of these three American Patriots and their grassroots efforts to bring much needed awareness to the importance of our United States Constitution.

I commend the 917 Society's mission to empower every 8th grader with the knowledge of their individual freedoms and provide them with their very own lasting copy of the U.S. Constitution as a "rite of passage" into American Citizenship and celebrate Constitution Day each September 17th.

You can listen to the Rutherford Magazine Show highlighting the U.S. Constitution and the efforts of the 917 Society at the link below:https://www.wgnsradio.com/article/70205/sunday-september-5th-2021-rutherford-magazine-show

Scroll down for more...

Last year in 2020 I was honored to be invited to attend the 917 Societys Fundraiser. I was glad to see many Tennessee state leaders speaking and in attendanceespecially my friend Rep. John DeBerry. Sadly, John DeBerry, the 26-year state lawmaker, was removed from the ballot by the Tennessee Democrat Executive Committee.

Folks, I cannot make up the strange circumstance I have witnessed the past few years. The draconian measures by the Democrat party to remove DeBerry from the ballot this is simply Voter Suppression. The irony is that the people of the house district 90 of Memphis sent DeBerry to Nashville to represent them 13 times.

"My districthas elected me 13 times," DeBerry said after a House committee meeting. "Not just because I'm John DeBerry or because I'm a Democrat. But because they agree withwhat I fought for and what I stood for."

Scroll down for more...

(Continued)

The Democrat Party statewide committee didnt like DeBerry's voting record, which often aligned with Republicans on issues of a Pro-Life stance and his position of parents choosing their childrens educational needsschool choice.

The Democrat Party Committees effort to remove him from the ballot came after the filing deadline had passed, preventing DeBerry from filing again under another party.

When I first was elected to the Tennessee General Assembly I asked to meet with DeBerry. He was very gracious and shared with me that he hadmarched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and was in attendance at the I've Been to the Mountaintop" on April 3, 1968, at the Mason Temple in Memphis the night before the reverend and civil rights leader was killed.

A democracy doesnt have a tribunal that approves the candidate before the people get to approve a candidate and thats what they did. Effectively, no matter how genuine their beliefs were or how sincere their motives may have beenwhat they said effectively was that district 90 didnt have enough intelligence or information to make an informed decision and because Ive been there so long and Im well-funded I kind of drown out the other candidates and so its their job to get me out of the way so others can be heard and seenwhich sounds a lot like what goes on in maybe some other countriesbut not in America where each man and each vote counts. Rep. John DeBerry

Scroll down for more...

(Continued)

Speaking at the 917 Society event DeBerry went on to explain that America is a child of controversy, conversation and protesting. Thats who we are, DeBerry said as he recalled being a young child and marching through Memphis with his father and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I remember (the protesters) stood up to the dogs and the billy clubs, and they did it in a way that changed the world with class.

We have taken for granted what those men and women, black and white, who put their lives on the line sacrificed. When we look around and see our voices muted for political correctness, weve got to wake up and use our voices again. ... Our greatest treasure is freedom, and we will defend it.

DeBerry lamented that children have no idea how freedom came to be and the sacrifices that were made so many times.

The Constitution is based on the greatest document ever written: the word of God, DeBerry said. We made our mistakes, but we went back to that book. When we looked at Gods word, we made that document malleable. It has matured and it is better. That document was not something that just changed America. It changed the world.

The efforts of Joni Bryan, John DeBerry, Ramona DeSalvo, John Taylor and others demonstrate fearless leadership that is not always recognized or appreciated, but sorely needed. Society is always a work in progress.

For more information about the 917 Society, call615-200-6106, visitwww.917society.orgor send email to917society@gmail.com.

Read the original here:

COMMENTARY by Mike Sparks: WE The People should revisit the Importance of U.S. Constitution - Wgnsradio

Math education has become yet another battleground in todays culture wars.

When Oregon governor Kate Brown signed a law in July that suspended math and reading proficiency requirements for high school graduation for three years, an uproar ensued. Republicans charged that the state had abandoned academic standards, while the Democratic governors spokesperson declared that the move would help benefit the states Black, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color.

A headline on The Dispatch, a conservative website, might give you a sense of the debates tenor: Oregon Democrats Resurrect the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations A new law allows students to graduate from high school without the ability to read, write, or do math.

According to Robert Parris Moses, the civil rights hero who helped organize the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Summer project that registered thousands of Black voters and who died in July at the age of 86, mathematics is itself a civil rights issue, a passport to full citizenship for disenfranchised people and an issue of justice and equity.

In todays data- and technology-rich, STEM-oriented society, those without quantitative and statistical literacy, he believed, were relegated to the back of another bus.

Civic equity and access to the advanced employment ultimately hinge on mastery of math. But in California as recently as 2017, 110,000 of 170,000 undergraduates placed in remedial math never, ever fulfilled the math requirement for an associate degree.

According to one study of community college students, 50 to 60percent of the disparity in degree completion is driven by which students are placed in remedial math classes.

Mathematical competence remains perhaps the biggest barrier to academic success. Despite over 30 years of math education reform and the steadfast efforts of reformers like Bob Moses and Uri Treisman, we not yet figured out how to bring all students to a minimum viable level of mathematical understanding.

Since math is a promoter of possibility, we must do better.

Several principles have guided math education reform.

We shouldnt be surprised that in todays highly polarized political environment, pedagogy itself has become embroiled in conflict. Critics charge that the new new math, with its emphasis on thought processes and written and oral communication and its shift away from teacher-directed instruction:

Without embroiling myself in this dispute, I do think its fair to say that in todays world, numeracy is about as important as competence in reading and writing. How, then, can we best achieve much higher levels of quantitative and statistical literacy?

One exciting strategy that a growing number of K-12 math teachers have pursued is to link math and social justice issues.

These instructors have sought to engage students and demonstrate maths relevance by studying racial and class disparities, crime and incarceration, inequalities of wealth and income, gerrymandering and ranked-choice voting, immigration, the distribution of disaster aid and college entrance exam scores, the relationship between campaign spending and votes received, and environmental issues using algebraic functions, data visualization techniques, mathematical modeling and statistical methods.

Using math as a window into social realities is sometimes derided as woke math, and there can be no doubt that there are instances when this approach devolves into discussions of power, identity and oppression rather than actual math instruction.

Diane Ravitch, then in her conservative phase, regarded social justice mathematics (or what she dismissed as ethnomathematics) as anathema, a fusion of political correctness and lax educational standards, and a shameless, bald-faced attempt to bring an explicitly political agenda into the classroom.

Does this pedagogical approach help students master math? We dont know. Is teaching math through a social justice lens creating a two-tiered system, in which affluent students learn college prep math while those from low-income backgrounds learn real-world math that ill prepares them for success in college STEM courses? Again, we dont know.

In the end, the efficacy of this approach is an empirical question that requires randomized controlled trials.

Long a barrier to equal educational opportunity, mathematics is too important to be reserved to those with a knack for solving equations. It is indeed a key to equity and opportunity. Just as we have embraced writing across the curriculum, we also need to do the same for math.

After all, as Galileo so rightly observed in 1623, mathematics is the language not just of science and technology, but of nature and society, too.

Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin.

Read this article:

Mathematics and Social Justice | Higher Ed Gamma - Inside Higher Ed

Conservative American pundits and politicians have found a surprising new punching bag: the woke U.S. military. Anti-American indoctrination [is] seeping into parts of our military, Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, railed in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in June. Holy crap, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, tweeted in May in response to a recruitment ad showcasing the U.S. Armys diversity. Perhaps a woke, emasculated military is not the best idea.

In the ongoing controversy over critical race theory (CRT)a framework for analyzing racism that was once confined to the ivory towerthe U.S. armed forces have emerged as a surprising defender of the importance of teaching about systemic racism in the United States. General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, angered many Republicans in July 2020 when he apologized for his misguided walk with President Donald Trump across Washingtons Lafayette Square in the midst of the Black Lives Matter protests. I should not have been there, he said. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.

Milley provoked an even more intense conservative backlash this past June, when, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, he defended the idea of military cadets studying CRT: Ive read Mao Zedong. Ive read Karl Marx. Ive read Lenin. That doesnt make me a communist. So what is wrong with understandinghaving some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend? CRT, Milley suggested, would be useful in understanding white rage as well as the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol: What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out.

The response was immediate. Trump called Milleys comments pathetic and sad, adding that he would have gotten rid of themMilley and other senior military officers who saw value in CRTin two minutes. Representative Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, chimed in on Twitter: With Generals like this its no wonder weve fought considerably more wars than weve won. More recently, Republicans called for Milleys resignation after Bob Woodward and Robert Costa reported in their book Peril that before and after the 2020 election, Milley called his Chinese counterpart to reassure him that the United States would not suddenly attack China. He should be court martialed if true, Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, tweeted earlier this month, echoing many others from his party.

The long Republican romance with the military appears to have finally come to an end. And as conservative politicians and pundits have put the U.S. militaryand especially the top brassin their cross hairs, their supporters and listeners have taken note. The consequences for the U.S. military could be dire.

For decades, conservatives and Republicans have been in a love affair with the armed forces. Republicans have consistently expressed greater trust in and warmth toward the military than have Democrats, and Republican candidates for political office, more so than Democrats, have sought the endorsement of retired generals and flag officers. In the early days of his presidency, Trump followed this pattern by surrounding himself with the military men he called my generals, appointing John Kelly, Michael Flynn, H. R. McMaster, and Jim Mattis to key cabinet positions and other leadership roles.

But the love affair has ended in acrimony. As with many of the changes the Republican Party has undergone in recent years, this one began with Trump. The former president quickly came to dislike and disrespect the retired generals he had appointed and to abuse the active-duty generals advising him. For the most part, he refrained from expressing his mounting vitriol in publicuntil September 2020, when, at a press conference, he accused his top generals of corruption: They want to do nothing but fight wars, he claimed, so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. Since then, Trump has regularly lobbed attacks at the military and its top leaders, accusing them of being politically craven and operationally incompetent.

As the CRT controversy came to dominate the headlines earlier this year, many Republican politicians and conservative media personalities followed Trumps lead. Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Republican from Texas who is a former Navy SEAL, tweeted in May, Enough is enough. We wont let our military fall to woke ideology. The Fox News host Tucker Carlson, angered by Milleys defense of cadets education, alleged that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff didnt get that job because hes brilliant, or because hes brave, or because the people who know him respect him. . . . He is not, and they definitely dont. Milley got the job because he is obsequious. He knows who to suck up to, and hes more than happy to do it. Feed him a script and he will read it. Carlsons colleague at Fox, Laura Ingraham, took a page out of the lefts playbook and floated the idea of defunding the military.

The onslaught by right-wing pundits and politicians appears to be changing the views of ordinary Republican voters, weakening their attachment to and admiration for the armed forces. Survey data we collected in late June and early July showed an appreciable shift in popular attitudescall it the Tucker Carlson effect. The change was not apparent from the most obviously relevant question that is typically included on national public opinion surveys, which asks Americans to describe their level of trust or confidence in the armed forces. True, Republican trust in the military as measured by this question had waned slightly, and Democratic trust had intensified some. But such partisan shifts have long accompanied changes in party control of the White House, with the losing party expressing less trust in all institutions of government, including the military. Overall, moreover, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents continue to trust the military more, and distrust the military less, than do Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

But there is more to the story. Our survey found that Republicans were much less deferential to the military in 2021 than we expected them to be. In an article in Foreign Affairs last year, we argued that Americans beliefs about civil-military relationsand, specifically, their degree of deference to the armed forceshave more to do with partisanship and party loyalty than ideology. Political conservatives should be disposed to defer to the military, which epitomizes the values they prize, and political liberals should be inclined to support tight civilian control of an institution they tend to distrust. But we found the opposite was true in a 2019 survey. With Trump in the White House, Democrats were surprisingly deferential to the armed forces, looking to the military to check Trump. Republicans, meanwhile, were more likely to endorse extreme civilian supremacy. We predicted that a Joe Biden victory would prompt partisans to swap positions, with Republicans once again becoming more deferential to the military and Democrats becoming less so.

Yet only half of our prediction came true. In our recent survey, Democrats were indeed much less deferential to the military now that their party controls the White House, but Republicans were not appreciably more so. We asked respondents if the president should approve a military mission that has the support of U.S. military officers even if the president thinks the mission not worthwhile. In 2019, 46.5 percent of Democrats said yes to this question, compared with just 30.3 percent of Republicans. This year, only 32.8 percent of Democrats said yesa substantial decline that comports with their political interests and ideological predilections. Yet only 36.1 percent of Republicans said yes, a mere 5.8 percent increase from 2019.

Republicans weak deference to the militarycontrary to conservative ideology and partisan interestappears closely related to another marked shift: Americans distrust the military for different reasons than they used to. Just 15 percent of Democrats and 12 percent of Republicans distrusted the military to some degree in 2021 (compared with 21 percent of Democrats and ten percent of Republicans in 2019). But among those who expressed distrust, a whopping 64.6 percent of Republicans said it was because the military is politicalcompared with just 35.8 percent of Republicans who felt that way in 2019. The proportion of Democrats who said they distrusted the military because it is political remained stable (31.3 percent in 2019 versus 28.2 percent in 2021). And this year, unlike 2019, those who distrusted the military because they perceived it as political tended to be less deferential toward the armed forces. In other words, concerns about the political nature of the military were predictive of weak deference.

A similar phenomenon appears in our data on views about oversight of the militaryin particular, oversight of soldier training. In 2019, 48.9 percent of respondents called for less frequent and intense oversight in this area, compared with 35.3 percent who wanted more frequent and intense oversight. In 2021, the reverse was true: 49.0 percent wanted more frequent and intense oversight of training, and just 33.6 percent wanted less. This increased demand for oversight stretched across the political spectrum: Democrats were worried about rising right-wing extremism in the military, especially in the wake of the January 6 insurrection, in which veterans were overrepresented, whereas Republicans were concerned about liberal indoctrination. These calls for oversight were especially strongand revealingon the right, with 53 percent of self-identified Strong Republicans wanting more intense and frequent oversight of training in 2021, compared with 43 percent in 2019.

Republicans newfound skepticism of the armed forces extends to their attitudes about military involvement in policy debates, as well. In 2019, when Trump was president, Democrats tended to support senior military officers advocating publicly for policies they believed to be in the countrys best interest, even if those policies were not related to the officers area of professional expertise (and Republicans tended to oppose this). With Biden in the White House, we thought Republicans and Democrats would swap places. However, the opposite has happened. A strong majority of self-identified Strong Democrats55.9 percentsupported policy advocacy by senior officers, compared with 43.9 percent in 2019. Meanwhile, support for policy advocacy among Strong Republicans has fallenfrom 44.5 percent to 39.3 percent. In 2021, a plurality of Strong Republicans41.6 percentopposed policy advocacy by senior military officers. It seems that Democrats are increasingly confident that senior military officers share their policy preferences and so are happy for the top brass to speak out. Meanwhile, Republicans are increasingly sure that senior military officers do not share their policy views and therefore oppose military engagement in policy debates.

Public respect for and trust in the military in general is not in free fallyet. But politicized denigration of the military is no less problematic than its politicized adoration. The main risk is growing skepticism of the militarys professional judgment: if Republicans believe that a woke military prioritizes political correctness over the unvarnished truth, might they not also suspect that the armed forces political correctness trumps the truth when it comes to prospective and ongoing military operations? Such sentiments will likely also complicate recruitment: if Republicans come to believe that the military is the enemy of right-thinking Americans like them, why should they send their children into its ranks? And it will almost certainly lead to more intrusive congressional investigations into the political leanings of prospective senior officers and possibly the application of political litmus tests. Promotion based on politics rather than professionalism would have disastrous consequences for the militarys warfighting capability and for the retention of promising junior officers.

Historically, right-wing politicians have been far more likely to embrace military officers than to attack them. After President Harry Truman removed General Douglas MacArthur from his command in Korea for insubordination, for instance, leading Republicans feted Americas Caesar upon his return home. A clearer historical parallel to the current assault on the military comes from the political left: opposition to the Vietnam War expanded into antipathy toward the military officers who were its public face. But widespread hostility to the military dissolved with the end of the draft in 1973 and the revival of the Cold War later that decade.

The current situation is historically unprecedented and worrisome, and the military bears some blame. Since the end of the Cold War, senior military officers have chipped away at the militarys reputation for being above politics, thereby unintentionally signaling that they are fair gamejust a political interest group like any other in Washington. By playing politics, they have sometimes won battles over policy, such as the approval of a larger surge in Afghanistan in 2009. But the long-term costs to the institution and the nation have been great.

For its own sake, as well as the countrys, the U.S. military should make a greater commitment to democratic civil-military relations. Generals need not claim, as George Marshall famously did, never to have voted. But active-duty officers must remember that decisions about the use of force properly lie with elected politicians who are directly accountable to the public. The nations military leaders have a responsibility to offer their unvarnished professional opinions to the commander in chief and his representatives. But other ways of influencing policysuch as sharing those views in public testimonysubvert democratic control and contribute to public confusion about the militarys role. The same is true of retired generals political activities, book deals, and television appearances: they cannot claim a right to speak based on their new civilian status while simultaneously trading on their military credentials. Not surprisingly, in our surveys we find that Americans see little difference between active-duty and retired generals intervening publicly in policy debates.

However, restoring the militarys apolitical standing is a long-term, generational project. In the short term, Republican politicians can avoid precipitating a full-blown crisis of trust in the military by dialing back their rhetoric. The only thing worse than the nation venerating its military officers is the nation reviling them. Unwarranted hero worship of the armed forces nurtures civilian deference to the military and threatens civilian oversight. Unwarranted vilification of the armed forces threatens the United States military capabilities. Republican voters are not clamoring for attacks on an institution they have traditionally reveredbut they are beginning to distrust and, in some cases, even disdain it. Conservative leaders and pundits must stop their political attacks before it is too late.

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

Read more:

Why Conservatives Turned on the U.S. Military - Foreign Affairs Magazine

Bret Stephens wrote a New York Times column a few days ago where he attacked the progressive House members who voted against the billion dollars for the Iron Dome military program for Israel.

When objective people look at the votes against the Iron Dome legislation it is no mystery why those who voted against it voted the way they did. Agree with the nine or not (plus the two who voted present, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hank Johnson), there is no reason to suspect that they didnt act according to their principles. They can make totally coherent arguments why the billion dollars should be spent elsewhere.

But look at how Stephens describes their motive. He called their vote a supremely foul piece of political grandstanding. Why does he need to do that? Why cant he grant his ideological opponents their own principles?

The answer to this question is that for Stephens when it comes to Israel there is no other side. For him there is no pro-Palestinian perspective. There is only a pro-Israel perspective and an anti-Israel/antisemitic perspective.

Bret Stephens cant imagine the pro-Palestinian viewpoint. The Palestinian perspective is only experienced as an anti-Israel perspective, in what I have called hasbara culture a construction of alternative reality centering on the victimization of the Jewish people. From that perspective these nine votes are antisemitic votes.

Thats why Bret Stephens called their vote and the successful progressive move a few days before the vote to block the billion dollars from a government spending bill a supremely foul piece of political grandstanding.

You will almost certainly not seeRepresentative Jamaal Bowmanof New York,Representative Pramila Jayapalof Washington,Representative Rashida Tlaibof Michigan or their fellow travelers in the House progressive caucus paying any serious reputational cost for this supremely foul piece of political grandstanding.

Similarly, in the article Stephens writes as it were self-evident that Rep. Ilhan Omar was guilty of a string of anti-Semitic remarks. Stephens believes that when Ilhan Omar looks at Israel she sees nothing more than a bunch of Jews not human rights abuses supported by U.S. aid. I have argued ad nauseum that hasbara culture journalists like Stephens, Bari Weiss, and Yair Rosenberg should be the last people whose judgment should be taken seriously on whats going on in Omars and Tlaibs heads when they consider the Palestine question. Its all hasbara culture projection.

Here is Stephens on what Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib is guilty of:

Last month, Tlaib gave a talk to the Democratic Socialists of America inwhich she darkly alludedto certain people behind the curtain who make money by oppressing people from Gaza to Detroit. Wonder who she had in mind?

In plain English Stephens is accusing Tlaib of telling the DSA that it is the Jews who are behind the curtain making money by oppressing the rest of us. This is a very serious allegation. If his accusation is true, she should be drummed out of American political life.

But is it true? Any objective person realizes that its nonsense. Read what Tlaib said about oppressors behind the curtain:

We also need to recognize this is for me as a Palestinian-American. As I think about my family in Palestine, that continue to live under military occupation and how that really interacts with this beautiful Black city I grew up in, I always tell people that cutting people off from water is violence, andtheydo it from Gaza to Detroit, and its a way to control people, to oppress people, and its those structures that we continue to fight againstIf you open the curtain and look behind the curtain, itsthe same peoplethat make money, and yesthey do, off of racism. Off of these broken policies. There is someone there making money. You saw it, it was so exposed curing the pandemic, because all those structures, everything that was set up,they made record profitwhile we were having some of the most challenging most difficult times in our lifetime.

Agree with Tlaib or not about the 1%, she is voicing a common worldview on the left, that the rich are profiting from the misery of the rest of us, as I wrote when I defended her against the smears of Bari Weiss and ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt.

Of all the people watching Tlaibs speech to the DSA only a minuscule amount would think that Tlaib is thinking of or alluding to Jews at any point. However, the hasbara culture self-appointed experts on antisemitism interpret her words to mean that Tlaibs they does not mean the billionaires who are making record profits off those structures or getting rich off the pandemic. No, she means Jews. The experts say that Tlaib is saying: Just as the Jews are oppressing the Palestinians in Palestine, when you look behind the curtain in the U.S., its the Jews who fuel our misgivings here too.

As I have shown repeatedly, there are even lots of Jews who dont accept Stephenss Jewish authority for interpreting Omar and Tlaib. There are many Jews who defend them from these Jewish accusations:

Like all previous incidents with Tlaib and other members of the Squad, there were other Jews and Jewish organizations defending her and even expressing outrage at the antisemitism charges. For instance, Peter Beinart, Rabbi Sharon Brous and J Streetcondemnedattacks on Tlaib as reckless constituting vitriolic and divisive ads against women lawmakers of color.

These Jews detected no dog whistles about Jews when watching the same video. To these Jews its self-evident that the same people making record profits whom Tlaib is alluding to are not Jews.

So how should we make sense of the fact that anti-cancel culture warriors like Stephens and Weiss are making an accusation that most people would find libelous? Why doesnt it bother them that these dark allegations arent true? Isnt telling the truth among Stephenss high principles hes constantly patting himself on the back about?

The answer to these questions is that according to Stephens and Weiss, defamation and dishonesty are no vice when fighting the enemies of the Jews. Omar and Tlaib are guilty of being Jew-haters even before opening their mouths. Because being on the other side of Israel, or opposed to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, makes you an enemy of the Jews according to hasbara culture journalists like Stephens and Weiss. And there are no rules when hasbara culture journalists are fighting the enemies of the Jews.

The fact that all sorts of well-respected human rights organizations have labeled Israeli rule apartheid offers no protection to Rashida Tlaib when she does the same. Theyre antisemites and self-hating Jews as well.

Read what Hagai El-Ad of BTselem and Lara Friedman of Foundation for Middle East Peace say on this matter.

El-Ad:

When @RepRashida speaks of Israels apartheid regime, she not only echoes her familys lived experience but is also articulating the growing consensus of Palestinian, Israeli, and international human rights groups, including @alhaq_org, @btselem and @HRW.

Friedman echoes the point:

As members of Congress from both parties gleefully pile on @RepRashida for using the word apartheid on the House floor to describe Israeli policies, great time to review who else has used the word in this context

But according to hasbara culture, Rashida Tlaib is using the apartheid accusation as an excuse for her Jew hatred. Thats how Yair Rosenberg and others frame the enmity Israels behavior causes among Palestinians and around the world.

Thus, from the hasbara culture perspective Stephens and Weiss can in good conscience attempt to destroy Tlaib by any means necessary.

And Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida duly rises in the House to castigate Tlaib as an alleged antisemite.

To understand more of Stephens and Weisss thinking its imperative to unpack the ideology behind the hasbara culture antisemitism discourse. What is the function of the trope and canard accusations, like those aimed at Omar and Tlaib, for hasbara culture? The answer is that when an enemy of Israel supposedly commits a trope and canard crime what it does is confirm an already held belief. According to hasbara cultures alternative reality Tlaib and Omar are already Jew haters. Them having a pro-Palestinian perspective is ipso facto anti-Semitic. According to ethnocentric hasbara culture, being on the other side of Israel is being guilty of hating Jews.

The tweet from journalist Mairav Zonzsein in response to Ted Deutchs attack on Tlaib makes the accurate observation that this view has conquered not only Jewish political culture but American political culture as well.

One of the biggest double standards in DC politics is Jewish American politicians being as pro-Israel as they want and not being called anti-Palestinian but Palestinian American politician @RashidaTlaib not being able to be pro-Palestinian without being called an antisemite

Thus, the supposed trope and canards transgression merely confirm that Omar and Tlaib are classic antisemites. They are no different than the antisemites that Jews are familiar with from European history. Thats the theme throughout Bari Weisss book on antisemitism. And again, thats because there are no two sides to the Israeli Palestinian conflict according to hasbara culture, its all about how you feel about the one Jewish state in the world, as Ted Deutch put it when he said that Rashida Tlaib was an antisemite.

Tlaib of course has a perfect right to oppose more funding for Israel. This is how JJ Goldberg puts the difference between Jew hatred of the past and Israel hatred of today:

[U]nlike classical anti-Semitism, which entailed the persecution of a minority for no reason that the victim could control, this new conflict has two active parties,each with claims against the other. The conflict has spillover effects on others around the world, Jews, and Muslims, who identify with one side or the other. It is ugly and getting uglier. But to call it merely a rebirth of the old hatred is to deny that there are two sides to the conflict.

Hasbara culture journalists have another weapon against critics of Israel whataboutism, or changing the subject to some other country. You see the same ideological, sociological, and psychological processes in their whataboutism argument. Whataboutism plays the same role that trope and canards play in hasbara cultures victimhood discourse. It confirms the bias of the Israel critic and supposedly proves that the criticism is really only about the Jews.

According to this view its never Israels behavior that induces outrage but rather Jew hatred. If antisemitism isnt behind the (undue) focus on Israel, why according to the whataboutism arguments are other countries human rights abusers overlooked and ignored?

Why dont left-wing academics boycott Indian products, Bret Stephens asks:

Why is it always the worlds only Jewish state that draws boycotts asks Eli Lake?

Why doesnt the left want to boycott China or Pakistan? Its always the worlds only Jewish state.

And Bari Weiss knows exactly why the silence is supposedly deafening when Hamas acts brutally.

Notice that total clarity, according to Weiss, is the ability to proclaim antisemitism when others find no such thing. Believing Israel critics are motivated by Jew-hatred is moral clarity for hasbara culture journalists.

As Bari Weiss explained on the Bill Maher show, the left only cares about Muslims when it involves Israel. Again, what about China.

There are a million Uighurs in China, Muslims in concentration camps. Somehow the Left who claim to care so much about Muslim lives dont talk about that.

And thats the same whataboutism argument that Weiss made to Joe Rogan and his audience:

Theres an obsession on the State of IsraelThese people say nothing generally about the genocide of Uighur Muslims in China

And according to Yair Rosenberg, there is no prize for guessing why the U.N. is preoccupied with Israel not China. No, the U.N. is preoccupied with Israel because it is a Jewish state.

Thanks to hasbara culture proselytizers hasbara culture tropes seen in this article have become a truism among American politicians. In fact, the most insidious political correctness that there is is the inability to challenge hasbara cultures sacred (macho) victimhood social construction of alternative reality.

In the real world, as we know (and countless Israelis and Palestinians have warned), Israel is going down a very dark road. But its antisemitic to talk about it, let alone do anything about it.

Recall President Obamas final, tepid reaction to Netanyahu and Apartheid: in December 2016 he allowed a U.N. Security Council anti-settlement resolution to go through with a U.S. abstention. Stephens said that Obama betrayed Israel.

The sacred victimhood culture I am anatomizing is holding Jewish and American politics hostage. Because Stephens and Weiss and other Hasbara culture journalists ask politicians and political actors one question: Are you on the side of Israel (the way they define pro-Israel) and all that is good in the world or on the side of its Jew hating enemies?

What politician wants to be known as being on the side of the enemies of Israel and the Jews? Which politician would choose to be on the receiving end of hasbara culture demonization like the sort poured over Rashida Tlaib by Ted Deutch?

Thats the real reason for all the lopsided pro-Israel votes in congress. What politician wants to be ritually defamed by the likes of Bret Stephens in the New York Times? Irrespective of AIPAC and hasbara culture money, if politicians were free to vote their consciences the votes would surely be a lot closer than 420 to 9.

But as more and more Americans consciences direct them to take the Palestinian side, more and more politicians (and their supporters) are sure to be branded asJew-haters by hasbara culture purveyors. As I have written before, Attempting to destroy politicians reputations on the altar of hasbara culture and Jewish political power is actually toxic for the American Jewish community and real living American Jews and non-Jews, too.

But the hasbara culture hatred that Stephens, Weiss, and others spew has no name. Because it comes in the guise of the fight against antisemitism.

Until Stephens and Weiss are made to defend, and answer for, their hateful delusions, they will continue to proselytize their hasbara culture venom. For American politics on Israel to change, the journalists who continue to transform pro-Palestinian into anti-Jew must be discredited before they do even more cultural damage.

So where are the Palestinian voices in mainstream media?

Mondoweiss covers the full picture of the struggle for justice in Palestine. Read by tens of thousands of people each month, our truth-telling journalism is an essential counterweight to the propaganda that passes for news in mainstream and legacy media.

Our news and analysis is available to everyone which is why we need your support. Please contribute so that we can continue to raise the voices of those who advocate for the rights of Palestinians to live in dignity and peace.

Palestinians today are struggling for their lives as mainstream media turns away. Please support journalism that amplifies the urgent voices calling for freedom and justice in Palestine.

Follow this link:

Bret Stephens' malign view of the Squad as antisemitic is distorting the politics of Israel - Mondoweiss

The Chair is about the first female, Asian-American professor appointed to chair the English department at fictional Pembroke University.

Now, if you were an English major, if you enjoy the inner workings of academia, and if you love Sandra Oh, The Chair could be for you. I checked all three boxes. And I did go through all six episodes in just a few days.

Its engaging. The filming locations are pleasing. And the plot aims to be inclusive and politically correct, though that means that Sandra Ohs character, Ji-Yoon, has a lot on her plate.

She is leading the tenure charge for a brilliant American literature scholar who is Black and female. She contends with a group of students triggered by another professors mock sieg heil gesture in a class on Death and Modernism.

She is also grappling with her adopted Latina daughter who is aggressively bright for a seven-year-old, but doesnt like her mom very much. Nor can her extended family understand why she didnt adopt a South Korean child.

On top of that, Ji-Yoon has to deal with the old guard a coterie of professors who have taught the Western literary canon with gusto for decades, but who now see their livelihoods threatened by forced retirements. Class size is dwindling. Revenues are down. The dean of the college is leaning on Ji-Yoon to squeeze out the geezers who cant seem to figure out the copier, Wi-Fi, Blackboard or their students interests. (Moby Dick plays a big role here.)

I want call the series big-hearted. But the term doesnt really fit.

Yes, it makes statements about racism and sexism and an outdated pedagogy that doesnt reach the students any longer. It introduces the viewer to Mexican and South Korean culture in engaging, touching scenes.

But sometimes it just trips over itself, dismissing some biases and stereotypes while making sport of others. Its clunky in its political correctness.

Ji-Yoons renegade professor, Bill, is a disheveled mess of arrogance and charm, who prefers brewskies and popping oxycodone to teaching his classes. Inexplicably he becomes Ji-Yoons daughters babysitter, whom she much prefers to her mother. And when Bill is threatened with termination because of the sieg heil move, Ji-Yoon champions him in a kind of stand-by-your-(jackass)-man way.

What of the foppish old pedants? They are an on-the-nose stereotype of the clichd English professor: tweed-clad, bearded, bespectacled and hopelessly out of touch with their Gen Z students. They are not treated kindly, ageism seemingly the only ism we dont have to correct.

But the Gen Z students dont go unscathed either. We know from context that the sieg heil move was derisive, not divisive; this teacher is no Nazi. But the students are triggered and their reaction is outsized, which makes them look more whiny that politically astute.

And the fact that the charm-heavy professor is also in love with Ji-Yoon prompts the eternal question: Why would an intelligent woman be drawn to such a mansplaining, arrogant, self-destructive, unrealistically idealistic, Seth-Rogen-style putz? (Dont ask me about my dating history. ...)

Did I like The Chair? Of course. I love Sandra Oh. And Holland Taylor, who plays one of the geezers, is an uncut gem. I admire the heart and effort that went into writing a series that calls out stereotypes in ways that are simultaneously humorous and woke-making.

But it also highlights that we still hang on to stereotypes some overarchingly politically correct: minority students and professors who are written as brilliant and ethically blemish-free (and therefore a bit tedious). Others trade in old tropes: the charming screw-up who nevertheless is going to get the girl, the obstreperous youth who both annoy and enlighten, and the tried-and-true trashing of old folks whose most grievous sin is getting old.

As T.S. Eliot said I grow old I grow old ... I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

Jo Page is a writer and Lutheran minister. Her email is jopage34@yahoo.com. Her website is at https://www.jograepage.com.

Go here to see the original:

Jo Page: On the stereotypes we challenge, and the ones we cling to - Times Union

Many comparisons have been made lately between the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the apocalypse at China Evergrande Group, the worlds most indebted real estate developer. But they are nowhere close. Lehman was a top-tier investment bank that went from good to bad during the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis. On the other hand, Evergrande, a well-known presence in Hong Kongs capital markets for years, has always been bad.

For almost a decade, critics have been calling Evergrande out, questioning the asset quality of its unsold properties and asking if its auditors were asleep. All those warnings fell on deaf ears; the developer-turned-conglomerate went on living out its nine lives. Last week, however, Beijing finally told local governments to prepare for Evergrandes potential demise. The unanswered question is why China and its often merciless regulators allowed it to go on for so long.

Evergrandes liquidity crisis came about because all of its working capital is tied to its inventory, mostly composed of $202 billion in unfinished housing projects. When unpaid suppliers and employees came knocking on its door, all Evergrande could offer as repayment was unsold apartments, store fronts and empty parking lots. Some properties were offered to creditors at a discount of as much as 52%, giving a sense of their true market value.

Perhaps investors chose to look on the bright side because the authorities were on Evergrandes side. In 2016, Hong Kongs financial markets regulator declared that US-based short-seller Citron Research and its founder Andrew Left were culpable of market misconduct because of their negative assessment of Evergrande. Left used sensationalist language in his report that Evergrande was insolvent and engaged in accounting fraud," it said. Left responded, saying, This courts opinion simply stifles negative commentary." Evergrande is among the most-often shorted stocks on the Hong Kong bourse.

Short sellers may be feeling vindicated. But if anything, the 2016 decision could have emboldened Evergrande. Founder Hui Ka Yan has relied on powerful tycoon friends, and, over the years, they have short squeezed naysayers, helped Hui raise billions in equity financing, and even solidified his control of a regional Chinese bank listed in Hong Kong. Owning a bank can be very useful for a developer whose balance sheet is stretched to the limit.

Evergrande became Asias largest high-yield dollar bond issuer. Its sheer size meant that the worlds big asset managers, from Pimco to BlackRock, had holdings. It had liabilities with 128 banks last year. What kind of exposure might global banks such as HSBC and JPMorgan Chase have?

If Hong Kongs laissez-faire traditions excuse its lax regulation of Evergrande, Beijings inaction is baffling. Beijing had vowed to cut down corporate leverage in late 2017: It was during this period that Evergrandes debt pile ballooned. Were Beijings iron-fisted regulators distracted? In 2017, China was busy cracking its whip at conglomerates for debt-fuelled global shopping sprees. Evergrande was the good stay-at-home citizen, expanding domestically, building projects in lower-tier cities. But those virtues were piling up bad debt. Between 2016 and 2020, Evergrandes liabilities almost doubled to about $300 billion. Its working capital became strained. Unpaid bills owed to suppliers ballooned to about 30% of total liabilities from 20% five years earlier. Because of its large exposure to lower-tier cities, it ended up with dead dead assets.

Hui persevered. He ticked all the right boxes. He was woke, in Communist party terms, even before Xi Jinping decided to wake the country to its old socialist values. A party member for more than 35 years, the 62-year-old Hui was already speaking of common prosperity" in 2018. In 2020, with $465 million in donations, Hui ranked as Chinas most charitable person for the fourth year in a row. He was proactive with the covid pandemic, contributing cash to Wuhan one day after its lockdown and donating millions of dollars to medical research. Hui was given a much coveted spot at the Tiananmen Square gate tower at the 70th anniversary of the Peoples Republic on 1 October 2019, and again, at the Partys 100th birthday party this July. In that way, he was more enlightened than other Chinese tycoons, such as Jack Ma.

It worked. Authorities from lower-tier cities would be intoxicated by Hui and his visible political correctness and connectionswelcoming his development projects and proposals with open arms. Everything Evergrande and I have belong to the party, the country and the people," he said in a much-cited 2018 speech. If it sounded grand and charitable then, it feels ominous now.

Shuli Ren is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asian markets.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!

View post:

Evergrande got a free pass of sorts from Chinese authorities - Mint

Chances are that, like many of us, youve faced a series of wake-up calls regarding your concept of Latinidad, growing up or even as an adult. We talk about labels like Hispanic or Latino, for example.

However, for many of us, these wake-up calls come when we discover neologisms that include people with Latin American roots, such as Afro-Latino or Latinx, but with which we dont identify.

Almost anyone from a Latin American country will tell you that their upbringing and background encouraged them to identify with one of these terms, even if they do not always include pan-ethnic identities.

Moreover, these terms dont always feel inclusive to those of us who tend to feel more tied to countries, races, and religions than to the actual origin stories of Latinidad.

Almost four decades ago, the United States Congress passed Public Law 94-311, which required federal government agencies to use Hispanic and Latino to categorize Latinos in the United States. Before this time, the U.S. Census Bureau lumped Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican immigrants into the racial category of white. Talk to most Latinas from these areas, and we guarantee theyll laugh at this given the history of racialized treatment and abuse from actual white people.

This standard changed in the seventies when activists began to push for a broader, national category that could include Latinos who clearly couldnt fall into the category (think: Afro-Latinos like Celia Cruz or Asian-Latinos like NASA astronaut Franklin Chang Daz).

The mandate proved to be the only time in U.S. history that an ethnic group became a category. Blac, Asian, Americans, and white people had been categorized by the government before but only as racial groups. By grouping Latinos ethnically, Law 94-311 underlined that they are a group made up of a shared language, culture, and heritage.

Today, the federal governments definitions for race and ethnicity often clash with the way people describe themselves. If youve ever struggled to fill out tee ethnicity boxes in government and official forms, youll understand the struggle.

Pew Research underlined in 2012 that In its classification system, the federal government recognizes just one ethnic group, Hispanic/Latino, which it defines as follows: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, Spanish origin, can be used in addition to Hispanic or Latino.

Still, while perhaps well-meaning, studies have shown that the mandates efforts made little impact on the ways in which Latinos living in the United States identify themselves.

According to Pew Research Center, a new nationwide survey of Hispanic adults finds that these terms still havent been fully embraced by Hispanics themselves. In fact, the study revealed that, while nearly a quarter of adult Latinos said that they identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, a majority (51%) say they most often identify themselves by their familys country of origin. More, the study revealed that twenty-four percent of Latinas admitted to actually preferring to use a pan-ethnic like Hispanic or Latino, or the term American.

If the vernacular history of identity terms is any indication, it is possible we may never find one inclusive word that satisfies all and sticks. After all, changing times and standards for political correctness are genuinely ever-changing.

Speaking to NPR, David Vazquez (a professor of race and culture studies at American University) underlined that in the Latino community, theres narrowmindedness that exists in accepting who can identify as Latino. Such exclusions, he explains, are particularly true when it comes to ones ability to speak or understand Spanish.

As Vazquez puts it, this policing highlights that for some Latinos, a label related to Latinidad can feel conditional on whether a person can speak Spanish or not. This is despite the fact, as Vazquez points out, that Spanish is the original language of colonization.

While some believe Spanish is a defining factor, some Latinos believe that the language isnt a standard at all. Eliminating centuries of a structural approach to language seems to me quixotic, Ilan Stavans (a professor of Latin American and Latino Culture at Amherst College based in Massachusetts) explained to The Nation in a piece about the global impact of identity terms.

The truth is that, while being lumped into a single category can often cause damage, there is a power to the identity that language and words allow us. Knowledge of social identities can enable us to make sense of how we see ourselves and, in that same way, how wed like the world to perceive us. Perhaps, when given the room to check multiple boxes and permitted the flexibility of learning whether they fit us or not, well have a better sense of who we are ourselves. Even better: well have a better understanding of the nuances and people who reside in those pockets alongside us.

More:

Latino or Latinx? The Diatribe of Social Identity in the Latinx Community - BELatina

With the baseball season winding down, the Cleveland Indians days are numberedas the Indians, anyway. Starting next season, the ballclub will be known as the Cleveland Guardians, a reference to a set of nearly century-old iconic Guardians of Traffic statues along a bridge near the stadium that symbolize progress and transportation.

Indians is baseballs most problematic name and the hardest to defend. But like so many school names, street names, statues, and monuments eyed for replacement, the question isnt where to start. Its where to stop.

Inevitably new targets will emerge, such as the Atlanta Braves, the only other team with a Native American nickname. Other candidates might include the Texas Rangers, because of the state police forces history of violence against Blacks, Native Americans, and Mexicans; or, the San Diego Padres, named in honor of Franciscan missionaries such as St. Junpero Serra, whose statue protesters toppled in 2020 in California.

Are we fated to have our teams in baseball and other sports ensnared in a never-ending culture war pitting charges of racism against claims of cancel culture? I see three possible ways out.

First, we could accept that team names will change more often than weve been used to. In the early day, baseball teams changed named frequently. The Braves, for example, began life in Boston in 1871 as the Red Stockings, and then became the Beaneaters, Doves and Rustlers before becoming the Braves. They switched to the Bees for a few years, then went back to the Braves and later moved to Milwaukee and then Atlanta.

Todays multi-billion dollar sports merchandise industry argues against changing team names too often, however. When a cadre of marketing and design consultants pore over every detail of colors, jerseys, marks, logos and mascots, even the smallest shift costs a lot of money.

Second, teams could change and stick with innocuous names. Baseball already has plenty of animals, such as the Toronto Blue Jays, Baltimore Orioles and Florida Marlins. Other team names refer to uniform colors, such as the Boston Red Sox and Chicago White Sox. Still other team names embrace points of local pride, such as the Colorado Rockies, Seattle Mariners, Minnesota Twins, Philadelphia Phillies and, now, the Guardians.

The problem, however, is that inoffensive things dont stay that way. Even colors can run afoul of politics. Between 1953 and 1959, McCarthyism drove the Cincinnati Reds to become the Redlegs. You can guess what would have happened to the Milwaukee Brewers if theyd played in the 1920s during Prohibition.

Third, and what I believe to be the best option: Fans can discern between names that are now offensive in themselves, such as Indians; names that are controversial because of a problematic origin story, such as the Rangers; and names that can be creatively repurposed, such as the Braves.

This approach recognizes that words change meaning over time, and what once seemed like an honor can become hurtful. Theres no reason to hold onto an offensive name just to preserve tradition or deny the forces of political correctness a win.

At the same time, its vital to recognize that words change in the other direction: what used to be offensive can become harmless.

Pirates are a good example. Real pirates were violent thieves, rapists and murderers, and the Pittsburgh ballclub got its name when it was accused of stealing pirating a player from another team. Today, though, pirates are seen as rambunctious, freedom-loving rogues like Pirates of the Caribbeans Captain Jack Sparrow, not merciless cutthroats. The nickname is just for fun.

The Rangers could be seen similarly: unsavory historical figures rendered more acceptable by the passage of time. While we may have originally taken our name from the law enforcement agency, a Texas Rangers team statement read, since 1971 the Texas Rangers Baseball Club has forged its own, independent identity. We should take the team at its word, not insist that a names meaning is locked in the past.

In this spirit, the Braves could stay the Braves, but with a different meaning attached to the name. After all, there are plenty of ways to be brave. Theres already a movement afoot to dub the Braves the Bravest in honor of firefighters, complete with the tomahawk in the teams current logo becoming a fire axe. They could even keep Braves and just change the theming to be about firefighters.

If a team name is offensive in itself, it has to go, but that doesnt mean people should rummage through the past looking to be offended. Fans should remember that the real attachment to a team doesnt come from its name or logo. Its the players and the games that make being a fan meaningful.

David Head is an associate lecturer of history at UCF. He can be reached at[emailprotected].

TheUCF Forumis a weekly series of opinion columns from faculty, staff and students who serve on a panel for a year. A new column is posted each Wednesday onUCF Todayand then broadcast on WUCF-FM (89.9) between 7:50 and 8 a.m. Sunday. Opinions expressed are those of the columnists, and are not necessarily shared by the University of Central Florida.

More:

Baseballs Name Changes Should Stop with the Cleveland Guardians - UCF

A mere two years ago, the world painted in this article by Nick Hudson of PANDA would have been perceived to be so fictional that it could comfortably have read as a prologue to George Orwells masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four. Published in 1949, Nineteen Eighty-Four examined the role of truth and facts within politics and the ways in which they are manipulated. Aclassic literary example of political and dystopian fiction, the book centred on the consequences of totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and repressive regimentation of persons and behaviours within society. Today, our reality involves governments across the world implementing or seriously considering theimplementation of measures such as vaccine passports which are sold as a ticket to freedom, with the unfortunate downside thatthose without vaccine passportswill not be afforded these same freedoms. In the name of Zero Covid objectives, individual agency has been incrementally surrendered and dissenting voices have been silenced. How societies have managed to accept such radical regression is not hard to understand when one considers the ability of fear toincapacitate rational thinking. In this article, Nick Hudson looks at the forces at play which, he believes, are driving the world in the direction of centralist totalitarianism.

By Nick Hudson, PANDA

This is the fourth of a series of talks:

A false narrative about Covid has supported ineffective and highly destructive policies leading to the evisceration of individual rights, democracy and the rule of law in the name of a disease that presents negligible risk to most of the population. Virtually every element of the response has not been based on good science and the data prove that wherever you look.

The spectre has arisen of mandatory vaccination just yesterday called a conspiracy theory. The injections do not substantially hinder infection or transmission of the disease and present net harms to the young and the recovered, who represent the vast majority of the population and for whom the virus presents miniscule risk. They cannot eliminate Covid.

There is therefore no sound epidemiological or medical basis for mandating injections, even if violation of bodily integrity was not egregious, which it is, let alone not a violation of both the Nuremberg Code and the Siracusa Principles, which it is.

Our public health officials, most of whom sadly now carry water for pharmaceutical companies, justify mandates on the basis that the injections are safe and effective, ignoring the absence of long-term safety experience and unprecedented adverse event reports, featuring thrombotic events, heart inflammation and reproductive system irregularities. Even absent the latter, this is shamefullymaybe even scandalouslypoor logic. A banana could be called safe and effective, but that does not mean you should be forced to eat one at whatever interval for the rest of your life, especially when the only people telling you to do so are banana farmers.

This cultish behaviour was presaged by the Global Vaccine Action Plan, ratified by 194 governments back in 2012. In light of this plan, it is not surprising that in several countries mandates and vaccine ID or passport systems have been implemented, despite the lack of any logic for such measures. Some recognise natural immunity, for now, but that is beside the point. Such measures signify a very important thing.

A vision for our future is being implemented outside of any democratic scrutiny. And it is a dangerous vision.

At least three big forces are at play, driving in the direction of centralist totalitarianism. First there is the influence of China its propaganda, its infiltration, its influence and widespread fetishism in the West for its surveillance state.

Second, there is a drift to authoritarianism to a technocratic vision repeatedly referenced by political leaders, taking their cue from international organisations. We hear of Build Back Better, the New Normal, the New World Order, the 4th Industrial Revolution, and the Great Reset. This kind of talk long in the making re-emerged with the very first death in Italy, and has been a constant presence ever since. In France you already cant travel on a train without having your passport validated. We are on the cusp of having our behaviour and speech nudged by our vaccine passport, the aim of which is to bring about a tyrannical system of social credit scoring.

If the WEF has its way, by 2030 we are to eat bugs instead of meat, own nothing and be happy, have our identity read at checkpoints by heart rate scanners so that we dont have to take off our masks, not need vehicles as well never need to walk more than 15 minutes from our houses, connect to the internet only with government authorisation, benefit from a range of technological implants, and sacrifice bodily integrity to whatever injections authorities demand. Some say these are not goals, but predictions. Yet political agendas, as Marx showed us, are generally elucidated by way of predictions cast as inevitable outcomes to which the arc of history bends.

This techno-technocracy will apparently end not only viral pandemics, but all manner of perceived global threats, from climate change, gender-based violence, and toxic masculinity, to systemic racism, top soil erosion and other catastrophes du jour. A close working relationship between mega-corporations and a government of the global elite threaten to make it less important whom we elect at home than who is funded from abroad.

Our rights and liberties are in grave danger of being constrained in the interests of preserving the earths rights, as enshrined by the Terra Carta, squashing the Magna Carta back in its liberal box after eight centuries of escape.

Third, there is a background of financial unravelling, as decades of monetary mismanagement come home to roost, foreboding a financial crisis to make the last one look trivial. Central bankers are pushing for resolution by way of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which, in their programmable form, allow for unprecedented state control of transactions and hence society.

Covid measures are a first taste of what a detached class, truly enamoured of these ideas, would like to impose upon you and me. Permanently.

Weve just had our training wheels on.

Lockdowns and mandates arrived without precedent or any hint of due process, flagrantly disregarding time-honoured approaches to managing diseases with a wave of the hand. In the same way, the idea is that all of this should be imposed upon us without regard for our opinion. In this world, our opinions do not count.

The broad picture is one of an attempted concentration of power by powerful states and unaccountable organisations, segueing into the global level, of surveillance power in the mold of China. We can see clearly the ideology of centralism at work. Its bedecked in the language of top-down power and social engineering. A far-off political and corporate mandarinate aims to determine goals and trade-offs for you.

Centralism appeals to those who wield power. Events such as Brexit and Trumps election have made centralisers resentful of electoral democracy. But as a system for organising society at significant scale, centralism has an impressive failure rate think of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Hitlers Third Reich. And the reasons for this are not too complicated.

At the most basic level is that most foundational of all subjects, epistemology the theory of knowledge. Anything we dont know about, every explanation we lack, is a manifestation of complexity by the standards of our times. In the face of this complexity, all knowledge creation is evolutionary. Nobody has the power to work it all out, so progress takes place by an endless cycle of very marginal conjecture and criticism. The analogy to biology is close. Whereas genes innovate by novel sexual combination and mutation, the evolution of knowledge, and hence of culture, occurs in a marketplace of ideas. Genetic evolution is tested over generations. Under the correct conditions, which only existed for brief periods in the ancient world, and for the last three hundred years in the West, knowledge creation can deliver swift and dramatic improvements in living standards. No sooner do we see a problem, than we solve it, even if somewhat imperfectly, and not always to everyones benefit. Those correct conditions are the ones which permit and protect innovation.

For most of human history the evolution of knowledge was prevented by political arrangements that centralised power and caused hierarchies to ossify. Unless their lives were upended by turmoil, people died in households that were largely indistinguishable from the ones they were born into. All challenges to such stasis were greeted by gruesome violence. The stasis was entrenched, dreary, devoid of creativity. Errors lingered. As the philosopher-physicist, David Deutsch, has proposed, the greatest evil is destruction of the means of error correction. Or to put it another way, its a big problem when we destroy our ability to discover and correct our mistakes.

It is only to would-be rulers and the chronically coddled that centralism holds any appeal. People who confuse their wealth and success with omniscience attract a following of bureaucrats and academics, who as a class are happily ignorant about the productive world of commerce and labour that pays their salaries, and which affords the distinct possibility that they will die in a house much better than the one they were born to.

In recent decades,the time-honoured technique of entitled technocrats has been rolled out before our very eyes. The pattern is that they fabricate or exaggerate a collection of problems to which only centralised, top-down, technocratic solutions are admitted. Maintain a steady flow of propaganda to stoke fear, and you can disrupt the cognitive capacity of entire populations, leading them to partake in wild goose chases. Manipulated into a state of mass psychosis, societies can be stultified into abandoning vital features of their worlds that enabled their flourishing.

A convergent political agenda is powerfully propagandised, causing an ideology to distil. Marx observed that the elites are the most important targets for propaganda. What the man in the street thinks is far less important than the beliefs and conduct of those who occupy the higher echelons of society. If agendas are to be advanced, elites must be kept onboard and well-disciplined. And elites are readily disciplined, through fear of smearing and being ostracised; excommunicated so to speak, like Galileo. By cajoling a sufficient mass of them, you can thus create the appearance that there is a consensus and air of inevitability, even if it only exists in an elite bubble.

The current of centralist ideology merges with another great stream. Postmodern critical theory has been ascendent as a dominant social philosophy. In place of realism it honours lived experience, turning away from rational analysis of the facts. Ideas must be assessed not by virtue of their correspondence with reality, but in hegemonic termsthrough the lens of discourse and power structures. The search for truth is irrelevant, because there is no truth. What counts is how much of a platform you have and how loudly your voice sounds. Opposing ideas are now greeted not with debate and engagement, but with censorship and deplatforming. People who disagree with you should not be given a platform. Speech acts are important, not because they disseminate ideas, but only insofar as they signal tribal allegiance.

This lays the ground for the emergence of the phenomena of political correctness, wokeness and virtue signalling. When they speak of following the science, what they mean is follow the narrative. Moral valence is interpreted only in terms of loyalty to the narrative. Disagreement constitutes violence. If I disagree with you, you will question my agenda, call me a bigot, call for me to be deplatformed, and demand curtailment of my speech.

The adoption of this philosophy of critical theory has been promoted by the Geneva organisations, embedding itself in the syllabi of educational establishments over the decades. The culture of debate and engagement is fast disappearing.

In the world of commerce and economics, it is held as an article of faith that capitalism is failing, and that we need to impose on corporate oppressors stakeholder governance, ESG scorecards, sustainability, best practice, inclusivity and inclusive growth. These word salads and hollow buzzwords trigger a deluge of pointless compliance bureaucracy. Little attention is given to how the items on the long checklist of desirable attributes are to be traded off, and the resulting best practice decisions are often comically nonsensical.

With a flick of the wrist we call forth Modern Monetary Theory, facilitating gratuitous spending, absolving governments from balancing their books, whether nominally or substantively, and enabling financial repression of staggering proportions.

The temptation of the centralisers to say this time is different is tied up with the false notion that being able to control something complex, like the human race, has to do with how much information you have about it. The idea goes that if we put enough sensors into the field, uploading data all the time on our new 5G networks, then we will be able to design and manage our world towards better outcomes.

But it is not for want of information that social engineering fails. It fails for want of explanations understanding. Given the rich complexity of the world, we cannot foresee the second-order effects of central planning, the unintended consequences, or articulate coherent objectives or trade-offs. The centralists demonstrated this most comprehensively with Covid. Not only were their models way out in terms of the burden of the disease, but the effects of their policies were not just smaller than they had projected, but entirely non-existent. In some cases they even worked in the wrong direction. So too it will go with any other aspect of our lives to which they turn their attention.

The political analog of all of this indeed perhaps a root of it all can be found in the Sustainable Development Goals and in the proliferation of rights charters, that have expanded from tightly defined negative rights aimed at protecting the individual from the state, into a dazzling array of positive rights that afford tyrannical bureaucrats a claim against citizens in the interests of promoting whatever social agendas they find convenient. Apparently well intentioned attempts to improve the world are quickly exploited in damaging and even criminal ways. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but also haughty ones.

It was into these ideological waters of centralising arrogance that the notion of lockdowns and mandates as legitimate tools of public health were submerged, never to be subjected to challenge; instant axioms of woke dogma.

Lockdowns assault on lower income people, the young and small businesses amplified already pronounced injustices that had threatened economic collapse. The resource claims of retired people have long necessitated a default on those claims or progressive enslavement of the youth, or some combination of the two. Much of the West is insolvent in this sense. A story cloaked by the early noise of Covid was the perilous frailty of the US monetary system in March 2020, and unprecedented activity by the Federal Reserve, under the moniker Going Direct. In short, the US has both a solvency and a liquidity problem. It is hard to see how curtailment of quantitative easing will not provoke yet another market crash and banking crisis.

All of this threatens to topple many governments or at least provoke profound electoral shifts. What will rise from the ashes? Well, Illsay it again.A vision for our future is being implemented outside of any democratic scrutiny. And the vision is the global technocracy envisaged by centralists.If youve read some history or agree with even part of what Im saying, youll surely agree that any move in that direction needs to be fought energetically and with immense resolve.

Whats happening outside of the elite bubbles? They may not be alive to much of what Ive said so far, but on the street people are questioning large strata of people that do not participate in the elite consensus. While system-ensconced elites may believe that capitalism is failing, ordinary folk know that it is their governments and crony corporatists the centralisers that they need to be wary of. The sense of an emergent neo-feudalism is palpable, and they would concur with the sentiments of Shmuel Yosef Agnon:

The wise men do not partake in leading the world because they know there are even wiser men and wish the world to be led by them. Meanwhile, up jump the fools and evil men and come and take the world into their hands and lead the world according to their evil and stupid ways.

Who is the enemy? Facing an ideology and institutional capture so widespread, it is hard to work backwards through the propaganda to the source of the political agenda. This is a many-headed hydra. But the same names come up time and time again, corrupting our institutions of public health and medical science, channelling our media into a unison chorus, and corporate executives into unthinking subscription, and bribing both incumbent and opposition politicians into co-option or abeyance. The Gates, Open Society, Rockefeller, Blair and Clinton Foundations, and the WEF show up all the time but there is a long list of entities in whose cases it is difficult to tell whether they are primary actors, opportunists or simply part of the apparatus. The Geneva organisations; in the media space, Reuters, Associated Press, Project Syndicate and Publicis, and the creepily named censorship organisations, Trusted News Initiative and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity.

We should not ignore significant propaganda disseminators Purpose, Global Action Plan, Common Purpose, One Young World and Global Citizens, and their various chapters and think tanks, preaching centralism behind a veil of virtue signalling and lofty ambitions. The world of Big Pharma and Big Tech, and large financial firms that effectively control them.

The array of actors doesnt constitute a shady conspiracy, but rather a broad, open ideological network. As perpetrators of the immense and destructive power-grab dressed up as the Covid policy response, this network must be fought on a broad front.

What can we do about this, faced with massively funded propaganda, rampant censorship, and elites befuddled by the manipulations of behavioural science?

We need to resist, to push back. This is not about a virus. Its about the battle between authoritarianism and real ground-up democracy, between centralism and localism. For people who have been terrorised by this bug, this is a difficult message to process. Its hard for them to accept that both the Covid outcome and the collateral damage would have been far better had we reacted like we did to the similar scale epidemics of the 50s and 60swhich is to say, by doing virtually nothing.

So we need to provide a unified alternative for people who have called bullshit on the whole narrative, even though they have had no platform to say they have done so. Mainstream media has buried the extent of such dissent, which comes largely from the people who actually kept society running during lockdowns. This last year witnessed the largest peaceful protests that have ever occurred, yet they have been downplayed as a few hundred antivaxxers who took to the streets. Religious groups are starting to get the picture, or at least to exhibit signs of internal conflict, as with the Catholic Church. We need to help them along by reminding them of the many who died to afford us valuable liberties.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. Should we now cower in the corner?

What kind of governance should we be aiming for? Many would veer to the other side of the spectrum, where we find the utopian dreams that are the opposite of the centralists those of the anarchists and radical libertarians. A more plausible way would be to consider the doctrine of subsidiarity the idea that sociopolitical issues should be dealt with at the most local level that is consistent with their resolution. This conceptualisation permits the diversity and decentralisation necessary to foster knowledge growth and economic growth, both of which we require to solve our real problems.It respects autonomy, thus limiting domination and injustice. It can appeal to civil liberty defenders from the non-authoritarian left, and to libertarians from the non-authoritarian right.

We need to shift the emphasis from Covid by highlighting the dystopian potential of centralists dreams, at the same time supporting people who are establishing decentralised platforms, whether in the domains of cryptocurrency or social media. We need to deploy these to create parallel societies, projecting a more attractive vision. We need to vote, if we ever do again, for political movements that genuinely push back. We need to demonstrate the courage and humanity that centralists never possess, and model the vigour and creativity that bureaucrats can only envy.

We need to become more vigilant, to tune our ears to the word salad. When we hear terms like sustainable, inclusive or best practice, we must not blindly accept the admonitions that follow them.

We need to have the courage to just say no, to insist that its time to move on. Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage consists of overcoming fear. Its up to every individual out there to overcome fear. We need to turn away from mainstream media and listen to dissenting voices. Were going to have to find a more realistic, humane way for the sake of society and our children. This is going to require great courage.

Read Also:

(Visited 2,478 times, 2,478 visits today)

View post:

PANDAs Nick Hudson on the politics of Covid: We need to push back. This is not about a virus. - BizNews