Category Archives: Political Correctness

The recent spate of laws restricting how teachers can discuss racism and sexism in the classroom has generated outrage from some educators, and praise from others. And its rekindled a perennial debate: Who gets to decide what history we teach?

Over the past year, Republican state lawmakers have championed measures that could prevent teachers from teaching about the history of racist oppression in the United States, or in one case, describing slavery as anything other than a departure from American ideals.

At the same time, parents have poured into school board meetings in districts across the country, challenging lessons and books about discrimination, bias, and anti-racismbut also about historical events, like school segregation.

In many cases, critics of these materials and lessons argue that schools are placing too much emphasis on the darker moments in American history, to students detriment. The narrow and slanted obsession on historical mistakes reveals a heavily biased agenda, one that makes children hate their country, each other, and/or themselves, wrote a representative from Williamson County Moms for Liberty, a group in Tennessee, in a complaint about books on the civil rights movement used in a 2nd grade curriculum.

But this central conflicthow should educators portray and make sense of the nations pastis hardly new.

For decades, competing interests have fought over this issuein controversies over revisions to state standards, in (ultimately unsuccessful) attempts to develop national history standards, and in local challenges to curricula and other materials.

In this explainer, Education Week breaks down how politics and civic values have long been embedded in these decisions about what kids learn, and how new laws and other state level actions may affect this process.

There are no national history or civics standards in the United States. Each state develops its own50 states, 50 different sets of criteria for what students should learn in social studies. These guidelines are usually developed by committees of educators, curriculum specialists at the state department of education, academics, and community members. States update them periodicallygenerally every seven to 10 years through a revision process. State boards of education, which vote to adopt or not adopt revisions, are the final decisionmakers.

For reference, the Common Core State Standards were an attempt to get states to adopt similar learning goals for math and English/language arts across the country. But ultimately states made their own decisions on adopting and revising them.

Hammering out what should be in history and social studies standards has long been a contentious process, underpinned by deeper debates about politics and values. Take Texas social studies standards revision in 2010 as an example.

The majority-conservative school board voted to require students to examine the unintended consequences of affirmative action and Title IX, and to encourage high schoolers to question the separation of church and state. Critics of these and other changes accused the board of pushing a right-wing agenda, but the conservative members argued that they were counteracting long-standing liberal bias in the field.

More recently, in North Carolina, opponents of new standards have argued that they lean too far left. Revised standards, adopted in February 2021, place more emphasis on the experiences of marginalized groups and require learning about discrimination in U.S. history. Proponents of the new document say it places a long-overdue emphasis on how racism has shaped the country and our notions of citizenship. Critics argue that the standards paint too negative a view of Americas past.

But not all the differences between states come down to a left vs. right political bent. Theres also a great deal of variation in how specific social studies standards are about what to teach.

Some states focus more on broad concepts and themes. Others note key eras, actors, and events that students need to study and interpret. In Rhode Island, for instance, 3rd and 4th graders are expected to demonstrate an understanding that innovations, inventions, change, and expansion cause increased interaction among people. Tennessees standards are more specific, asking 3rd graders to identify the economic, political, and religious reasons for founding the Thirteen Colonies and the role of indentured servitude and slavery in their settlement.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, put out a report earlier this year giving higher ratings to states with more specific standards. Those results can be found here.

There are a few sets of guiding documents at the national level that address social studies skills. But none of them outline what specific content students should know.

The most well-known of these might be the C3 Framework, developed by the National Council for the Social Studies with a coalition of teachers, academics, and professional organizations in 2013.

The framework doesnt list names and dates; instead, it was designed as a conceptual guide for states to use as they developed standards in geography, civics, economics, and history. It focuses on four skill-based dimensions:

The common-core standards also includes a section on social studies literacy. It outlines expectations for how students parse informational text in history, politics, and other related fieldssaying, for instance, that middle schoolers should have the ability to distinguish between fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment.

Its not happenstance that these national guides skirt the question of what history is most important to teach: The decision is in the crosshairs of the culture wars, and its incredibly hard to come to consensus.

National history standards were last considered almost three decades ago, in 1992. Bringing together about 200 educators and academics from across the political spectrum, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities funded an extensive development process that spanned almost two years and more than 6,000 drafts. But on the eve of the final versions public release, the document sparked a firestorm of controversy.

Lynne Cheney, the head of the NEH when the project was funded, came out in strong opposition to the standards her agency had crafted, saying they were too concerned with political correctness. The U.S. Senate voted to condemn the standards, 99-1. (Cheney is also mother to Liz Cheney, the Republican congresswoman from Wyoming who sits on the commission charged with investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.)

In the years since, echoes of these concerns have reverberated through critiques of national efforts to diversify and broaden schools telling of the American storyeven before the recent debate over critical race theory exploded.

At the high school level, there is one course that operates under a uniform set of national standards for U.S. history: the Advancement Placement course for that subject. While states all set their own guidelines for general high school history courses, AP teachers all work from the same frameworks and their students take the same tests.

In 2012, the College Board released an overhauled AP U.S. History framework. A few months after it went into effect during the 2014-15 school year, Republican state legislators and school board members started to voice complaints: The new framework put too strong an emphasis on the negative aspects of American history and didnt underscore American exceptionalism. The pushback eventually led to another rewrite, which offered more detail on the founding fathers, the U.S.s positive contributions to world affairs, and the productive role of free enterprise.

Even as efforts to come to a definitive consensus on what to teach in history are thwarted again and again, organizations havent stopped trying.

Most recently, a national panel of dozens of academics, educators, and civic nonprofit leaders released the Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy, a history and civics framework for K-12. The guiding documentwhich its creators are quick to emphasize is not an attempt to create national standardscenters on the idea of reflective patriotism, or the notion that students should learn a commitment to American ideals while also being able to recognize when the country has failed to meet them.

At the macro-level, about half of state departments prepare a list of approved resources for districts to choose from. This can include textbooks, but also curricula or other materials from publishers and social studies education organizations. Many of these states also allow districts to apply for waivers for materials that are not on these lists. The rest of the states allow districts to pick their own.

Because different states require that different content be covered in their standards, commercial publishers often create several versions of their materials to meet these competing requirements. This can lead to the same textbook telling vastly different stories in different states, as illustrated by a 2020 New York Times comparison of U.S. History textbooks from Texas and California.

Of course, textbooks and year-long curricula are not the only resources that teachers use in the classroom. Many school systems also choose to adopt other materials at the district level, like standalone units that cover certain historical periods or aspects of civic life. For example, Chicago Public Schools mandated a curriculum on the history of police torture in the city.

And individual teachers often bring in other resources that they source or create themselves. Groups like the Bill of Rights Institute, the Zinn Education Project, the National Constitution Center, and Learning for Justice all provide standalone lessons on certain historical events or civic ideas. Theres also a host of social studies materials of varying quality available on lesson-sharing websites, like Teachers Pay Teachers.

Because there are so many different resources available, and because the landscape is so fragmented, its very difficult to say definitively what materials teachers are actually using in classroomsdespite the existence of state-approved adoption lists.

Theres not much external vetting of social studies materialsat least, not compared to the evaluation metrics that have been developed for other core subjects.

From time to time, high-profile examples of lessons gone wrong make headlines, often around historically inaccurate or insensitive treatment of slavery. But theres no one source thats responsible. Sometimes, activities that ask students to play-act as enslaved Africans or justify slavery have come from lesson-sharing websites. Other times, problematic language is in the textbook itselflike in 2015, when a Texas student highlighted an excerpt in a McGraw Hill book that called enslaved people workers.

Recently, Johns Hopkins University attempted to conduct a broader survey of the landscape. Its Institute for Education Policy released a series of knowledge maps this summer that outline the content covered (and omitted) in five sets of social studies materials.

In deciding what content to look for in these materials, Johns Hopkins considered what knowledge students would need to be successful in college courses, and consulted social studies knowledge standards in Canadian provinces and the United Kingdom.

Its kind of a landscape analysis of the potential areas that a social studies curriculum could attend to, said Ashley Rogers Berner, the director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy. Were not making a normative judgment about what should be covered. Thats up to individual school systems, she said.

And therein lies the challenge of trying to evaluate social studies materials, or even social studies standards: It requires making normative judgments about whats good and whats not good, whats important to include and what can be left out.

Is it better to place more emphasis on the founding fathers, or on the economic and social lives of regular people? How do we define citizenship? Should teachers say that slavery is a core part of our founding, or a deviation from our ideals?

These kinds of questions are animating the current national firestorm over history education. And theyre one of the factors driving the steps that Republicans have taken, in 11 states, to restrict how teachers can discuss racism and sexism in the classroom.

Its hard to know for sure. Some of the actions taken by state lawmakers and officials explicitly ban certain resourceslike Floridas new department of education rule, which states that instruction cant use materials from the 1619 Project, a New York Times series that reframes the American story by putting the legacy of slavery and African American history at the center.

Even more complicated is the question of what to do when these laws seem to contradict state standards.

Texas law, for instance, states that a teacher cant be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs. If they choose to do so, they have to present the issue from diverse perspectives.

But the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for U.S. Government, the states standards in the course, require teachers to cover things that could easily fall under the category of a widely debated and currently controversial issue. For example, students are required to analyze contemporary examples of citizen movements to bring about political change or to maintain continuity.

So, could a Texas teacher present a lesson supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement and claim cover under the TEKS? Not necessarily, if the way they present it doesnt follow the laws requirements, said Lynn Rossi Scott, an attorney with the law firm of Brackett and Ellis in Fort Worth, Texas.

But she added that its possible for teachers to follow the standards without breaking the law. When students are discussing current political or social issues, teachers have two optionsthey can let students guide the discussion, or they can make sure to present both sides, Rossi Scott said.

Again, its hard to know yet. There has been at least one challenge to materials under one of the new state laws, in Tennessee. In Williamson County Schools, a group called Moms for Liberty challenged four books in the Wit and Wisdom English/language arts curriculum, published by Great Minds. The books included Ruby Bridges Goes to School: My True Story, written by Ruby Bridges, who at 6 years old was one of the first Black children to integrate New Orleans segregated school system.

The group complained that the book, and other materials in the program, sent the message that all white people were bad and oppressed Black people.

Chad Colby, Great Minds senior director of communications, said that the materials develop background knowledge in part through the study of history, which should include historical figures like Ruby Bridges and Martin Luther King, Jr.

None of Great Minds curricular materials teach Critical Race Theory and Wit & Wisdom is in full compliance with the Tennessee legislation, he said in an email.

Education Week also reached out to several of the largest educational publishers, McGraw Hill, Savvas Learning Company (formerly Pearson), Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Cengage, asking if they planned to change any of their products in response to new laws and other state-level actions.

Weve been following, and will continue to follow, the development and passage of this legislation to understand what the effects will be, and listening to our educator and administrator partners to hear what schools and districts will need from us, said Tyler Reed, the senior director of communications at McGraw Hill.

A Cengage company spokesperson also said the company was actively monitoring legislative developments on a state level. The spokesperson also affirmed the companys commitment to diversity and multicultural content.

In a statement, Houghton Mifflin Harcourts general manager of core solutions, Jim ONeill, said that the companys programs dont draw upon or cover critical race theory, nor do they advocate for a particular ideology or agenda. He said that HMH has a commitment to developing inclusive, culturally responsive, respectful and balanced content, but also that the company aims to provide resources that can be tailored to districts individual needs.

Savvas did not respond to request for comment.

School board meetings have become a central battlefield in the culture wars over critical race theory, with parents packing into meetings in Loudon County, Va., Fort Worth, Texas, and other communities.

Voicing critiques at local school board meetings can lead to changes in instructionwithin the areas that local systems can control, like curriculum choices, materials selection, or personnel issues like disciplining teachers. Local school boards dont have the power to change state standards, though.

Just last month, a district in Pennsylvania tabled a donation of books to elementary school libraries because parents complained that the books taught critical race theory. Titles included Fry Bread: A Native American Family Story and Hidden Figures: The True Story of Four Black Women and the Space Race.

The parents who spoke to the board didnt challenge these books under any kind of state law regarding how teachers discuss racismPennsylvania is considering such a bill, but it hasnt passedbut rather on the grounds that the books were inappropriate for the school community.

While parents may now invoke critical race theory to support book challenges, the concept of petitioning a school system over books deemed inappropriate is hardly unique to this era of anti-CRT pushback. The American Library Association has long tracked these kinds of challenges and bans and provides data on its website about the most contested titles going back three decades.

See the original post here:

Who Decides What History We Teach? An Explainer - Education Week

This month, Netflix added a shock-humor movie to its library that may be even more controversial now than the day it first came out. The streamer picked up Team America: World Police on Sunday, Aug. 1, and it is already stirring up a new conversation. It has many people reflecting on how political correctness has evolved in less than two decades.

Team America: World Police comes from the creative team behind South Park Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Pam Brady. It is a stop-motion animated film meant to satirize the hyper-militarization of the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with the title reflecting the criticism that the U.S. tries to "police the world." In the process, it also pokes fun at big-budget action movies in general.

Team America uses a form of puppetry called Supermarionation. It stars Parker, Stone, Kristen MIller, Masana, Daran Norris, Phil Hendrie, Maurice LaMarche, Chelsea Marguerite, Jeremy Shada and Fred Tatasciore in voice-over. If anything, the puppetry format only enhances the shock value of the crudest and most graphic moments in the film.

The plot generally follows a fictional paramilitary organization from the U.S. fighting terrorism all over the world except in the U.S. Each main member of the team is a play on classic action movie tropes, but the villains are more realistic. It also heavily criticizes Hollywood for its hollow political rhetoric, referring often to the fictional "Film Actors' Guild" by its obscene acronym.

Naturally, critics acknowledged the offensive material in Team America at the time, although many argued that it was justified for the topic at hand. The movie has a 77 percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of this writing, with a critical consensus reading: "Team America will either offend you or leave you in stitches. It'll probably do both."

Still, the social and political climates have changed drastically in the years since the movie was first released, and new viewers may take more issue with the flippant homophobia and racism portrayed in the movie. This would not be the first time that a piece of media from the early 2000s was relitigated on social media, nor the first debate about the function of satire in a plot this long.

For better or worse, Team America: World Police has its way back into popular discourse this month, and it may influence Stone and Parker's ongoing work today. The movie is streaming on Netflix now.

Read more:

Netflix Just Added an Incredibly Controversial Movie - PopCulture.com

Words matter. Liberals agree. Conservatives agree. Churchill observed short words are better than long ones, old words better than new ones with old, short words best of all. "Blood, sweat and tears"? In American politics Republicans have proven far more adept than Democrats in their use of words. Much of the credit goes to political consultant Frank Luntz, the man who employed focus groups to craft "death tax" as a replacement for inheritance tax. His verbal successes are too numerous to recount.

George Lakoff has attempted to provide a counterbalance on the left, but he lacks the killer phrasing captured by political correctness and cancel culture. Colorado has witnessed its own history of vocabulary wars. Forty years ago, Gov. Dick Lamm launched his Human Settlements Policy. If that appellation strikes you as slightly Orwellian, you arent the first to think so. Legislative Republicans threw a conniption fit over the notion that state government might attempt to rein in Front Range growth.

Perhaps the most perceptive jest was that of the "last man syndrome." Once across the border to Colorful Colorado, these incoming immigrants would squeal, Throw up the gates, we dont need more pressure on our roads, schools and infrastructure! The goal of the Human Settlements Policy was to distribute growth throughout the state, reducing fiscal pressure on existing communities. Lamm was, of course, the man who killed the 1976 Olympics at the ballot box and promised to drive a stake through the heart of C-470. His successor, Roy Romer, would recast Lamms environmental concerns as "Smart Growth." Who opposes smart growth? Words matter.

But, before this occurred, the House Republican caucus energized by the self-anointed "House Crazies" established an interim study committee to determine precisely what the Governors Human Settlements staff was attempting. Their investigative panel was chaired by Anne Gorsuch, whose son Neil now serves on the U. S. Supreme Court. At the time, Anne was perceived as just the whip smart ringmaster required to turn these hearings into a circus. I was appointed as a Democratic foil. Anne, a staff attorney at Mountain Bell, gave Joe McCarthy a run for his money as an assailant. You would have thought state employees who were laboring to assure adequate water, roads and schools were plotting a Marxist takeover of Colorado.

Early in the process, Gorsuch requested testimony from mid-level bureaucrats in the state Department of Local Affairs. The thrust of her interrogations was: how much of your time is devoted to Human Settlements work, what are your work products, who receives your reports and what is their value? You catch the drift. One afternoon a young woman with just a few years of service began to crumble beneath this badgering. Finally, she asked, why is this important its just part of my job. Anne retorted by threatening her, We need to know how much we should slash your budget how much to shrink your staff.

I had watched enough of Annes bullying and interrupted, challenging the chair, I refuse to continue attending these hearings if they are going to be conducted as a witch hunt. Bingo! The following days headline was something like, "Democrat accuses Gorsuch probe of a witch hunt." The tenor of succeeding meetings changed dramatically. The discussion was no longer whether Marxists were burrowing their way into state government, but what were Colorados civil servants actually doing and why? Words mattered. Our previous president hasnt had as much luck with "witch hunt" as I did, but I suspect this is primarily a matter of overuse. It works better when the accused witches are third parties. I was also an employee of Mountain Bell, which prompted Gorsuch to suggest I be fired. This brings us to Critical Race Theory (CRT), the latest words alleged to matter.

I must confess I didnt have the slightest idea what CRT was when it suddenly received media attention. Are these theorists critical of systemic racism (apparently true) or do they view racism as a critical issue (also true)? And why has a half century of arcane academic debate alarmed conservatives? Previously confined to law school articles, why has CRT emerged as a threat to social peace even though it isnt actually taught in our public schools. Its always wise to be suspicious of newly uncovered, yet previously unnoticed threats. This is usually "bloody shirt" politics.

White Americans have many other things to feel embarrassed about, in addition to their ugly treatment of Black Americans. Take a closer look at the genocidal treatment of Native Americans. When Lt. Silas Soule, then Denvers town Marshall, testified before Congress to the horror of the Sand Creek Massacre, he was assassinated upon his return. Recognizing Lt. Soule for his courage is a history Colorado should teach, whatever it is called. Truth matters. Words matter.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.

Read the rest here:

HUDSON | CRT tiff is hardly the first war over words - coloradopolitics.com

LONDON Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain has labored to distance himself from Donald J. Trump since the change of power in Washington, and not without success. His first face-to-face meeting with President Biden last month went smoothly: The two found common ground on climate change and Mr. Johnson labeled Mr. Trumps successor a big breath of fresh air.

But now Mr. Johnson finds himself back in crosswinds of the kind Mr. Trump used to stir up. His refusal to condemn crowds who booed Englands national soccer team for kneeling to protest racial injustice carries a distinct echo of Mr. Trumps targeting of N.F.L. players who knelt for the same cause in the United States.

One of his cabinet ministers criticized the players for engaging in gesture politics, while his spokesman said of the jeering spectators that the prime minister fully respects the right of those who choose to peacefully protest and make their feelings known.

In Mr. Johnsons case, it was less what he said than what he failed to say. But in England, as in the United States, the mix of sports, politics and racial justice has proved volatile, boomeranging on a prime minister whose populist instincts on cultural issues have often served him well.

Englands inspiring run in the European soccer championship captivated the nation. When three of its Black players were subjected to racist abuse after their crushing loss last weekend in the final, it put Mr. Johnsons silence, and the gibes of other Conservative politicians, under a harsh spotlight. Suddenly, they were on the wrong side of a team that symbolized Englands racial diversity.

This was the Trump playbook, and it worked for Trump until George Floyd, said Frank Luntz, an American pollster, referring to the killing of an unarmed man by the police last year in Minneapolis. That crime ignited enormous protests against racism and police violence, overwhelming Mr. Trumps campaign to fire football players who refused to stand during the national anthem.

Mr. Luntz, who has advised many Republican candidates, is now working with the Center for Policy Studies, a London research institute with historic ties to the Conservative Party, to survey voter attitudes in Britain. A classmate of Mr. Johnsons at Oxford University, Mr. Luntz rejects the comparisons of the prime minister to Mr. Trump. (The better analog, he says, is Ronald Reagan.)

But Mr. Luntz said there were other alarming parallels between Britain and the United States. The deep polarization of voters, he said, has led to an exploitation of some issues whether the populist appeals of Mr. Johnsons Conservatives or the political correctness of the left that threaten to corrode British politics as badly as they have American politics.

Weve crossed the Rubicon in the United States, he said. Theyre getting perilously close to crossing it here.

While Mr. Trump eventually dropped the N.F.L. campaign, Mr. Johnson is in full-fledged retreat. Under questioning by the Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, this week in Parliament, a rattled prime minister insisted he wholeheartedly supported the England team. I support them in the way they show support with their friends who face racism, Mr. Johnson added.

That did not mollify Mr. Starmer, who declared: The government has been trying to stoke a culture war, and they have realized they are on the wrong side. And now they hope that nobody has noticed.

The bigger threat to Mr. Johnson comes not from politicians but the players, some of whom have struck back at the eruption of racist gibes on social media after the team lost to Italy in a penalty shootout. Bukayo Saka, one of three young Black players who missed their kicks, posted on Twitter that there is no place for racism or hate of any kind in football or in any area of society.

Tyrone Mings, a defender who is Black, drew a direct link between the abuse and the government, tweeting, You dont get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as Gesture Politics & then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing were campaigning against, happens.

His reference was to Mr. Johnsons home secretary, Priti Patel, who said the teams practice of kneeling was gesture politics and refused to condemn fans for jeering it. Lee Anderson, a Conservative member of Parliament who was elected in 2019 in a surge of pro-Brexit support for Mr. Johnsons party, vowed not to watch England games as long as the players knelt.

Ms. Patel, who is one of the most hard-line cabinet ministers on immigration issues, played a supporting role in this drama not unlike that of Vice President Mike Pence in Mr. Trumps N.F.L. crusade. In October 2017, under orders from the president, Mr. Pence conspicuously walked out of a game in Indianapolis.

Mr. Johnson has been more subtle than was Mr. Trump, who once described a protesting player as a son of a bitch. The prime minister never openly criticized the team, leaving it to a spokesman to respond to questions about booing fans.

There are several reasons for Mr. Johnson to tread carefully. Englands team represents the nation, not the interests of wealthy private owners, like a typical N.F.L. franchise. Englands players sing God Save the Queen and kneel for only a few moments before kickoff. That makes them less vulnerable to charges of being unpatriotic than players sitting out the The Star-Spangled Banner.

Most important, under its manager, Gareth Southgate, the England team has found rare success on and off the field. It reached the first final of a major tournament in 55 years, vanquishing Germany and Denmark. And its players have used their fame effectively in pursuit of social justice completing a decades-long transformation in the teams image from the days in which some viewed it uncomfortably, as symbolizing a strain of English nationalism linked to the right.

Another of its Black players, Marcus Rashford, led a campaign that forced Mr. Johnson to reverse plans to end a free-lunch program for poor families during the pandemic. After Mr. Rashford also missed his penalty kick in the final, vandals defaced a mural of him in his native Manchester with racist graffiti. Within hours, the slurs had been covered with hearts, letters and English flags.

Mr. Southgate, in an eloquent Dear England letter, steadfastly supported his players rights to get involved in political issues. He said it was natural they would have different views of being English than people of his generation a distinct contrast to the messages that were delivered by the N.F.L. and its owners. The leagues commissioner, Roger Goodell, first required players to stand for the anthem before reversing himself amid the Black Lives Matter protests.

All of this left Mr. Johnson wrong-footed. Only a few months ago, he stridently opposed plans to form an elite European superleague, presenting himself as a champion of soccers working-class fans. Now, though, Mr. Johnsons gestures wearing an England Three Lions jersey or flying an English flag outside 10 Downing Street struck many as belated and inauthentic.

Its confused the Tories; they dont know how to run with this, said John M. Williams, a sports sociologist at the University of Leicester. They have their own right-wing constituency, so they feel they have to go after the taking of the knee. But theyre afraid that the England team is doing politics better than they are.

As in the United States, Mr. Williams said, social issues in Britain are part of a deeper debate between a liberal, inclusive, multiracial society and its opposite. Weirdly, he said, the England national team is at the heart of this debate.

See original here:

Boris Johnson Finds Himself in a Quandary Over Racism and Soccer - The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric Creeps From Fringe to Fox Prime Time (front page, July 12):

The C.D.C. has made it clear that those dying of Covid now are almost all not immunized. Yet Fox News continues to preach an anti-vax message, as if fighting a pandemic somehow is a political act. Would they want a return of polio or smallpox?

At the same time, Rupert Murdoch, Foxs founder, has been immunized, Donald Trump and his family were immunized, and I bet the bloviators of Fox News have all been vaccinated. Isnt Fox News being hypocritical?

Mitchell RothmanMerion Station, Pa.

To the Editor:

As a nurse practitioner taking care of some of the sickest Covid-19 patients in Baltimore, I am appalled at the irresponsibility of Fox News hosts supporting anti-vaccination rhetoric. The June deaths from Covid in my state were all among unvaccinated individuals. Surely it cant be a good long-term business strategy to encourage your viewers to get sick and die?

Marian GrantReisterstown, Md.

To the Editor:

Re Rationing Care for a Last-Resort Covid Therapy (July 12) and Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric Creeps From Fringe to Fox Prime Time:

The two front-page articles on physicians struggling to decide which dying Covid patients will receive treatment with scarce lifesaving machines and on Foxs escalating opposition to President Bidens vaccination outreach efforts suggest a common solution: Give vaccinated patients priority for these critical resources.

Carried a step further, why dont insurers charge higher premiums for vaccine refusers (as they do for smokers), or even refuse to cover their Covid-related expenses?

Steven LeinerSan Francisco

To the Editor:

Re To Help Haiti, Stop Trying to Save It (column, July 13):

Bret Stephens and others suggest that foreign assistance to Haiti has not only been ineffective but also harmful. Instead of asking whether foreign aid should stop, we should ask: How might Haiti benefit from improved foreign assistance that respects its culture and history, and elevates Haitian voices and institutions?

Since 2010 my Mercy Corps team of more than 70 Haitians has worked with grass-roots groups, the Haitian government and donors like the United States to tackle Haitis biggest challenges, including gang violence, hurricane preparedness, food insecurity and cholera.

In 2020 we partnered with social enterprises, telephone companies and Haitian social media influencers to reach more than two million Haitian families through an interactive Covid prevention platform, curbing the spread of the virus.

The young Haitians with whom we work are eager to chart a way forward for their country, if given the chance and with the right support.

Foreign assistance isnt a silver-bullet solution for Haitis woes, but shutting it off is certain to erode efforts by local organizations as well as Haitian-led international organizations to create real change. A deeper analysis would show the positive impact that aid and development funds have made in the lives of Haitians.

Justin ColvardPeguy-Ville, HaitiThe writer is Haiti country director for Mercy Corps.

To the Editor:

Bret Stephenss column captures the widespread fatigue and disbelief after the stunning assassination of Haitis president, but the abstemious cure he offers is a prescription for widening disaster and almost certain American intervention.

Since its first democratic, albeit flawed, election in 1990, Haiti has spent a third of the intervening years with some combination of foreign military forces on its soil. Haiti has received more than $13 billion in relief since the devastating 2010 earthquake; the recent political earthquake represents one more seismic disruption to this beleaguered country.

The Assassination of Haitis President

But while much of Haitis foreign aid has certainly been misspent, Mr. Stephens is wrong to conclude that the answer must be inaction. Instead, what is required is a middle road that prioritizes stabilizing the security environment so that an interim government can deliver a credible election in which Haitians determine their political future.

Such a path may well need to be cleared with external help. Its provision ideally through multinational cooperation is an investment that will help keep military intervention at bay.

Jenna Ben-YehudaWashingtonThe writer is president and chief executive of the Truman National Security Project and a former Haiti analyst at the State Department.

Dont Stray From the 9/11 Museums Mission

To the Editor:

Re 9/11 Museum Vexed by Cuts and Feuds (Arts page, July 13):

Contrary to the criticisms leveled at the exhibitions, I believe that the museum has always done a fine job of faithfully presenting the history of 9/11, and very admirably free of political correctness no mean feat in todays world.

The 9/11 Memorial & Museum should be about Sept. 11. The critics here seem to be bent on imposing their points of view upon history and shifting attention away from the attacks.

Many matters may be worth a discussion on the museums 20th anniversary. The museum, however, must remain forever dedicated to its core mission: preserving and presenting the story of Sept. 11 the attacks, the death and destruction, and the heroism and sacrifice.

Michael BurkeBronxThe writer, whose brother, Billy Burke, a firefighter, died at the World Trade Center, served on the family advisory committee to the museum.

Link:

Opinion | The Anti-Vaccination Messages From Fox News - The New York Times

Tom OConnor, a comedian and television show host for decades in the UK, died Sunday in a hospital in Buckinghamshire at age 81 of complications related to Parkinsons disease.

His son, Steve Finan OConnor, said he was a unique comedian who was light years ahead of political correctness. He added,Tom was famously known for a brand of humour that was 100% clean and always totally family friendly.

Born in Bootle, Merseyside, OConnor started out as a teacher. His early show business days was as a singer, before introducing comedy into his act. That won him attention from TV scouts, and he soon was hosting shows likePick Pockets and The Zodiac Game.

He also won attention for the showOpportunity Knocks, which he won three times.

OConnor became a staple of British television, starring in The Comedians and hosting shows like Name That Tune, Crosswits, Ive Got a Secret, Gambit, and the Tom OConnor Show.

Beyond hosting quiz shows, he was also an actor, starring as Father Tom in daytime soap Doctors in the early 2000s. He also won the celebrity edition of Come Dine With Me in 2010 and competed on the Pointless Celebrities quiz show with his daughter-in-law, Olympic gold medallist Denise Lewis.

Survivors include a wife and four children, as well as 16 grandchildren and a great-granddaughter.

See the original post here:

Tom OConnor Dies: UK Comedian, TV Show Host And Actor Was 81 - Deadline

Generations of patriots have fought for this country. It's impossible not to see the tearing of the fabric of everything that makes this nation great today.

The founding fathers didn't wilt from this fight 245 years ago; nor can we leave this battle to others. I see this as a war of ideas. We were warned about this. Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, We have given you a republic, if you can keep it.

But this is not for the faint of heart. Political correctness has weaponized free speech. Remember when President Barack Obama said, If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun? When conservatives see everything they love about this country being maligned and vow to fight it, they are canceled, fact-checked, mocked by big media and shouted down.

When you say its time to fight for what made America great, you should prepare to be labeled an insurrectionist.

We can learn many lessons on how to wage this war of ideas from a 27-year-old modern day founding father, Charlie Kirk. He was in Fargo this week (his second of three trips to North Dakota just this year) to help launch Freedom Matters USA, a grassroots activist group that is bringing together people to fight for education over indoctrination, real journalism versus fake news, election integrity and protecting the freedoms for which the founding fathers died.

Kirk has built the largest conservative youth organization in America, Turning Point USA. His radio show (heard in North Dakota on AM 1100 The Flag-Fargo and AM 1090 The Flag-Williston/Tioga) and his podcast are heard by millions across America. He leads the largest student organization in America, fighting for Western ideals, mobilizing a force of conservative fighters in tomorrow's leaders.

We conservatives have been a silent majority for far too long. If you don't like what you see happening to your country, to your state, in your schools and communities, you only have one option. Lend your voice to this fight for freedom or prepare to lose it.

Those who wish to transform this country into something very different than the republic the founders gave us are very well-funded and organized. We see strains of socialism, communism and Marxism in these dark forces. Their goals and aspirations are relentless. We must match theirs to keep our republic.

Find your place in this battle. Well be talking more about these groups, and others like them, in future columns and on my radio show. Like the tea party or MAGA movement, Freedom Matters USA will be attacked. Try wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat in downtown Minneapolis. That's what Donald Trump fought for. Despite what the extremists have done to him, we should never have to apologize for fighting for the greatest country on the earth.

Scott Hennen hosts the statewide radio program Whats On Your Mind? On AM 1100 The Flag, KFYR AM 550, AM 1090 KTGO The Flag and AM 1460 KLTC. Email him at ScottH@FlagFamily.com

Go here to see the original:

Hennen: Is America worth a fight? - Grand Forks Herald

Director Lucy Bailey didnt see David Mamets campus drama Oleanna when it was first staged almost 20 years ago, but she remembers the fire and fury it detonated across auditoriums. The 1992 play comprises meetings between a university professor and an aggrieved female student who claims sexual harassment. The student was widely seen to be weaponising political correctness, with some audiences turning mutinous in outrage.

Bailey sat down to read the script last year after being asked to direct a revival at Theatre Royal Bath. She felt smacked across the face she says, speaking from her London home on Zoom. Her strong reaction was not to Carol, the student, but the professor, John. I had this immediate thought that I wrote down: He keeps jumping into her mouth. I felt that this man, who was eloquent and well-equipped, was jumping into the mouth of an ill-equipped, ineloquent young woman and she didnt have the tools or confidence to fight back.

Bailey sought to enact their fight in all its gladiatorial drama but also to balance out the power between them. Its a strange, awful wrestling match You do instinctively feel its been written on the side of John [but] I wanted to balance out the play. I was compassionate towards him in my first reading but I was deeply compassionate toward her. I could hear Carols story, and I think we will respond to her in a different way now. They vilified her then. As women we know that anger.

There has been a spectrum of responses to the revival, which transfers to the Arts theatre in London this month. An older woman in the audience at Bath reprimanded Carol when she told John: Dont call your wife baby. The woman shouted out: And why not? An argument broke out among those sitting around her. In general, though, Bailey thinks maybe we are seeing [the play] in a more balanced way now.

Since Harvey Weinsteins watershed conviction, we cant see John (played by Jonathan Slinger in the new production) and Carol (Rosie Sheehy) the way we did then either, Bailey suggests. Her production can be read as a post-#MeToo critique of the invidious yet slippery ways in which male power exerts itself without being easy to call out as inappropriate. John intends to help his student, says Bailey, but in doing so, he starts rubbing away boundaries. In the past 10 years, we have realised just how we had accepted those lack of boundaries. Were putting them back in place and we have to be careful about that too.

There is an activist group in the play that helps Carol mobilise a legal case against John. To some degree, we see the group from Johns point of view, as an antagonistic force using Carol for its own purposes. Bailey admits she had mixed feelings about it until she and Sheehy discussed the play with a womens officer at Cambridge University. We did a Zoom call where Rosie was playing Carol throughout. She talked to the womens officer about what had happened in the classroom [within the play] and my whole education was turned on its head. The officer was such a brilliant woman and we suddenly saw everything from her perspective which was completely condemning. Carol grew and grew as she talked to her, realising she wasnt on her own and that what she had to say was real and right.

At the same time, Bailey wanted to insert enough nuance and psychological complexity to show that there is no pure victim or aggressor here, but that the impurity exists on both sides. Mamet built this complication into the text, she believes. You think Mamets been on Johns side all this time but lets really look at whats there: if you scratch the surface then suddenly theres this overwhelming aggression and a need to obliterate his opponent.

Bailey is referring to the outbreak of furious violence in the plays last minutes. The decision to make this aggression explicit wasnt taken lightly: At a certain point, the trigger goes and the animal comes out. He doesnt just want to hurt the other animal, he wants to hurt the woman.

In the wake of #MeToo, does Bailey think women have made big enough gains in theatre and beyond? I have felt that the industry is enormously prejudiced in terms of women. I came into it when there were very few other contemporary female directors and when it was so difficult to get an equal platform to men. I do feel optimistic now but its got to get to the point where the world becomes 50-50. Were not at that stage yet but were fighting better.

As well as sexual politics, issues of censorship and freedom of expression are tucked inside the play: Carol demands that John remove his book from the syllabus because the group finds it offensive. Was the current debate about university no-platforming on Baileys mind in these sections of the drama? Absolutely. We discussed it at all points. You feel theres something slightly terrifying about a decision by a student body to start removing textbooks. It has terrible implications for all of us, and history shows it can only go wrong if we start denying a spectrum of opinion just because one lot of people have decided that opinion is not right.

Does Bailey have her own views on the so-called cancel culture that overshadows debates on identity today? I do have an opinion but like a lot of people I feel ill-equipped and a sense of not trusting my own awareness to be able to speak properly. That feels very strange you feel youre not able to take part in the debate through a fear of looking like youre uneducated and insensitive to something prejudiced without even being aware of it. Which is of course exactly what this play is about.

Does she think we should talk about it anyway? You have to keep talking. I like to feel that you can offend and be forgiven. And also that offence can provoke. I dont mean I want to be offensive in any sense but you cant be afraid of that. This is what David Mamet is saying: hes very provocative and if we get frightened of being provocative then the status quo will suddenly solidify and none of us want to be in a position where we are not able to question it.

Oleanna is at the Arts theatre, London, from 21 July to 23 October.

Follow this link:

We know that anger: the return of David Mamets incendiary Oleanna - The Guardian

Caste continues to be a system of discrimination, but remedies for removing that discrimination keep eluding us, partly because of caste-based interests and partly because of the penchant to seek satisfaction in political correctness alone.

Two rulings of the Supreme Court have frayed nerves in Maharashtra on the broader question of reservation. One relates to creating a separate backward class consisting of Marathas and granting them reservation in jobs and education. The other pertains to OBC reservation in local bodies. Both issues have relevance beyond Maharashtra. But the habit of blinking at the big picture has so far allowed these issues to be limited to Maharashtra. Both rulings were the only expected judicial outcomes, but they represent an intellectual bankruptcy of our politics and the deadlock that the social justice project has hit.

The ruling about OBC reservation in local bodies goes at the root of the 73rd and 74th amendments, but the game in Maharashtra is confined to blaming political rivals. The crisis emerging from this ruling symbolises one aspect of what is wrong in implementing the policy of social justice. The issue of actual numbers or population share of OBCs has been talked about for over a decade, besides the need to understand the socio-economic situation of different backward communities. A clumsy initiative by the UPA government was not going to help much since the UPA government and its supporters did not know what to do with quantitative data gathered without a proper policy perspective. Besides the limited state capacity for enumeration, the Narendra Modi governments priority lay elsewhere, as was shown in the case of the NRC. Therefore, during its seven years, the present government has chosen to keep the matter on the back-burner while benefiting from the OBC vote. But the central problem goes far beyond making available the numbers. In the last instance, we have to decide which groups are backward and what needs to be done for them.

That is why the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Maratha reservation was predictable. Equally predictably, the political class, including those in the forefront of the pro-reservation agitation, have consistently followed an ostrich-like approach of avoiding the juridical reality and clinging to a new consensus among parties not only in Maharashtra, but elsewhere too that the 50 per cent cap needs to be set aside legislatively. How the judiciary will respond to such a legislative response is anybodys guess.

This response, as also the state governments helplessness in the matter of OBC reservation in local bodies, represents the policy deadlock that stares at the political class and society in general. While experts will fruitfully debate the legal side of these issues, there is a need to realise that these are, in essence, political issues. They are the late legacies of the Mandal Commission. But that is only part of the story. Three decades ago, the marriage between politics and jurisprudence gave birth to a consensus. That consensus had three dimensions: Accepting (rather indirectly and unwillingly) that caste is the main cause of tradition-born backwardness among a large section of the population; resorting to reservation as the easiest policy response and third, recognising and accommodating the political aspirations of the backward sections by expanding the social base of the political elite.

This consensus has helped Indias elite and policymakers bypass the caste question since the mid-Nineties. But that same marriage between politics and jurisprudence has resulted in an unwanted child: The current deadlock on the question of social justice.

Today, that question has resurfaced in a distorted but politically attractive manner. Not only the Marathas, but Jats and Patidars, too, claim that vast numbers among them have been left behind in the contemporary economy. This may have an objective basis, but this argument has more than successfully deflected attention from two matters that the enabling provision of the Constitution aims at social backwardness (caused by societal location) and that the causes of economic distress originating in development policies are distinct from backwardness primarily originating in caste location. Granting reservations on an economic basis seems to have complicated matters

Neither the judiciary nor politics seem to have any clue about how to now resolve this impasse. Like the consensus that survived the past three decades, the current deadlock, too, has three dimensions. First, it is represented by demands for reservation made by relatively better-off and politically powerful castes. Two, it represents the deep chasm that exists within backward sections, rendering politics of backwardness nearly impossible. Three, it sits at the cusp of sharpening caste identities and a weakening social justice agenda and tends to consolidate caste boundaries more than connecting to issues of social justice.

In a sense, both in terms of politics and policy, the energy generated by Mandal is now exhausted. This has happened both through the misuse and overuse of the weapon of reservation. A combination of political mediation and policy rejuvenation is now warranted.

Five issues require systematic consideration in the fields of politics, policy and intellectual discussions. Our superficial concerns of political correctness and quick popularity keep dissuading us from doing that. These five issues are not exactly new, but are acquiring renewed urgency.

The first is about intra-OBC differentiations. This was already flagged by a member of the Mandal Commission itself and most states have resorted to clumsy arrangements for most backward even as the Centre, too, is currently waiting for a report on this question. Two, intra-caste stratification is increasing something that was rather limited at the time of Mandal. What sociologist D L Sheth called as classicisation is now becoming the central issue, with much complication. The third question is about the specific advantages and logic of reservation in the three different arenas of employment, education and political representation.

This, then, leads to the fourth and related issue which nobody wants to talk about, namely, the limits of reservation and the need to think of additional measures to augment the policy of social justice. Finally, the most challenging issue is setting boundaries. In a country where poverty and suffering is the norm, and well-being only a distant dream, how do we distinguish between backwardness primarily caused by a groups social location in traditional social order and backwardness resulting from distortions of the political economy? While this surely is a tough task, unless we grapple it by the horns, reservation is bound to become the plaything of the political clout of different communities, probably producing a regime of separate reservation for relatively dominant castes.

These issues, particularly the last one, can be grappled only through a time-consuming process of harsh debates and drab detail. This and the related tasks are best left ideally to a third backward classes commission whose time has come. The only question is, are we ready for it?

This column first appeared in the print edition on July 16, 2021 under the title On caste, the road not taken. The writer, based in Pune, taught political science and is currently chief editor of Studies in Indian Politics.

Read this article:

How do we address the complicated claims of backwardness by various politically powerful castes? - The Indian Express

Two days before the Capitol riot, Doug Mastriano ended one of his frequent Facebook Live videos on an abrupt note. The Pennsylvania state senator had referenced his upcoming speech at a pro-Trump Stop the Steal conspiracist rally in D.C. on Jan. 6 but didnt want to discuss the event on his official government page.

Were gonna hop over on the other page, Doug Mastriano Fighting For Freedom, where we can talk freely, Mastriano told viewers, directing them to his personal Facebook account. So please follow me over to Doug Mastriano Fighting For Freedom, well continue the conversation off of this government page, and onto a page where we can speak freely about everything.

The video on his personal account has since been deleted, along with other posts related to Mastrianos activity on Jan. 6. But his social-media strategy, beginning with open courtship of the QAnon conspiracy theory, has long walked the line between elected official and far-right instigator. Via a network of near-identical Facebook pages, Mastriano has amassed a following that calls itself his army. And while some Mastriano fans are facing prison time for their alleged involvement in the Capitol riot, the state senator has continued to push election-fraud hoaxes, culminating this month in his demand for an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania.

Mastriano spent much of his career in the military, deploying three times to Afghanistan and reaching the rank of Army colonel before his retirement in 2017. Soon after that, he entered into a different form of battle: the world of the QAnon conspiracy theory and its self-described digital soldiers.

In February 2018, Mastriano announced his bid to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. House of Representatives. Like many first-time candidates establishing an internet presence, Mastriano registered his Twitter account the same month as his announcement. Some of his first tweets were equally conventional: links to his campaign website, descriptions of his work in the military, photos of family.

This is all just bad performance art.

Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman

But months into his campaign, Mastriano began soliciting attention from more fringe figures. In May of that year, he tweeted at far-right internet personality Jack Posobeic, asking for an endorsement. That month, he also tweeted that the artist of a school mural should face 20 years in prison for that painting, which depicted an Aztec warrior beheading Donald Trump.

By that August, Mastrianos tweets regularly included eyebrow-raising hashtags.

#QAnon #MAGA #Trump2020 #PatriotsFight #TheGreatAwakening #Trump, Mastriano wrote in multiple early tweets. The identical order of the hashtags across the tweets suggests that Mastriano repeatedly copy-pasted the string of hashtags. A Media Matters report this month found that Mastriano tweeted the #QAnon hashtag more than 50 times. Included in Mastrianos hashtagged tweets were pictures of Donald Trump as an anime character, and a cartoon girl in a sailor uniform staring wistfully at a Trump sign.

The QAnon conspiracy theory falsely accuses Trumps enemies of a number of outrageous acts, including pedophilia and/or child cannibalism.

Mastriano lost his congressional bid but won a special election for a state Senate seat the following year. Billing him as a candidate for protecting families, Mastrianos campaign site advertised his belief that marriage is between a man and womanand that no amount of disinformation or political correctness will change these facts. (He also caught flak that year for multiple anti-Muslim posts, including one that claimed Islam wants to kill gay rights, Judaism, Christianity, and pacifism, and another that falsely accused Rep. Ilhan Omar of encouraging the attempted murder of a child in a mall.)

As the COVID-19 pandemic swept the country in spring 2020, Mastriano expanded his online audience with a recurring series of fireside chats on Facebook Live, during which he slammed health precautions. After one such video, in which Mastriano appeared to encourage listeners to quit churches that did not hold in-person services, a coalition of nearly 50 religious leaders in his district signed a letter complaining about his remarks.

By November 2020, when Mastriano joined legions of far-right conspiracists in falsely claiming that fraud had cost Trump a second term, the Pennsylvania lawmakers fans were beginning to take up a new name for themselves: Mastrianos Army.

Some of the hashtags earliest invocations came in attacks on Mastrianos foes. Supporters tweeted it alongside photoshopped images of President Joe Biden in jail, as well as at a Democratic Pennsylvania lawmaker who spoke out against Mastriano.

Not all of those fans were even Mastrianos constituents; one such attack on Biden, for instance, came from a Pennsylvanian who lists their location as outside Mastrianos district. But Mastriano encouraged that support across the state.

Beginning in September, Mastriano became an administrator for nearly 40 county-level Facebook pages dedicated to him. The pages, discovered by Erin Gallagher, a researcher of disinformation at Harvard Universitys Shorenstein Center, include groups like Philadelphia County For Doug Mastriano, despite Mastriano not representing that area of the state.

Gallagher also found Mastriano to be an administrator in the Facebook groups Senator Doug Mastriano, We the people ask you to run for governor! and Draft Senator Douglas Mastriano for Governor of Pennsylvania. The first group currently has more than 16,000 members.

Mastrianos activity was not limited to the online sphere.

The #MastrianosArmy hashtag is full of pictures of Mastriano with fans at pro-Trump, post-election events, including one in which he poses with a woman in a shirt with a QAnon slogan. By last December, as the myth that the election was stolen germinated, those pictures were increasingly geotagged in Washington, D.C., where Mastriano fans marched at pro-Trump events while holding signs with Mastriano slogans like walk as free people. In a harbinger of the election obstruction to come, at least one group photo of Mastrianos Army at a D.C. rally in December was hashtagged #DoNotCertify.

Mastriano was a scheduled speaker at the Jan. 6 rally that preceded the Capitol attack. In a video blitz two days before the rally, he promoted it in the now-deleted Facebook Live video, as well as in an appearance on a far-right radio show during which he described Republicans as in this deathmatch with the Democrat Party. He was also responsible for transporting some of the events attendees into the citysix days before the riot, Mastriano used $3,354 in campaign funds to reserve buses to D.C., according to campaign finance documents reviewed by Philadelphias WHYY.

Mastriano speaks at a protest against an extended stay-at-home order to help slow the spread of the coronavirus in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on April 20, 2020.

REUTERS/Rachel Wisniewski

Sandra Weyer, a Pennsylvania woman, was charged last month for allegedly breaking into the Capitol and encouraging a mace attack on a New York Times journalist. Truth be known about storming the capitol . . . we were sick and tired of DITHERING!!! Weyer tweeted about the event.

Dithering is a Mastriano catchphrase, as his colleagues noted positively before the riot. As photos hashtagged #MastrianosArmy in a pro-Mastriano Facebook group reveal, some of his fans have even made We Dont Dither T-shirts. A New Yorker report previously suggested that Weyer rode on one of Mastrianos buses, although Mastriano denies that. Weyer was previously pictured at a D.C. rally in December, where she held a Mastriano sign alongside a group of his fans.

Mastriano disavowed Weyer in an email to The Daily Beast, and generally rejected the idea that the crowd that has followed his social-media organizing trail was his responsibility. Regarding your photo, it is a dangerous and nonsensical precedent to imply that a public figure is responsible for all of the actions of their supporters, he wrote. (Mastriano did not respond to other questions for this story.)

Another alleged Capitol rioter, Samuel Lazar, has repeatedly been photographed alongside Mastriano, including at a Mastriano event in May, as HuffPost reported. Mastriano told the outlet he did not know Lazar, and that he condemned the mans actions. Lazar, who appeared on video boasting about macing Capitol police, has not been charged with a crime, though his photo has appeared on FBI wanted lists.

Other alleged Capitol stormers overlapped with Mastrianos circles. During the rally, the state senator posed for a photo with former Pennsylvania lawmaker Rick Saccone, who later posted on Facebook, We are storming the capitol. Our vanguard has broken through the barricades. We will save this nation. Are u with me? Saccone has not been charged with a crime. Rachel Powell, a Pennsylvania woman who is facing charges for allegedly smashing a Capitol window, traveled alone to the Capitol. Earlier that summer, however, she attended the same far-right July 4 event as Mastriano, when both showed up to Gettysburg National Military Park in response to a hoax about leftists burning flags there.

Mastriano, for his part, claims to have left the Capitol area before Jan. 6 turned to violence, even as footage from that day appears to show him in a crowd as the front of that group began to breach Capitol barriers. In a statement to HuffPost, Mastriano claimed to have respected police lines.

Despite calls for Mastrianos resignation, or an investigation into his involvement with the Capitol riot, Pennsylvanias Senate has not taken action against the lawmaker. Instead, Brian Sims, a state representative who has called for an investigation into Mastriano, has faced threats from members of Mastrianos army. In one of Mastrianos Facebook Live videos, a commenter noted that Brian Sims has been rubbing me the wrong way for a few yrs. Maybe Ill pay him a visit.

Sims, in turn, accused Mastriano of attempting to get him killed.

Since the riot, Mastriano has joined the bandwagon of Trump supporters calling for audits of the 2020 election. The only such actual audit is a chaotic, ongoing affair in Arizona, staffed by conspiracy theorists and uncredentialed vote-counters. They have racked up millions in public funds while searching for bamboo fibers in ballots, based on a conspiracy theory about fake ballots being shipped from Asia.

In June, Mastriano took a trip to the site of the Arizona audit, which is being run by a Florida-based company whose CEO previously promoted election-fraud hoaxes. While the Arizona audit was ongoing, that CEO also participated in a documentary alleging voter fraud.

Nevertheless, in a blog post, Mastriano wrote that he was more than impressed with what I saw on the ground in Phoenix. He has not disclosed the funding of his trip, which he described in a Facebook Live video as a justifiable business expense that did not involve taxpayer dollars.

Mastriano, who has previously promoted a Telegram channel for a fringe group demanding a Pennsylvania audit, set out his own demand for an Arizona-style recount on July 7, and the Washington Post reported last month that he met with Donald Trump about the idea.

In an interview, Pennsylvanias Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman dismissed the demand as a publicity stunt for what he suspects are Mastrianos gubernatorial ambitions.

Its burnishing his own political credentialing to run for governor, Fetterman told The Daily Beast. Thats all this is. No one thinks it [the audit] is going anywhere. This is all just bad performance art.

Mastriano asked three counties to turn over their voting machines. Two of the counties, (Tioga and York), have already declined, with their Republican commissioners stating that they could not compromise voting equipment by turning them over to a third party. Mastriano has threatened to subpoena the counties, an avenue that Fetterman recently characterized as unlikely to succeed, though some Republicans in the legislature have signaled potential support.

This is just theatrics in an attempt to secure a Trump endorsement, which is obviously highly coveted in any Republican primary, Fetterman said. If you want to talk about whats really insidious in Pennsylvania, its the blatant attempts to impose mandatory voter ID through a ballot initiative, which is straight-up voter suppression.

Fetterman suggested Mastriano was tailoring his statements to a Trumpist audience. It was a recalibration previously evident in Mastrianos changing tone on Twitter.

During those early days, when Mastriano was still searching for his audience, he tweeted a meme that falsely attributed a quote to Hillary Clinton. Anybody not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy, the quote read.

Well well well, Mastriano tweeted. I actually agree with Hillary.

See the original post:

Heir to Election Audit Freak Show Throne Has 'Army' Behind Him - The Daily Beast