Category Archives: Political Correctness

By Ben Nichols, former Senior Media Relations Manager for WADAIt was during my morning commute to Montreals Stock Exchange Tower on the second day of my WADA tenure in June 2013 when I first truly heard of Dick Pounds name, that is if you ignore the reams of anti-doping-crash-course-reading Id scanned in the months leading up to my new job heading Media Relations for the global regulator in what was a post Lance-Armstrong-mea-culpa-to-Oprah-Winfrey, pre-Russian-doping-scandal era.It was standing room only on the Number 80 bus that oppressively humid Thursday morning, and with the impressively dominant Mont Royal to the right of me, the hipster Franco-Anglo Le Plateau neighborhood to the left, and the mini Manhattan Montreal downtown ahead of me, I felt a finger jab me in the left arm. As I glanced over my left shoulder, and before I could summon the words to speak, this assertive fellow commuter - who had been peering at my commuter reading which adorned the unmistakable WADA logo - said two abrupt words to me: Dick Pound he said, firmly, swiftly followed by two more: good man, he added. And yet, before I had the chance to engage in conversation, and put two and two together, this Quebecer was darting for the opening bus doors, exiting stage left to get on with his Montreal day. And it is poignant that this brief encounter with a local Montrealer and signed-up-for-life member of the Dick Pound fan club was to stay with me for so many years and, comical even, that following this initial in hindsight humorous encounter on a Montreal bus, I was to come to work closely with Dick on much more serious matters just a couple of years later when running media relations for the eponymous Pound Report into systematic doping in Russian athletics; trips to world-watched Press Conferences, landmark media interviews and all.

Now, Im sure Dick himself would be the first to admit that his name is not one that is easily forgotten. Thats something that stuck with me from the moment of that Number 80 bus finger jab to my conversations with Montrealers over the four years I spent in the Canadian city to the international reputation that Dick commanded on the anti-doping stage. In Montreal, aside from his tumultuous, and much needed, tenure as Founding President of the World Anti-Doping Agency, however, he was widely known as Chancellor of McGill University during the same decade. Though long-finished as President of WADA during my own tenure, I had the privilege of working for Dick during what was the seminal moment for how anti-doping is known today: the start of the Russian doping crisis, AKA The Pound Report. This period working for Dick involved two red-eye-trans-Atlantic trips to Europe - the first Press Conference at a central Geneva Hotel for Part One in which Dick, Gunter Younger and Richard McLaren unveiled their devastating findings to the worlds media, and the head-scratching location that was a roadside hotel in no mans land somewhere equidistant between Munich and Munich International Airport for Part Two of the damning findings in state-sponsored doping in Russian athletics.

There were not only these two trips to Europe in which I supported Dicks media commitments for his Independent Commissions findings, there were the numerous WADA Board Meetings, from Colorado Springs to Glasgow, and from Montreal to Johannesburg, at which Dicks honest appraisal of the state of anti-doping - addressing the elephant in the room that so many others were thinking but not saying - would be heard, and recorded by the far-travelled journalists. And it is this, frank, honest, candid personality of Dicks that I gauged from my brief four-year foray during his long and distinguished career that stands head and shoulders above other attributes.

His staring down of the political correctness agenda and, quite frankly, his no nonsense, get-on-and-call-a-spade-a-spade ability to say what most people are thinking when it comes to anti-doping; not least in recent years on the IOCs reluctance to side with athlete and public opinion and failure to ban Russia at Rio 2016 following the worst doping scandal in history.

Indeed, it is ironic, that as Dick officially calls time on his decades long anti-doping career - though there will be no riding off into the clean sport sunset yet, of that Im sure - political correctness is starting to go out of fashion, at least in western societies such as the UK. As Dick calls time on his anti-doping career, the tide is, in the UK at least, turning against the illiberal liberalism with a cultural war on wokeism gaining traction after years of Orwellian-like thoughtcrime imposed on anyone that may cross its path and accidentally, or purportedly, offend someone.

At the start of 2021, it is clear that in many western societies, the penny is starting to drop that after a couple of decades of one way traffic, the right not to be offended is indeed not a right at all; at least not if free speech is held of higher importance. And if there is a legacy indeed, aside from the confrontational and often transformational clean sport crusading work that Dick pioneered, it is perhaps that because we have the likes of Dick Pound and others in society who stand up for, cherish and promote free speech, that true free speech exists at all today. And for that, anti-doping in sport should be thankful.

Homepage photo: ATR

By Ben Nichols, former Senior Media Relations Manager for WADAFor general comments or questions,click here.

Your best source of news about the Olympics is AroundTheRings.com, for subscribers only.

Read the rest here:

OpEd - Taking a Pounding: A Stellar Clean Sport Careerist Who Said What People Thought - Around the Rings

CLEVELAND, Ohio Russia never meddled. Coronavirus is a hoax. The sound from windmills causes cancer. The election was stolen.

All of the above are lies uttered by Republican President Donald Trump. All of them provably so. Yet most people in the United States know somebody maybe a friend or acquaintance who believes the narrative Trump pushed over the past five years.

At one point or another, the question of how people buy into these lies so easily may have come up. After all, the evidence is readily available and far from secret. So how did Trump construct this alternate reality thats drawn millions of Americans into its orbit?

A new study titled The Art of the Spiel: Analyzing Donald Trumps Tweets As Gonzo Storytelling aims to explain, at least in part, how that alternate reality was crafted using social media during the time leading up to Trumps election. The study, which has been accepted for publication in Symbolic Interaction, a peer-reviewed journal, was co-authored by Baldwin Wallace University sociology and criminal justice professor Brian Monahan and R.J. Maratea, visiting professor of sociology, criminal justice and criminology at George Washington University.

The study focused on Trumps use of Twitter and how it was used to create a reality that didnt rely on empirical evidence. But it went beyond that, looking at how Trump used the platform as a storyteller to launch his rise to the highest office in the land.

The study analyzed all of Trumps tweets available on the Trump Twitter Archive a database of Trumps tweets from June 16, 2015, the day he announced his candidacy, to July 22, 2016, the day after he secured the nomination at the Republican National Convention. They only studied tweets that included commentary from Trump, filtering out those that were only inactive weblinks or retweets from a news source or follower.

The final sample size was 3,876 of Trumps tweets.

The numbers alone showed just how much Trump relied on Twitter for communication, with about 276 tweets per month. The most active 10% of users on Twitter, which account for 80% of the total content, had a median of 138 tweets per month.

Monahan and Maratea posit that Trump whether intentionally or not used gonzo storytelling to this end. Gonzo is a type of first-person storytelling, most commonly associated with Hunter S. Thompson, that makes the storyteller a part of the story with no claims or goals of objectivity.

Monahan said they wanted to look at Trumps preferred communication method Twitter with more complexity instead of simply viewing them as individual tweets.

Like so many, we saw how Twitter became such a prominent part of his voice, Monahan said. When you look back, this is a political novice with no experience in politics, no agenda you can draw from to see where things have been to get a glean for where theyre going. Twitter really took an outsized role. As we were watching, we started to notice, Maybe theres more than just random rants or outrage. A lot of people were focusing on the all-caps or the seemingly disconnected elements of it.

Monahan and Maratea used a method called ethnographic content analysis to look for patterns and meanings not only in the text of the tweets, but in how the audience might interpret them.

When youre talking about patterns and meanings, theres what was intended to be said and what it might mean at large, Monahan said.

The tweets were then separated into rhetorical frameworks outlining how Trump created his false reality that propelled him to political success and amassed supporters who take his word as dogma.

Our analysis of thousands of Trumps tweets indicates that much of Trumps communications are in service of a story he is crafting that is primarily about himself, and it is littered with grievances (many of which share broad themes with the grievances of his supporters), self-praise, and an unrelenting litany of constructed threats and dangers, Monahan and Maratea wrote in the study. With this, we suggest that the prominence of his adherents deep stories in his self-serving mediated storytelling serves as fodder for the larger spiel that he is unfurling, one that depicts a world needlessly imperiled by all sorts of nefarious others whose ill intent, incompetence, and intractable weaknesses can no longer go unchallenged. In this constructed world, Trump is self-appointed as a savior figure, the only one with the temerity to call attention to all that is wrong as well as the fortitude, intellect, and skill to put things right.

In Trumps storytelling approach, he is not telling his story, but that of his supporters. This despite having little in common with them as a wealthy New York real estate developer and television personality.

Threats

This April 26, 2017, file photo shows the Twitter app on a mobile phone in Philadelphia. Twitter was consistently Republican President Donald Trump's preferred platform during both the 2016 campaign and his four years in office. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)AP

Trumps tweets were littered with exaggerated or crafted threats that stretch back to the opening days of his campaign. Immigration, terrorism and crime were among the most frequent threats cited by Trump, but could also include things as simple as polling procedures or political correctness.

You construct a threat and you identify some other that is responsible for it, Monahan said. I think a point to make with that is no, what we would call, empirical evidence supports any of these threats.

To build up these threats, Trump latched on to anecdotal evidence as proof. He opined that drug cartel leader Joaquin El Chapo Guzmans escape from a Mexican prison or the death of Kate Steinle, who was accidentally shot by an undocumented migrant that Trump billed as a murder, was proof of the dangers of Mexican immigration.

The story builds on falsehoods and exaggerations, Monahan said. It becomes foundational to the more exaggerated statement and the policies and positions can flow from it.

Perceived failings

After building the threat, Trump then presented the perceived failings of those in charge as further evidence his followers should place trust in him.

When Trump tweeted repeatedly about the death of Kate Steinle, he was not just crafting a fear-laden tale of the imminent threats posed by illegal immigration, he was also assigning culpability to the Obama Administration and other political opponents for failing to protect the border, being weak on crime, and generally being all talk and no action, Monahan and Maratea said in the study. By routinely interlocking danger claims with notions of endemic political weakness, Trump is able to rhetorically bind cited dangers and the institution of politics as core parts of the problems that need to be solved, thus creating a context in which the storytellers own proffered solutions can be positioned as necessary moral imperatives, to be enacted without equivocation.

Substitute approaches

Monahan and Maratea said the threats, once accepted, allowed his supporters to accept Trumps proposed punitive measures as the only way to counteract the threat.

Monahan and Maratea noted that the solutions Trump provided were often very simplistic building a wall along the border, for instance despite the inherent root problems being very complex.

This may be in part a function of the limited character count inherent to Twitter communications, but surely such evidence could be provided through links to relevant research findings, government reports, or policy papers, they said in the study. More than anything, the absence of supportive data in the tweets underscores just how superfluous empirical evidence is within the scaffolding of gonzo storytelling.

Self-adulation

In this Thursday, June 18, 2020 file photo, President Donald Trump looks at his phone during a roundtable with governors on the reopening of America's small businesses, in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington. Though stripped of his Twitter account for inciting rebellion, President Donald Trump does have alternative options of much smaller reach. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)AP

Monahan and Maratea said the policy proposals in Trumps tweets were less about the policies themselves and more about inserting himself into the supposed solution.

The substitute approaches advocated by Trump tend to place him in the foreground, with ideas lauded not because they have support in empirical evidence or policymaking practices, but because they are his ideas and rely on his self-proclaimed singular skills and toughness, they said in the study. Thus, it should come as no surprise that Trumps tweets feature a patterned collection of self-praising talk, which we coded as self-adulation.

Trump is no stranger to self-adulation, but Monahan and Maratea noted that the tweets that fit the self-adulation framework were less about the I alone can fix it narrative he pushed and more about self-congratulatory statements, such as describing himself as the healthiest candidate ever, touting his ability to make deals or even bragging about his ability on the golf course.

These positioned Trump as an authority on all matters, whether he had any expertise in the field or not, lending credibility to his adherents.

As we see it, tweets reflecting the self-adulation frame are more focused on building up the storyteller than the story, they said in the study. In other words, they are all about self-praise.

Popular appeal

Without any evidence to rely on for the threats or his proposed solutions, Trump relied on amplifying praise he received from others. This included popular figures in politics, entertainment and the media the study notes tweets about Fox News personalities Piers Morgan and Chris Wallace as examples and even traditional methods such as polling, lending legitimacy to Trumps crafted narrative, making it easier for others to believe that it was, in fact, the truth, Monahan and Maratea said.

The importance of so frequently injecting positive punditry into his Twitter narrative may lie in the fact that such testimonials provide external reinforcement for the very things he is also routinely promoting via self-praise, they said in the study. Moreover, as the media coverage of Trump grew more negative during the campaign, the curated collection of public affirmation from well-known others helped to bolster the idea that Trump was leading a movement with an ever-growing groundswell of support.

Delegitimization

Trumps Twitter and often outlandish claims were a significant focus of criticism and scorn, lending itself to the final framework identified by Monahan and Maratea: delegitimization.

Delegitimization, the sixth and final frame in this analysis, adopts a different, more indirect, means of promoting the viability of both the narrative and its author, they said in the study. Delegitimization is a discounting tactic intended to invalidate critical viewpoints by calling into question the legitimacy of those who author or spread such viewpoints.

Trump used this framework in multiple ways. The tweets Monahan and Maratea studied actually came before the widespread use of fake news but attacking critical media stories was common. Anyone who attacked Trump was labeled dumb, dopey or any other epithet while others, like his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, were bestowed with monikers like Crooked Hillary.

But Monahan and Maratea said it didnt stop at simply his political opponents. After Trump called Mexican immigrants druggies, drug dealers, rapists and killers, Macys pulled all Trump brand merchandise from their stores.

Trump targeted the retailer in his tweets for what he perceived as their own misgivings. The act became reliant on whataboutisms and condemning the condemners, essentially distracting from his own controversies by saying his critics were no better. This helped solidify Trumps status as a reliable narrator to his followers.

Once again, we can see the narratives core frames interwoven in support of one another in Trumps tweets, Monahan and Maratea said in the study. For instance, the very fact that Trump is so willing to violate longstanding norms of political discourse with the use of derogatory nicknames and personal insults accentuates his outsider status.

How an alternate reality becomes real

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, a Trump supporter participates in a rally in Washington. Online supporters of Trump are scattering to smaller social media platforms, fleeing what they say is unfair treatment by Facebook, Twitter and other big tech firms looking to squelch misinformation and threats of violence. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)AP

Trump did not operate in a vacuum, and his tweets alone likely werent enough to solidify his elevation from storyteller to arbiter of the truth as he and his followers saw fit.

The news media reported relentlessly on Trumps 2016 campaign, down to almost every minute detail. Being featured in mainstream media sources at all helped legitimize Trumps story, especially when some stories focused on breaking news alerts repeating what Trump said instead of examining what he said more critically.

The cycle of Trump tweeting and the press reporting made the claims real enough for some to believe Trumps alternate reality, even when provided with evidence to the contrary, Maratea said.

Whether you call it cognitive dissonance or whatever, the more coverage he got, the more ardent his support became amongst the true believers, which we now see there are a lot of, he said. When an act was pointed out, it just became more evidence that the gonzo leader was being attacked.

The future of gonzo politics

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, checks his phone as he walks to the Senate chamber prior to the start of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol, Thursday, Jan. 23, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)AP

While Monahan and Marateas study did not cover any of Trumps recent tweets, they both felt it was applicable to the months since Trump lost the election to Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden.

Trump routinely said he had won the election, a demonstrable lie, and that there was widespread voter fraud, another claim for which there is no evidence.

Politics may be built on lies but those lies have to at least construct a reality that people think is truthful, Maratea said. There are at least 74 million people in this country that believe that truth exists in what he says. Theres a real divergence in how people perceive reality.

In interviews, Monahan and Maratea said it was important to note that the study didnt focus on Trump to be solely critical of Trump, or even Republicans as a whole.

The politicians who have really dove head-first into Trumpism seem to be the ones that are attempting to co-opt the Trump way. Right now, that seems to be politicians on the right, Maratea said. But its important to remember this is not something and we didnt mean this article to be a statement on politicians on the right because it can happen on both sides.

Already, Maratea said politicians such as Rep. Jim Jordan, a Champaign County Republican, were attempting to emulate Trumps methods, whether intentionally or not.

When you see politicians doing this on both sides, it doesnt necessarily reflect a belief structure, Maratea said. These things that Jim Jordan is yelling or saying about arent necessarily things he believes. This is about power. How can I get on powerful committees, go from Congress to Senate, become president.

Monahan and Maratea said they didnt know what effect Trumps recent banishment from Twitter would have on his status as a political storyteller, though both agreed his strategy wasnt going away any time soon.

They said they hoped the study would provide a framework for anyone academics, journalists or the public to become more aware of how to spot the markers for politicians using social media to build political worlds not based on facts.

How many years have we been laughing at his statements? Monahan said. By themselves, theyre laughable to many. With this framework, looking at one another, we can see new dynamics in structure and content. One of the questions going forward for social scientists is why is this working?

Link:

New study examines how Donald Trump used Twitter to craft an alternate reality for his followers - cleveland.com

To the Times:

Political correctness is destroying the Democratic Party. The same vision has been playing in my head over and over again for the last four years.

Michelle Obama, standing at the podium, delivering her speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. "When they go low, we go high!" Never before or since have I heard a respected national Democratic figure describe in one sentence the failing strategy that the Democrats continue to employ year after year, from one election to the next. Their fear of offending anyone, raising their voices, showing some backbone, is in and of itself offensive to this Democrat.They say that the best defense is a good offense. What happens when you have neither?

Donald Trump and his allies can directly attribute their unthinkably remarkable success to an (offensive) offense that the Democrats have had no defense for. Obnoxious, insulting, cruel, ignorant, criminal; these are just few of the many adjectives that can be used to describe Trump's behavior. His pathological lying and lack of integrity, dignity and above all else, empathy, defies any and all logic of the characteristics that one would expect of their President. Yet the Democrats, predictably, remained polite, their dignity and integrity on full display. When will they learn that there is only one way to beat an obnoxious, lying, low-life con man that so skillfully manipulates half of the country into pleading their loyalty to him. And that is to play his game. If you can't beat em, join em.

Daniel Corcoran, Swarthmore

Here is the original post:

Letter to the Editor: Dems have to play hardball to win - The Delaware County Daily Times

The Issue: Delays in New Yorks distribution of the COVID vaccine that caused doses to be thrown out.

Only in New York would bureaucratic red tape hamper the distribution of the badly needed COVID vaccine (Rx for Vax Disaster, Editorial, Jan. 13).

I work for a city-run agency so Im not surprised. Vaccines going to waste because not enough of the selected group can receive the shot and fining health-care providers for administering vaccines to people out of order on the priority list only illustrate how bureaucracy and unnecessary paperwork slow down badly needed services in the city.

This reminds me of when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and the government didnt want New Orleans residents to use their private boats to save people from the flood waters until they received approval from FEMA.

Since when has government approval been a requirement to save lives?

James Johnson

Brooklyn

At the beginning of the pandemic, people waited for Gov. Cuomos daily reports to give us updates and reassure us.

Now, despot Cuomo is holding the vaccine hostage if his protocols are not met. He would rather they be discarded than have them put into our arms if its not approved by him.

His idiotic feuding with the mayor is ridiculous. I cant believe Im saying this, but for once Mayor de Blasio has become the voice of reason.

S. Kane

Brooklyn

Doses of life-saving vaccine have been thrown away because they were about to expire, and New Yorks Democratic monolith mandates threatened the providers with dire penalties if any were used outside of the politically correct guidelines.

Grim-Reaper Andys actions resulting in thousands of nursing-home deaths havent even been fully documented, and as more people die because he values political appearance over rational performance, all you gotta vote Democratic idiots should realize you share the bloody hands Andy cant ever clean. Shame on you all.

Richard J. Ceonzo

Highland

The vaccine has been out since December 2020, and there seem to be problems getting the needle into the arms of people who so desperately want our society to be healed of COVID.

Cuomo has complicated the distribution of it so much that it has problems reaching the general public. Lets simplify the process so that we can expedite everyone to get a dose.

One possible solution: Have the centers that test for COVID also have a supply of the vaccine.

For example, here in Co-Op City, theres a place for the testing of the virus that constantly has long lines of those waiting to be tested.

If wed started giving those at this facility the vaccine since last month, we would be further down the road to getting this virus behind us. It sounds like common sense to me.

Tom Tortorella

The Bronx

New York City has lagged way behind in giving vaccines, despite a stockpile of medical equipment.

Critics charge that state rules are too restrictive. In one day, Israel immunized more people than New York City has since Dec. 14, and they have similar populations. Furthermore, New York City vaccinated 6 million against smallpox in one month in 1947.

Cuomos incompetence and stupidity is costing lives every day.

Manny Martin

Manhattan

Is it any surprise that our dynamic duo of Cuomo and de Blasio have failed us again?

Cuomo is more concerned with political correctness than with speed and efficiency, hence his micromanagement and the bottleneck of distribution.

The quicker the distribution, the quicker the herd immunity, the quicker everyone will benefit. Political correctness and the fear of offending someone or a particular group is literally killing us.

Vaccines remain unadministered, doses have to be thrown away for fear of being fined for vaccinating out of turn, and Cuomo only cares about his political career.

What sheer idiocy and foolishness.

Karl Olsen

Watervliet

Read this article:

Letters to the editor Jan. 14, 2021 - New York Post

On Tuesday, Harvard University removed Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) from one of the advisory committees for its school of public policy. In doing so, Harvard joined a growing list of businesses and other institutions that are making complex choices about how to engage with politicians who amplified President Trumps false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Harvards message wasnt just about politics though; it was intended to be an unambiguous leadership lesson to both its students and the nation.

Dont be a Stefanik.

The conservative Congresswoman, who represents a large portion of upstate New York, has been one of the Presidents most vocal supporters, and following Trumps failed reelection campaign, Stefanik was one of the 147 members of Congress who voted to reject the certification of Joe Bidens electoral college victory. The congresswoman, who has been frequently lauded by Trump for defending him during his impeachment last year, is a steadfast supporter of the President, and joined him at his controversial rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma last summer. Stefanik, who handily won reelection this past November, has been seen as a rising star in the Republican Party, yet she has also faced withering criticism in her home district for her comments on the election.

It appears that criticism has now extended to Cambridge, Massachusetts as well.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 21: Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, listens ... [+] during a House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry hearing on Capitol Hill November 21, 2019 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony during the fifth day of open hearings in the impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump, whom House Democrats say held back U.S. military aid for Ukraine while demanding it investigate his political rivals. (Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)

In a message to the Senior Advisory Committee of the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School on Tuesday, the Kennedy Schools Dean, Douglas Elmendorf explained his decision to remove Congresswoman Stefanik, a Harvard alumnus, from the committee after she declined his request to resign.

My request was not about political parties, political ideology, or her choice of candidate for president, Elmendorf wrote. Rather, in my assessment, Elise has made public assertions about voter fraud in Novembers presidential election that have no basis in evidence, and she has made public statements about court actions related to the election that are incorrect. Moreover, these assertions and statements do not reflect policy disagreements but bear on the foundations of the electoral process through which this countrys leaders are chosen.

In other words, Elmendorf asserted that it was Stefaniks failure to speak and act consistently with the fundamental norms of American democracy that cost her the role on the committee a damning assessment from a school that is one of the flagship institutions on the topic.

Stefanik, for her part, strongly criticized the decision. In a statement she tweeted on Tuesday, Stefanik said the decision by Harvard's administration to cower and cave to the woke Left will continue to erode diversity of thought.

The Ivory Towers march toward a monoculture of like-minded, intolerant liberal views demonstrates the sneering disdain for everyday Americans and will instill a culture of fear for students who will understand that a conservative viewpoint will not be tolerated and will be silenced. Stefanik added.

While Stefaniks words and actions may very well play to her political base as well as the outgoing Presidents supporters, the removal from an advisory committee of her alma mater is an embarrassing turn of events for someone who many saw as a one of the next-generation stars of the GOP. It also reinforces the fast-moving shift in attitude following the violent riots in the nations capital last week.

Through its decision, Harvard is making Stefanik a cautionary tale for what happens when elected officials and other leaders stretch the credulity of their statements beyond the boundaries of constructive and, some might say even civil, discourse. With no empiracal evidence to support her claims regarding the fairness of the recent elections, it is not surprising that the Kennedy School, one of the nations leading public policy schools, found her actions to be beyond the pale of mere policy disputes.

Harvard may be one of the first, but will unquestionably not be the last, of the institutions that will face similar decisions in the weeks and months ahead both in the halls of higher education, as well as in board rooms across America. As a result, there will no doubt be strong debate about what constitutes political free speech, as well as political correctness. But Harvards opening volley in the debate is as direct as it is unambiguous: if you choose to lead through deception, then you may very well be left standing alone.

But for now, rather than being an advisor for one of the finest institutes of higher education in America, of which she proudly affiliated herself, the disgraced Congresswoman is now just as likely to be in a case study like the ones she studied at Harvard. But in this case, it wont be for how she led

But for how she didnt.

Read the original here:

Dont Be A Stefanik: Why Harvard Removed A GOP Congresswoman From Its Leadership - Forbes

Satan is described as the father of lies in John 8:44 of the New Testament.

Whether we think of Old Scratch or not, most of us would agree we live in an age of deceit. Many citizens have abandoned common sense and reason for theory and wishful concoction, contending that black is white or that two plus two equals five, and then demanding the rest of us march in lockstep with them.

Some, for example, argue that biological men should be allowed to compete in sports against biological women. Protest that claim on social, media or in any public forum, and you will be declared a bigot.

Some would have us believe that the presidential election involved little or no fraud, and we should just move along. Those who claim to possess proof of that fraud are ignored by the mainstream media and our courts, or are dismissed outright as liars and sore losers.

Tens of thousands of Americans from across the country gathered in Washington D.C. on Jan. 6 to protest electoral fraud. The media and some of our politicians are now labeling them an insurrectionist mob incited to violence by President Donald Trump. Those of us who heard the presidents speech know this is a lie.

Some apparently believe a $27 trillion national debt wont cause our economy and our country to collapse in the future. The current population of the United States is roughly 328 million people, which means every American living today, from great-grandpa to this mornings newborn, owes approximately $82,000. Yet on we go, printing dollars with the same wanton disregard as the proverbial drunken sailor, with the difference being the sailor wakes in the morning with a hangover and a good case of remorse.

Experts tell us lockdowns and masks will prevent the spread of COVID-19. If thats the case, then why is California, with some of the most stringent anti-virus measures in the country, leading the way in terms of new infections?

Our governors and mayors allowed our big-box stores to remain open during the pandemic, but closed fabric stores, beauty salons, restaurants, and countless other smaller businesses. No existing data proves the environments of small stores are more likely to spread the virus, so why are they continually ordered to shutter their doors?

Then there is our twisted language. We are hounded by words and phrases like equity, inclusion, whiteness, systemic racism, white fragility, patriarchy, and diversity. These may sound impressive, but they are hollow as a drum, meaningless tags employed to signal ones virtue or to attack an opponent.

Some believe women are oppressed, America is a land rife with racial hatred, males are toxic, and the police routinely and indiscriminately shoot people of color. Ask for proof, and you will again be smeared as a bigot, a misogynist, or a fascist.

The de-incarceration and defund the police movements should be laughed off by anyone with a brain in their head, but instead they are gaining traction as ways to fight Americas alleged racism and classism.

Such deceptions come with a price. In the case of the United States, that price is a broken and divided country. In the aftermath of the mayhem at the Capitol, this chasm has only widened, abetted in large part by a biased mainstream media.

These fabrications and foolish ideas have already damaged our democracy. If they continue unchecked, they may well destroy it.

In Darkness at Noon and the Progressive Mindset, Nicholas Kaster sharesseveral thoughts from physician and writer Theodore Darlymple. Most startlingly, Dalrymple concluded that [p]olitical correctness is communist propaganda writ small. He continued:

Perhaps most applicable to our own society, Dalrymple concluded, A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Whatever our political views, if we wish to remain healthy both as individuals and as a society, we must embrace reality and truth rather than blindly accepting the tenets of political correctness, the critical theory agenda, betrayal by spineless politicians, and the mendacity of our mainstream media. Its long past time to stand for truth and facts rather than being sucker-punched by conjecture, deceit, and deliberate obfuscation.

Truth can hurt, but lies masquerading as truth can kill.

Jeff Minick lives in Front Royal, Virginia, and may be found online at jeffminick.com. He is the author of two novels, Amanda Bell and Dust on Their Wings, and two works of non-fiction, Learning as I Go and Movies Make the Man.

Originally posted here:

When We Live with Lies | Chronicles - A Magazine of American Culture

I made a decision last January to read more writers of color. It was motivated by the big dustup over Jeanine Cummins novel American Dirt, a controversy centered on whether a white writer had the right to write a story of Mexican refugees fleeing a violent drug cartel. While I came down on the side of an author to write outside the realm of her own experience I just appreciate good writing I also recognized that the publishing industry has a pathetic record when it comes to giving voice to non-white writers. The aftermath of the death of George Floyd and the subsequent conversation about and recognition of systemic racism in our country only strengthened my resolve.

Its not that I ignored writers of color before: I just hadnt made a conscious effort to seek them out. Im glad I did because Ive discovered several terrific writers who otherwise might have escaped my notice.

Jerald Walker is at the top of the list. The author of two previous books of nonfiction, Walkers new collection of essays, How to Make a Slave, finds him at 40, a professor of creative writing at Emerson College, raising two Black sons in a white suburb of Boston and struggling with how to exist as a Black American teacher, father, writer and responsible human being in the complexity of our countrys racial landscape.

The fury of his youth he acknowledges his background as a gang member and drug addict has been somewhat tempered by age and parenthood, but hes also changed his perspective. When he runs into a white liberal at a cocktail party who wants Walker to hate him White people, he insists, are your oppressors Walker confounds the man by telling him, My students dont focus on white cruelty but rather its flip side: Black courage slaves and their immediate descendants were by and large heroic, not pathetic, or I wouldnt be standing here. The surest way to drive white liberals up the wall, Walker writes, is to deny them the chance to pity you.

Other essays address shopping at Whole Foods while Black, making restaurant reservations online only to show up and be ushered away, and the dilemma Walker encounters when on an Amtrak train: editing a student essay, his pencil slips from his hand and rolls under the buttock of a sleeping white woman seated on the adjacent seat. Walker ruminates about and deals with these situations with a fierce, multifaceted intelligence that is only enhanced by his ability to see the humor (albeit dark) in them. Hes an extraordinary observer and writer.

Danielle Evans, whose new collection of short fiction is The Office of Historical Corrections, is a welcome fresh voice. In Richard of York Gave the Battle in Vain, she tells a highly unconventional bride-left-at-the-altar story with an exuberance that I found to characterize all of her work. She has a sharp eye for artifice and hypocrisy but never takes an easy shot, describing even her less attractive characters with compassion.

In Boys Go to Jupiter, a disaffected, apolitical young woman becomes the target of an online hate mob after a photo of her wearing a Confederate flag bikini goes viral. Again, the story doesnt go down the expected path, and Evans adroitly tackles the minefield of political correctness, free speech and cancel culture.

Richard Blancos book of poems, How to Love a Country, was another happy discovery. Blanco, the Miami-raised son of Cuban immigrants, writes poems that are unsparing in their depiction of injustice past and present, from the exile of Navajos to the Pulse nightclub murders. But he also celebrates our ideals and what holds us together.

Complaint of the Rio Grande is told from the point of view of the river itself, the site of so many immigrant crossings: I wasnt meant to drown children, hear mothers cries, never meant to be your geography: a line, a border, a murderer.

Its the hope Blanco somehow keeps alive that makes his work so precious. Our imperfect, divisive, heartbreaking country, Blanco writes in America the Beautiful Again, is the only country I know enough to know how to sing for.

When reporting on a nations civil war erases the truths of a beautiful people

Facing down a pandemic, small Bay Area presses aim to diversify publishing

In Unforgetting, Roberto Lovato unearths the secrets of El Salvadors past

Should there be an American literary canon?

Bay Area Asian American authors share books that inspired them

Brit Bennett tackles colorism and identity in new novel, The Vanishing Half

The Writers Grotto carves out new paths to survive

View original post here:

Choosing to discover more books by authors of color - SF Chronicle Datebook

Audible stories made possible by the Prescott Hearing Center. Get your FREE hearing test today!

(The U.S.S. Hatteras against the C.S.S. Alabama. Image courtesy of Wikicommons, Public Domain.)

It was just 158 years ago today, January 11, 1863, when two warships were locked in a brief but desperate struggle of survival off the shores of Galveston, Texas, in the midst of the Civil War. The two ships were an unlikely pare. The U.S.S. Hatteras, a side wheel steamship, was not built for war at all. When hostilities commenced, the Union Navy didnt have enough warships to complete the blockade of the South, and so the war department went on a buying spree, any ship capable of speed and carrying a sufficient armament, was swept up, which was the case of the St. Mary, a civilian side wheel that we now know as the U.S.S. Hatteras. On the other hand, the C.S.S. Alabama was a different bird altogether. Built by the British, whos support for the Confederacy has never truly been acknowledged, nor explored by historians sufficiently, was a first rate of the line killing machine, with heavy decks, and her magazines below the waterline, her smooth sleek figure made her a man eater, and she would earn the equal distain and admiration of the Union Navy, until like all, she too met her fate towards the end of the war off the coast of France, another foreigner that helped the South during the War.

The C.S.S. Alabama had already earned a reputation under her commander Captain Raphael Semmes for attacking, sinking or even capturing merchant men. However, it was on this date that she met up with a squadron of Union blockade ships, one of them being the Hatteras. Trying to escape, but really leading the Yankee into a trap, the Hatteras gave chase, blockading being the name of the game. Captain Semmes flew under a false flag, claiming to be an English Ship, all the while allowing the Hatteras, under the command of Homer Blake, to catch up. Now, the Yankee were no fools, and realized something was amiss, but political correctness caused just as much faint hearts back then as now, and Commander Blake stayed cautious, but not as prepared as his enemy was. For more than four hours, the chase continued, until Blake was able

to hail the ship, to which the Confederates replied that they were Her Britannic Majestys Ship Petrel, after all, they were flying the Union Jack. Still Blake decided to send a small boarding party, but just then, the trap was sprung, and Semmes called out we are the C.S.S. Alabama, and lowered the Union Jack, raised the Stars and Bars, and let loose a terrible broadside, racking the Hatteras. In just about 13 minutes, the battle was over, some of the crew of the Hatteras escaped, others were taken prisoner, and the Alabama made off to terrorize the seas for more than a year to come.

Originally posted here:

This Day In History, January 11th, 2021 - "The Alabama Sinks The Hatteras" - Signals AZ

We all know that denial is not a river in Egypt, but how many of us know that denial is the state of our firm?

In his 2008 book entitled Strategy and the Fat Smoker, David Maister wrote that we often (or even usually) know what we should be doing in both our personal and professional life. We also know why we should be doing it and (often) how to do it. Figuring all that out is not too difficult. What is very difficult is actually doing what you know to be good for you in the long run, despite short-run temptations. Therefore, many leaders, and by extension many small and midsized CPA firms, live in denial.

More often than not, what needs to be done by a firms managing partner or CEO is obvious. While its not always easy, he or she needs to make those tough decisions in the best interests of the firm. But many leaders are in denial and fall short of whats required, and, in many cases, thats the principal reason why so many firms cant get to the next level or, worse yet, cant perpetuate themselves.

Presented below are the obvious but not easy things that a managing partner needs to do in todays world of public accounting to be viewed as an effective leader who sits on top of a firm that is not in denial:

From a quick review of the above, its clear that a managing partner is the heart and soul of a CPA firm, the one who must do what needs to be done to avoid denial and to ensure success. Having said that, many firms do not have effective managing partners. Here are four common mistakes to avoid when selecting managing partners:

1. Dont ask the firms No. 1 biller to be managing partner.

While a successful managing partner usually carries a small client load to stay grounded in client service and to remain credible with the partner group, billings and chargeable hours are truly a small part of the job. In my view, a managing partners clients are the partners, giving them the opportunity to maximize their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. A managing partner has to be readily available for big opportunities or problems.

2. Think long and hard before you ask someone from the outside to be managing partner.

Without a lot of due diligence and partner buy-in, an outsider is too risky, particularly if someone comes from outside the professional services firm environment. An outsider obviously doesnt know the firms history or culture or the partners individual strengths and weaknesses. An outsider also isnt attached to the firms vision, mission and strategy. Please stay away.

3. Dont ask two partners to function as co-managing partners.

In the spirit of political correctness, its not unusual for firms to select co-managing partners. Its a safe decision that doesnt offend quality partners who compete for the position.

While from time to time, this kind of arrangement can work, many times it doesnt and is therefore a step that should be taken with lots of caution. Too often firms with co-managing partners are plagued with inaction or conflicting directions with little, if any, consistency on strategy. If co-managing partners can be avoided, take the bold step and the tough decision: select the right person for the job today and make sure you do your best to retain the other contenders.

4. Dont ask a part-time committee to be managing partner.

Firms cant operate by part-time committees. A firm needs to make decisions and move on. Sure, a firm needs oversight committees such as a management committee or an operations committee to drive their day-to-day activities. A firm also needs an executive committee for corporate governance, partner matters and strategy. But a firm cant easily do what is obvious if the key leadership role is delegated to a part-time committee that reacts to situations if and when time permits. Its a recipe for disaster. No one is thinking about strategy and the future while, at the same time, making sure that the necessary blocking and tackling are being tended to.

So, why do some firms continue to live in denial and lack an effective managing partner? In many cases, it comes down to trust and security.

Many firms select a new managing partner from their ranks at an age somewhere between 45 and 53. Candidates are usually excellent client relationship partners with substantial client service responsibilities. The thought of giving up a substantial portion, if not all, of the client relationships that have been developed over years of service is scary to many. For sure, there is a risk in being a managing partner. Candidates may ask, What happens if Im not successful? In the spirit of trust, I lose most, if not all, of my client responsibilities and begin to lose touch with my outside referral sources. Ill have nowhere to go but to exit the firm when Im no longer the managing partner.

This is a very real concern and many firms do not want to recognize the severity of the issue. Instead, firms say, trust us, and while thats easy to say, history has shown that this trust has sometimes been misplaced. As a result, for the overall good and welfare of a firm, I recommend that a managing partner be offered an agreement that addresses what happens if he or she is no longer the leader of the firm. Such an agreement can address what happens to future compensation, what happens to employment, and what happens to retirement benefits or deferred compensation arrangements. It can pay huge dividends down the road for everyone.

Read the original:

Is denial a river in Egypt or the state of your firm? - Accounting Today

It was a grim moment last week when I realised that news of the revival of Sex and the City, my all-time favourite television programme, did not make me excited or happy. Instead, it made me anxious, detached and depressed. It was not that the brilliant character of Samantha, played by Kim Cattrall, wont be there, though that is sad. No, it was that the culture wars won by those overwhelmingly on the side of extreme, often insane commitment to political correctness have ruined everything, including what constitutes entertainment. A programme about white women and heterosexual sex? Front of the line for massacre by the PC police.

As I sought information on the reboot, which is called And Just Like That it was clear how things would be. Pundits and tweeters piled in to lecture those impure enough to still harbour fond attachment to the original. Vanity Fair explained that, while the original had offered a story about proudly imperfect women that may have seemed refreshing and even feminist at the time (it did), the show also used it as a cheap excuse to centre a very specific viewpoint: straight white affluence, as written by straight white women and gay white men.

There you have it. Sex and the City in its joyous old form is no longer on the Allowed list of things to enjoy because it is too white and too straight. Crimes include Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) expressing concern about being involved with bisexual men, or in Vanity Fairs eye-wateringly ungenerous terms, doubting such mens very validity.

An even more heinous crime is, you guessed it, transphobia. This, we learn, oozed everywhere from the failure to offer prominent and serious storylines to trans people, to the hideous impropriety of Samanthas jovial and long-running relationship with a group of local cross-dressing male prostitutes. For this she stands accused of gleefully using a a transphobic slur in a dig against sex workers. Eh? Come again? Had the community of Manhattan men on whom those characters were based been told at the time that 20 years later Samanthas term would cause grave offence, theyd have surely roared with laughter and told you to get a life.

All that said, the old Sex and the City was not perfect. Those ready with their bucket of cold, woke-flavoured water have missed the point and spirit of the programme, and have, therefore, failed to understand where its legacy actually has been problematic. This, to my mind, was in selling to a whole generation of girls and young women myself included an image of casual sex that made it seem fundamentally glamorous, frictionless and liberated. It may be the last thing: it certainly isnt the first two.

My favourite character was always Samantha. We all loved her. She was our gateway drug. She offered a vision of femininity we had never encountered. She wasnt annoying or coy or quiet. She was hilarious, forthright and dressed like a maniac: all things young women believe make them less, not more, attractive.

And yet here was this force of nature, hoovering up men by the hundreds, gobbling them up, spitting them out, and politely closing the door in their faces when they wanted more. Most of us werent into feminism yet, but we thought we knew it when we saw it. We certainly felt it. This was a woman we wanted to be and a life we wanted.

Read more here:

The woke lot want to cancel Sex and the City - but for the wrong reason - Telegraph.co.uk