Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Margies lived all her life in blue-collar South Boston. Now 30 years since she was a teen, she recounts the fates of former Southies. Sheila Sheen odd. And Marty McDermotts doing time in Walpole prison. The Burke brothers? Who knows, but it cant have been good. And homeless Cookie died on the street just days ago.

Margies doing better? Dont kid yourself. She just lost her cashiers job at the Dollar Store. Her deadbeat husbands who knows where. Daughter Joyce has special needs, which is why Margie was often late to work, and the landladys already tapping her foot for the rent.

For two months around the time Joyce was conceived? Margie dated Mickey Dillon. He made it out of the hardscrabble, Old Harbor projects and became a fertility doctor. Now hes got a classy roost on Chestnut Hill. Margie and friends remember him as good people. Even though they havent seen each other in decades, and even though hes probably lace curtains the opposite of a gravel-mouthed Southie maybe he can her find work.

In an interview, David Lindsay-Abaire said he gets the idea for a play when two ideas collide. He hailed from Bostons south side, made (in)famous in The Departed and Good Will Hunting and also for its antibusing stance in the 70s. He left, got an education, but found that some part of him will always be a Southie.

In the beginning, his Good People feels odd to watch. Its about subjects you almost never see in a theater. First and foremost, Margie needs a job. She must make ends meet or she and Joyce could end up like Cookie. Shell even babysit, if it pays more than her babysitter charges while Margies working. For those who can afford theater tickets, heres how the who-knows-how-many-jobless struggle day to day. Today.

Good People is also about social class, practically a taboo topic on American stages. Lindsay-Abaire explores differences, but without sociological generalities or authorial intrusions. Instead, in Act Two, he creates a triangle: a have-not (Margie, at Chestnut Hill in search of a job any job); a have (Kate, Mikes Georgetown-educated, African-American wife); and Mike, a nouveau-have, convinced he made it out of Southie on his own, but unable to sever ties with the old neighborhood.

Stevie, the store manager, says Maggie makes everything so difficult. She pushes buttons, as if she wants to hurt others as much as shes been hurt. As Margie, a terrific Eva Kaminsky never skimps on her irksome qualities (if she went into the audience, Margie would interrogate patrons to expose pretense and best kept secrets). At the same time, Kaminsky shows that underneath and if she had some luck the plays title could refer to Margie.

She needs a helping hand. Mike, whom the play practically shreds, denies he ever had one. Silver-haired R. Ward Duffy bounces Mike between social classes, his past and present. The friction shatters his patrician veneer.

Denitsa Bliznakovas excellent costumes cut to the quick. When she goes to Chestnut Hill, Margies best outfit cant compete with Kates designer-tailored, lounge-about-the-house togs. As Kate, elegant Nedra McClyde exudes restraint and sophistication, then fires sharp jabs when the gloves come off.

Paul Mullins directs with a deft, almost invisible hand. When the Southies gather James McMenamin (Stevie), Carol Halsted (Jean), and especially Robin Pearson Rose (Dottie) Mullinss stagings are a politically incorrect, internecine hoot.

See the original post:
Comments

By Natasha Korecki Sun-Times Media October 9, 2012 4:14PM

Three Democratic U.S. congressional candidates, Bill Foster, Brad Schneider and Tammy Duckworth. File photo. | John H. White~Chicago Sun-Times.

storyidforme: 38239530 tmspicid: 10042379 fileheaderid: 4623087

Updated: October 10, 2012 2:42AM

A pro-Democratic group is using video cuts of the loud, politically incorrect tea partyer Joe Walsh to turn up the volume against Republicans in three key Chicago-area races.

Walshs bluster is the centerpiece of a new spot, which is part of a $2.4 million ad buy attacking the 8th District congressman from McHenry, and two other Republicans who are targeted by Democrats.

Dont blame banks! I am tired of hearing that crap! Walsh is seen imploring on a video of him talking to district residents.

In another clip hes shown saying: I want America to pay for my contraceptives. Youre kidding me. Go get a job!

Clearly viewing Illinois as fertile ground to win over congressional seats, the House Majority PAC, which aims to put Democrats back into the lead in Washington, disclosed Tuesday it had pumped $2.4 million into the three key Chicago-area races including U.S. House races in the 8th, 10th and 11th congressional districts.

One video titled Loud links Walsh to U.S. Reps. Bob Dold of Kennilworth and Judy Biggert of Hinsdale, both of whom are incumbents. While Walsh is a tea partyer through and through, both Dold and Biggert are far more moderate. Still, the ad which, according to the House Majority PAC, will run in heavy rotation for two weeks works to link the three as equally out of step but only plays video snippets of Walsh talking.

Read this article:
Democratic PAC using ‘loud’ Walsh in ads against other Dold, Biggert

By Natasha Korecki nkorecki@suntimes.com October 9, 2012 6:38PM

Joe Walsh

storyidforme: 38239911 tmspicid: 12114272 fileheaderid: 5533808

A pro-Democratic group is using video cuts of the loud, politically incorrect Tea Partier Joe Walsh to turn up the volume against Republicans in three key Chicago-area races, including the 10th Congressional District.

Walshs bluster is the centerpiece of a new spot, which is part of a $2.4 million ad buy attacking the congressman, and two other Republicans U.S. Reps. Robert Dold in the 10th District and Judy Biggert in the 11th who are targeted by Democrats.

Dont blame banks! I am tired of hearing that crap! Walsh is seen imploring on a video of him talking to district residents.

In another clip hes shown saying: I want America to pay for my contraceptives. Youre kidding me. Go get a job!

Clearly viewing Illinois as fertile ground to win over congressional seats, the House Majority PAC, which aims to put Democrats back into the lead in Washington, on Tuesday disclosed it had pumped $2.4 million into the three key Chicago-area races including U.S. House races in the 6th, 10th and 11th congressional districts.

One video, entitled Loud links Walsh to Dold and Judy Biggert, both of whom are incumbents. While Walsh is a Tea Partier through and through, both Dold and Biggert are far more moderate.

Still, the ad, which, according to the House Majority PAC, will run in heavy rotation for two weeks, works to link the three as equally out of step but only plays video snippets of Walsh talking.

Excerpt from:
Dem PAC uses ‘loud’ Joe Walsh in 10th District ads

By Natasha Korecki Sun-Times Media October 9, 2012 4:14PM

Updated: October 9, 2012 5:58PM

A pro-Democratic group is using video cuts of the loud, politically incorrect tea partyer Joe Walsh to turn up the volume against Republicans in three key Chicago-area races.

Walshs bluster is the centerpiece of a new spot, which is part of a $2.4 million ad buy attacking the 8th District congressman from McHenry, and two other Republicans who are targeted by Democrats.

Dont blame banks! I am tired of hearing that crap! Walsh is seen imploring on a video of him talking to district residents.

In another clip hes shown saying: I want America to pay for my contraceptives. Youre kidding me. Go get a job!

Clearly viewing Illinois as fertile ground to win over congressional seats, the House Majority PAC, which aims to put Democrats back into the lead in Washington, disclosed Tuesday it had pumped $2.4 million into the three key Chicago-area races including U.S. House races in the 8th, 10th and 11th congressional districts.

One video titled Loud links Walsh to U.S. Reps. Bob Dold of Kennilworth and Judy Biggert of Hinsdale, both of whom are incumbents. While Walsh is a tea partyer through and through, both Dold and Biggert are far more moderate. Still, the ad which, according to the House Majority PAC, will run in heavy rotation for two weeks works to link the three as equally out of step but only plays video snippets of Walsh talking.

Incidentally, the cut of Walsh saying Go Get a Job cut off the second part of his quote. The full quote from that day was Go Get a Job, Sandra Fluke. Fluke is the woman who testified before Congress about affordable birth control, only to be berated by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh as a slut.

The HousePAC is banking on Walsh being so unpopular in Illinois that he will help sink two other Republican incumbents.

Read this article:
Democratic PAC uses ‘loud’ Walsh in ads against other Dold, Biggert

By Natasha Korecki Political Reporter/@natashakorecki October 9, 2012 9:04AM

Updated: October 9, 2012 10:10PM

A pro-Democratic group is using video cuts of the loud, politically incorrect Tea Partier Joe Walsh to turn up the volume against him and two other Republicans in three key Chicago-area races.

Dont blame banks! I am tired of hearing that crap! Walsh is seen imploring on a video of him talking to 8th Congressional District residents.

In another clip hes shown saying: I want America to pay for my contraceptives. Youre kidding me. Go get a job!

Clearly viewing Illinois as fertile ground to win over congressional seats, the House Majority PAC, which aims to put Democrats back into the lead in Washington, on Tuesday disclosed it had pumped $2.4 million into the three U.S. House races in the 8th, 10th and 11th congressional districts.

One video, entitled Loud links Walsh to U.S. Representatives Bob Dold and Judy Biggert. While Walsh is a Tea Partier through and through, both Dold and Biggert are far more moderate. Still, the ad, which, according to the House Majority PAC, will run in heavy rotation for two weeks, on both cable and broadcast, works to link the three as equally out of step even thought it only plays video snippets of Walsh talking.

Incidentally, the cut of Walsh saying Go Get a Job, was only a partial quote. The full quote from that day was Go Get a Job, Sandra Fluke.

Fluke is the woman who testified before Congress about affordable birth control, only to be berated by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh as a slut.

The HousePAC is banking on Walsh being so unpopular in Illinois, he will help sink two other Republican incumbents.

Read more here:
Democratic PAC uses ‘loud’ Joe Walsh in ads against Dold, Biggert

Democratic State Rep. Cory Atkins and Republican challenger Michael Benn, both of Concord, faced off on issues ranging from job creation to gay marriage during a one-hour debate Tuesday night on Chelmsfords Politically Incorrect show.

Both are seeking the 14th Middlesex House of Representatives seat in a district that includes all or parts of Acton, Carlisle, Chelmsford and Concord.

Host Carmen Christiano gave both candidates two minutes to answer each of 11 questions, followed by an open debate.

One of the first questions fired by Christiano asked how the state government could help the private sector create more jobs.

To make it less difficult to do business here in Massachusetts. So lower tax rates is one(and) regulation reform. If the government gets too powerful, then there starts to be more regulations, said Benn.

Cory, who took a similar stance, emphasized the state investing in education and the importance of matching certain industries with particular areas in the state to enhance economic growth.

That is our (the states) biggest natural resource, a trained workforceOne of the biggest things we need to do is streamline the currentrecruiting businesses in Massachusetts, said Atkins, who credited community colleges for driving workforce training.

Next, Christiano asked the candidates position on all three of the state ballot questions. The first question, regarding the use of medical marijuana, yielded a difference of opinion between the two candidates.

Im in favor of anything prescribed legally that will alleviate somebodys pain and suffering, said Atkins. We have to be very, very stringent with our legal safeguards and just how people are going to get itjust like with any other controlled substance.

But Benn said supporting such use would be an incremental way toward full legalization of marijuana and he does not support the question.

Link:
Atkins, Benn show differences in hour-long debate

Jay Rockefeller and the US Senate Committee sent a letter to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo asking them to do a better job preventing "their search engines from being gamed through search engine optimization tactics."

Seriously, "search engine optimization tactics?" Really? The letter goes on, to explain that this is "scam involving moving services, which has seen affected consumers lose personal possessions and pay thousands of dollars above quoted prices to dodgy moving companies."

When does it become politically incorrect to associate SEO with scams and spam? Why can't they use a different job classification to talk about spammy SEO? Why not call it search spam tactics? By call it search engine optimization tactics?

I think we need one of us in the senate to write a letter to the US Senate Committee on how to classify our industry in a politically correct manner.

In any event, both TechCrunch and Search Engine Land have another view of this story. I am just covering it from a community perspective.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Note: This story was scheduled to be posted on this day, but was written earlier.

More:
When Will It Be Politically Incorrect To Associate SEO With Scam?

There is no denying that politically correct has become a pejorative term in todays society. Miles Bradys opinion piece on the topic, published in TNH last week, is just one indication among many of a general disdain for the practice.

Being PC is often portrayed as a manner of policing self-expression that drains an essential color and vivacity from the English language, robbing writers of their unique voices, as well as an almost sporting pursuit among the liberal, academic and social justice communities. I concede that adherence to the canon of political correctness does not necessarily mean that the speaker cares deeply about issues of discrimination and that PC speech can be used to mask antipathy and even hatred. But using PC language simply to avoid contention over the issue is akin to following the letter of the law while violating its spirit.

In its best incarnation, political correctness is not a threat to free speech, nor a rigid primer added to and circulated each year. Speech is often ambiguous, and meaning depends heavily on the speaker and its context. Many offensive words have been reappropriated by the communities they target. There can be no list of words and phrases that are verboten. Political correctness is simply a guide to help you use language thoughtfully and with careful regard to the feelings and experiences of others.

To assert that one should not be offended by something because the majority of people find it inoffensive misses the point rather profoundly (even leaving aside the fact that it is very hard to choose not to be offended when something truly hurts you). Words are considered politically incorrectbecausethe vast majority of people find them acceptable, and use them freely, despite the fact that they serve as shorthand for the mistreatment of a small group on the part of that same majority. Words do not become offensive over time because the social justice community is playing some absurd game of discrimination bingo in which the board gets increasingly larger. Words become offensive because they are used hatefully. The word retard, once a clinical term, became politically incorrect because over the years it was used to dehumanize and marginalize a group of people.

Those who proudly describe themselves as politically incorrect seem to see themselves as truth-telling, rule-breaking cowboys living on the linguistic frontier. But the adamant assertion that one is not racist, not sexist, not classist, not ableist, not any kind of -ist does not negate an antecedent statement that says exactly the opposite. Our understanding of other people is limited in scope we cannot read minds, and a person who says things that violate his purported beliefs must not hold them very strongly, or else has a very tenuous grasp on the concept of communication. So who, among these two camps, is obscuring truth? Who is hypocritical? Who is using inexact language? From where I am standing, it is not the proponents of political correctness.

Taboo words and phrases have a power derived from their reserved nature. Their utterance carries a weight that attracts attention, and this makes people want to use them, almost as they would swearing. But a distinction must be made between speech that is offensive because it is vulgar, and speech that is offensive because it is intrinsically tied to years of institutionalized discrimination and hatred. Similarly, censorship of media because of graphic or sexual content cannot be conflated with political correctness, which is, in its most basic form, simply the choice not to use offensive, hurtful language. A word is much more than a word, and using politically incorrect speech is not avoiding euphemisms in order to embrace truthfulness. Along with their literal meaning, these statements drag with them a whole host of injustices, and prejudices and insults that have, over time and with repeated use, become inexorable from that word or phrase, and call into memory the very personal pain of being told you are less than.

There are enough words in the English language that we can deploy exactly the one we need at any given moment without having to call on another that not only does not accurately represent how we purport to feel, and hurts people in the bargain by carelessly perpetuating discrimination, marginalization and hatred. While politically correct speech cant singlehandedly right the wrongs of society, the power of making people think about the implications of their word choice cannot be overlooked. When coupled with empathy and precision of language, political correctness is a powerful force for good.

Aliza Harrigan is a junior political science major and English minor. The 54 percent denotes the percentage of the UNH student body that is female.

See the article here:
The 54 Percent: In defense of political correctness

To some, they stand for everything thats wrong with the automotive world. Others covet such excess. A lucky few can afford them. Politically incorrect cars are the ones that some people love to hate. But really, what is a politically correct car?

Some believe it to be and marketers like to tell us a car thats kind to the environment and/or an efficient use of Mother Natures precious resources.

But the only true PC car if we follow this logic to extremes is a bicycle or a pair of walking shoes.

So, having attempted to make us all feel some level of guilt, hopefully we can now feel a little less shameful about our secret desires for what the haves drive in our have-not world.

Advertisement

We all know Mercedes-Benz makes luxury cars and that theyre a little more expensive than run-of-the-mill runabouts.

But some models make even Mercedes customers raise an eyebrow. The CL coupe is as big and heavy as the companys flagship S-Class sedan (they share underpinnings) but has only two doors and four seats (although the back two, in practice, rarely carry more than a briefcase or overnight bag).

So it could be argued, then, that a twin-turbo 6.0-litre V12 under the nose of a five-metreplus length of metal, rubber and glass might be a touch of overkill to move one or two people around. Even Mercedes-Benz seems to think so: the CL65 AMG is an order-only vehicle. Just two have been sold locally in the past 12 months. The $519,250 price-tag (plus on-road costs) might have a bit to do with that.

The official fuel economy figure for this vehicle is 14.5 litres per 100 kilometres. But if youre looking at the ratings before you place an order, youre probably in the wrong showroom.

More popular is the slightly more affordable (and only marginally less powerful and less thirsty) twinturbo 5.5-litre V8-powered CL63 AMG a relative snip at $423,300. In the past year or so, only six of these have been sold.

More here:
Politically incorrect

September 27, 2012|8:59 am

I knew Bush was unpopular in some circles, but that seemed a bit much.

Writer Tim Brown recently (9/21/2012) posted an article on FreedomOutpost.com entitled, "DOJ: Your Bumper Sticker May Indicate You're A Terrorist."

Brown writes, "The Department of Justice funded a training manual used in the State and Local Anti-terrorism Training (SLATT) program for law enforcement. Apparently certain political bumper stickers can put you on the 'could be a terrorist' list, including opposition to the United Nations and support for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." Included in that list are those who oppose abortion.

This seems to fit with a fascist pattern: Free speech for me, but not for thee. What is free speech if it isn't really free?

This kind of thing would never pass constitutional muster. Twenty years ago, the High Court caused quite a controversy when they declared that burning a U.S. flag is protected free speech.

Follow us

If that is the case, then how much more should bumper stickers be considered free speech?

Here's the verbatim wording found on two of the pages of the DOJ training manual:

Terrorism Training for Law Enforcement Special-Interest/Single Issue Terrorism

See more here:
Can Your Pro-Life Bumper Sticker Actually Get You in Trouble?