This combination photo shows authors J.K. Rowling, left, and Salman Rushdie. Rowling, threatened legal action against a British news site that suggested she was transphobic after referring to controversial tweets she has written in recent months. Rushdie was forced into hiding because of death threats because of his novel The Satanic Verses. (AP Photo)

NEW YORK So youve probably read a lot about cancel culture. Or know about a new poll that shows a plurality of Americans disapproving of it. Or you may have heard about a letter in Harpers Magazine condemning censorship and intolerance.

But can you say exactly what cancel culture is? Some takes:

It seems like a buzzword that creates more confusion than clarity, says the author and journalist George Packer, who went on to call it a mechanism where a chorus of voices, amplified on social media, tries to silence a point of view that they find offensive by trying to damage or destroy the reputation of the person who has given offense.

I dont think its real. But there are reasonable people who believe in it, says the author, educator and sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom. From my perspective, accountability has always existed. But some people are being held accountable in ways that are new to them. We didnt talk about cancel culture when someone was charged with a crime and had to stay in jail because they couldnt afford the bail.

Cancel culture tacitly attempts to disable the ability of a person with whom you disagree to ever again be taken seriously as a writer/editor/speaker/activist/intellectual, or in the extreme, to be hired or employed in their field of work, says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, the author, activist and founding editor of Ms. magazine.

It means different things to different people, says Ben Wizner, director of the ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

In tweets, online letters, opinion pieces and books, conservatives, centrists and liberals continue to denounce what they call growing intolerance for opposing viewpoints and the needless ruining of lives and careers. A Politico/Morning Consult poll released last week shows 44% of Americans disapprove of it, 32% approve and the remaining 24% had no opinion or didnt know what it was.

For some, cancel culture is the coming of the thought police. For others, it contains important chances to be heard that didnt exist before.

Recent examples of unpopular cancellations include the owner of a chain of food stores in Minneapolis whose business faced eviction and calls for boycotts because of racist social media posts by his then-teenage daughter, and a data analyst fired by the progressive firm Civis Analytics after he tweeted a study finding that nonviolent protests increase support for Democratic candidates and violent protests decrease it. Civis Analytics has denied he was fired for the tweet.

These incidents damage the lives of innocent people without achieving any noble purpose, Yascha Mounk wrote in The Atlantic last month. Mounk himself has been criticized for alleging that an astonishing number of academics and journalists proudly proclaim that it is time to abandon values like due process and free speech.

Debates can be circular and confusing, with those objecting to intolerance sometimes openly uncomfortable with those who dont share their views. A few weeks ago, more than 100 artists and thinkers endorsed a letter co-written by Packer and published by Harpers. It warned against a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.

The letter drew signatories from many backgrounds and political points of view, ranging from the far-left Noam Chomsky to the conservative David Frum, and was a starting point for contradiction.

The writer and trans activist Jennifer Finney Boylan, who signed the letter, quickly disowned it because she did not know who else had attached their names. Although endorsers included Salman Rushdie, who in 1989 was forced into hiding over death threats from Iranian Islamic leaders because of his novel The Satanic Verses, numerous online critics dismissed the letter as a product of elitists who knew nothing about censorship.

One of the organizers of the letter, the writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, later announced on Twitter that he had thrown a guest out of his home over criticisms of letter-supporter Bari Weiss, the New York Times columnist who recently quit over what she called a Twitter-driven culture of political correctness. Another endorser, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, threatened legal action against a British news site that suggested she was transphobic after referring to controversial tweets that she has written in recent months.

The only speech these powerful people seem to care about is their own, the author and feminist Jessica Valenti wrote in response to the Harpers letter. (Cancel culture ) is certainly not about free speech: After all, an arrested journalist is never referred to as canceled, nor is a woman who has been frozen out of an industry after complaining about sexual harassment. Canceled is a label we all understand to mean a powerful person whos been held to account.

Cancel culture is hard to define, in part because there is nothing confined about it no single cause, no single ideology, no single fate for those allegedly canceled.

Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, convicted sex offenders, are in prison. Former television personality Charlie Rose has been unemployable since allegations of sexual abuse and harassment were published in 2017-18. Oscar winner Kevin Spacey has made no films since he faced allegations of harassment and assault and saw his performance in All the Money in the World replaced by Christopher Plummers.

Others are only partially canceled. Woody Allen, accused by daughter Dylan Farrow of molesting her when she was 7, was dropped by Amazon, his U.S. film distributor, but continues to release movies overseas. His memoir was canceled by Hachette Book Group, but soon acquired by Skyhorse Publishing, which also has a deal with the previously canceled Garrison Keillor. Sirius XM announced last week that the late Michael Jackson, who seemed to face posthumous cancellation after the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland presented extensive allegations that he sexually abused boys, would have a channel dedicated to his music.

Cancellation in one subculture can lead to elevation in others. Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has not played an NFL game since 2016 and has been condemned by President Donald Trump and many others on the right after he began kneeling during the National Anthem to protest a country that oppresses black people and people of color. But he has appeared in Nike advertisements, been honored by the ACLU and Amnesty International and reached an agreement with the Walt Disney Co. for a series about his life.

You can say the NFL canceled Colin Kaepernick as a quarterback and that he was resurrected as a cultural hero, says Julius Bailey, an associate professor of philosophy at Wittenberg University who writes about Kaepernick in his book Racism, Hypocrisy and Bad Faith.

In politics, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, remains in his job 1 1/2 years after acknowledging he appeared in a racist yearbook picture while in college. Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, resigned after multiple women alleged he had sexually harassed them, but Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of Virginia defied orders to quit after two women accused him of sexual assault.

Sometimes even multiple allegations of sexual assault, countless racist remarks and the disparagement of wounded military veterans arent enough to induce cancellation. Trump, a Republican, has labeled cancel culture far-left fascism and the very definition of totalitarianism while so far proving immune to it.

Politicians can ride this out because they were hired by the public. And if the public is willing to go along, then they can sometimes survive things perhaps they shouldnt survive, Packer says.

I think you can say that Trumps rhetoric has had a boomerang effect on the rest of our society, says PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, who addresses free expression in her book Dare to Speak, which comes out next week. People on the left feel that he can get away with anything, so they do all they can to contain it elsewhere.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read the rest here:

Everywhere and nowhere: The many layers of 'cancel culture' - The Daily Times

WASHINGTON When the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism released screenshots of Twitter locking several accounts that displayed the Star of David, which could be unlocked if users removed the hateful imagery, Twitter admitted that it had made a mistake.

We categorically do not consider the Star of David as a hateful symbol or hateful image, the social media giant tweeted on July 22.

In two tweets that followed news reports, Twitter explained, We have for some time seen the yellow star or yellow badge being used by those seeking to target Jewish people. While the majority of cases were correctly actioned, some accounts highlighted recently were mistakes and have now been restored.

Meanwhile, in Henderson, Parler, a startup platform pronounced like the word for a sitting room in a bygone era, acted on the truism that when one door closes, another opens.

Aware of critics allegation that Twitter exercises a heavy hand censoring Jewish users, which Twitter denies, Parler sent out a news release with links to stories about the locked accounts under the heading Anti-Semitism at Twitter?

The release included a statement by Parler strategic investor Jeffrey Wernick, who said that for him as a Jew, the Star of David symbolizes my love for Judaism, which does not conflict in any way with my love for my nation and my love for humanity. To designate it, if the allegations are true, as a hateful image, is not only an act of hate but also likely libelous and slanderous.

Alternative to Twitter

Parler, with its nearly 3 million users signing on since its start in 2018, offers an outside-Silicon Valley alternative for conservatives and activists who feel targeted by Twitter policies to check hate speech and inaccuracies.

Its a suspicion shared by President Donald Trump, who this year found himself on the receiving end of Twitter warnings and fact-checking.

On its homepage, Parler bills itself as an unbiased social platform focused on open dialogue and user engagement. We allow free speech and do not censor ideas, political parties or ideologies.

When a reporter created an account, Parler displayed the accounts of famous customers, including a Trump son, GOP members of Congress and Fox News personalities.

Ubiquitous Fox News figure Dan Bongino not only joined Parler but also took an ownership stake in the platform, which he dubs the hottest social media alternative in the market right now. Bongino frequently pops up on where else Twitter to tell followers to ditch the tech tyrants and sign up with Parler.

Roger Stone, the onetime Trump whisperer, felon and presidential commutation recipient, has an account. Ditto Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and second son Eric Trump.

Parler CEO John Matze recently told C-SPAN that the platforms requirement that users submit a phone number limits the number of bot accounts and restricts users to one handle, which should cut down on social media mischief. In an apparent homage to Twitter CEO Jack Dorseys Twitter handle, @Jack, Matze signs on as @John.

Matze says his platform welcomes users from all political persuasions. Some liberals have complained that they tried to join Parler, if only to spar with Trump voters, but found themselves kicked off. Matze told C-SPAN that his platform has blocked users who posted pornography or images of fecal matter.

Otherwise, Matze said, Parler tries to stay out of ideological pursuits.

Weve had these censorship platforms for 10 years now, he told C-SPAN. And Id say the countrys only gotten more divided.

Wernick said he invested in Parler because he felt that we were going to lose free speech rights in the country. As for Parlers conservative bent, he observed: I like to say, Its not a conservative platform by design. Its a conservative platform by consequence.

Anti-Semitism or no?

Wernick told the Review-Journal that he did not know for certain whether Twitter showed bad faith in locking the Star of David accounts reported by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, but he said he is sure that Twitter has a double standard that shortchanges Jewish expression.

Campaign Against Anti-Semitism director of investigations Stephen Silverman didnt buy Twitters explanation.

Only one of the accounts locked featured a yellow star, and it very clearly did so as a means of reclaiming the yellow stars used by the Nazis, Silverman said. This is precisely the kind of inept response to anti-Semitism that we have come to expect from Twitter, which just last week tried to convince us that the viral anti-Semitic #JewishPrivilege hashtag was legitimate.

Silverman was referring to an anti-Semitic hashtag campaign, which some Jewish users slyly turned into an opportunity to discuss hardships their families had endured.

It seems that Twitter prefers to go after Jewish users who proudly display their identity but not after anti-Semitic users who unabashedly promote anti-Jewish vitriol, Silverman concluded.

In 2018, the Anti-Defamation League found an estimated 4.2 million tweets with anti-Semitic expressions, stereotypes, code words, symbols and conspiracy theories during the previous year.

Boston University professor Marshall Van Alstyne, who specializes in communications markets, laid out a scenario in which Twitter, which claims 330 million active users, could have had an honest mistake made by a programmer that did not anticipate the consequences of picking up patterns.

Purveyors of hate speech might have exhibited a pattern of sharing this content independent of honest, noble and caring citizens also sharing this content, Van Alstyne explained. One was bad, the other was good, and the machine that flagged it wasnt smart enough to distinguish the two. By contrast, if a human made the decision to flag it, then I would be seriously concerned.

Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, sees a pattern of Twitter accounts that remain active despite a history of anti-Semitic remarks, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Irans supreme leader; and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who tweeted that congressional support for Israel was all about the Benjamins.

Cancel culture fight

The fact that they find that people who want to showcase the Star of David in terms of their Jewish heritage and pride as hate speech is ridiculous, and its really a crystal ball into the future where if this cancel culture and political correctness run amok is allowed to continue, Brooks said.

For that reason, Brooks added, 2020 will be a contest that pits the right against the progressive left who want to cancel everything and take down the Star of David and take down statues of (George) Washington and Mount Rushmore.

Brooks has been a key player in Trumps effort to increase his share of the Jewish vote, which was 24 percent in 2016, even though Jewish support for Republicans fell to 17 percent in 2018.

Will Parler be an influencer in November? Van Alstyne thinks not. For one thing, Parler is just too small with less than four months to go.

And he wonders whether Parler eventually could fall into the same trap that ensnared Twitter, which once considered itself the free speech wing of the free speech party.

Its not clear Parler can yet draw the line for less censorship that doesnt cross the line for no censorship when Twitter already tried that, he said. In the future, maybe theyll find a way, but in time for the current election, I dont think so.

The Review-Journal is owned by the family of Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson. Adelson is on the board of directors of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Contact Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.comor 202-662-7391. Follow@DebraJSaunders on Twitter.

Read more here:

Conservative alternative to Twitter based in Henderson - Las Vegas Review-Journal

She glared as if hed broken wind in a church pew, somewhere between Give us this day and our daily bread. Blake Mundells wake-up call crept up from behind during his freshman year of college and conked him on the back of the head.

When youre on your own for the first time, doing your own laundry, some T-shirts survive the rotation better than others. For Mundell, a native of Lamar whod entered Belmont University in Nashville during the fall of 2007, that rotation included a shirt from his high school that showcased the head of a Native American man in full orange headdress, next to the words SAVAGE BASEBALL.

Mundell wore the thing to class a few times, and while on a community service trip in the autumn. Hed thought nothing of it.

That is, until while on said trip, a female friend a Native American and fellow undergrad shot him a look that landed like a baby grand dropped from 16 stories up.

As soon as I wore that (shirt), this friend had made a comment about it, Mundell recalled. And then they just distanced themselves. And I could not figure out why.

For months, nothing. Then one day, that next spring, this friend ambled up and told him exactly why.

(She) got the courage to say how much just wearing that shirt with the image of an American Indian in headdress with the white face had hurt, Mundell said.

And in the face of this persons actual pain was when I said, I need to re-evaluate all of this. That was the catalyst.

***

Its 2020. Time to bury the hatchets, dont you think?

And the teepees. And the war paint. And the headdresses. And the stereotypes.

If Washingtons NFL team figures its no longer cool to be called The Redskins, then why does Lamar High School think that combining caricatures of indigenous people, human beings, with the term Savages is somehow above reproach?

Honestly, it makes it hard for me to proud of the town that I grew up in, explained Stephanie Davis, a Denverite who graduated from Lamar High in 2006. I spent 18 years of my life there and its not something that I can talk proudly about with friends or colleagues.

Whenever I think about my high school, thats what I think about. I think about the mascot. I think about how it portrays Native Americans in the community its a pretty formative part of who I am. It comes with a lot of freedom that kids in cities dont have. But I think it also comes with the (idea) of taking pride a little bit too far.

Davis and Mundell, Class of 07, want that pride back. Theyve grown weary of the apologies, the excuses, the blind eyes and the provincialism. Well, thats the way its always been, as a base defense, has rarely justified anything worth keeping.

According to the Commission to Study American Indian Representation In Public Schools, created via executive order by then-Gov. John Hickenlooper in October 2015, 11 Colorado public high schools featured Native American mascots or imagery during the 2015-16 school year. A search of the MascotDB.com database, which tracks nickname usage across all organized U.S sports circuits, shows that nine high schools maintain the name Indians, while four utilize Warriors with either Native American connotations or mascots attached.

Eaton Highs Reds feature an American Indian caricature as part of its branding, even on T-shirts aimed at kids. Le Vetas Redskins, same deal. Start em young.

Generally, when alumni come back like this and try to have this conversation, Mundell said by phone from greater Nashville, were usually met with, Well, youre an outsider now.

Theyre going to try and push that boulder up the hill anyway. Mundell and Davis formed an alumni group this summer with other Lamar alumni who see a school, and a community, that looks more out of step with each passing year. The group is slated to make a remote presentation to the school board early Monday afternoon.

We anticipate sort of being blown off, Mundell said. But this is the first step. We know that often, whenever anyone perceived as an outside source (steps in), folks in the past have dug their heels in even further.

Savage isnt just a nickname for Lamar, a southeastern Colorado community 50 miles west of the Kansas border its a state of mind, a badge of honor. Its part of the fabric, part of why a town with an estimated population of 7,665 boasts a high school thats won 20 state championships, eight of them in baseball and another five in girls basketball.

Lamars done this dance before, and the locals have pushed back every time. In February 2016, Darius Smith, director of the Denver Anti-Discrimination Office, made a presentation to community stakeholders, one of four stops on his tour as a part of Hickenloopers commission on American Indian representation.

It was different (from the other stops) because they had security personnel, Smith recalled. There were a lot of old-timers, alumni of the school, who were saying, Im proud to be a Savage. It was like they were reading from a script they would either start or end with, Im proud to be a Savage. We were on the panel, looking up, like, What?

Smith gets it. Mundell and Davis grew up with it. To generations in Prowers County, Savage is a compliment, representative of Lamars collective town spirit, emblematic of a community that never quits.

In that case, why not keep that nickname, embrace that mantra, and honor it with, say, a bear? A beast? A cryptid or a force of nature that represents those qualities, as opposed to again a race of human beings?

Its not the ideal.

Its the emblem.

The Board of Education had recently received communication from alumni and community members opposing the mascot as well as those that support the mascot, the Lamar school board said in a statement emailed by superintendent Dave Tecklenburg. As you likely know, this topic has been heavily debated within our district several times throughout the years.

***

Mundell and Davis suspect theyll be asked about the timing especially given the economic fallout from a pandemic that hasnt let up and potential costs. Rebranding, even for a just cause, doesnt come cheap.

There are people that have said, Why are they bringing this up now? There are more important things to be brought up, Mundell said. Theres always going to be something more important than this. And absolutely, money is a big thing.

He estimates a logo change would require a minimum investment of $125,000 to $150,000 for a school of Lamars size. To defray those costs, hes reached out to business contacts, sounding out some within the Tennessee Titans organization, as well as chums inside the Nike corporate chain.

If money is the biggest hurdle, we can do that, we can make that happen, said Mundell, whose father, Joe, taught and coached in Lamar for more than three decades. We can find a way to manage that. And I truly believe that.

Mutual of Omaha is moving away from Native American imagery that defined its corporate logo. Land OLakes is retiring its butter maiden after nearly a century of use. Even Washington owner Dan Snyder was forced to tap out, eventually. And the MLB franchise in Cleveland is expected to do the same.

I think the climate has changed, Smith said. People are getting frustrated with our society right now. And I think its an opportunity for Lamar to correct a wrong.

Its not political correctness.

Its common sense.

Its going back to your college pal, the one whose gaze shot a dagger through your heart, and asking for another chance.

I said, Hey, I apologize, Mundell recalled. And I told her I wasnt going to wear that apparel anymore.

Were still friends.

If she can forgive, then history can, too. Because the longer you choose to stay on that island, putting pride before progress, refusing a path forward, the lonelier youre going to be.

See the original post:

Keeler: If Washington can bury the Redskins name, why is Lamar still standing by its Savages? - The Denver Post

The moral panic is a reaction by cultural gatekeepers to the democratising nature of online platforms, who otherwise cannot fathom being held accountable for their speech.

It was just five years ago that New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chaitdeclared journalism to be besieged by a system of left-wing ideological repression. Political correctness, in Chaits parlance, was a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate.

Previously confined to academia, according to Chait, political correctness had gradually made inroads on social media and subsequently attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

The main complaint of the now infamousopen letter published by Harpers Magazine does not vary from Chaits denunciation of political correctness five years ago.

Much as Chait had bemoaned that debate had become irrelevant and frequently impossible due to political correctness, the letter decries that the very norms of open debate and toleration of differences are now threatened in favor of ideological conformity.

Nor are the stakes any different this time around.

Just as Chait warned that the growth of political correctness threatened democracy itself, the letter suggests that the new set of moral attitudes and political commitments make everyone less capable of democratic participation. Chait considered political correctness to be antithetical to liberalism and the letter maintains that the lifeblood of a liberal society is at risk.

It has now become common practice for prominent writers with access to platforms which reach millions to raise overwrought concerns that the very foundation of liberalism is crumbling.

What Chait called political correctness has increasingly come to be known as cancel culture: a supposedly censorious tendency which entails an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.

Ironically, what these writers and intellectuals consider to be a threat to free speech are in fact themselves acts of free speech.

Cancel culture, if one is to call it that, is merely an indication that free speech is alive and well. There is an audience which engages with the work of others and feels free to criticise what it does not like.

The responses can take many forms: criticism and shaming on social media, letters to the editor, or boycotts of publications, TV shows, and streaming platforms. These are all responses that an audience is entitled to and they are all well within the scope of free speech.

In their erstwhile desire to denounce the encroachment of the public on their turf, the guardians of our culture complain that they no longer feel as comfortable to share their opinions as before, due to how others may feel and react.

This is what the hand-wringing over and condemnations of cancel culture actually indicate. The immunity from criticism our cultural and political establishment enjoyed for so long has now been lost.

Access to liberal values has always been shaped by political contexts, material conditions, market incentives, cultural forces, and so on. This still remains true. What has changed is the growth of the internet as an open-forum.

Amplifying voices

The audience has access to tools which allow it to direct its ire at those who previously enjoyed unfettered access to traditional media and remained blissfully oblivious to the opinions of their readership.

Blogs in the early 2000s and social media, especially Twitter, since then have allowed and even amplified the voices of marginalised groups. It is these previously unheard voices which seem to be causing so much consternation to the cultural and political establishment.

The moral panic, thus, is merely an elite reaction to the democratising nature of engagement with traditional media which social media enables.

The gatekeepers can no longer control the terms of their engagement with their audience and are now treated to an unrelenting stream of criticism. They take this not just to be a personal affront but rather a significant cultural shift.

Free speech, and liberalism generally, face no threat from a sheltered cultural and political establishment finally being challenged or exposed to contrary views. In its classical liberal formulation, free speech guarantees protection from government persecution but not necessarily a platform to broadcast your views.

No one is entitled to a Netflix special or access to the opinion pages of the New York Times and no ones freedom of speech is challenged when that access is cancelled. Never mind that many of those who are ostensibly cancelled actually go on to enjoy their lives and careers in much the same way as before.

As US House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezpointed out, no one has the right to a large, captive audience and does not become a victim if people choose to tune them out. The odds are, she continued, youre not actually cancelled, youre just being challenged, held accountable, or unliked.

It is telling that the Harpers Magazine letter contains no concrete examples of how free speech is being threatened. The consequences for dissenting and marginalised voices have always been far more severe than disagreements and social media shaming.

Advocates of Palestinian self-determination arefired from their jobs and have their lives destroyed, Muslims are thrown in prison fortranslation work, Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists arethreatened by intelligence agencies, and so on.

The cancellation of unnamed individuals from marginalised groups looks very different from the cancellation of a famous writer who may have to think twice before firing off another anti-trans tweet.

What the Harpers letter, and denunciations of cancel culture generally, represent is an attempt to weaponise free speech to further constrict free speech: a list ditch effort by the self-appointed guardians of culture to ensure access remains limited to the select few.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT World.

We welcome all pitches and submissions to TRT World Opinion please send them via email, to opinion.editorial@trtworld.com

Source: TRT World

View original post here:

Cries of cancel culture are a tantrum by the powerful - TRT World

Antkind

By Charlie Kaufman

Random House. 720 pp. $30

---

B. Rosenberger Rosenberg does not think much of filmmaker Charlie Kaufman or his work. "He sticks in my craw like no other," Rosenberg says, and it's one of the milder insults he lobs at the screenwriter and director responsible for such celebrated, mind-bending films as "Being John Malkovich," "Anomalisa" and "Synecdoche, New York." That Rosenberg correctly suspects Kaufman of being his creator and the decider of his fate has no moderating effect on his attacks. Kaufman, he says, is "a third-rate talent who no doubt despises me as much as I do him."

Rosenberg is easy to dislike. A self-described "older, intellectual writer" who reviews movies for obscure publications, Rosenberg is deeply envious of his fellow critics. He loathes most other writers and believes his essays are well known when, in fact, they may not even exist (sample title: "Swedish Hsi Dews," about Swedish palindromists). He tries so hard to prove that he's woke, "as the children today say," that he comes off as anything but. Disagreeable, arrogant and clueless, Rosenberg is no one's idea of a quarantine companion. He is, in short, an ass.

All of which makes him the ideal protagonist for "Antkind," Kaufman's loopy, loony, 720-page raspberry of a first novel. A dyspeptic satire that owes much to Kurt Vonnegut and Thomas Pynchon, "Antkind" has in Rosenberg a contrarian whose tomatoes are always rotten. "Starbucks is the smart coffee for dumb people. It's the Christopher Nolan of coffee," he offers during one discursive rant. About the only things Rosenberg approves of are sex (which he seldom has) and Judd Apatow ("the Great Exception").

Why spend a minute, let alone 720 pages, with this guy? For starters, he can be outrageously funny, often without meaning to be. "Imagine a holy synthesis of Brandon Cruz from 'The Courtship of Eddie's Father' and Mayim Bialik of 'Blossom' fame and you're imagining me as a boy," Rosenberg says, totally serious. "I am the Marilu Henner of men," he brags of the extraordinary memory he claims to possess and certainly does not. His chronic misspelling of famous names (Jake Gillibrand, Tarrantinoo) is the novel's best running joke.

Kaufman, of course, is the clever one here, and he has a blast tweaking toxic masculinity, celebrity worship, political correctness, filmmaking, therapy, high art, low art and much more. Themes that have long preoccupied the writer, particularly in the films "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," reappear in "Antkind." Humanity's ever competing perceptions of reality, the unreliability of memory, the question of God's existence and the malleable nature of storytelling are measured again and again in this novel that is long but never dull.

"We are all of us victims of the illusion of constancy," a filmmaker named Ingo Cutbirth tells Rosenberg during a visit to St. Augustine, where he is researching a book about gender and cinema. Cutbirth, who claims to be 119 years old, has spent nine decades creating a stop motion-animation film that is three months long and features thousands of handmade puppets. Rosenberg agrees to watch the film in one stretch, pausing only for bathroom, food and sleep breaks determined by Cutbirth. It is, Rosenberg decides, "the greatest single piece of art ever created."

As Rosenberg watches the film, Cutbirth dies, and the critic dedicates his life to making sure the movie is "properly disseminated, appreciated, celebrated." He packs decades' worth of boxes filled with film reels and puppets into a rental truck and heads home to New York. But while he's inside a fast-food restaurant, the truck catches fire. Only one frame of Cutbirth's film survives. For the next 500-plus pages, Rosenberg attempts to recreate the movie through a variety of self-invented memory techniques and hypnotherapy. Soon, he can no longer tell the difference between the real world and that of the film, and he's traveling back and forth through time, pausing frequently to complain about this and that. He becomes Billy Pilgrim as played by Larry David.

Keeping up with the story is near impossible, particularly when Rosenberg finds himself embroiled in a war between a million Donald Trump robots with nuclear bombs inside their heads and an army formed by the Slammy's fast-food chain. But for all the absurd digressions and circuitous detours, "Antkind" remains propelled by Kaufman's deep imagination, considerable writing ability and bull's-eye wit.

Increasingly among the mayhem, the promise of Rosenberg's redemption also surfaces. "Perhaps this would have been the work of art that would do what no other work of art has ever been able to achieve: unite us, show us the best in ourselves, lead us on a collective journey toward compassion," Rosenberg says of Cutbirth's lost film. "I know it led me toward compassion, at least one-seventh of the way."

Go here to read the rest:

Charlie Kaufman's debut novel, 'Antkind,' is just as loopy and clever as his movies - theday.com

So you've probably read a lot about cancel culture. Or know about a new poll that shows a plurality of Americans disapproving of it. Or you may have heard about a letter in Harper's Magazine condemning censorship and intolerance.

But can you say exactly what cancel culture is? Some takes:

It seems like a buzzword that creates more confusion than clarity, says the author and journalist George Packer, who went on to call it a mechanism where a chorus of voices, amplified on social media, tries to silence a point of view that they find offensive by trying to damage or destroy the reputation of the person who has given offense.

The latest news from around North Texas.

I dont think its real. But there are reasonable people who believe in it, says the author, educator and sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom. From my perspective, accountability has always existed. But some people are being held accountable in ways that are new to them. We didnt talk about cancel culture when someone was charged with a crime and had to stay in jail because they couldnt afford the bail.

"'Cancel culture' tacitly attempts to disable the ability of a person with whom you disagree to ever again be taken seriously as a writer/editor/speaker/activist/intellectual, or in the extreme, to be hired or employed in their field of work," says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, the author, activist and founding editor of Ms. magazine.

It means different things to different people, says Ben Wizner, director of the ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

In tweets, online letters, opinion pieces and books, conservatives, centrists and liberals continue to denounce what they call growing intolerance for opposing viewpoints and the needless ruining of lives and careers. A Politico/Morning Consult poll released last week shows 44% of Americans disapprove of it, 32% approve and the remaining 24% had no opinion or didn't know what it was.

For some, cancel culture is the coming of the thought police. For others, it contains important chances to be heard that didn't exist before.

Recent examples of unpopular cancellations include the owner of a chain of food stores in Minneapolis whose business faced eviction and calls for boycotts because of racist social media posts by his then-teenage daughter, and a data analyst fired by the progressive firm Civis Analytics after he tweeted a study finding that nonviolent protests increase support for Democratic candidates and violent protests decrease it. Civis Analytics has denied he was fired for the tweet.

These incidents damage the lives of innocent people without achieving any noble purpose, Yascha Mounk wrote in The Atlantic last month. Mounk himself has been criticized for alleging that an astonishing number of academics and journalists proudly proclaim that it is time to abandon values like due process and free speech."

Debates can be circular and confusing, with those objecting to intolerance sometimes openly uncomfortable with those who don't share their views. A few weeks ago, more than 100 artists and thinkers endorsed a letter co-written by Packer and published by Harper's. It warned against a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity."

The letter drew signatories from many backgrounds and political points of view, ranging from the far-left Noam Chomsky to the conservative David Frum, and was a starting point for contradiction.

The writer and trans activist Jennifer Finney Boylan, who signed the letter, quickly disowned it because she did not know who else" had attached their names. Although endorsers included Salman Rushdie, who in 1989 was forced into hiding over death threats from Iranian Islamic leaders because of his novel The Satanic Verses, numerous online critics dismissed the letter as a product of elitists who knew nothing about censorship.

One of the organizers of the letter, the writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, later announced on Twitter that he had thrown a guest out of his home over criticisms of letter-supporter Bari Weiss, the New York Times columnist who recently quit over what she called a Twitter-driven culture of political correctness. Another endorser, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, threatened legal action against a British news site that suggested she was transphobic after referring to controversial tweets that she has written in recent months.

The only speech these powerful people seem to care about is their own," the author and feminist Jessica Valenti wrote in response to the Harper's letter. ('Cancel culture' ) is certainly not about free speech: After all, an arrested journalist is never referred to as canceled, nor is a woman who has been frozen out of an industry after complaining about sexual harassment. Canceled is a label we all understand to mean a powerful person whos been held to account."

Cancel culture is hard to define, in part because there is nothing confined about it no single cause, no single ideology, no single fate for those allegedly canceled.

Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, convicted sex offenders, are in prison. Former television personality Charlie Rose has been unemployable since allegations of sexual abuse and harassment were published in 2017-18. Oscar winner Kevin Spacey has made no films since he faced allegations of harassment and assault and saw his performance in All the Money in the World replaced by Christopher Plummer's.

Others are only partially canceled. Woody Allen, accused by daughter Dylan Farrow of molesting her when she was 7, was dropped by Amazon, his U.S. film distributor, but continues to release movies overseas. His memoir was canceled by Hachette Book Group, but soon acquired by Skyhorse Publishing, which also has a deal with the previously canceled Garrison Keillor. Sirius XM announced last week that the late Michael Jackson, who seemed to face posthumous cancellation after the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland presented extensive allegations that he sexually abused boys, would have a channel dedicated to his music.

Cancellation in one subculture can lead to elevation in others. Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has not played an NFL game since 2016 and has been condemned by President Donald Trump and many others on the right after he began kneeling during the National Anthem to protest a country that oppresses black people and people of color." But he has appeared in Nike advertisements, been honored by the ACLU and Amnesty International and reached an agreement with the Walt Disney Co. for a series about his life.

You can say the NFL canceled Colin Kaepernick as a quarterback and that he was resurrected as a cultural hero, says Julius Bailey, an associate professor of philosophy at Wittenberg University who writes about Kaepernick in his book Racism, Hypocrisy and Bad Faith.

In politics, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, remains in his job 1 1/2 years after acknowledging he appeared in a racist yearbook picture while in college. Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, resigned after multiple women alleged he had sexually harassed them, but Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of Virginia defied orders to quit after two women accused him of sexual assault.

Sometimes even multiple allegations of sexual assault, countless racist remarks and the disparagement of wounded military veterans aren't enough to induce cancellation. Trump, a Republican, has labeled cancel culture far-left fascism and the very definition of totalitarianism while so far proving immune to it.

Politicians can ride this out because they were hired by the public. And if the public is willing to go along, then they can sometimes survive things perhaps they shouldn't survive, Packer says.

I think you can say that Trump's rhetoric has had a boomerang effect on the rest of our society, says PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, who addresses free expression in her book Dare to Speak, which comes out next week. People on the left feel that he can get away with anything, so they do all they can to contain it elsewhere.

Originally posted here:

Everywhere and Nowhere: the Many Layers of Cancel Culture' - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

How do we determine the meaning of the Native American and African figures included on the equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt at the American Museum of Natural History in New York? Why were these figures included? Why were they not Caucasian men? The statues sculptor is long gone, but I believe he had a reason for the inclusion of these two specific men. Some believe their inclusion is demeaning and called for the statue to be removed, because the figures are depicted as being in servitude to Roosevelt.

However, it could also be interpreted that the sculptor of the statue knew President Roosevelt valued the lives of all people and by including these figures, he honored men of Native American and African descent by placing them in a prominent position next to Roosevelt. How will we ever know the sculptors intent? We cant.

But I choose to believe these figures were included with much thought in mind and had meaning. The meaning was to honor the men of these nationalities, not to demean them, as they are shown walking with Roosevelt as he sat astride his horse. The statue should not be removed because of some peoples prejudices or feelings of political correctness unless their view is backed up by specifics, not only interpretation. Wouldnt it be nice if a plaque describing the statue and its meaning had been included?

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

See more here:

What was statue's true meaning? (letter) | Letters To The Editor - LancasterOnline

The lives of Martin Luther King Jr and Sam Houston provide a model for bringing some sense of unity out of the divisiveness which characterizes political correctness in our time. Fundamental to that divisiveness is the concept of cultural determinism which holds that the sub culture into which one is drawn at a formative age becomes the pivotal and ultimate determiner of ones values or standards of judgement. Sub cultures are essentially genetically based, tied to race, which augments the separateness.

Reinforcing divisiveness is the concept is cultural appropriation. This is especially apparent in terms of the black versus the white race. The tendency here is to label as politically incorrect or racist, any action by a member of the white race centered on displaying or behaving in a manner associated with black culture while divorced from a proper context reflecting black culture.

Stemming from these divisive premises, the greatest sin in pluralism lies in surrender to cultural assimilation, the merging of a sub culture into the cultural mainstream thereby diminishing the sub cultures uniqueness. Tempering the presumed ill effects of cultural assimilation is acculturation. While bringing the representative of a sub culture into the mainstream, acculturation allows for retention of a basic obeisance to ones native sub culture.

It is against the background of acculturation so defined that Martin Luther King Jr and Sam Houston become models of cultural integration in an era under captivity to pluralist political correctness. Each of these men expressed the embrace of the dominant assimilated US culture as the goal of the society generally while continuing to pay respect to a sub culture with which they identified. Witness Sam Houstons pivotal role in the mainstream while also wearing apparel reflective of the Native American subculture, a habit finding socio political legitimacy in his having spent quality time with Native Americans.

Reflecting aspects of acculturation then, both King and Houston meet the test of political correctness. However, in two significant ways they both challenge political correctness. One of these ways lay in their ultimate allegiance to the Transcendent God of the Bible. This places them in the context of seeing each individual as significant, apart from and regardless of ones sub cultural and biological roots.

This transformational act of political incorrectness marks the path to releasing the individual from the narrow -based group think of cultural determinism to embrace identity with the Biblically-based roots of the countrys political and social institutions common to all.

Reinforcing commonality, both Sam Houston and Martin Luther King Jr were nationalists. In his I have a Dream Speech, King called for a coming together of heirs of slaves and slave masters to join in singing the refrains of America: My Country tis of thee. Then there was Sam Houston who, as governor of Texas, refused to sign Texas into the Confederacy due to his loyalty to the nation as a whole.

Featuring a broad-based and Christian-centered nationalism while yet respecting sub cultural roots, Sam Houston and Martin Luther King Jr. are models for a unity of substance even within a pluralist framework. Sam Houston, hero of San Jacinto and Martin Luther King Jr, the Great Dreamer, are worthy of emulation in a revitalized American History.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See original here:

Politically incorrect as correct: Sam Houston and Martin L. King Jr. - Huntsville Item

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

Heres the latest on the brutal muzzling of free speech in America:

A new Cato Institute/YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans finds that 62% of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive. This is up from 2017 when 58% agreed with this statement.

Thats an increase of . . . 4 percent! Clearly George Floyd and the forces of political correctness have wreaked havoc on American culture.

On a more serious note, polls like this would be a lot more useful if they tried to dive into what people are afraid to say. If its something like Black people are lazy then Id say the increase to 62 percent means that Americans are increasingly wary of expressing racist ideas in public, and thats a good thing. On the other hand, if its something like Class-based affirmative action is a good idea then we might have a real problem. So which is it?

Continue reading here:

What Is It That People Are Afraid To Say These Days? Mother Jones - Mother Jones

During the past several weeks numerous protests have occurred across the country. Most of these protests have been peaceful and meaningful, but violence including rioting, burning, and looting were dominant early on. Part of the problem was the absence of any authoritative rule by officials to protect its citizens and their property from this type of behavior.

The fiasco in Seattle has finally come to an end as a section of the city was relinquished to protestors as a result of the do-nothing attitude of the Mayor of Seattle and Governor of Washington. The only things accomplished, besides a couple of murders, were the humiliation of Seattle and a lack of faith in the police department by officials.

Protesting has since moved on to the defacing of monuments, destruction of statues including those of past presidents and opposed to slavery, and the burning of the flag. One needs to question if this is an attempt by some to advance a new socio-economic format, void of history, which suits their idealistic values or simply idiots who lack knowledge of the background and historical significance of the statues they are indiscriminately destroying.

History belongs to us all. We study and learn from history, we do not bury it.

2020 is the 75th Anniversary of Allied victory in WW II. We need to honor and remember those who were a part of this war and the memory of those who gave their lives to preserve the freedoms of democracy.

Protesting is one of those freedoms, the abuse of our country is not.

WW II had much to do with hate. Racist and hate are words used often in today's society. They are strong words. When used, little thought is given to their meaning and to whom or what they are directed at. Maybe someday respect and understanding can replace them.

Our country is not perfect, but it is the best there is. Our country will survive along with its freedoms for all, but the distraction of political correctness, the desecration of history, and the destruction of democracy cannot be tolerated.

Chuck McKee

Marengo

Read this article:

Letter: The destruction of democracy cannot be tolerated - Northwest Herald

On June 7, in the English city of Bristol, protesters removed a statue of the local slave trader Edward Colston. In the days that followed, the city became the center of a debate on the ethics of public objects, as local governments up and down the country came under pressure to follow suit and renounce Britains colonial history.

While statues of slave traders might constitute the most obvious symbols of Britains imperial legacy, what about the objects obtained through colonial oppression?

Rightwing factions were eager to decry the move as political correctness gone mad. But far from signaling the end point of our collective awakening to the crimes of colonialism, it seems to be just the beginning.

Slowly but surely, many more people are becoming aware of the deeply depraved foundations on which many other artifacts and indeed, entire organizations, were founded. The pressure on museums, galleries, and public institutionsnot just in the United Kingdom, but in France, the United States, and throughout the worldhas never been so great.

But while statues of slave traders might constitute the most obvious and egregious symbols of Britains imperial legacy, what about the objects obtained through colonial oppression?

There are the famous cases of the Maqdala treasures (seized from Ethiopia in 1868) held at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, and the Parthenon Marbles (shipped from Athens in 1803) at the British Museum. But they are just the tip of the iceberg.

And though not all artifacts found in British institutionsor, say, the Louvre in Pariswere obtained from looting, the majority were nevertheless swindled under less extreme forms of violence, such as coercion or deeply unequal trade agreements.

The downfall of the Colston statue has thrown a spotlight on Britains historical misdeeds and revived public interest in the question of restitution.

Janet Suzman, chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, is determined to ride the momentum. We need to ask the British Museum, she declared in a statement during a silent protest at the British Museum on June 20, whether they would havethe decency to provide visitors with the full story: How did these incomparable pieces of sculpture, torn from the greatest building in the western world, get to sitout of contextin the grey grandeur of Room 18?

This question raises several key points: One is the fundamental injustice of a ruling culture having looted, and continuing to profit from, the relics of another sovereign culture. But Suzman has also highlighted how museums, in a less apparent but far more insidious way, will often present items so that they appear without any wider historical context.

Just as colonial powers reduced whole communities and cultures to mere subjects, some museums are often guilty of flattening their collections into a cabinet of curiosities.

In some sense, just as colonial powers reduced whole communities and cultures to mere subjects, some museums are often guilty of flattening their collections into a cabinet of curiosities.

Tristram Hunt, a former Labour Party politician now serving director of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, has argued that museum collections are first and foremost about education. But museums do not exist as neutral entities simply showcasing objects of historic significance. They are in and of themselves deeply political objects.

From their very conception, to their programming and hiring policies, museums serve to entrench and preserve a very specific set of values and beliefs. In the case of some of the most well-known museums, that belief was firmly rooted in a commitment to the spectacle of imperial accomplishmentand today, they remain overwhelmingly staffed by an army of affluent white people.

It is not just a question, then, of whether museums should remove or return certain objects, but whether the institution as we know it needs to change. Removing symbols of the slave trade might go someway to addressing the biases of history, but this effort will not be completed until we address the underlying assumptions of the four walls in which they are housed.

One of the main contentions made against restitution is the difficulty of tracing the lineage of a given artifact to one community or moment in time. Several artifacts looted through colonialism belong to territories that no longer exist, such as Turkeys claim on the plundered goods of the Ottoman Empire.

Denying the necessity of returning these objects on the grounds of complexity is an excuse. Restitution is achieved through careful research and consideration of the diplomatic benefits taken on a case by case basis.

There can be no blanket approach. Every object must be given the same specificity of care and nuanced treatment that we would any other matter of diplomatic consideration and international relations. As cultural institutions continue to wring their hands over how to respond to the recent wave of Black Lives Matter protesters, they would do well to start here.

Follow this link:

The Spoils of Colonial Oppression - Progressive.org

Months before elections for a new government, the pollsters get busy making their predictions. This is particularly noticeable when looking at the minefield of American politics. Thats more a game than information on which the partys campaign managers can base their strategy.

I strongly believe that in the United States, with its diverse cultures and ethnic origins, a so-called representative sample of 1,000 people cannot be reflective of the whole nation. Furthermore, unlike with face-to-face questioning, by choosing various socioeconomic areas, todays hit-and-miss phone polls do not guarantee a fair cross-section. Thats why the 2016 presidential election produced a result that was different from the cut-and-dried expectation.

Not only does the interviewer not know if he really speaks with a voter, but unlike in a face-to-face encounter, he also has no way to judge the honesty of the reply. So I set no store by any polls, except the one on Election Day. It is known that when standing in the booth, many people revert to their traditional view, which is different from their more recent intention.

The voting is also influenced by the weather and drastic political developments. Lastly, it is a means by politically motivated pollsters to raise your concern that your chosen candidate might lose, and therefore encourage you to vote. But it is the floating voter who decides the election. All the pundits and political commentators, yours truly included, make hit-and-miss predictions. The moral of this story is: Dont raise your blood pressure, because you can only do your duty and que sera sera.

Now a brief word about todays America.

For Americans, however, it is worth getting excited about the left-wing extremists who infiltrate and then take over every legitimate protest movement. The outrage over the killing of George Floyd was the trigger to adopt the slogan Black Lives Matter for their unconstitutional activities.

Of course black lives matter, just differently expressed, it is nothing new. Generations have fought for it. How else was slavery abolished and segregation made illegal? Its protagonists were peaceful people.

The extremist elements of the new Left in America are searching in ever wider circles to change the fabric of society. Now they found that the name Redskins of the Washington NFL team no longer fits their perception of political correctness and racial justice.

So, as a result of protests and mounting pressure from its main sponsor, FedEx, which holds the naming rights of their stadium. And despite the team owners statements some years ago that they would never change the name, they have now decided to drop the Redskins name and logo. It is all part of the far-reaching tentacles of the George Floyd revolution.

A statement issued by The National Congress of American Indians read: We commend the Washington NFL team for eliminating a brand that disrespected, demeaned, and stereotyped all native people. There are however many native-American voices who are not offended by the name.

Now that statues of Christopher Columbus and George Washington have been toppled, will the capital city of the United States also be renamed so that soon the history of the United States will be unrecognizable? And is the Empire State Building next?

Does that name not conjure up memories of the colonies? The elections in November will decide the future of that great country. Will it remain the leader of the free world or become a slave to a new radical socialism, a society where the mob rules and where there is no protection for the law-abiding citizen.

The writer is the host of Walters World on Israel National Radio Arutz 7, and The Walter Bingham File on Israel Newstalk Radio, both of which are broadcast in English.

Read the original:

Explaining the futility of pre-election polls - The Jerusalem Post

Nowadays, no writer in any field exercises the influence Pauline Kael wielded as a film critic. Hired by the New Yorker in 1967, she was handed a platform at Americas most culturally prestigious publication at the moment when film was about to change. A younger generation of filmmakers was on the rise and along with their generational cohort across the world, they were intent on doing things differently.

Rob Garvers documentary What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael locates her in the smart wing of a cultural ferment where vigorous debate was encouraged, hurt feelings be damned. And lets be clear: Kael could be hurtful as well as thoughtful and many of her remarks had a cruel edge. By the time political correctness became widely fashionable, Kael was semi-retired, partly from the shaking hands of Parkinsons and partly because the revolution ended in defeat. After the 1970s, Hollywoods second golden age, big studio American films were largely rotten in conception, imaginatively impoverished, falling far short of Kaels demanding standards.

During those boom years of Mean Streets, The Godfather and Nashville, Kaels prose had the ability to make readers see movies in new ways. They were arguments and many critics, fans and filmmakers argued back. David Lean was devastated by her contempt and Ridley Scott was outraged by her review of Blade Runner. Kael didnt get Blade Runner when it was released 1982. Maybe she was already losing touch.

But during the 70s, many critics across the U.S. read Kael like a map, following her direction in their own quests for meaning. According to What She Said, Kael often worked the phone, calling critics in her thrall and convincing them to see it her way. She was feared in the industry. And inspiring to aspirants, as one of the documentarys interviewees, Quentin Tarantino, insists.

People dont tend to like a good critic, Kael said in one of the documentarys archival interviews (she made the TV talk show circuit in the 70s). Too many critics are softies, she explained, or star struck. Kael didnt care what the studio publicists thought. They didnt invite her to advance screenings but she went to pictures when they opened, like any member of the public, and sometimes took audience reaction into account.

In an early essay, Kael attacked the auteur theory first developed by French critics in the 50s and popularized in America by the Village Voices Andrew Sarris in the 60s. The theory held that many Hollywood directors were authors of their filmsthat recurring traits and themes, the stamp of their own personalities, were identifiable throughout their oeuvre despite the interference of studios and censors and the collaborative nature of the medium. Ironically (or did she change her mind?), Kael came to champion the great directors of the 70s, drawing attention to their individual films as part of a larger body of work. Robert Altman and David Lynchs career benefitted from her attention. So did Steven Spielberg. Vulgarity is not as destructive to an artist as snobbery she wrote in her review of Fiddler on the Roof (she praised it as the most powerful movie musical ever made). Pretense is what she most despised in cinema. Kael was an early defender of trash movies, holding that gems can sometimes be discerned gleaming in even the rankest garbage bin.

Fearless, highly subjective, sometimes insensitive, Kael was the enemy of self-righteous message peddlers and maudlin tearjerkers, of academics whose turgid theorizing obliterated the pleasures of moviegoing. Although she cultivated followers, Kael insisted that a critics job is to stimulate thinking and encourage you to develop your own opinions.

To read more 'I Hate Hollywood' blog posts, click here.

To read more articles by David Luhrssen, click here.

David Luhrssen lectured at UWM and the MIAD. He is author of The Vietnam War on Film, Encyclopedia of Classic Rock, and Hammer of the Gods: Thule Society and the Birth of Nazism.

Jul. 24, 2020

10:37 a.m.

See the article here:

The Sharply Pointed 'Art of Pauline Kael' - Shepherd Express

Carmel High School is reconsidering its mascot in this current reckoning over racial justice. A group of current and former students at Carmel High School wants to change the mascot, a cartoon Catholic friar called Padre. This week, Carmels school board announced it intends to establish a committee to discuss the issue.

Emily Robinson, class of 2011, is one of more than 2,000 alumni and students who signed a petition to change the schools mascot. The Padre reflects the Spanish history of the Carmel Mission, and some say it ignores the violent treatment of Native Americans.

Robinson said the call to change the Padre mascot is part of broader conversation going on around the country about how history is framed.

What are the things that we have held up as icons, as sacred? Are those sacred to everyone or are they glorifying something that shouldnt be glorified? Robinson said.

The mascot has been part of the school for almost 80 years, and not everyone thinks changing it is a good idea. Theres a counter-petition, and many of the nearly 800 people who signed it say changing the Padre would abandon tradition for the sake of political correctness.

To me, theyre taking away history, tradition and basically legacies, said Mike Scardina, a graduate of the class of 1999, who started the counter-petition.

The decision to change the Carmel High School mascot, and potentially pick a new one, is ultimately up to the Carmel Unified School Board of Education. Board President Karl Pallastrini said the district is willing to explore changing the Padre mascot, but the top priority is making sure schools are able to safely reopen amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Its something thats of importance. But clearly getting kids back and teachers back in a safe environment is job one for the district, said Pallastrini.

The Carmel Unified School Boards policy currently does not outline a process for changing a schools mascot. This week, the board announced it is designing that policy and using other districts guidelines as a reference. The next step will be to establish a committee of students, alumni and taxpayers to hear community feedback.

But for recent grad Ella Foster, community discussion isnt enough.

What I would like to see is eventually for it to change, Foster said. I dont think theres another solution really.

The conversation around the Padre mascot has sparked a discussion about Carmels history. Symbols of Spanish influence are visible throughout the city, from the iconic mission to streets named after Father Junipero Serra, a Spanish Catholic priest. Over the past month, some Junipero Serra monuments in California have been pulled down.

Bill Schrier, a social studies teacher at Carmel High, says he plans to use the mascot to ask students deeper questions about community identity.

Asking them to wonder why do you think Carmel High chose the Padre? What does it mean to us now? What might it mean to other people?

Kylie Yeatman, class of 2020, said seeing anti-racism protests and calls to dismantleConfederate statues around the country have inspired her peers to call for change in their own community.

People have realized we should have the freedom to voice our opinion, even if its something thats relatively small. Its not small in our lives, she says.

The Padre mascot has been questioned before. But this is the first time so many people have spoken up. The school board indicated it will look at the issue, but hasnt set a timeline. So Padre will keep his job for now, but no one knows for how long.

Read the original:

Carmel High School Rethinks The Legacy Of Its Mascot - 90.3 KAZU

HOT NAME

How long will our beloved hockey team remain the Calgary Flames? How long until the powers of political correctness remember that our team used to be the Atlanta Flames and that the name pays homage to the burning of Atlanta, in 1864 by U.S. Gen. W.T. Sherman during the Civil War? Sherman, by the way, was such a white supremacist, that he refused to allow Blacks to join the army. His intolerance was so intense that he fought with U.S. President Abraham Lincoln over the matter, even after being reminded of the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was a kind man by the standards of his day, and although a self-confessed racist, wanted slavery made more humane. The name that honours Shermans burning of Atlanta was kept by Calgary as it was thought a good name for a city at the heart of the oil and gas industry. It is a good name and with luck, it will avoid a political correctness name change.

ALLEN BRYANT

(Stay tuned.)

THE HORSE ALWAYS WINS

I did a little search. Found a new name for Edmonton football club. Espinosa is defined as a hawthorn that is a tough, wiry, and sharp spiked plant that you dont want to mess with if you dont want to get hurt unless you get Stampedered by a tougher horse! Sounds perfectly logical and fitting to me.

VAL WEBER

(We really need the CFL to return to games on the gridiron not rebranding exercises.)

KEEP OPEN MIND

I have a special interest in the conversation about being required to wear a mask 100% of the time when out in public. I do believe that those who can, should wear one wherever necessary when in public spaces where there is the possibility of contact with strangers. However, there are probably some like myself who have allergies or COPD, that when you have to wear a mask for even a short period of time you feel like you are being suffocated. I always have one with me and I wear it when necessary but my condition prohibits me from standing in any kind of lineup for any period of time. I always carry a handkerchief with me so that I can cover my mouth and nose quickly. If questioned I would gladly explain to anyone the situation but being accused is different. All Im saying is, dont jump to conclusions.

MURRAY MCANDREWS

(You raise some valid points.)

SIR JOHN, EH!

People trying to remove John A. Macdonald from all places in Canada need to give their heads a shake and study history in detail and everything J.A. did. This is especially true for those in B.C. who were successful in getting his statue removed in Victoria. If it wasnt for John A. and his building of the CPR, our neighbours to the west would be preparing to vote in their presidential election this November.

LEN RING

(Our past leaders were hardly perfect. And history likely wont judge us that way, either.)

NO BETTER

Im not sure Alberta is under good leadership anymore. Zero progress is attracting business to our province. Zero progress in helping our health-care system. Now, this is quite embarrassing to me because I voted for Mr. Kenney. I fully understand there has been a small timeline to fix the devastation the NDP caused in only four years but I am seeing zero progress in all problems our province needs to see progress in. The health-care workers deserve whatever they ask for. Our doctors are being disrespected. Without these heroes whats left? Can you show me anything Mr. Kenney has done to help anything? Poor leader of our party I believe more interested in getting himself ahead instead of Albertas citizens.

YANCY JONES

(Pretty harsh view, given what the province has been through with the pandemic and economically.)

Read the original:

Letters to the Editor, July 25, 2020: Fanning the flames - Calgary Sun

Our nation is once again badly divided, and with a critically important national election coming up I hope people will stand back and take a clear eyed look at what is happening. Emotions have reached the boiling point and it seems to me we are looking at a lot of very upset people planning to go out and vote against Donald J. Trump. His opponent doesnt seem to excite many people but a vote against Trump is the point so he'll do just fine. But in fact all those "against" votes will actually be "for" something and we will only come to know exactly what that is after January 2021.

Every president brings his or her party, its core beliefs and leaders, and its governing principles to Washington. I advise people to think very clearly about the Democrats taking control, and what they profess to do once they gain the power they have been lusting after since Hillary Clinton was ignominiously (and legitimately) denied it in 2016.

Its hard to say from their legislative accomplishments in the past three years because they have had few. But they sure have been against Donald Trump since the night he won election and they have attacked and hounded him relentlessly, including heinous charges of potentially treasonous involvement with Russia which (shockingly to all the Democrats and their media collaborators) were proven to be totally baseless. In fact, it is undeniable that the Democrats in Washington have focused on the undoing of Donald Trump to the exclusion of virtually all else, and it's all about power, not effective governance. Every time one of their thrusts comes up empty they generate a couple more, all based on their accusations of racism, collusion and other odious characteristics they see in the man. They have painted with a broader and broader brush. Now all Trump supporters are characterized in the same negative light and even such important historical figures as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are being condemned for their perceived shortcomings, naturally enough as seen through the prism of the Democrat Party left wing.

To better understand where the Democrats want to take the country please take a close look at their kingmakers, Bernie Sanders, AOC and their supporters. There is no doubt at all about what they plan to do with political power, and even less doubt that Joe Biden and the party leadership have already knuckled under to them. Without the vigorous support of their left wing the Democrats have serious fear of losing the election. So some sort of deal has been made. We are left to connect the dots to determine exactly what that may be.

Its a revolution they want. Full stop. A total makeover of the American way of life complete with onerous regulation, knee jerk opposition to large businesses and sky high taxes to fuel their flights of fancy, including The Green New Deal, Defund the Police and Free Just About Everything. Not to mention smothering political correctness, open borders, sanctuary cities and tolerance of the homeless armies and armed gangs now making many major American cities virtually unlivable.

If you doubt this just look at their many public statements made to date. It's all out there for everyone to see but they are not emphasizing it at all. Instead it is the relentless get rid of Trump message they have been fixated on since the man was elected. And it seems to be working.

I believe what many well meaning Americans will be voting "for" is a commitment to a total makeover of our society and our economy, one that is solely focused on everything perceived by the strident voices on the left to be wrong and not at all concerned or even aware of the drastic impact it will have on all the many things that are right. And they are very intolerant of any conservative voices raised to oppose them. They have taken control of three critical areas in modern American life: the media, education, especially higher education, and Hollywood. This has enabled them to control public consciousness and opinion to a shocking extent, especially among young people, and now they are poised for the payoff.

If you ask me, before the revolution starts, most folks would be very happy if we could first get a little closer to the booming economy, plentiful jobs and rising incomes we enjoyed prior to coronavirus back in 2019. We would be well advised to heed the advice of a Democrat of earlier times, John F Kennedy, who understood the importance of economic prosperity when saying "a rising tide lifts all the boats". That is exactly what we need now. Our economy has been ravaged by this black swan event, millions are jobless and millions more have seen the work of a lifetime crash and burn. And we are on the threshold of a crushing decline in tax revenues at the local, state and federal level, money required to run the country in the most basic sense, not to mention funding the dreams of revolutionaries. But none of this is being fully discussed in the current political climate.

I dont think it takes a genius to understand restoring economic vitality should be job one now. Even those who may want major systemic changes should agree, the means to provide for that will be a necessary precursor to any such thing happening. I would think most people, focused on their daily lives, their work, incomes and family budgets understand it clearly.

If you want to move from the current economic instability into a massive experiment, untested, predicated on idealistic worn out precepts of socialism (if not Marxism), then by all means vote Democrat. But if you want a practical recovery from the economic mess we find ourselves in, please reconsider. If we can get the national economy back in shape, we'll have plenty of time for revolution later on.

Ken McCord of New Castle is a retired small business owner with a keen interest in contemporary affairs. His education is a result of visiting 80-plus countries in a lifetime of world travel.

See the rest here:

Guest View: We dont need a revolution now - Foster's Daily Democrat

-Kamloops this Week

Kamloops Mounties are aware of posters in town promoting the hate group Proud Boys Canada and have distributed copies to officers so they are aware, but the local detachment has had no interactions with anyone claiming to be with the group.

RCMP staff Sgt. Martin Van Laer said police received a report on July 12 from someone using the detachments online reporting tool. The person said they came across the poster along a walking trail near 366 Waddington Cres. in Sahali and removed it.

We dont have anything else than this one report so far, Van Laer said.

Kyle Mardon was headed into the Royal Bank of Canada branch in the Columbia Place Shopping Centre on July 11 at about 7:30 a.m. when he noticed a copy of the 8.5-inch-by-11-inch sign on the outside of that building.

The promotional flyer for the Proud Boys asks people to contact them via email and lists their tenets, which include minimal government, maximum freedom, closed border, anti-racial guilt, anti-political correctness, glorifying the entrepreneur and venerating the housewife.

Founded in 2016 by Canadian right-wing activist and Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys is an all-male, far right group with a history of street violence. Members are to swear off masturbation and declare themselves Western chauvinists who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Youtube have all banned the group from their platforms.

READ MORE: Revelstoke RCMP search for 3 suspects involved in semi-truck crash, evading police

Mardon said he was surprised and disgusted to see the groups poster, adding he didnt think such organizations existed in Kamloops.

Upon seeing it, he took a picture of the sign and ripped it down, but didnt report it to police.

The group may seem innocuous, but their leaders and a large percentage of their members are considered white supremacists he said, noting his wife is of Indian descent and he doesnt want their children to have to face discrimination.

Mardon said he was aware of the groups online presence, but noted this was the first time he had come across a posted flyer. He is concerned the group may be operating in Kamloops.

I do not want to see such groups as the KKK, Antifa or Proud Boys getting a foothold here they are not wanted, Mardon told KTW, noting Canada is a multicultural society that accepts everyone regardless of where they are from or what they believe.

The last thing I want to see is any group becoming violent or racist towards any other group of people, he said.

As he drove away from the bank, Mardon said he noticed another copy of the sign posted on a nearby dry cleaners store and assumes there are others.

Other copies have the signs have been spotted in Kamloops and reported on social media by people who note they, too, have removed the messages.

READ MORE: Mexican consulate wants answers after assault on farmworker by Abbotsford police

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

racism

See the original post here:

Far-right Proud Boys posters popping up in Kamloops - Smithers Interior News

The Washington Redskins football team has decided to scrap its offensive nickname, another victory for the interests of inclusion and social justice currently sweeping the country.

The teams owner, Dan Snyder, has steadfastly resisted the change over the years, and he received recent support from President Donald Trump, who is four-square against political correctness.

But the teams fate was sealed when its biggest corporate sponsor, FedEx, signaled it was ready for a change, and Amazon quit selling Redskins apparel. Nothing talks louder than money in the National Football League.

The Redskins saga had a sketchy history. The nickname was created in 1933 by owner George Preston Marshall, a segregationist who was the last holdout in the NFL when it came to integrating players. He capitulated in 1962 when he was threatened with loss of his stadium.

Washingtons decision continues a new woke trend on the part of the NFL. Commissioner Roger Goodell said the league has been slow to acknowledge the social justice concerns of players, has decided its OK for players to kneel on the sidelines, and has even suggested that outcast quarterback Colin Kaepernick is employable.

Im OK with making the change if it makes Native Americans feel better. Theyve taken enough grief over the centuries from their European interlopers, even when you account for the fact they introduced tobacco and syphilis to their European tormentors.

But Washington will have to tread carefully on naming a new nickname (still under consideration as I write this) given our increased sensitivity to every real or imagined slight. Other mascots have not kept pace with the times, and you have to wonder how much pressure will be applied to college and professional teams with insensitive nicknames now that the Redskins have capitulated.

Stanford University started the trend in 1972 when it dropped the Indians nickname and eventually settled on Cardinal the color, not the bird. Out went Prince Lightfoot, to be replaced by the tree presumably a reference to El Palo Alto, the towering coastal redwood that looms over downtown Palo Alto and inspired the citys name.

University officials foolishly let the students decide on a new mascot, and they overwhelmingly chose Robber Barons, in honor of the universitys founder, Leland Stanford. (The school is actually named for his son, Leland Stanford Jr. University.) School officials were not amused.

But other schools and professional organizations chose not to follow the lead of Stanford in removing objectionable nicknames, somewhat surprising given the trend toward protecting people from hostile ideas, hurtful thoughts, and other things they dont like. Thus we find the Central Michigan Chippewas, Florida State Seminoles, Louisiana Lafayette Ragin Cajuns and San Diego State Aztecs still playing football at the Football Bowl Subdivision level.

There are several other teams with problematic nicknames among the 130 schools at the highest levels of the sport. Environmental warriors cant be happy with polluters like the Alabama Crimson Tide or the Tulane Green Wave, not to mention pests like the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets.

People who get nervous around bad weather have a hard time warming up to the Iowa State Cyclones, Miami Hurricanes, Carolina Hurricanes, Tampa Bay Lightning, and the Tulsa Golden Hurricanes. Then there are the mellow folks who can do without the Illinois Fighting Illini and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

Speaking of religion, people who regularly ponder good and evil could find themselves wresting with the New Jersey Devils, Arizona State Sun Devils, Duke Blue Devils, and the Wake Forest Demon Deacons, not to mention truly bad people like the East Carolina Pirates, Texas Tech Red Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and (yes) Pittsburgh Steelers. (The Tampa Bay Rays used to be known as the Devil Rays until public opposition forced a name change. The team actually got better.)

Some people might object to the monopoly my fellow Catholics have on naming saints, which would make the New Orleans Saints, Los Angeles Angels, and San Diego Padres problematical.

Nicknames can bring up subjects that make people uncomfortable. I suspect the name of the Colorado Avalanche makes some operators of posh ski resorts in the Centennial State squirm when the touchy subject is raised. The Milwaukee Brewers are clearly sending the wrong message to the youth of America. Then theres the San Francisco 49ers, an era that still congers up bad memories for many of Californias Native Americans. The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants are problematical in a time when were fighting obesity.

Some nicknames can just add more fuel to our politically-charged times. We have the New York Yankees and the Washington Capitals, as opposed to the Old Miss Rebels. For people who prefer to find common ground, theres the New England Patriots.

Then there are nicknames that make absolutely no sense. The Los Angeles Lakers? Theyre originally from Minnesota, the Land of 10,000 Lakes. The Utah Jazz? New Orleans. The Memphis Grizzlies? Vancouver, B.C.

If they are going to change the name of the Washington Redskins, what about the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks and the Golden State Warriors?

I think professional and college teams should take a page from the recent trend of minor league baseball teams and just lighten up. I get a smile whenever I think about the Lansing Lugnuts, Savannah Sand Gnats, Montgomery Biscuits, Richmond Flying Squirrels, or Albuquerque Isotopes. My favorite college nickname is the UC-Santa Cruz Banana Slugs (Once a Slug, always a Slug.)

As Washington considers its new nickname, it might want to reflect on the teams poor performance during Snyders reign while at the same time honoring black pioneers in the days of segregated sports. To me, the Washington Generals is a natural.

George Boardman lives at Lake of the Pines. His column is published Tuesdays by The Union. Write to him at boredgeorgeman@gmail.com.

Read more:

George Boardman: What's in a nickname? Plenty in these times of hyper sensitivity - The Union of Grass Valley

Todays P.C. police have taken on a public mantle, and political correctness has taken on a new persona. These passionate people claim to represent the social conscience of our times, but are they taking things too far?

In this post, well explore the rise of the social justice warrior, and whether they are hurting the causes that they claim to support.

The term social justice warrior was first coined in 2015. There have always been people willing to fight injustice within a society, though.

Slavery ended thanks to activists. The civil rights movement is another pertinent example. More recently, the LBQT and transgender campaigns for equal rights have topped the agenda.

Social justice warriors may only have taken on the title recently, but these types of people have embraced the same principles for equality for millennia. The modern movement has embraced the concept of #SocJusthe shareable idea that nobody in society should feel marginalized.

SJWs (social justice warriors) are outspoken, ensuring that no rights are trampled for the voiceless minorities. The conflict arises where others feel that these types of comments have obliterated the right to free speech entirely.

Opponents claim that SJWs, in their rush for equality, are at risk of marginalizing those that they see as privileged. They have taken things too far.

An SJWs purpose today is to shine a light on injustice. With the #MeToo movement of 2017, it exposed the battles women face in a male-dominated society. The movement was a timely message, but some believe it was diluted by the actions of a few SJWs.

Pictures of men with their legs spread out on subways were shown as evidence of men dominating woman. The action is inconsiderate, but is it anti-feminist?

A more recent development on the social justice front is the #BlackLivesMatter movement. SJWs have blasted those who raised the issue of black-on-black violence as racially insensitive, for example.

Black-on-black violence isnt the reason behind the BLM movement. Rather, the fight focusses on systemic (and institutional) racism that allowed a white police officer to use excessive force against George Floyd and feel justified by his actions in the moment.

Still, we have to ask ourselves, Does a black murder only matter if its a white person committing the crime? Some even argue that institutional racism is a primary cause of black-on-black violence.

By making it politically incorrect to discuss the issue, SJWs could be ignoring one of the symptoms of the systemic racism they are trying to oust.

The harm of being so openly hostile is that these warriors risk losing the support of parties they need to win over. Berating those who are at fault puts them on the defensive and limits the discourse. The risk to SJWs is that these targeted groups miss the message completely and stop listening.

Instead of real change, potential proponents might pay lip service to the cause. Racism and anti-feminism are as much mindsets as deeds. By stifling free speech, we run the risk of these behaviors becoming more subtle, or even taboo.

Its like telling your teen theyre not allowed to drink or play on Goldenslot. Theyll find a way around the rules, but you wont know until its too late.

The danger is the society we createone that is politically correct only on the surface. Institutionally, it will become even harder to stamp out those flaws.

Read more:

The Rise of the Social Justice Warrior - Big Easy Magazine

I do not understand Americas left. Will they ever comprehend the damage their behavior and insane accusations they are inflicting upon our President and country?

Our countrys threat is not Russia, China or North Korea but our own bickering, which is destroying our country. Look at the lunacy we inherited from this socialistic political-correctness paradise. Police officers are murdered while on duty protecting us citizens, Black people who were never slaves are fighting white people who were never Nazis over a confederate statue erected by Democrats and somehow our President is at fault, so I ask how we became so ignorant.

Marxism and socialism is change, but to believe it offers hope for America is pure stupid audacity. As this lunacy continues we have two congressional members, Maxine Waters (California) call for impeachment and Maria Chapala(Missouri) blurting over the network kill our president. These people should be dismissed from their Democratic party now.

The most devastating transactions take place when unfit laws arent even read before passing. Yes, Americas legislative body needs a taste of their own medicine to understand what "We the People" means, it might help them realize the despair and distress they have created before passing future laws.

So many people are willfully blinded with ideology, refusing to admit that our country is being led towards a civil war. Our Pledge of Allegiance, In God We Trust is being attacked and if Hillary Clinton or her party somehow gets in, our country will be methodically destroyed.

There are thousands of men and women in this country who have served in our wars, facing death and now are fed up with this political correctness, allowing socialism to rule over our Constitution, but sadly the worst is now being activated, paralyzing our country from inside called "sabotage."

Mr. Obama, George Soros and all the socialist thugs, have you already forgotten why so many of our boys gave all for their country? Your shadow government, OFA, is un-American, including George Soros billions, which are helping to destroy our America.

America, you are being led to the slaughterhouse.

Bill Kaunzinger, Niceville

Read the original post:

LETTER: Marxism and socialism is change, but to believe it offers hope for America is pure stupid audacity - Gadsden Times