CHICAGO -- Changing the name of Clevelands baseball team isnt about the game. And its not about political correctness, or any other buzzword that gets hurled around to shock people into their respective Culture War camps.

This is about Cleveland who we are as a people, what we stand for.

I was raised on Cleveland baseball in the 90s. Herb Score and Tom Hamilton were my summer soundtrack in the car, on the porch, and in the garages and yards of every friend I had.

As life has taken me away from Northeast Ohio, the team has been my season ticket back to not just childhood, but home itself. Ive dreamt of those perfect summer nights off the shores of Lake Erie while scoring games from the desert of New Mexico to the bustle of Brooklyn.

Everywhere Ive gone, Ive found fellow fans. And any Clevelander who has physically left home behind whether for the short or long term has experienced that bond that comes when you spot someone in a hometown hat at the airport bar or on an unfamiliar street.

That connection is about more than baseball I sure dont see the same thing among Yankees fans. Its about being from Cleveland.

And theres a reason for that. As its importance in other areas has waned since the middle of the last century, Clevelands sports teams have remained the citys most recognizable symbols on the national stage. They are what people know us for, and, possibly more than any other city in America, how we identify ourselves.

David Weible grew up in Lakewood and is a writer, editor and web strategist in Chicago.

But while our sports teams may be our cultural calling cards, as a people, were of course much more.

In my experience, were the guy who stops to help you change a tire on the side of the highway. Were the lady who doesnt just give you directions, but shows you the way. Were the kid who returns your wallet, untouched, when you drop it on the street.

Were honest, hard-working, decent people. We do the right thing. Were Clevelanders. And somehow, our teams tend to reflect that. Whether theyre the team-to-beat or perennial bottom dwellers, we take pride in them, because they represent us.

Right now, theres a mark on that pride. Our team has a name that many Americans, members of our own community, and, Im willing to bet, some members of the team itself, find counterproductive and hurtful.

It doesnt matter whether you agree with that viewpoint or not. Politics and posturing aside, the undeniable truth is that those feelings are there, and they are real.

I understand that changing the name is a serious undertaking for the organization. And I understand the attachment fellow fans have to things as they stand especially since every single one of us born after 1915 has never known our team as anything else.

But the work is not impossible, and any fan willing to disavow their team simply because of a name change wouldnt seem to be much of a real fan at all especially in Cleveland, where we pride ourselves on loyalty as much as anything.

The organization is obligated to consider things in business terms, though theyve made clear theyll also be involving a range of outside stakeholders. Rightly so.

Even from a purely business standpoint, an opportunity for new merchandise sales, for positive press in a perpetually negative news cycle, and a chance to quiet the ever-growing roar of anger and discord outside the gates of Progressive Field at every home opener ought to carry some weight.

As fans and Clevelanders, we should look at changing the name as the honest and decent thing to do. The right thing to do. Because thats who we are, and, win or lose, thats something we can all be proud of.

David Weible is a writer, editor and web strategist living in Chicago. He was raised in Lakewood and is a graduate of Lakewood High School.

Have something to say about this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments on this editorial to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.

See the article here:

Changing the Indians team name is simply the right thing to do: Dave Weible - cleveland.com

By Michael J. Cozzillio and Krista J. Cozzillio, Capital-Star Op-Ed Contributor

-July 22, 2020

For 40 months, President Donald Trump has chosen to use his press conference podium as a bully pulpit in the most literal sense. When he has opted to hide in his bunker, he simply dispatches one of his stooges from the prevarication panel to emcee the surreality show.

One such display of incivility involved a slam at a reporter for wearing a face mask in a crowded Rose Garden. Trump snidely accused the newsman of donning the mask out of "political correctness" as opposed to responsible behavior to protect himself and his fellow citizens from infection. Regrettably, there is no personal protection device that could insulate him from the toxic invective being spewed by Typhoid Donnie.

To recount here the number and pitch of the smug insults that he has levlled at journalists is superfluous. One would hope that even the most casual observers would recognize the litany of boorish, insufferable, spiteful comments visited upon the White House press corps indisputably most often women and people of color.

Sadly, during Trump's absences, his assigned minions have only perpetuated his fantasies and have shown no greater respect for the audience.

When are the victims of this vitriol going to say "enough is enough?"

And when are their employers going to say, "To hell with the story, preserve your dignity, walk out with our blessings, and leave the socially bankrupt host to peddle his inarticulate drivel in a vacuum?"

Further, there should be no amount of job security or journalistic duty that will compel obeisance while colleagues are abused and intimidated, even absent institutional media backing.

Arguments that the press, as competitors, cannot be expected to show some unity and camaraderie are unconvincing as are remonstrations that an empty newsday would be devastating.

The public could survive and might relish the silence while this egomaniac melts away under the garish sun of inattention. After all, what prior president has striven so singlemindedly to be the centerpiece of every day's news, and for the sake of sheer antics rather than for newsworthy deeds?

True, a show of allegiance would require a bonding of erstwhile competitors who may otherwise vigorously joust over a breaking story.

But, history is rife with examples of groups who band together in common enterprise even though the members may be diverse in several ways. We may have differences with our neighbors, but on the night of a fire or other calamity, we are one responder.

We have seen rivals in one context demonstrate remarkable esprit de corps in others. The evolution of labor organizations in professional sports provides a telling illustration.

In numerous labor disputes, players who vie as competitors on the field have stood shoulder to shoulder to contest the leagues' financial exploitation and restrictive intrusion on their contractual freedom.

Admittedly, a boycott, rather than a strike, may be a more pertinent analogy, because it does not presuppose an employer-employee relationship. Nonetheless, that point having been acknowledged, the message remains the same.

Finally, and most apt, the purveyors of daily events have experienced a few labor battles of their own. Militant expressions by the press are by no means novel concepts.

Countless strikes have occurred commencing as early as the turn of the 20th century involving all aspects of that industry, from the "newsies" of 1889 to the reporters and pressmen. While many of the industry's disputes involved only certain members of a particular labor organization, in 1995 members of several different unions participated in a strike in Detroit lasting almost two years.

Labor unions, civil rights' organizations, and town hall gatherings have all reached points where they have said, "We have had it!"

Sacrificing individual ambition, they often epitomized fortitude when family, friends, and the general public counseled more passive resistance.

Clearly, some showing of civil disobedience or discontent is by no means a subversive notion. Indeed, the press manifested its sense of professional courtesy and collegiality several years ago when some of its members voiced support for a Fox News protest against the Obama White House's dismissive comments.

When faced with an adversary that demeans their entire raison d'etre, aren't they all bedfellows, however strange? How many times will a captive media cower before this dominating stalag ubermeister?

Moreover, not only is Trump's behavior inexcusably disparaging, the lack of any meaningful pushback by the victims enables him to convert a dialogue into a rambling campaign speech as evidenced by his recent Rose Garden diatribes.

Stand up. Walk out. Let the empty suit spread his mendacious, self-indulgent pap to a crowd dressed as empty seats.

What will he do when the press walks out stock the room with the Breitbart Brigade? Will he call the Pinkertons? Will he put down this walkout with thugs and brick bats, strikebreakers, all those things that in his distorted, myopic vision would "make American great again?"

Whom will he regale with his delusions of grandeur and fairytale achievements?

His raised voice will create a reverberating echo in the vacant room. The sniggering that he hears will be from the ghosts of the Fourth Estate who for years spoke truth to power in an effort to give the public the information that it craved, and did so without fear of vilification from someone with half of their intellect and none of their zeal.

Michael J. Cozzillio is a former member of the faculty at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law as well as Widener Commonwealth Law School in Harrisburg, where he has served as Emeritus and Distinguished Professor of Law. Krista J. Cozzillio is a graduate of Vassar College and Catholic University's Columbus School of Law. She is a former law school administrator and area piano instructor. Their work appears occasionally on the Capital-Star's Commentary Page.

This story was originally published by the Pennsylvania Capital-Star. For more stories from the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, visit PennCapital-Star.com.

Link:

The White House Press Corps Should Boycott The Return Of Trump's Coronavirus Follies | Opinion - Patch.com

DAVID Tennant has admitted There She Goes left the BBC terrified of political correctness backlash for making light of disabilities.

The comedy sees David and co-star Jessica Hynes play parents of a child with a severe learning disability.

4

The show has just returned for a second series after the first won praise for not suger-coating the trials of parenthood and marriage.

While David's character Simon relies on booze and dark humour to cope, wife Emily admitted in a low moment in season one that she had struggled to love her newborn daughter.

In a chat with The Guardian, David, 49, revealed his pride in the way the show tackles its subject matter, even if it is an uncomfortable watch sometimes.

However, the cast and the BBC had had some trepidation about the show, because it lacked a certain sentimentality and political correctness there was a real fear he said.

4

4

The star also recalled how a journalist had predicted an incoming "s**tstorm" with series one, saying: "He said: You are going to be destroyed for putting this on television.

"We all hoped he was wrong but we feared that he might be right.

One concern was casting a non-disabled actor to play the couple's daughter Rosie, who is non-verbal and has the mental age of a toddler.

Show bosses had explored the route of hiring an actor with a learning disability, but David said: "Anyone who appreciates the kind of challenges that a child like Rosie would have doesnt doubt that it would not really have been possible.

sleep demonsNetflix fans so scared they can't sleep after watching Unsolved Mysteries

Spoiler

REVENGECorrie's Geoff horrified as ex Elaine exposes truth about him to help free Yasmeen

vindicatedFriends' David Schwimmer settles 23-year debate about Ross and Rachel's break up

Spoiler

PORKY PIESEmmerdale's Charity and Sarah hear Priyas lies as they continue hunt for Kirin

soap seasonHollyoaksAutumn return promises wedding woes and an incestuous love triangle

STRUGGLEEmmerdale Samantha Giles 'felt so low she couldn't get out of bed' after quitting

4

There She Goes is based on the experience of the writers Shaun Pye and Sarah Crawford, whose daughter was born with an extremely rare - and still undiagnosed - chromosomal disorder.

David's character Simon is based on Stuart, and the actor admits he would try and catch him out on set.

He said: "Id go: This bit were doing today that didnt really happen, did it? And everything is true.

There She Goes continues tonight at 9.30pm on BBC Two.

Follow this link:

David Tennant says There She Goes left BBC terrified of political correctness backlash for making light of - The Sun

The issue of the extent of the involvement in Britain of Chinas huge telecommunications company, Huawei, has finally come to a head. Last week, citing national security concerns, the UK government banned the tech giant from any role in developing the infrastructure of 5G the nations next generation mobile communications network. This effectively reverses the governments decision in January to allow Huawei to play a limited part in this on the grounds the company would be the answer to delivering faster new generation internet. Now, UK firms are banned from purchasing new 5G equipment from Huawei, thus blocking any of its products for the new network, while any of its existing infrastructure equipment must be removed from the 5G network by 2027.

The UK government states the decision was taken in the security interests of the nation and new and highly restrictive US sanctions in May, including removal of Huaweis access to products built in the US, combined with diplomatic pressure appears to have been a game-changer so that the latest decision was claimed to have been inevitable. Earlier, the US had warned of the opportunity for China to spy, steal or attack in this field, and the UKs action is clearly in the interests of the Americans who have welcomed it as good for trans-Atlantic security while at the same time protecting citizens privacy. Equally, the strength of Britains domestic political objection to Huaweis proposed participation in 5G should not be underestimated.

The security concerns are based on the growing evidence that Huawei, despite its claims to the contrary, is not independent of the Chinese state but in reality is part of its security apparatus. There is surely little doubt that, as a communist country with centralised control and where dissent is not allowed, China insists its companies cooperate fully with the nations security services the difference between despotism and democracy. No less an authority than a former head of Britains MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, is quoted as saying publicly that no part of the communist Chinese state is ultimately able to operate free of the control of its communist party leadership.

Huawei, therefore, presents a potential security risk to the UK as the forthcoming 5G network for phones could be used for hidden and underhand purposes. In such circumstances, there seems to be general agreement that it makes no sense to allow a potentially hostile foreign power to be at the heart of the sensitive infrastructure of Britains new communications system.

It is the case, of course, that Huawei is already partially involved in 3G and 4G but the UK government maintains 5G is fundamentally different, more sensitive and vulnerable. Meanwhile, it is interesting that Huawei announced even after having its equipment stripped from 5G - the launch of three new stores in the UK marketing its range of products including its popular smartphones providing internet access, the playing of films and the ability to make phone calls around the world.

The background to all this and the broader context are important. In recent years, China under the leadership of President Xi Jinping for whom the Party rules have now been changed to enable him to retain his position almost, it appears, indefinitely is looking to maximise its power across the globe. As I wrote in a recent column about Beijings controversial new security law for Hong Kong in which its bilateral treaty with Britain had been brushed aside with blatant impunity, China is showing a more belligerent approach to the rest of the world in its quest for global primacy.

It seems to be seeking pre-eminence as the new superpower whether it is Xis Belt and Road initiative or its growing military activity and influence in the South China Sea and renewed threat to Taiwan or its ongoing trade war with the US.

How different the whole picture looked at the time of President Xis state visit to Britain in 2015 when the-then Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of a Golden Age of good bilateral relations with improved exchanges across-the-board - not only enhanced economic cooperation, investment and trade but also links with universities in order to share advanced scientific and technological research. Now, the situation has changed to the extent that some see these as the Chinese infiltrating British universities to obtain intellectual property and sensitive technology to be passed on to the countrys defence establishment.

Five years later, Sino-British relations have soured, with clashes over coronavirus, Hong Kong, Huawei and human rights abuses.

At the weekend, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab expressed concern about the gross, egregious human rights abuses perpetrated against more than a million Muslim ethnic minority Uighur people in northern China that have caused international outrage. According to reports, not only have they been subjected to intense state surveillance but mosques have been destroyed and thousands have been sent to re-education camps while even enforced sterilisation has been mentioned. Mr Raab described all this as deeply troubling.

As for Huawei, China has condemned the latest decision and its ambassador in London has called it a bad move for Britain itself. He has also criticised the UK for dancing to the tune of the US and warned of a resolute response including the threat of retaliation - especially if, separately, the UK imposes sanctions over human rights abuses or in relation to Hong Kong. What is more, he made the meaningless suggestion that Britain had missed the opportunity to be a leading country. His inappropriate language is likely to be counterproductive, and he might have done better if he had attempted to convince people about Huaweis claimed independence of its own government even if he knows that not to be true; but, as the book says, envoys are sent abroad to lie for their country!

Whatever happens, it is likely Chinese leaders will not want to be seen by the Party faithful to be bowing to the West while at the same time it is in their own interest to maintain good trade relations with Britain. For is part, despite the current difficulties, Britain must surely remain fully engaged with China as a leading player on the world stage, but it has taken firm action by announcing yesterday suspension of its extradition treaty with Hong Kong.

Amid the continuing calls for much-needed effective action to battle racism and police brutality in the US almost two months since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, one of the consequences the other side of the Atlantic of the activities of Black Lives Matter has been an accelerated debate about the woke movement.

While many contend that the growth of illiberalism emanated originally from the US, in Britain this movement is developing as a strange and increasingly insidious phenomenon. There seems to be a growing institutional disdain for freedom of expression so that people are beginning to feel they are no longer living in a free society. Instead, this woke movement seems to consist of those who are trying to enforce their extreme views on others by shaming or ruining those who think differently.

The so-called cancel culture, which is apparently the latest expression of wokeness, looks to be defined as criticising and shaming people often on social media - and attempting to undermine or destroy the professional standing of anyone who deviates from ever-more extreme standards of political correctness. People are now required to submit to a new ruling orthodoxy from which it is a sin to deviate.

Of course, the notion of political correctness has been around a long time. Reportedly, in the 1970s and early 1980s it was first used wittily by liberal politicians to refer to extremism in some left-wing issues. It seems now to be understood by most people as the need to avoid language or behaviour that could offend some individuals or a particular group of people or, more positively, actively using language, behaviour, policies or measures that are intended to avoid offence or disadvantage to them, particularly those who are considered marginalised or discriminated against because of race.

To most people that sounds fair and reasonable, though political correctness is often taken to extremes by those too easily offended without justification and where subjective judgment can be flawed. But, by and large, it works. What is now taking hold in Britain in public life and national institutions, universities and schools, the police, the press and other media, big business and even the Church is the promotion of a woke ideology which demands anyone who departs from the new orthodoxy is decreed evil and beyond redemption.

All this may sound fanciful to some but the woke movement is growing. It is interesting, however, that voices are now being raised in opposition to what is seen as a minority of activists trying to dictate to others how they should live and what they should think. For example,British comedian Ricky Gervais, pictured, has stood up publicly for free speech, describing wokeness as weird as he says, just because you are offended does not mean you are right. In addition, last week a letter was sent to Harpers Magazine by some 150 liberal philosophers, writers and intellectuals denouncing the current intolerant climate of public discourse.

It seems to me there is some doubt about what exactly constitutes the new orthodoxy and who has defined it. There is insufficient space today to make a proper case for free speech. But, generally in the Western world people accept instinctively the need for a logical exchange of ideas and opinions through argument and counter-argument in determining the truth and reaching measured conclusions on an issue as enunciated by the 19th century German philosopher Hegel in the dialectic named after him. In a democracy, shutting down debate, imposing conformity and crushing dissent is unacceptable and should be resisted. As someone said, if you dont support free speech for people with whom you disagree, you dont support free speech.

Despite the gloom and doom of new coronavirus restrictions here at home, I hasten to offer some positive and happy news from faraway Britain. Last Friday, The Queen attended the wedding of her granddaughter, Princess Beatrice who is the daughter of Prince Andrew, at Windsor. Because of social distancing requirements it was a small private event attended only by close friends and family. Prince Philip was also there looking fit and well at the age of 99. It was a rare appearance for him since his official retirement in 2017 and his first public engagement in a year.

Later the same day, Captain Thomas Moore was knighted by The Queen. It was he who had raised earlier this year the enormous sum of about $40 million for the National Health Service by completing 100 laps of his garden in time for his impending 100th birthday. Captain Tom, as he became known, captured the hearts of the nation for his determination in a worthy cause and he was seen as a symbol of hope and perseverance during the coronavirus crisis so that he became a national treasure.

At the unique, open-air, personal investiture ceremony in the grounds of Windsor Castle in brilliant afternoon sunshine, The Queen was reported to have thanked the-now Sir Tom for his extraordinary fundraising efforts and remarked that 100 was a wonderful age, while he himself expressed his own thanks and appreciation for being honoured in this way and with typical humour apparently quipped that, if he had to kneel down for the ceremony, he might never get up again!

So Friday was indeed a happy day to gladden the heart a lovely wedding for the new bride and bridegroom and a fitting climax to the Thomas Moore story. It will also surely not have escaped notice this was the first public appearance by The Queen since the coronavirus lockdown measures and another example of her dedication and commitment to duty at the age of 94 - even in such troubled times. It was certainly a busy day for her.

Read more here:

PETER YOUNG: China may be dismissive of the UK - but Britain's bark still has bite - Bahamas Tribune

Much of the ambiguity of RCT's results lies in how closely the treatment and control groups matched to one another. Variables that are continuous along a spectrum, like age, are grouped into "buckets," in an attempt to make the heterogenous more homogenous. But as our knowledge increases, the underlying diversity of variables, even ones we formerly thought were more in the discrete, yes/no category are being challenged. Among the challenged are age, gender, and race.

"See, it's not about racesJust placesFacesWhere your blood comes fromIs where your space isI've seen the bright get dullerI'm not going to spend my life being a color".

- Black and White Michael Jackson

Race

Race has long been a description of phenotype, black, brown, yellow, and white. The more contemporary, and politically charged statement is that race is a social construct a cultural, not "objective" view. This particular view has generated agrowing tempest in medicinearound a standard test of kidney function, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). GFR measures the ability of the kidneys to detoxify the blood and is a primary marker of kidney health or failure. Actually, measuring GFR requires a 24-hour collection of urine so various nomograms, the new term might be algorithms, estimate those 24-hour values from a single point in time, blood test.

For a variety of reasons, including a belief that black individuals were more muscular than comparable white individuals, and therefore had higher levels of creatinine, the substance measured in GFR, the algorithm adjusted for being black. As a result, clearances for black patients were greater than those for comparable white individuals. The downstream result is that black patients were most likely to have false-negative GFR tests; their kidney function was worse than the GFR would suggest. These factitiously good results not only delayed concern about developing renal insufficiency but adversely impacted their priority on recipient lists for kidney donation. In the last few weeks, UCSF, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, the University of Washington, and Vanderbilt, among others, have dropped the racial component of the algorithm, in some cases substituting some indirect measure of muscle mass.

"This equation assumes that Black people are a homogeneous group of people, and doesn't take into account, how Black is Black enough?"- Vanessa Grubbs, MD Associate Professor of Nephrology UCSF

23andMe has made a business of separating us based on our genetics rather than our phenotype. Their calculated equivalence to "race" isancestry composition.To give you a sense of how genetics differs from phenotype, consider the US census that describes six categories [1], and 23andMe which has six main categories with 18 sub-categories and an additional 38 sub-sub categories.

Gender

Our earliest gender assignment was based on the most obvious of phenotypes, our external genitalia male, female, and individuals born with both, hermaphrodites. With expanding knowledge, our definition has progressed to the internal phenotype, the presence of a uterus and ovaries, or prostate and testis, to the presence of sex chromosomes. Today, gender can be measured by the release of hormones, a metabolic pattern. This metabolic definition has come forward in the discussion around long-distance runner Caster Semenya and her ability to compete as a female athlete. [2] Further conflating the problem is the entanglement of gender identity and orientation, which are related but separate. While more and more often, we see that the question of gender on surveys is couched as "gender identified at birth," this wording may meet some political correctness but fails to provide much scientific precision.

Age

You would think that age is pretty straightforward. Even creating buckets of ages should be easy. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by age. In looking at underage drinking, while the definition of underage may vary from locale to locale, the idea of what chronologically is 18 or 19 should be constant. On the other hand, what happens when we want to study health impacts. In this setting, are we interested in chronologic or physiologic age (often considered as frailty or some measure of co-morbidities)? It will make a difference. For example, how important is age versus frailty in the high-mortality associated with COVID-19? Capturing a chronologic value is probably not sufficient.

Medicine - the applied art

All of these categories are basic to applied medical research. And while the cultural positioning around categorizing race, and to a lesser degree, gender burns with a hot white light that may shed more heat than necessary, the concerns they raise are nonetheless valid. We need to develop not only consistent definitions but recognize that the definition changes with what general area we study. This further fractionation of categories may improve precision medicine, letting us compare more apples to apples. Still, it will require far more participants in studies to replace the statistical power lost as categories increase.

[1] White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander. If you want a deeper dive into how the US Census has categorized race over its entire existence consider this article from Science News,How the US census has measured race over 230 years

[2] ACSH discussed Semenya's confrontation with the International Association of Athletics Federation in a special series, which can be foundhere,here, andhere.

Sources: A yearlong push to remove racist bias from kidney testing gains new grounds, Stat

More:

The Changing Meaning of Age, Gender and Race in Medical Research - American Council on Science and Health

SANDCATCHERS

Featuring original music by Tzadik recording artist Yoshie Fruchter that is inspired both by maqam and the Appalachian Trail, Sandcatchers blends the sound of the oud, which has a deep history in the Middle East and tradition spanning centuries, with the lap steel, a much younger entity. A live online concert by the band features Yoshie Fruchter (oud), Myk Freedman (lap steel), Michael Bates (bass) and Tim Keiper (drums/percussion). Saturday, July 25, 6 p.m., Live on Tl-Barbs, barbesbrooklyn.com. Donation requested.

SELF CARE:LEIGH STEIN

Highbrow, brilliant, says New York magazine. Self Care proves Leigh Steins status as a great demolition expert (Kenneth Tynans term for Bernard Shaw) of the influencer era, says The New Republic. A Vulture Best Book of Summer 2020, the new novel is about Maren Gelbs company-imposed digital detox. She tweeted something terrible about the presidents daughter, and as the COO of Richual, the most inclusive online community platform for women to cultivate the practice of self-care and change the world by changing ourselves, its a PR nightmare. Stein appears in an online conversation with Jess Barron. Thursday, July 23, 7 p.m., McNally Jackson Independent Booksellers, mcnallyjackson.com. Free.

Get Jewish Week's Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

INON BARTANON, PIANO: TIME TRAVELER SUITE

The New York Times has called the Tel Aviv-born Inon Bartanon one of the most admired pianists of his generation. In this livestreamed recital, hell bring together Baroque dance suites by Bach, Handel and Rameau with movements from more modern works, including Thomas Ads Blanca Variations (2015), which are based on the Ladino folk tune Lavaba la blanca nia. Thursday, July 23, 7:30 p.m., 92Y, 92y.org. $10.

ROBIN WASSERMAN WITH SPECIAL GUESTS: MOTHER DAUGHTER WIDOW WIFE

An enthralling, gritty, and altogether unpredictable read that holds nothing back You will be utterly riveted (BuzzFeed). From the author of Girls on Fire, an NPR Best Book of the Year, comes a new novel centered on a woman with no memory, the scientists invested in studying her Dr. Benjamin Strauss and his ambitious student Lizzie Epstein and the daughter who longs to understand. Wasserman and guests will appear in an online discussion. Friday, July 24, 7-8 p.m., Strand Book Store, strandbooks.com. Free.

Israeli civil rights lawyer Lea Tsempel is the subject of the documentary, Advocate. It airs on PBS documentary series POV next week. Pov.org

ADVOCATE

Attorney Lea Tsemel is a champion in Israeli human rights circles for her longtime defense of Palestinians. But she is seen by some as the devils advocate. Filmmakers Rachel Leah Jones and Phillippe Bellaiche document her trials in Advocate, which was shortlisted for an Oscar in the Best Documentary Feature category. The film airs as part of PBS POV series, Monday, July 27, 10 p.m., Thirteen/WNET, pov.org.

CRIP CAMP Q&A

If ever there were a film about fun, resilience and tikkun olam, Crip Camp is it. No one at Camp Jened, a camp for disabled teens just down the road from Woodstock, could have imagined that those summers in the woods together would be the beginnings of a revolution. The campers-turned-activists shaped the future of the disability-rights movement and changed accessibility legislation for everyone. Join a virtual, live-captioned Q&A with filmmakers. Monday, July 27, 8:30 p.m., Marlene Meyerson JCC Manhattan, jccmanhattan.org. Free. Watch the film on Netflix, netflix.com.

DAVID CROSS NEEDS TO DO STAND-UP

Actor David Cross (Arrested Development) tries his hand at live stand-up comedy during a pandemic. Were just hoping he does his bit about the binary nature of the word Jew. Enjoy socially distanced comedy in Parklifes 4,000-square-foot outdoor yard while enjoying tacos and drinks. Masks are required and all safety guidelines will be adhered to. Monday, July 27, 8:30-10 p.m., Littlefield LIVE@Parklife, 636 Degraw St., Brooklyn, parklifebk.com. $28 (includes two tacos).

JUDY GOLD ON YES, I CAN SAY THAT WITH ROSIE ODONNELL

Join comedian Judy Gold and Emmy Award-winning Rosie ODonnell online for a laugh-out-loud conversation about Golds new book, Yes, I Can Say That: When They Come for the Comedians, We Are All in Trouble. Over the last few years, with the dramatic rise in political correctness and cancel culture, weve seen a dangerous increase in censorship of comedians who cover controversial issues. What are the uncomfortable truths that comedy reveals about our culture and society? Why is free speech the core value of our democratic society and what can be done? Tuesday, July 28, 7 p.m., 92Y, 92y.org. $10.

BERNARD-HENRI LVY IN CONVERSATION WITH THOMAS FRIEDMAN

A French philosopher, activist and filmmaker, Bernard-Henri Lvy is author of more than 30 books, most recently The Empire and the Five Kings and The Genius of Judaism. Few moments in modern history are riper than this one for his sharp lens and iconoclastic insight. Join Lvy in discussion with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman about his latest book, Virus in the Age of Madness, which lays out a complex collision of catastrophes and whether they will lead to the humiliation of democracies. Wednesday, July 29, 5-6:30 p.m., Virtual Streicker, emanuelnyc.org. Free.

NATAN SHARANSKY & RABBI RICK JACOBS: PRISON, POLITICS AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE

A month before the release of his new book, Never Alone, reflections on the journey hes traveled from Soviet Gulags to the rough-and-tumble of Israeli politics and then to the leadership of the Jewish Agency, Natan Sharansky will join us for a conversation moderated by Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism. Monday, August 3, 5 p.m., Virtual Streicker, emanuelnyc.org. Free.

HAMPTONS TRUNK SHOW

For more than a dozen years, UJA-Federation has presented the Hamptons Trunk Show, a hub of shopping, connecting and raising money for the charity. This year, the trunk show is a virtual experience that UJA promises will rival its big tent event. As always, a percentage of proceeds will benefit UJA including, this year, its response to the ongoing needs created by Covid-19. Each morning at 11 a.m. the trunk show will feature a live segment with trendsetters in the fashion world. Monday, Aug. 3-Thursday, Aug. 6, UJA-Federation of New York, ujafedny.org/event/view/hamptons-trunk-show. Register for free.

Follow this link:

Whats Going On In NYC This Week - Jewish Week

Many thanks to Jeff Rayburn for his concise and timely letter (Without free speech, fascism; July 8, 2020). I, too, am genuinely concerned about the many, divisive issues facing our country today.

The COVID-19 pandemic, racial diversity, political ideology, cancel-culture including speech suppression, statue removal, history revision and a small, but loud, number of activists of all kinds have caused terrible divisions in our national fabric. Far-left Trump haters have taken over the media and social platforms; far-right fanatics have turned into survivalists recognizing no authority but their own. No longer can we have reasoned, thoughtful discussions.

The tenor in our society is now so infected with political correctness and wokeness that I fear for the survival of our nation as we have known it. Can we not say, enough is enough, start respecting differences of opinion and quit demonizing someone just because they do not agree with us?

John Kittel

Spokane

View original post here:

Our nation is at risk - The Spokesman-Review

The former head of the Royal Navy has said the military should focus on winning wars rather than "political correctness" after a ban on words like manpower.

Admiral Lord Alan West, former First Sea Lord, made his comments after it was reported that the First Sea Lord Tony Radakin had ordered sailors to stop using terms such as unmanned" and "manpower" so as female recruits do not feel excluded.

Lord West, 72,said that whilepeople have to be "very careful with words"because "in this very politically correct world it has a relevance", he hoped that most of their (the Navys) attention is being paid at the moment to ensuring we have sufficient ships, weapons and men to prevent war and if there is a war, to be able to fight and win.

"Those things seem to me merit a huge amount of attention and it seems that quite often we're focusing more and more on things like the RAF changing its uniform and all those soft things, which are lovely, but they don't actually help you when a war comes along."

It comes after the Chief of the Defence Staff warned that the Armed Forces must stamp out its "laddish" nature, as he warned he found the militarys culture really worrying.

General Sir Nick Carter also wrote a letter to all personnel where he said that while we talk a genuinely good game, more needed to be done to deal with racism in Britain's Armed Forces.

It follows on from a review last year which concluded that the forces were led by a "pack of middle-aged white men" resulting in unacceptable levels of bullying, sexism and racist behaviour.

The report, by Air Marshal Michael Wigston, was commissioned after a 17-year-old female soldier was allegedly sexually assaulted by six male personnel.

See the original post:

Former head of Navy says military should focus on winning wars rather than 'political correctness' - Telegraph.co.uk

The following interview was conducted by Alexander Wendt on July 5, 2020, and originally appeared in German on Tichys Einblick on July 13, 2020. Translated by Russell A. Berman.

Alexander Wendt: Professor Bolz, the costs of the coronavirus pandemic are still unknown, but they will surely leave deep scars for years to come. Will our society return from post-materialism to a society with hard materialist concerns with numbers and balance sheets?

Norbert Bolz: Even before the coronavirus crisis, I had doubts as to whether the notion of a post-material society made much sense. To my mind, the post-material term only makes real sense as a description of digitalization and the rise of information technology. But the superstructure that is usually meant by post-material seems to me to be mainly a substitute for religion, and it never had the real significance for society that many ascribe to it.

Q: So the crisis wont change much?

Bolz: It will have a salutary impact to the extent that it will lead many people to focus on fundamental concerns: health, safety, and the basic functions of the state that guarantees these matters. We are returning to a Hobbesian understanding of the state. During the recent wonderful decades, we did not have to worry much about the need to protect our security. That has changed.

Q: What does it mean for public communication if we start talking more about Gross Domestic Product and less about gender identities?

Bolz: We may soon be facing materialist distribution struggles, with open conflict between utopianists and realists, as has been the case in the United States for several years. Up to now, public discourse in Germany has been dominated nearly exclusively by a milieu distorted by affluence. In the post-coronavirus era, we may find that that rhetoric will be ratcheted down. There are two different cultures in Germany: idealists from the ivory tower and others who have to earn money. Up to now, the idealists have been in charge of the public debate. A paradigmatic example of this kind of windbag is the acting chair of the Social Democrats, Kevin Khnert. He studied nothing, completed nothing, and has no real knowledge of anythingbut he speaks well and knows how to present himself. On the other side, there are engineers, natural scientists, and entrepreneurs who do not speak in public because they never learned how, and public speaking is not part of their self-understanding. Until now they have more or less accepted the fact that they barely play a role in the public debate. But I think it is quite likely that they will develop a greater interest, now that it has become a matter of the real economic consequences of the crisis, at least to participate in the social debate and not to leave the field to the big talkers.

Q: What do you see happening in the United States?

Bolz: It is remarkable that in the United States, political correctness is even crazier than here, but there is also a free opposition camp. Talk radio reaches a large public there and gives many a chance to participate in public discussion. Twitter plays a larger role as well.

Q: Canadian author Jordan B. Peterson has evoked the so-called intellectual dark web. That is his ironic designation for a platform where he can talk with the neurologist Sam Harris and entrepreneurs like Eric Weinstein without the limitations of political correctness. Is something like that possible in Germany too?

Bolz: A while ago I made reference in a tweet to the intellectual dark web, where interesting discussions really do take place. In Germany, too, there are plenty of interesting, nonconformist minds. So far what is missing is money, the economic support that is needed to establish a sustainable public platform.

Q: Actually the classical media ought to provide a platform like that for open debates, if only out of self-interest. Why doesnt that happen?

Bolz: This ought to be their job. I can only explain the extreme conformism in the editorial offices of most media through the very similar socialization of all journalists. There is no longer much difference between the private and the state-financed media in the discussion of most political topics. This sort of conformism is fatal, especially in this period in which all the political parties pretty much say the same thing, with the exception of the AfD [Alternative for Germany].

Q: What do you read?

Bolz: I used to appreciate Die Welt a lot. It bothers me that there too one now finds the hymns of praise for Angela Merkels great political leadership. If I want to read about German domestic politics, then I feel best turning to the Neuen Zrcher Zeitung. It offers a perspective that is distinctly different.

Q: The private media are calling for state subventionsabove and beyond the sixty million euros already committed to support newspapers. Are we facing a statist structural transformation of the public sphere?

Bolz: I cant say much to that. I can only pray that it doesnt happen. When it is a matter of the existence of ones own place of work, some media companies are evidently willing to sell their souls. I can even understand that. But the results would be terrible.

Q: In the context of the pandemic, scientists have had a clearly stronger influence in politics and media. Some virologists suddenly appear to be more important than members of the cabinet or leading editors. What does this mean for public debate?

Bolz: I am not able to judge the competency of the virologists who now appear widely in the media. During the pandemic, in general I appreciate the scientists and politicians who honestly concede that they still do not know enough. But as for wide swaths of the humanities: many are sinning against Max Webers exhortation against using the lecture as an opportunity to sermonize.

Q: Who is doing that?

Bolz: For example, Ottmar Edenhofer from the Potsdam Institute for Research on Climate Change. He is very proud to be the actual author of the papal encyclical Laudato si on climate questions as well as the key advisor for the climate policies of the German government. There are plenty of representatives of sociology, political science, psychology, as well as law who would love to appear in media debates as leading advisors. A real casting takes place: your chances to appear are best if you provide exactly what the editorial boards want on a specific topic. The fact that these academic opportunists appear more and more has become a big problem for academia.

Q: Do you see a chance that a new generation of scholars might break through this conformism?

Bolz: I am not particularly optimistic that a future generation of humanists and social scientists can break through the strictures of paternalism and conformism. People worry about their careers, and state control is becoming ever stricter. The result is opportunism scholarship. Thats why I place my bet more on thinking outside of the institutions.

Q: You recently left this academic world through retirement. Was that a painful departure?

Bolz: I am enjoying my freedom, which includes, among other things, the fact that no one can threaten me with disciplinary action. I can send out my missives on Twitter and place them in other select media channels. Otherwise I am experiencing what Goethe once described as the privilege of age: the gradual withdrawal from public visibility.

Read this article:

Extreme Conformism in the Media: An Interview with Norbert Bolz - Telos Press

WHEN I first worked for newspapers and the Associated Press in New Hampshire in the 1970s, there was an interlude when the accepted style was: Ms. Smith (who prefers that designation)... Ive since told many disbelieving students about this bumpy construction. I use it to make the point that language drives change, and while the getting-there is usually awkward, the arrival is worth it.

I think of this getting-to-Ms. process when I read opinions along the lines of the New Hampshire Sunday News editorial, Wokefulness: A colony by any other name (7/12), which criticizes a decision by the board of the MacDowell Colony, the renowned writers retreat in Peterborough, to drop Colony from its name. The reasoning, according to the board member quoted, is that colony can convey a sense of hierarchy and exclusion.

There are two sets of reasons to shift our language. There are those official changes we need to make because the terms are already widely understood to be outdated and offensive a team called the Redskins, for example. And there are those cases in which we change because the language is one immediate way that all of us can model respect and point to where we want to go in the future.

Adding Ms. to the title-choice list and shoving girl offstage in favor of woman for adult females were signs of such respect. The changes did not sweep away sexism, but were among the many small, important steps taken to move away from systemic gender discrimination of the workplace and beyond. The colony change falls into this category.

This language-tidying work feels to some like reactive political correctness, and they cant say the new phrases without rolling their eyes. In the 90s I had a newsroom colleague who always mimed quotation marks when using the term person of color in conversation. (This stopped when irritated young reporters began making the same air quotes whenever they described a person as white or elderly or dead.)

I often hear folks decry language police or insist Im too old to change. Yes, it takes time to unlearn the muscle memory of language. As a person who has spent most of my life wrangling words and whacking my way through weedy paragraphs in search of clarity, I too still stumble over language changes.

But opting out of this evolution is, at the very least, lazy. Worse, such recalcitrance adds to the fissures in our society that widen and split open.

The editorial opines that the real problem with MacDowells decision is not the word in question, but with people trying to out-do each other in wearing their linguistic sensitivity or wokefulness on their sleeves. That misses the point. The MacDowell decision is an effort to be respectful, to move away as the sun sets on an old empire and its class and racial divisions. As with every other shift toward more thoughtful language, it is a small apology that other, bigger changes are overdue.

Kimberly Marlowe Hartnett is an author and editor in Manchester.

Read the rest here:

Kimberly Marlowe Hartnett: MacDowell rebranding is about respect - The Union Leader

In the current clamor of certain elements of the populace rioting for socialism, it seems appropriate to provide a short lesson in history, a subject many colleges and universities have long since assigned to the dust bin. Apparently the hammer of political correctness has driven these learned havens from teaching such for the fear that it might offend someone because they feel left out of the process. History is vital. Without it, we cannot know who we are or where we are. Living in the now is chaos. Does that appear familiar?

Many years ago, about the time our founding fathers were shaking off the shackles of bondage, Alexander Tyler, a professor at the University of Edinburgh, wrote about the fall of the Athenian Republic over 2,000 years before that time. He concluded that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. Call that socialism, the precursor to communism. The average age of the worlds great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Go here to see the original:

Are we there yet? - Dothan Eagle

A gate with a historic marker is shown on the Ohio University campus in Athens, Ohio. (AP ... [+] Photo/Joe Maiorana)

Major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post are writing stories about how Covid-19 is devastating universities and towns surrounding them, particularly in Flyover Country, that part of America located away from the Atlantic or Pacific Coasts where media, business and political elites too often think most of the great minds and wisdom of our nation are found. The Times, for example, recently focused on the University of Akron, and Ohio University, where I reside. Let me speak briefly about three universities in the Buckeye State, including those two.

These schools are getting clobbered financially. Enrollments have been falling for years, so the schools were already in tenuous financial shape before Covid-19. The University of Akron in 1989 had 28,967 students; 30 years later, in fall 2019, it had 17,743, 38.7% fewer. What this fall: maybe 15,000? Moreover, early in this century, Akron went on a huge building splurge including a large fancy stadium, unsuccessfully hoping to attract students, but instead incurring a huge debt burden. Complicating things, another large state school, Kent State, is but 13 miles (16 minutes) away.

As Inside Higher Ed put it, Akron recently had a bloodbath. It fired 97 full-time professors, some tenured, after another 21 had already resigned or retired. This continued a major program retrenchment begun in 2018. Whole disciplines are being decimated, no doubt ending several majors. Meanwhile, of course, the school still subsidizes intercollegiate sports with more than $20 million annually, justly infuriating the faculty.

Conference rival Ohio University (OU) is the oldest Midwest university, with a gorgeous campus including 200-year-old buildings. Reeking in tradition, it inspired David McCulloughs recent best seller, The Pioneers, and is the school where Lyndon Johnson proclaimed his Great Society. A selective admission school with a decent-sized (by state school standards) endowment, OU over the past decade ignored the basics (maintaining high academic standards), lowering entrance requirements to maximize enrollments, while emphasizing political correctness regarding things like sustainability and diversity. A flight to quality in higher ed hurt schools like Ohio University that lowered high academic standards. Huge budget woes have forced it to let roughly 400 staff go, including a good number of faculty, vast numbers of supporting workers, but absolutely no, to my knowledge, high priced administrators, nor have any sizable cuts come to the $20 million plus athletics subsidy required so OU can compete annually in the Last Resort Bowl or its equivalent.

Wright State University in Dayton has had the most perilous decade of all. A new university, founded only in 1967, it grew substantially and by 2011 had 18,275 students; in fall 2019, the number had declined by 32% to 12,423, Wracked by internal dissent, in February 2019 the faculty went on a 20-day strike severely hurting the institution. Its finances have been extremely precarious. Founded originally as a branch of both Ohio State and Miami Universities, both schools are within about an hours drive of the Wright campus, as is the University of Cincinnati. Do you need four major public universities within an hour of Dayton, a city with fewer residents than 100 years ago, which also has a fine private school (University of Dayton) as well as a large community college (Sinclair)?

My guess is something important will happen regarding minimally one of these colleges. Ohio University, academically the highest quality, better endowed, and more geographically isolated from competing institutions, will likely survive, possibly even flourish if it renews its previous emphasis on excellence. Wright State is extremely vulnerable to merger into one or more surrounding institutions. Some sort of merger or increased cooperation between Akron and Kent State also seems likely. Some observers go further, predicting remote learning and alternatives to traditional degrees (like coding academies) may doom most vulnerable American universities.

Ohio is probably fairly typical. The short term prognosis is: Highly unpredictable, but with falling enrollments, rising expenses (money for masks, testing, etc.), loss of athletic revenue, declining state subsidies, falling endowment income and donor grants, half-filled dorm rooms, declining international enrollments, etc. -very bad financial outlooks, even for elite schools suffering smaller enrollment loss. Some low-cost community colleges, however, may actually gain enrollments. But Covid-19 will kill off some schools.

My latest book is Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America.

See the rest here:

The Great College Depression Begins: Three Ohio Tales - Forbes

The Times has revealed today that counter-terror police officers are considering dropping the term Islamism to describe terror attacks motivated by Islam. If it feels like weve been here before, we have. Ever since Islamist terror hit the West in September 2001, the circular debates over the correct way to describe terrorists has been a near-constant distraction.

In 2014, precious time and energy that could have been used to save the lives of innocent aid workers, journalists, religious minorities and civilians living under the jackboot of ISIS or indeed stopping hundreds of our own citizens joining the frenzy was instead spent debating whether or not we should call the group Daesh, or the un-Islamic State.

Unsurprisingly, this parochial debate did not exactly strike fear into the hearts of terrorists. One told the journalist Graeme Wood:

Were happy to have you discussing whether to call us Daesh, ISIL, or ISIS' As long as youre talking about that, he said and not about theology, politics or military operations - we know youre not taking us seriously.

It is more apparent to terrorists than us that these conversations, though well-meaning, have little benefit to the actual business of countering terrorism.

Which brings us to ideology, and the attempt by police to ban the term Islamist. Islamism is the particular name for a political ideology which seeks to establish an Islamic state. Its adherents range from those working within democracy to those willing to murder civilians to achieve this aim.

According to critics of the word, 'Islamism' should be dropped because it conflates religious belief with terror. But the term Islamism, rather than Islamic is intended to draw a distinction between the political ideology and the religious beliefs of more than two million Brits. It is important though to understand how religion informs the political ideology. Which it does, significantly.

I was present in the police meetings where these issues arose, and was disappointed that the use of the term 'Islamism' was framed in the context of the current discussions on race. This made it near impossible to make a dispassionate case in an entirely separate debate. Islamism is not just a made-up term, or a relic of a more racist past to be expunged like a statue or American Football team name. It is a necessarily precise and accepted term to describe the ultimate objective of both al-Qaeda and, as the name suggests, Islamic State.

When innocent people are gunned down in European capitals and minorities are persecuted in the Middle East, it is of the utmost importance to understand why this is happening. We need to know that we are not simply dealing with a band of malcontents or the vulnerable, but a distinct and coherent violent programme which, as repugnant as it may be, should be respected and understood as an opponent.

The authorities are being led to believe that there is discontent over the use of the term Islamism, but they must also be aware that any backlash over its use risks being dwarfed by the response to its abandonment.

The public wants to see effective counter-terrorism operations, and they want to know that some effort is being made to challenge the ideology behind the violence. How can they possibly have any confidence that the authorities are tackling Islamism, if they wont even name it?

Our institutions seem unaware at the moment of just how far they are drifting from the majority opinion as they consciously or otherwise adopt the political leanings and politically correct language of public sector professionals and supposed community groups.

The police have largely escaped the distrust bred by this disconnect, but following a series of failures inextricably linked to political correctness, from Rotherham to the failure to protect public statues, the police risk sailing ever closer to the winds of public resentment.

If they are seen to be withholding the truth over what is still the greatest terror threat to this country, then trust will deteriorate and policing by consent will be undermined.

Just imagine, in the wake of an atrocity (and there will be more) a senior British police officer using a euphemism to explain the murder of our fellow citizens. The resentment these displays can breed should not be underestimated, and the chasm between the public and institutions leaves anger to fill this vacuum.

Perhaps the most overlooked people in this debate are the formidable Muslims standing up to Islamism every single day across the country. Making Islamism more of a taboo than it already is would undo so much of their hard work, and would be a frustrating betrayal of brave men and women who need our support.

If the authorities and experts need to do a better job of communicating the crucial distinctions between the ideology of Islamism and the faith of Islam then so be it, but this is vastly preferable to a sleight of hand to describe the threat we all face together, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Continued here:

Why police shouldn't stop using the term 'Islamist terrorism' - Spectator.co.uk

Officers and squaddies march to a different tune

Jul 18th 2020

I ALWAYS GET asked to be a suicide bomber in training exercises, reveals a British soldier of North African descent. The role has its perks: spending an afternoon far away from barked orders, waiting to ambush a passing patrol. But with his fellow troops eagerly wrapping a rag around his head, he found it hard to ignore the profiling. I wouldnt term it abuse, I would term it racial ignorance on a staggering scale. Its a group of people who are naturally attracted to a particular political ideology, and dont want to engage with political correctness.

The armys job is to fight the queens enemies, and the fact that they have often been of a different colour to her is embedded in its culture. A non-white reservist says friends ask him why he wants to fight a white mans war. Once a year his regiment sits down to watch Zulu, a film about a bloody battle between British soldiers and African tribesmen. He says that the atmosphere isnt racist, but you can see how there might be some negative connotations amongst the junior ranks.

Nicola Williams, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, said in December 2019 that incidents of racism are occurring with increasing and depressing frequency. The army is trying to change this, and says of instances of racism The Economist put to it, such as the one above, There is no place for racism in the military and anyone behaving in this way can expect to be disciplined or dismissed. Last month, General Sir Nick Carter, the head of the armed forces, wrote to every soldier to say that the army supports Black Lives Matter (BLM). A few weeks later, central command waived the usual rule that politics is off-limits by letting troops attend BLM protests.

Senior staff hope that supporting BLM will send a positive signal. The young cohort from which the army recruits is more ethnically diverse than the population as a whole. Black and minority ethnic (BME) troops make up 8.8% of the 145,000-strong armed forces, which is in line with the population, but that includes 3,760 Gurkhas, around 1,300 Fijians and other non-white troops recruited from Britains former colonies. So it needs to improve its image among BME people to keep its numbers up.

This new approach also reflects the increasingly liberal views of senior staff in the armed forces. A growing professionalism has raised entry and training standards while making promotion more meritocratic. Once a cadet at Sandhurst, Britains officer-training academy, was a bit like Prince Harry: an Old Etonian, with deep family ties to the army, who was rather dim and prone to using racial slurs (as the young prince did as a Sandhurst cadet in 2009). Nowadays cadets are more likely to share the princes current views on race. The public-school contingent has been reduced to under half of Sandhursts intake. Socially mobile graduates now dominate.

Private soldiers still tend to come from low-income families in white working-class towns where social attitudes are more conservative. A BME soldier describes fellow squaddies as having a hillbillies in the Deep South who voted for Donald Trump mentality. A lance corporal was jailed in 2018 for joining National Action, a fascist group. Later that year a group of soldiers caused outrage after posing for photographs with Tommy Robinson, a far-right activist. Some of the counter-protests to BLM were organised by veterans who claimed to be guarding war memorials from potential vandalism. A black reservist says, Ive been surprised with the amount of people who have come out with the All Lives Matter mantra, and then actually having to sit down with NCOs [non-commissioned officers] and explain the whole situation to them.

The shared conservatism which once helped officers and troops to overcome class distinctions has now gone. There is a growing division in attitudes between commissioned officers, who see liberal reforms as necessary, and squaddies, who think political correctness is destroying the armys esprit de corps and undermining its professionalism. Ive had officers try and tell me about white privilege, sighs one soldier. That doesnt go down well with a bunch of blokes from the north.

Not all officers have moved in line with senior staff. Some allowed troops to attend counter-protests. But under new regulations officers who arent seen to encourage diversity will not be promoted. Anthony King, chair of war studies at Warwick university, thinks that in their drive to support diversity officers might sometimes be seen to promote women and ethnic minorities who had failed to meet the armys own rigorous standards. Independently of any committed racism or sexism on the part of the soldiers, this is bound to generate a reaction, he cautions. A former squaddie says he left the army last year when a female officer was promoted despite failing fitness tests. According to a spokesman, All fitness courses require the same challenges for both men and womenall staff being promoted are expected to pass the relevant tests. The squaddie is unimpressed. The army is just for shit cunts and liberals now, he says.

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Culture war"

Here is the original post:

Black Lives Matter and the British armys culture war - The Economist

I'd like to add a few additions to your article on the John Mason statue "In Windsor, a former Mystic fixture could be removed from pedestal again," July 11 which is accurate on the whole.

In 1992, Columbus was celebrated for his voyage in 1492. Our local peace group, the Southeastern Connecticut Coalition for Peace and Justice, viewed his voyage as an invasion, not discovery which view has been finally recognized nationally with the removal in New London and around the United States of Columbus statues.

When we learned through meeting with "Wolf" Jackson and other local Pequots about the 1637 massacre, and the statue of John Mason standing on the site of that massacre, our focus changed to the removal of that statue, and in the process educating the local community about the Pequot War. Almost two years of hard work culminated when the Groton Town Council voted to remove the statue.

As you mentioned in the article, people living in that neighborhood now have little knowledge about the horrible massacre which took place in their neighborhood. The "peace tree" and plaque which replaced the statue have not been well-maintained. However, the Pequot tribal members are aware of the apology implicit in the removal of the statue, and are, I believe, relieved that it is not on the site.

Edith Fairgrieve, Dave Silk, Melinda Cole-Plurde, Cal Robertson and I, Rick Gaumer, were the activists involved with Wolf and various Pequots in the struggle to recognize the wrong our ancestors committed in Mystic. We appreciated the willingness of the Groton Town Council to learn from history. Once removed, our group did not express an opinion on the disposition of the statue.

In some ways, the move to a small green inWindsor, surrounded by Colonial-era buildings, corrects the image of the colonists given by various museums Old Sturbridge Village, Old Deerfield, Plimoth Plantation with an obviously war-like violent statue. We all need to know this aspect of our history in this land.

By the way, the day after the Groton Town Council voted to remove the statue, I found out that an ancestor of mine, Nicolas Olmsted, a son of a founder of Hartford, took part in the massacre. In fact, Mason, in his account of the battle, when the battle was in doubt, ordered Nicolas to run through the village with a torch, setting fire to the homes. Many died in the fire or were killed fleeing the flames.

I had never seen the statue until the day before its removal. The horror I felt on that site continues to haunt me to this day.

Finally, concerning the recent commentary by Marcus Mason Maronn,his characterization of Uncas and Sassacus as genocidal butchers, equal to Mason, is wrong. It was Mason who led the killing of up to 700 men, women, children and elders. Both the Narragansetts and the Mohegans, allies of the colonists, were appalled by the slaughter of innocents. The historical record is clear.

Maronn repeatedly refers to the controversy about the statue as pushing some form of political correctness.No, the controversy is a response by those who came to understand Mason's and the colonists' actions, which amounted to attempted genocide.

Rick Gaumer lives in Norwich.

See the rest here:

Reminder of the violence that founded a nation - theday.com

A few weeks ago, the political scientist Yascha Mounk launched an online platform called Persuasion. In it, he observed, It is difficult to convey just how many amazing writers, journalists, and think-tankers have privately told me that they can no longer write in their own voices; that they are counting the days until they get fired; and that they dont know where to turn if they do. Next, an open letter, which Mounk, among others, signed, appeared in Harpers. It appeared in part to serve as a riposte to the defenestration of former editorial page editor James Bennett at the New York Times, whose sin was publishing an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton. The letter stated, Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. But the Harpers letter and Persuasion did not persuade everyone: Mounk was promptly denounced in the New Republic, which maintained, in their obsession with the left and cancel culture, Mounk and his fellow travelers are dangerously close to suggesting that the free society we enjoy is as much under attack from the left as from the right.

But are Mounk and Co. seeing ghosts? Or are they warning about a real development? A scorching resignation letter from Bari Weiss who has worked at the Opinion section of the New York Times for the past four years as a staff editor and writer is sure to heighten the debate over political correctness at Americas leading media organizations. Weiss, who left the Wall Street Journal to join the Times, addresses her epistolary effort to the papers publisher, A.G. Sulzberger. In her letter, Weiss suggests that the paper is sacrificing its standards to accommodate the prevailing political trends on the Left, that, in effect, Twitter is editing the paper, and that she herself was subjected to constant bullying for expressing her views. If her account is accurate, then the newspaper has disgraced itself.

Weiss has herself long been a figure of controversy for writing such heterodox essays such as Three Cheers for Cultural Appropriation and for her impatience with modern feminists. As a controversialist, she surely welcomed a good deal of the outrage her pieces incited. The more she was attacked, the more her profile rose. In the May 2019 Vanity Fair, Evgenia Peretz observed, For writers hoping to gain a following, slamming Bari Weiss has become an easy way to be seen. It wouldnt matter if she were writing for The Wall Street Journal. The problemor opportunity, reallyis that shes writing for The New York Times, which is supposed to be their paper, and that shes getting famous for it.

But something appears to have snapped during Weiss tenure at the Times. She indicts the newsroom atmosphere as a hotbed of intolerance in which views that do not comport with the regnant progressive beliefs are treated as heretical. According to Weiss, If a persons ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. She adds, my own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how Im writing about the Jews again.'

The Times issued a carefully layered corporate response to Weiss cri de coeur. Acting editor Kathleen Kingsbury responded, We appreciate the many contributions that Bari made to Times Opinion. Im personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report. We see every day how impactful and important that approach is, especially through the outsized influence The Timess opinion journalism has on the national conversation. But the question isnt the outsized influence that the Times haswhat publication does not seekto influence public debate as much as possible?but whether it is open to publishing provocative and controversial pieces from more than an ideologically narrow frequency band.

Weiss will presumably elaborate on the affair in coming days. She will prosper from the controversy which amounts to a form of breaking ranks. But it is a perturbing sign of the times that she seems to have been too radical for the Timesand that the paper did nothing to prevent her colleagues from vilifying her.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest.

Image: Reuters.

Visit link:

Why Did the New York Times Seek To Silence Bari Weiss? - The National Interest

As the 2020 election begins to heat up, I am compelled to write about the 10th Districts Congressman Josh Harder and how poorly his values match up with those in our Valley. Many of the stances he has taken, and those stances he hasnt, go to show why we need to vote him out of office this November.

Just last month, Harder signed a letter, alongside other far left legislators, which insists on allowing biologically born males who identify as transgender to compete in womens sports. Obviously, a male has a great deal of genetic advantages, otherwise sports would not be differentiated by gender in the first place. Our congressman, however, does not address these advantages, nor does the letter he signed even acknowledge their existence. Opportunities in the athletic world should not be taken from the young girls in our district for the sake of political correctness.

To continue pandering to his leftist base, Representative Harder was among the ranks of Democrats that blocked a resolution denouncing rioters and looters who are taking advantage of the Black Lives Matter movement to cause chaos and destruction. Towns in our own district like Ripon and Oakdale were labeled as racist by leftist groups, and he never even thought to defend them.

Josh Harder claims to Put the Valley First, but he does not represent our values and ignores when our people are under attack. Should we allow him to continue representing us when he refuses to uphold our standards and defend our people? That question is for you to decide.

Joseph Marines

Follow this link:

Where are Harder's values? - The Turlock Journal

Comedian Judy Gold doesnt hesitate to speak her mind. In her new book Yes, I Can Say That, the veteran stand-up, actress and Emmy-winning writer-producer (The Rosie ODonnell Show) weighs in on serious topics including free speech, censorship and cyberbullying, while paying tribute to her Jewish (and other) comedy heroes by telling some of their best jokes and her own.

I wanted people to understand what good comedy is, how powerful it is, Gold told the Journal. Its the most palatable way to talk about uncomfortable and subversive topics and to deal with differences. Thats what a joke is: taking circumstances and personalizing them, having a point of view. Its disarming. Even in the darkest of times, people make jokes. It unites people.

Nevertheless, Gold, her peers and comics who came before her have somehow been held to a higher standard, facing backlash from easily offended monitors of political correctness.

I believe in free speech. I think everything is fodder for comedy but it has to be a smart, well-crafted, funny joke, Gold said. For example, jokes about COVID-19 would be about wearing masks and gaining weight in quarantine. The same applies to race issues. If youre trying to incite hatred or division, its not funny.

Gold also spends time talking about herself, her family and what it was like growing up to be 6 feet 3, Jewish, female and gay. The world identifies you by a physical characteristic and thats not who you are. Everybody has to make a comment. Its hard to embrace when youre a young kid and you want to look like everyone else, Gold said. It was hell, but it gave me a sense of humor and a thicker skin.

A Newark, N.J., native, Gold grew up with two older, quieter siblings. I was always funny and had this sense of humor, but I also wanted to control what people were laughing at, which directed her into stand-up. She first tried it on a dare while in college at Rutgers University, and hasnt looked back.

Her comedy always has been very Jewish. Its in my DNA. Its generation after generation of being kicked out of countries and anti-Semitism, she said, noting that she has been a victim of Jewish hatred way more than anti-LGBTQ. Ive gotten it on stage and its way worse on the internet. But it hasnt stopped her from joking about her shocked reaction to her sons desire to add a New York ZIP code tattoo to his arm. I mention the Holocaust every time I get on stage.

She sees the world through Jewish eyes and believes activism is an integral part of that. I love the social justice part of being Jewish, tikkun olam. We have to give back and repair the world, she said. Theres so much we can do for one another. We share the planet and I think its our duty to contribute for the good and the betterment of society.

I wanted people to understand what good comedy is, how powerful it is. Its the most palatable way to talk about uncomfortable and subversive topics and to deal with differences. Judy Gold

She speaks fondly about her religious education and love of tradition. There was a sense of pride in our house in being Jewish. My mother loved being a Jew. She was very observant. We kept kosher, did all the holidays, Shabbat dinner every Friday, we had a Sukkah. Everything. I went to Hebrew school and Hebrew high school. Our synagogue was Conservative, leaning more toward Conservadox.

While on tour, she attended services all over the U.S. to say Kaddish for her father during the year after his death, and recalled going to a service at a Swedish synagogue two years ago. Wherever I went they were singing the same songs. It felt familiar, and theres something very comforting about that, she said.

These days, celebrating Shabbat with home-made challah keeps her connected to her faith during the pandemic, which has derailed her plans to appear in Last Summer at Bluefish Cove on Broadway. I had so much planned, she said. Personal and universal frustrations provide fodder for her podcast Kill Me Now, in which she and celebrity guests discuss the things that make them mad. Upcoming guests include Beth Lapides, Mary Lynn Rajskub and Jordan Carlos.

Unable to tour to perform or promote her book, Gold has done both via Zoom. She performed on the back of a flatbed truck at a drive-in movie theater in Queens, N.Y. You cant hear them laughing so they just flash their lights, she said. It was fun, but theres nothing like live performance. The world without the arts is really a sad place.

She eventually hopes to do a one-woman show based on Yes, I Can Say That, write another book and marry Elysa Halpern, a therapist, real estate executive and her partner of 13 years. Shes someone I want to grow old with, Gold said. She has two sons from a previous relationship: college-bound Ben, 18, a 6-foot-8 basketball player, and Henry, 23, a production assistant.

In the books acknowledgements, she thanks her boys for putting up with her screaming, Keep it down! Do you understand that I have to write a book? I love you both more than anything. And remember that Im counting on you to pluck my chin hairs when Im lying in my own urine at the Hebrew Home for the Aged.

Asked about the lessons she has learned from her career, Gold provided several. You cant measure your success by someone elses success. Its really about reinventing. No one is going to do the work for you. If you get the chance, you have to be prepared, she said. And you have to enjoy getting there.

Yes, I Can Say That is available starting July 28.

Read the original post:

Judy Gold Stands Up for Comedy in Her Book 'Yes, I Can Say That' - Jewish Journal

(MENAFN - The Conversation) BBC audiences were recently introduced to their first black Doctor Who . In the episode which aired in the UK on January 26, Jo Martin previously best known for roles in Holby City and Blue Story played an ostensibly ordinary human who was, towards the end of the episode, revealed as a previously unknown (possibly past, future or parallel) incarnation of television''s most famous Time Lord.

A few weeks earlier the latest version of the show''s recurring super-villain, The Master, had for the first time been portrayed by a person of colour, a role played with manic zeal by Sacha Dhawan in a performance dubbed by The Guardian as the '' Hot Camp Master ''.

Both events provoked strong responses on social media, from enthusiastic plaudits through to rants from fans ranging from the sincerely ''woke'' to the reactionary and even racist. The latter response might be considered out of character for the followers of a show whose liberal hero has for more than half a century renounced violence and struggled for peace, social justice and environmental sustainability.

This is a series whose very first episode had a female producer, Verity Lambert , and a British Asian director, Waris Hussein phenomena virtually unheard of back in 1963. (The latter was also played by Dhawan in the BBC''s 2013 docudrama An Adventure in Space and Time .)

It''s a programme which, in 1972, argued passionately (albeit symbolically) in favour of membership of the European Economic Community (or in its own terms the Galactic Federation ), and a year later railed against the impacts of industrial pollution.

In recent years, it has foregrounded LGBT+ protagonists , issued dire warnings against climate change and even made reference to the fabrication of evidence to support the invasion of Iraq.

Yet since 2017, when Jodie Whittaker was cast as the first female Doctor Who, arguments have raged between those strange misogynists depicted by the Huffington Post''s Graeme Demianyk as '' man babies '' and, in contrast, the likes of The Guardian''s Zoe Williams, who heralded Whittaker''s Doctor as representing '' the revolutionary feminist we need right now ''.

If, like mine, your social media bubble overwhelmingly favoured the Remain campaign and still can''t get its head around the fact that the majority of people didn''t, then your friends and followers may well have applauded Martin''s appearance. But you might then be surprised if you were to venture into some Doctor Who fan forums . You''d see quite a backlash against what some perceive as the politically correct direction their favourite show has taken. ''This show and all it used to offer has been destroyed by politically correct writing and casting,'' opined one fan . Another responded: ''It''s not ''woke'', unless your idea of woke is ''it has a black woman in it''. It''s the blandest form of mainstream liberalism but some internet talking heads treat it as if it was 50 minutes of Jodie Whittaker reciting the Communist Manifesto.''

The outrage of the anti-PC brigade has simultaneously fuelled and been fuelled by coverage in the mainstream media. Echoing a populist press narrative that the series has become, in the words of the Daily Mail , ''a tiresome ordeal of political correctness'' since Whittaker assumed the role, The Sun reported this week that viewers baulked at the programme''s ''unbearable political correctness'' as ''another female Doctor'' was revealed.

Also writing in The Sun, Jeremy Clarkson observed that ''angry fans say it''s littered with ham-fisted attempts to ram Lefty dogma down our throats''.

This backlash has sparked an equal and opposite reaction one which, like the fan who described the series'' current ideological stance as ''the blandest form of mainstream liberalism'' is not simply aligned with that stance, but which is concerned that its stance is not radical or robust enough. Writing in the New Statesman, assistant editor Jonn Elledge has argued that the casting of the first female Doctor has been undermined by the fact that that she has been ''given no material as meaty'' as that written for the supporting male characters.

Despite having repeatedly argued for the importance of that casting decision in books and articles, both here and elsewhere , I''ve since expressed concern at the series'' simultaneous weakening of the character.

Jack Hudson has recently argued in The Guardian that, beneath its guise of progressive politics, the show has in fact grown profoundly conservative in ways which may at once alienate both its progressive and its reactionary fans.

In December Lenny Henry (in the run-up to his recent appearance in the series) was quoted as suggesting that BBC bosses would rather cast a dog than a black actor in the title role. In this context, Martin''s casting as the first black, female Doctor seems particularly significant.

Yet Martin''s Doctor is not (as yet) the series'' lead. Progressive voices in fandom have sometimes suggested that, when Whittaker eventually leaves the series, her successor will most likely (and most appropriately) be a woman of colour. There may now be those who fear that Martin''s tangential Doctor (whoever and whenever in the Time Lord''s timeline she may turn out to be) has ticked both those boxes and that the production team may next time once more fall back on casting a white, male lead.

These arguments will doubtless continue to rage, along with much bigger ones. The polarisation of political perspectives among the British public since the Brexit referendum of course remains a matter of ongoing national concern. The current disagreements amongst Doctor Who fans once a group which unambiguously embodied the liberal consensus may appeal to the mainstream media precisely because they mirror those larger societal divisions, and may prove of greater significance as indicative of those broader ideological shifts and splits.

MENAFN20720200001993603ID1100512532

The rest is here:

Doctor Who: fan reaction to first black Time Lord exposes Britain's deep divisions on race and gender - MENAFN.COM

We are living in a peculiarly paradoxical age. A time when it has never been easier to have access to free speech, and yet, simultaneously, a time when it has never been easier to be abused, sidelined, and cancelled for speaking ones mind.

British historian Niall Ferguson has diagnosed todays paradox by identifying the rise of the emocracy a culture where feelings matter more than reason. Ostensibly democratic, but lacking purposeful dialogue, discourse, and debate, the modern public sphere has come to be shaped by three phenomena that are fast eroding the bases of civil conversations, mass engagement, and the intellectual playground of ideas.

The first of these phenomena is the rapid intrusion of political correctness into the main forums of discussion, chiefly the portals of social media. Originally meant to increase sensitivity and create awareness about unconscious bias, political correctness has now devolved into a toxic brand of ideological convenience where offence and outrage reign supreme. Take for example, the case of J K Rowling, who was recently ripped to shreds by the guardians of online morality for voicing controversial statements about sexual identity and menstruation. There is little doubt that Rowlings observations were ignorant and insensitive, but instead of catalysing a broader conversation around biological sex is it a binary or a continuum? the residents of the emocracy went all guns blazing in shaming Rowling publicly, and, of course, promising to dissociate from their previously unbridled Harry Potter fandom.

The biggest problem with political correctness and its concomitant brand of moral policing is that it engenders an attitude where individuals start taking offence on behalf of groups. Not only does this practice go against the basic notions of classical liberalism where personal identity trumps groupthink it also encourages a deeply patronising behaviour that is rooted in the misconception that those who choose to be offended have attained a normative zenith from where they can be appropriate adjudicators of what constitutes right and wrong, what can be excused as clumsy and what must be expunged as atrocious.

The second ingredient of the emocracy is the polarisation of society into distinct silos and compartments. In the Indian context, this would mean being branded as either a sickular or a bhakt, something that manifests itself in its crudest version on the comments section of virtual platforms like Facebook and Twitter. In the real world, if you happen to be a distinguished political spokesman like Sanjay Jha, you get removed from the Indian National Congress simply for suggesting a framework to revitalise the party, for any form of dissent is out of bounds.

The underpinning of polarisation revolves around the false choice of us versus them the misplaced view that people can be categorised into good and bad and that there is no need to actively invite opinions from the other side. This paves the way for social interactions in which confirmation bias dictates what is said or not said, as the insistence on stamping out diametrically opposite views leads to the silent murder of the freedom of speech.

Todays polarised polity has forgotten that the freedom to speak is a freedom we uphold not only when we hear echoes of our own stances, but also (more importantly) when we listen to that which we find unacceptable, repellant, or both.

Clamping down on inappropriate content be it in the realm of politics, arts, or other forms of civic participation ensures a double violation, as enunciated in John Stuart Mills iconic essay, On Liberty. Not only do we trample upon the hard-earned right of the speaker to say what they want, but we also deprive a potential audience from being exposed to the concerned content.

Such exposure is crucial to provoke us into asking why we know what we know. But in an emocracy, any challenge to our calibrated knowledge is received with indignation and seen as a licence to unleash ad hominem insults that appeal solely to emotions instead of furthering the intellect.

The third, and perhaps most pernicious, constituent of the emocracy is the inexorable trend of cancel culture, wherein individuals and institutions are removed and isolated from civil society because they have been pronounced as inexcusable transgressors of the contemporary zeitgeist. Evident in the statue activism across the world to the resignation of company chiefs on account of misguided opinions shared decades ago to the call for modern thinkers (like Steven Pinker) and renowned philosophers (like Alexis de Tocqueville) to be airbrushed from the annals of intellectual activity, cancel culture is everywhere.

But even as we proceed to cancel people by precluding any reasonable appreciation of complexity, subtlety, and historicity, we fail to ask the most pertinent question: What happens to those that get cancelled?

In the case of historical figures like Winston Churchill or George Washington, their ambivalent legacies are reduced to monolithic impressions that see them either as unparalleled patriots (for those blindly supporting them) or glorified racists (for the cancel brigade), without arriving at the middle ground of a comprehensive analysis. In the case of individuals living amidst us, cancelling them merely amplifies their position as outliers, exacerbating self-loathing (among the disgruntled), apathetic indifference (among the defiant) and the impossibility of rehabilitation (among those who breed genuinely dangerous ideas, such as the denial of the holocaust or homosexuality).

By cancelling others for things they had done years, decades, and sometimes centuries ago, an emocracy retroactively imposes moral standards that have themselves evolved across time. Such an imposition pays no heed to context, argumentation, or the possibility of alteration.

The slippery slope of cancel culture means that once we set off on it, there is potentially no stopping.

Should we also proceed to cancel Immanuel Kant because he may have disparagingly used the n-word in his polemics? Should we also cancel Mahatma Gandhi because some of his utterances display racial insensitivity, in the early part of his South Africa stint?

Since the overwhelming assumption is that everyone is accountable for everything at everytime, should we, eventually, cancel each other because all of us have, at some time or another, said or done something problematic?

It is undeniable that there are people who deserve to be called out for misusing their privilege or position, but where is the threshold that separates sloppiness from malice and ignorance from evil? Where is the nuance that locates the intricate axis of the moral spectrum instead of falling prey to a sanctimonious, know-it-all reductionism?

Transforming or reversing ones ideas, beliefs, and opinions across time does not make one a hypocrite, it simply makes one human.

That is precisely the message that some of the worlds leading intellectuals including Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, and Margaret Atwood sought to impart in an open letter published in Harpers Magazine on July 7, which denounced a vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the stifling of debate on the basis of a blinding moral certainty.

Feelings and emotions, as vital as they are to our identities, cannot be the be all and end all of the public sphere.

(Priyam Marik is a freelance journalist writing on politics, culture, and sport. He is also a published poet who can be found sampling new cuisines, debating and cheering for FC Barcelona when he's not writing)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the authors own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

Continued here:

The rise of emocracy, and the death of debate - Deccan Herald