Daily Archives: May 3, 2022

A document editing tool launched by computer giant Microsoft has been criticised for advising writers to type assigned female at birth, rather than biologically female.

Critics say it amounts to censorship of an individuals writing and makes a mockery of language, flying in the face of the biological and linguistic meaning of the word woman or female.

It comes after The Telegraph reported that Google has also started telling users not to use particular words because they are not inclusive enough.

The online giant is rolling out an inclusive language function that prompts authors to avoid using certain words and suggests more acceptable replacements.

Microsoft Word has introduced a similar tool, prompting users of the editing function to avoid certain words. Users can opt in or out of the function.

As well as advising people to steer clear of the term biologically female, it urges them to change phrases such as Postman Pat to Postal Worker Pat, as the former may imply gender bias.

It also recommends amending Mrs to Ms, including changing Mrs Thatcher to Ms Thatcher. In addition, it proposes that users change the word mankind in Neil Armstrongs famous phrase one giant leap for mankind to humankind'' or humanity.

Critics have objected in particular to the biological definition of a woman being flagged as potentially offensive.

Helen Staniland, a software developer and feminist activist, told The Telegraph: Microsoft appears to be trying to influence how people discuss social issues, but not really know or understand what they are suggesting.

What do they mean by gender bias? Why are they suggesting that the perfectly descriptive phrase biologically female might imply a gender bias? Why would they presume that assigned female at birth might be better?

It seems that they are trying to jump on the bandwagon of attempting to prevent discussion of biological females, but their suggestions dont help them.

If they wanted to include trans women in this cohort, then their suggestion should probably be women - if you subscribe to the idea of trans women being women. Assigned female at birth is simply another way - albeit in forced genderist language - to discuss the same group, unless they are attempting to suggest that trans men are neither biological females nor subject to male violence.

In short, this part of their inclusiveness proofing is a mess.

Social media users have also criticised the Microsoft Word tools gender bias warnings.

One, called Suze, said: Sex in utero or birth is based on observable phenotypic traits, which are basically the clearly observable physical traits. Its not assigned or designated.

Erik Wedin, a blogger from Sweden, wrote on Twitter: Assigned at birth? Hey @Microsoft have you lost your mind? You do know doctors dont assign sex at birth? They observe and record sex and normally long before birth.

A Microsoft spokesman said: Microsoft understands that not every Editor suggestion may be suitable for all users and all scenarios. Thats why we let users be in control of their final output.

"Editor is a completely optional tool that users can turn on or turn off at any point. Editor does not make any autocorrections, all suggestions are just that suggestions for the user to consider and the user has control over which suggestions they choose to use, if any.

"In Word, users will have control at the critique/suggestion level as they will be able to turn on and off each one of them individually.

Among the words Googles inclusive language tool objects to are "landlord", which Google says may not be inclusive to all readers and should be changed to property owner or proprietor.

Read this article:
Microsoft Word is censoring you by altering your politically incorrect language - The Telegraph

The Cambridge family have access to the worlds tastiest meals, yet one of the familys favourite dishes is very simple yet gut-busting! It turns out that when Kate Middleton and Prince William cook with Prince George, Prince Louis, and Princess Charlotte, they love whipping up a mac and cheese.

It was reported that during a visit to Enfields Lavender Primary School, the Duchess made the revelation to Matthew Kleiner-Mann, Hello! reports. He said: "She was telling us how much her children love cooking and how they cook for her. They made cheesy pasta the other day. One stirs the flour, one puts the milk and butter in. And they make salads and stuff."

But not only does she love comfort food, she also has a taste for Japanese cuisine too. Prince William revealed he and Kate are massive sushi fans during a visit to Japan House London, where he met Japanese chef Akira.

READ MORE: Royal Family: Prince Louis' favourite vegetable is extremely posh for a 4 year old

He reportedly said the food was very impressive as he sunk his fangs into some salmon sashimi. The future king added: "Thank you very much. My wife and I love sushi. We might have to come down here for lunch when no one else is in."

But there are also foods that the royals are banned from eating in public. a royal foodie has provided insight into what they eat, and most importantly, what they can't eat publicly. Former palace chef Darren McGrady worked in the royal kitchens whipping up delights back in the nineties.

In an interview with The Telegraph he said the royals are advised against eating certain foods in public, like shellfish and foie gras, as they're "too risky". He didn't specify what was risky about them, but Yahoo Sport reported that it's believed Prince Charles had animal welfare concerns on the brain when he banned the decidedly politically incorrect foie gras.

Got a story? Please get in touch at rafi.benady@reachplc.com.

Want more articles like this straight to your inbox? Subscribe to MyLondon's FREE newsletters here.

Do you want to stay up to date with the latest news, views, features and opinion from across the city?

MyLondon's brilliant newsletter The 12 is absolutely jam packed with all the latest to keep you keep you entertained, informed and uplifted.

You'll get 12 stories straight to your inbox at around 12pm. Its the perfect lunchtime read.

And what's more - it's FREE!

The MyLondon team tells London stories for Londoners. Our journalists cover all the news you need - from City Hall to your local streets, so you'll never miss a moment.

Don't skip a beat and sign up to The 12 newsletter here.

Go here to see the original:
Kate Middleton and Prince William's really simple comfort food they love to eat - My London

The mood is manic, with the White House in a state of panic, as a coterie of frantic females tries to deal with the PR nightmare that is the President, but creates an even bigger nightmare of their own, in the world-premiere production of POTUS: Or, Behind Every Great Dumbass Are Seven Women Trying To Keep Him Alive, a female-centric political farce by LA-based writer Selina Fillinger, now playing a limited engagement at Broadways Shubert Theatre.

Directed with non-stop frenetic energy by five-time Tony Award winner Susan Stroman, the riotous show is filled with over-the-top stereotypes, politically incorrect laughs, and hysterical physical comedy, delivered by an all-star all-women cast of favorites from the stage and screen, whose characters weave a web of spins and cover-ups that leave world peace, a feminist contingency of voters, and their own positions and sanity hanging in the balance. Its a decidedly exaggerated yet all-too-familiar look at the entitlements and abuses of the American presidency that depicts women behaving just as badly in the service of a powerful man until they come together, recognize the true meaning of the popular internet acronym FML, and ask each other the eternal question, Why arent YOU President?

A terrific cast lets loose with the parodic portrayals, foul-mouthed tirades, and sexual explicitness, hurling incessant insults and every misogynist epithet known to man at one another, while protecting, gratifying, and kowtowing to the (sort of unseen) commander-in-chief, or gleaning and exposing the truth about him, all for their own personal and professional gain, in characters that suggest composites of well-known public figures of our recent and current times.

Tony Award winner Julie White as Harriet, the White House Chief-of-Staff, is a whirlwind of sidesplitting rage, barking orders and shouting obscenities as she is faced with how to handle the scandal(s) and what to tell the Press Secretary Jean played with equal concern but greater deadpan control by Suzy Nakamura in her noteworthy Broadway debut as shes about to face questions from a roomful of reporters.Among the most probing is Tony Award nominee Lilli Cooperas Chris, a tenacious member of the press and a nursing mother, determined to get the big story, no matter what it takes, while pumping her breast milk, getting incoming calls on her unsilenced cell phone (oops!), and causing yet another major presidential crisis with the marble bust of a revered Suffragette (a witty reference to the farcical perversion of the early feminist movement).

Add to them the smart but insecure assistant Stephanie, played to comedic perfection by SNL regular Rachel Dratch in an uproarious Broadway debut; SAG Award winner Lea DeLaria as the brash drug-dealing Bernadette, Jeans ex and the Presidents sister, released from prison and there to receive a pardon from her brother for her conviction; Grammy, Emmy, and Tony Award nominee Vanessa Williams as the strong and in-charge First Lady Margaret, willing to maintain the appearance of charm, commitment to public service, and a stable marriage to retain her popularity and to advance her own ambitions; and Emmy Award winner Julianne Hough in another stellar Broadway debut as Dusty, a pretty, young, and ever-ebullient bimbo, impregnated by the President, flown out to the White House on a private jet to see him, vomiting up blue slushies from morning sickness, and causing more stress for the staff and distress for Margaret.And though the show is not a musical, with Stroman directing and Hough (known from the TV series Dancing with the Stars) in the cast, its no surprise that it includes amusing segments of dance and concludes with a mini-concert of feminist anthems by the united women.

The wild action is enhanced by Sonoyo Nishikawas high-key lighting and a rapidly rotating set by Beowulf Boritt that shifts with the scenes from historic room to room in the tastefully furnished White House. Costumes by Linda Cho, and hair and wigs by Cookie Jordan, are suited to the womens personalities and to the scornful (and sometime unwitting) jokes about them.

POTUSs adult situations, obscene language, and sexist-based humor might not be for everyone, but they effectively serve to heighten the socio-political farce and to drive home the closing feminist message, Youre gonna hear me roar.

Running Time: Approximately one hour and 45 minutes, including an intermission.

POTUS plays through Sunday, August 14, 2022, atthe Shubert Theatre, 225 West 44thStreet, NYC.For tickets (priced at $39-250), go online. Everyone must show proof of COVID-19 vaccination to enter the building and must wear a mask at all times when inside.

Read the original post:
Over-the-top political farce of women at the White House in the world premiere of 'POTUS' on Broadway - DC Metro Theater Arts

LOS ANGELES, CA, May 03, 2022 /24-7PressRelease/ How to Reduce Your Risk of Covid Exposure by Jason Anthony Sturgess is being promoted by a Controversial YouTube Video featuring a Bikini Babe in a Leopard Skin Bikini introducing a Book about preventing you from getting Covid-19.

People are aghast that a book about how to avoid Covid-19 is being promoted by a Model wearing a Leopard Skin Bikini in a YouTube Video. Jason Anthony Sturgess thought that was the only way to get peoples attention about Covid in an apathetic world.

The Author believes that Covid-19 is mostly preventable but Dr. Fauci, President Biden & the CDC wont fully tell you how because its Politically Incorrect. How to Reduce Your Risk of Covid Exposure tells you how you can avoid Covid in plain simple English if you wish to invest $2.99 on yourself. For instance unless you are wearing an authentic N-95 mask, most other masks including homemade, cheap masks, Non N-95s and counterfeit N-95s will likely not protect the mask wearer from Covid-19 in the authors opinion.

How to Reduce Your Risk of Covid Exposure elaborates on essential & comprehensive information about minimizing your risks of being exposed to Covid-19. Straightforward & Politically Incorrect, a must-have resource for all looking for accurate unpublicized information about the Covid Pandemic that could save your life. Fully Illustrated featuring great original Pop Art including artwork that became NFTs by Larissa @venusmythe

This book shares where you can get authorized N-95 masks instead of counterfeit N-95 masks & disposable nitrile exam gloves that could save your life. Youll learn about home appliances that reduce Covid exposure, specific places where youre more likely to be infected by Covid, scenarios & people to avoid because the government wont fully acknowledge them & how to survive easily for a year without leaving home. Included is a Covid Pandemic Supply list consisting of dried and canned foods including freeze dried, over the counter medicines, cosmetic supplies, electronic accessories and more.

How to Reduce Your Risk of Covid Exposure is available both as an eBook and a Softbound Book at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09S6MCLFY, http://www.StopTheCovid.com, https://store.bookbaby.com/book/how-to-reduce-your-risk-of-covid-exposure1 and other fine online stores

Promo YouTube Video written by Jason Anthony SturgessDirected by Jason Anthony Sturgess and Bikini Model

Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com

View original post here:
How to Reduce Your Risk of Covid Exposure book launched by Controversial YouTube Video featuring Model in a Bikini introducing a Book that helps to...

The 19th Edition of the Monte-Carlo Film Festival de la Comdie, directed by Ezio Greggio, from the 25 to the 30th of April in Monaco came to the end.

The Jury, Paul Haggis (Presidente),Tom Leeb, Clara Ponsot, and Pierpaolo Spollon have finally decided the Prizes.

The Canadian Film Babysitter gets 2 prizes for Best Film and Best Actor to Steve Laplante.

The Spanish Director Dani De la Orden is the Best Director for Mam o pap, a film that also gets the Best Actress prize to Miren Ibarguren.

The Danish film Miss Viborg gets the Special Jury Award for an outstanding first feature film.

Also, The Monte Carlo Film Festival Jury wanted to give a prize to Odd-Magnus Williamson per Best Screenwriting with Nothing to Laugh About.

The Italian comedy Una Boccata daria directed by Alessio Lauria gets the Premio del Pubblico (Popular Jury Prize).

Finally, the Short Comedy Award prize goes to A guide to dining out in Nairobi (Kenya).

Following the motivation of the 19 Monte-Carlo Film Festival de la Comdie.

Best Film: BABYSITTER

The award for the Best Comedy of the 19th edition of the Monte Carlo CFF goes to Babysitter for its originality, for having obtained it through raw and politically incorrect irony, extraordinary staging and incredible dialogues. For the courage with which the director has chosen to tell the misogyny and the power with which she manages to reach the viewer.

Best Director: DANI DE LA ORDEN (Mam o pap)

Dani De la Orden has been able to build an extraordinary storytelling through images, managing to tell with a fast pace and perfect shots a story capable of making people laugh and excite.

Best Actor: STEVE LAPLANTE (Babysitters journalist brother)

In an extremely difficult role to play, Steve Laplante was able to control his performance perfectly without ever falling into exaggeration. An actor who accompanies the emotional change of his character throughout the film, who takes a position before and the opposite one after, to finally return to the starting point, thus narrating the stereotype of the male gender in an excellent way.

Best Actress: MIREN IBARGUREN (Mam o Pap)

Miren Ibarguren is magnetic, true and intense to the point of making you fall in love. In the role of a mother in the moment of separation, she was able to convey anger and desire for revenge, she told the joy and tenderness, mood changes and everyday life in a sublime way. A fun, spontaneous, extraordinary performance.

Best Screenwriting: ODD-MAGNUS WILLIAMSON (Nothing to Laugh About)

This special award, wanted by the Monte Carlo Jury for the first time, goes to the writing of Nothing to Laugh About for having been able to tell hope through a surprising development of a story that, despite the sadness of the facts narrated, manages to convey joy and offer a new point of view on the meaning of life.

Special Jury Award for an outstanding first feature film: MISS VIBORG

An amazing movie, we were blown away by this movie. A work that is a masterpiece.

Ezio Greggio, together with Cristina Marino (Il talento del Calabrone, Vacanze ai Caraibi), will host the Gala award ceremony where international talents will be attending, winners of this edition of the Festival. Stefania Sandrelli (Divorzio allItaliana, Ceravamo tanto amati, Prosciutto, prosciutto) confirmed her presence as special guest, being honored of the Movie Legend Award, while also Luca Argentero (Doc-nelle tue mani, Le fate Ignoranti -la serie, Come un gatto in tangenziale- ritorno a Coccia de Morto) will receive a lifetime achievement award. The talented actress Ludovica Martino, known for the famous tv series Skam, together with the teenidol Lorenzo Zurzolo (Baby, Summertime, Eo) will receive the Next Generation Award as Best Under30 Performer. Plus, Giancarlo Commare ( Skam, Ancora pi bello, Sempre pi bello, Maschile Singolare) will be awarded as Monte Carlo Film Festival-Next Generation Comedy Award winner for his performance in the film Ancora pi bello. Chairman of the Jury Paul Haggis (Crash-contatto fisico, Million Dollar Baby) will receive the prestigious Movie Legend Award. Among the stars attending the gala, the showman Piero Chiambretti, the famous journalist Cesara Buonamici, the former Juventus footbal player Andrea Barzagli, the histrionic anchorman Alessandro Cattelan and the charming Turkish actor Can Yaman, who we will watch soon on tv in Sandokan.

During the evening the member of the Jury Tom Leeb sang the song Sun.

The event, in collaboration with EFG Bank ( Monaco), has always been held under the High Patronage of S.A.S. Prince Albert II de Monaco and of the Italian Embassy

Read the original:
The Winners of the 19th Monte-Carlo Comedy Film Festival - Hello Monaco!

The word woke used to have a positive connotation. It originated in Black culture and took on a more common, mainstream usage following the killing of Black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014. To be woke meant to be socially progressive, with an acute awareness of social injustices.

Then, in the United States, Canada and elsewhere, the word woke was co-opted, hijacked by the political right and turned into a broad-sweep putdown of anyone with politically correct liberal values. Woke was newly reserved for lefty intellectuals and tree huggers, sushi eaters and faculty lounge highbrows, New York Times readers and the like.

Its a strong weapon for the right, all the more so because progressives have ceded ownership of the term. You dont hear Im woke and proud of it much. They dont have a retaliatory catch-all smear for reactionaries or their backwardness. Hillary Clinton tried deplorables. We know how well that went.

Re-engineering political language to discredit progressives hasnt just been limited to woke. The language pirates put liberals on the defensive by weaponizing the term elites as well, which used to signify success, having reached a high level. Now its shorthand for ruling class condescension and snobbery.

It also used to be that the wealthy elites were primarily conservative. But the right smartly politicized the term, slotting elites on the left side of the spectrum part and parcel of the woke crowd.

In the U.S. and Canada, the manipulation of vocabulary has aided in marketing the right as the domain of populists. Heaven help you in politics if you happen to be an intellectual that term was debased long ago and still is. While it may equate with being erudite, in these more philistine times that simply wont do.

The mainstream media has felt the effects of language manipulators as well. During his administration, Donald Trump greatly popularized the term fake news. Everyone knows that Mr. Trump, not to mention his friends at Fox, put out far more fake news than anyone else. But they still managed to convince a whole host of voters that the establishment liberal media are big purveyors of falsehoods.

This week, with Elon Musks takeover of Twitter, the right has more to celebrate in terms of its power over the public discourse. With the company going private, it appears that deregulation is in the works. There will be no more banning the Donald Trumps of the world. Its a victory for the politically incorrect.

Over time, the language pirates in the U.S. have even turned the word liberal into a derogatory term. That hasnt happened in Canada, but conservatives here have been no slouches in picking up on some of the trends.

Pierre Poilievres leadership campaign strongly appeals to anti-woke sentiment. Stand up to woke culture, he tweets. Stand up for freedom. Its not the hard right that divides Canada, insists the demagogic MP who was one of the foremost defenders of the truckers occupation of the countrys capital. Its the woke mob. We know what this woke culture is about, he recently told supporters at a rally. What its about is dividing people. Dividing them by race, gender, vaccination status.

Mr. Poilievre is joined by Mr. Trump in impugning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for being in the grip of woke culture. The radical left is trying to replace American democracy with woke tyranny, the former president said in February. Referencing Ottawas handling of the truckers protest, Mr. Trump ludicrously posturing as the foremost defender of democracy said the Democrats want to do the same thing that Trudeau has been doing to Canada.

In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis, who like Mr. Poilievre is seen to have a promising candidacy as a national conservative leader, recently backed a bill called the Stop WOKE Act that puts limits on what can be taught in schools about racism and the history of slavery.

Liberals in Canada and Democrats south of the border have moved their agendas leftward, making them easier anti-woke targets. Long-time Democrat strategist James Carville has noted how the topic of defunding the police has played right into Republican hands. Its lunacy, he said. Some of these people need to go to a woke detox centre or something.

Though there are cases, such as the one he mentions, of the progressives going overboard, woke Democrats in the U.S. and woke Liberals in Canada did win their most recent national elections.

But orchestrating terminology provides a big advantage for conservatives. It helps them masquerade as the real tribunes of the people. The unwoke for the great unwashed.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Excerpt from:
Opinion: The left is losing the language war - The Globe and Mail

A person familiar with the courts deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.

The three Democratic-appointed justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.

The document, labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, includes a notation that it was circulated among the justices on Feb. 10. If the Alito draft is adopted, it would rule in favor of Mississippi in the closely watched case over that states attempt to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the draft opinion and said he was ordering an investigation into the disclosure.

To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way, Roberts pledged in a written statement. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

Roberts also stressed that the draft opinion does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case. The court spokesperson had declined comment pre-publication.

POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the courts proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.

The disclosure of Alitos draft majority opinion a rare breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.

Under long-standing court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the courts opinion. The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization could change.

The chief justice typically assigns majority opinions when he is in the majority. When he is not, that decision is typically made by the most senior justice in the majority.

A George W. Bush appointee who joined the court in 2006, Alito argues that the 1973 abortion rights ruling was an ill-conceived and deeply flawed decision that invented a right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and unwisely sought to wrench the contentious issue away from the political branches of government.

Alitos draft ruling would overturn a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Mississippi law ran afoul of Supreme Court precedent by seeking to effectively ban abortions before viability.

Roes survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant to the plainly incorrect, Alito continues, adding that its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and that the original decision has had damaging consequences.

The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nations history and traditions, Alito writes.

Alito approvingly quotes a broad range of critics of the Roe decision. He also points to liberal icons such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who at certain points in their careers took issue with the reasoning in Roe or its impact on the political process.

Alitos skewering of Roe and the endorsement of at least four other justices for that unsparing critique is also a measure of the courts rightward turn in recent decades. Roe was decided 7-2 in 1973, with five Republican appointees joining two justices nominated by Democratic presidents.

The overturning of Roe would almost immediately lead to stricter limits on abortion access in large swaths of the South and Midwest, with about half of the states set to immediately impose broad abortion bans. Any state could still legally allow the procedure.

The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion, the draft concludes. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

The draft contains the type of caustic rhetorical flourishes Alito is known for and that has caused Roberts, his fellow Bush appointee, some discomfort in the past.

At times, Alitos draft opinion takes an almost mocking tone as it skewers the majority opinion in Roe, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Richard Nixon appointee who died in 1999.

Roe expressed the feel[ing] that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance, Alito writes.

Alito declares that one of the central tenets of Roe, the viability distinction between fetuses not capable of living outside the womb and those which can, makes no sense.

In several passages, he describes doctors and nurses who terminate pregnancies as abortionists.

When Roberts voted with liberal jurists in 2020 to block a Louisiana law imposing heavier regulations on abortion clinics, his solo concurrence used the more neutral term abortion providers. In contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas used the word abortionist 25 times in a solo dissent in the same case.

Alitos use of the phrase egregiously wrong to describe Roe echoes language Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart used in December in defending his states ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The phrase was also contained in an opinion Kavanaugh wrote as part of a 2020 ruling that jury convictions in criminal cases must be unanimous.

In that opinion, Kavanaugh labeled two well-known Supreme Court decisions egregiously wrong when decided: the 1944 ruling upholding the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II, Korematsu v. United States, and the 1896 decision that blessed racial segregation under the rubric of separate but equal, Plessy v. Ferguson.

The high court has never formally overturned Korematsu, but did repudiate the decision in a 2018 ruling by Roberts that upheld then-President Donald Trumps travel ban policy.

Plessy remained the law of the land for nearly six decades until the court overturned it with the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation ruling in 1954.

Quoting Kavanaugh, Alito writes of Plessy: It was egregiously wrong, on the day it was decided.

Alitos draft opinion includes, in small type, a list of about two pages worth of decisions in which the justices overruled prior precedents in many instances reaching results praised by liberals.

The implication that allowing states to outlaw abortion is on par with ending legal racial segregation has been hotly disputed. But the comparison underscores the conservative justices belief that Roe is so flawed that the justices should disregard their usual hesitations about overturning precedent and wholeheartedly renounce it.

Alitos draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.

Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population, Alito writes. It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.

Alito writes that by raising the point he isnt casting aspersions on anyone. For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion, he writes.

Alito also addresses concern about the impact the decision could have on public discourse. We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the publics reaction to our work, Alito writes. We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to todays decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.

In the main opinion in the 1992 Casey decision, Justices Sandra Day OConnor, Anthony Kennedy and Davis Souter warned that the court would pay a terrible price for overruling Roe, despite criticism of the decision from some in the public and the legal community.

While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable, the three justices wrote then. An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roes concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roes central holding a doctrinal remnant.

When Dobbs was argued in December, Roberts seemed out of sync with the other conservative justices, as he has been in a number of cases including one challenging the Affordable Care Act.

At the argument session last fall, Roberts seemed to be searching for a way to uphold Mississippis 15-week ban without completely abandoning the Roe framework.

Viability, it seems to me, doesnt have anything to do with choice. But, if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? Roberts asked during the arguments. The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks.

While Alitos draft opinion doesnt cater much to Roberts views, portions of it seem intended to address the specific interests of other justices. One passage argues that social attitudes toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies have changed drastically since the 1970s and that increased demand for adoption makes abortion less necessary.

Those points dovetail with issues that Barrett a Trump appointee and the courts newest member raised at the December arguments. She suggested laws allowing people to surrender newborn babies on a no-questions-asked basis mean carrying a pregnancy to term doesnt oblige one to engage in child rearing.

Why dont the safe haven laws take care of that problem? asked Barrett, who adopted two of her seven children.

Much of Alitos draft is devoted to arguing that widespread criminalization of abortion during the 19th and early 20th century belies the notion that a right to abortion is implied in the Constitution.

The conservative justice attached to his draft a 31-page appendix listing laws passed to criminalize abortion during that period. Alito claims an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishmentfrom the earliest days of the common law until 1973.

Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right, Alito adds.

Alitos draft argues that rights protected by the Constitution but not explicitly mentioned in it so-called unenumerated rights must be strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition. That form of analysis seems at odds with several of the courts recent decisions, including many of its rulings backing gay rights.

Go here to read the rest:
Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO

Imran Khan has asked his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf followers to assemble in the capital for yet another rally when he gives the call.

Comparing himself to Mohammad Mosaddegh, the Iranian prime minister who was ousted in a Western conspiracy in the 1950s, he again claimed of having been a victim of a US-led plot.

By provoking his supporters to march to the Pakistani capital, several critics say, he is trying to take Pakistan down a very dangerous path.

Sample his quotes: "I want two million people to come to Islamabad when I give the call. I want all of you to go to the people and preach to them about our movement for true freedom."

This is a translation, as reported by Dawn newspaper. One cant help but note the religious undertones of his words. His tone has moved to the extremes in the days following his unceremonious ouster, which had made him the first Pakistani PM to be removed through a no-confidence vote.

Also read | 'Im the dim': How Pakistan PM Imran Khan turned out to be a terrible caricature of the champion cricketer

In the desperate days before the trust vote, he vaxed and waned on TV, and tried to dilute the spirit of the Pakistani Constitution. He attempted his best to even circumvent the Supreme Courts order to convene the parliament and conduct the trust vote, after failing to do so in the first instance.

He used state media machinery to essentially start an election campaign even before the trust vote. On the eve of the confidence motion, he appeared via PTV, and asked Pakistanis to take to the streets on that Sunday, a move unbecoming of a prime minister.

Watch | Gravitas Plus: The many shades of Imran Khan

Then, after much drama, PTI activists went to the streets indeed, having lost the trust vote on 10th April.

But there was one thing really remarkable about the whole drama: The lack of any significant political violence.

Bloodshed during political movements and protests is part of Pakistan's tortuous tryst with democracy.

Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during an election campaign rally in December, 2007. Her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was tried for murdering a political opponent and hanged by the regime led by dictator Zia-ul-Haq who had deposed him in a coup at the height of violence caused by the then oppositions allegations of election rigging. Most recently, the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) protests of 2021 led to nearly 30 deaths.

But earlier this month, at one of the most dramatic upheavals in the country's political history, there was an almost 'peaceful' transition of power.

In spite of fears, the Pakistani Army did not intervene, or make any provocative statements. May be the transition was what the army-intelligence establishment wanted and got.

May be the Pakistani people are more intelligent than the world gives them credit for.

May be they are just tired. Three years of Covid pandemic, inflation, financial crisis, unemployment and corruption may have left them numb.

But Imran Khan appears to want to change that. He wants some kind of ruckus. From the rambling, televised national addresses in the run-up to the no-trust vote, to the fiery speeches at PTI rallies, he is trying to rouse passions.

His calls are taking a sinister turn even abroad, with expatriate supporters taking out marches in the West. There was a noisy protest in front of exiled former PM Nawaz Sharif's residence in London. And another in front of the house of Jemima Goldsmith, the former wife of Khan, who said it felt as if she was back in Lahore of the 1990s.

Shehbaz Sharif, the new PM, is no saint, lets face it. Nor is his brother, Nawaz Sharif, who also lost his post as a consequence of Supreme Court orders in corruption cases including those linked to the Panama Papers leaks.

But the dangerous game that Imran Khan is playing now, can potentially cause far-reaching damage to the body politic.

Because he is continuously attacking key institutions of democracy: the courts, the legislative process, and now, the election commission. His supporters have been holding protests outside the election commissions offices across the country.

His issue is with the fact that the poll body may have played a role in putting a spanner on his maneuvers to dissolve parliament and assemblies and call a fresh election before the no-trust vote was taken up. The election commission submitted to the SC that it would take at least six months to hold elections due to delimitation exercise and other logistical issues. Basically it meant there wouldnt be a new National Assembly as soon as Khan had expected.

Now, he has gone all guns blazing against the election commission. It is an irony of history that this was the same poll body that was on his side and blamed by those who lost the election to PTI in 2018.

There were widespread allegations that the elections were rigged. It was incredulous for many that Khan would emerge as a national leader, let alone a prime minister, in a matter of less than a decade. While the cricketer-turned-politician did have support in some pockets thanks largely to his anti-corruption movement, his party had languished for years since its founding in 1996.

Therefore, the election of 2018 was seen as stage-managed by the army-intelligence complex to oust the Sharifs from power.

But since he took over, Khan made several missteps, and made damaging public remarks and quixotic stances on international affairs. These embarrassed the army, alienated several allies and eventually made his position as Pakistan PM untenable even as the country wallowed in a never-ending economic crisis.

Sample some of his ill-timed remarks and unbecoming actions: He showed disrespect to several Gulf monarchs and dignitaries in both actions and words, that breached protocol and caused outcry. He appeared to endorse cross-border terrorism in India and Afghanistan, calling Pakistan a victim of it and referring to terrorists as martyrs almost in the same breath. He antagonised the West with adverse comments on Pakistans post-9/11 support to the US-led war in Afghanistan and war on terrorism. He couldn't dispel the notion that Pakistan intelligence and military had constantly supported Taliban terrorists. (it's a different matter that suddenly, calling Taliban terrorists is politically incorrect as they now rule Afghanistan).

His government schooled Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on Kashmir issue, seeking a foreign ministers meeting on it and threatening to convene one in Pakistan if OIC didnt.

He complicated relations with key Gulf allies by first endorsing, and later pulling out of an Islamic nations summit organised by Malaysia in 2019, which had unnerved Saudi Arabia and UAE, the real patriarchs of the Islamic political world, who are also the very hands that feeds Pakistan (yes literally, because at the time Khan was also desperately pleading for aid from them).

His remarks on French President Emmanuel Macrons defence of freedom of expression in the context of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons fanned the fires of radicals like TLP. They held protests wanting to get the French ambassador removed. For long an ardent critic of Islamophobia, Khan appeared to cave in to such extremist groups who bayed for blood of the French envoy.

His continued support of China, even publicly dismissing the alleged persecution of Uyghur Muslims by Pakistans iron friend, caused much unease in the US and the West.

And what probably became the nail on the metaphorical coffin was his visit to Russia and meeting with President Vladimir Putin, bang in the middle of the first days of Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The problem is, he thinks he is very popular. He thinks he is still the cricketer loved everywhere in the world.

And when he saw the ground beneath him crumbling, he suddenly raised the bogey of a foreign conspiracy to remove him.

It may or may not wash with the public. But that's for them to decide, come election time.

Till then, Imran Khan needs to tone down his messiah complex.

He will have to give the megalomaniac in him a break.

Otherwise, that megalomaniac will provoke some sections of his party to violence.

And there will be blood.

And if Pakistan burns, Imran Khan will have blood on his hands.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

See the article here:
Imran Khan, if Pakistan burns, you will have blood on your hands - WION

Steve Coogan has revealed which current broadcaster he believes to be most similar to Alan Partridge.

The actor is known for his portrayal of the socially inept and politically incorrect media personality, whom he has played in several TV shows, as well as the 2013 film Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa.

During an appearance on BBC Breakfast, Coogan opened up about his beloved role.

Almost every presenter has had a Partridge moment and I sort of galvanise all that and chuck it into this big bucket marked Partridge and then regurgitate it, Coogan told host Naga Munchetty about his inspiration behind the character.

Asked which current broadcaster he thinks bears the closest resemblance to Partridge, the actor took a moment to think.

I suppose if you fused Richard Madeley with Piers Morgan you might get close to who Partridge is at the moment, said Coogan.

The actor went on to provide reasons for his answer, adding: I think Alan likes to think of himself as cutting edge, and edgy, and relevant.

Responding to host Charlie Stayts comment that to be called the inspiration for Partridge has become a badge of honour, Coogan agreed that viewers have come to rather like the character.

Yeah, I think although he started out as a buffoon, now people actually rather like him they have a bit of an affection for him. Although hes misguided and misinformed, hes not nasty or wicked. He tries to do right, said Coogan.

I think people when they laugh at Partridge, they see an inept uncle or their parents generation getting things slightly wrong.

The rest is here:
Steve Coogan reveals which broadcaster he thinks is a modern-day Alan Partridge - The Independent

Last week, on April 21, Scott Ritterwhom older readers might remember as a former U.N. weapons inspector turned ferocious foe of American and Western foreign policyposted an angry screed on RT.com (the web version of whats left of the propaganda outlet Russia Today) ringing the alarm about the disappearance of Gonzalo Lira, a Chilean-American pro-Russia social media influencer and video blogger based in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Lira had not been heard from since April 15 and had even missed a scheduled appearance on a show hosted by George Galloway, the far-left former British member of Parliament and fellow RT personality who has never met an anti-Western tyrant he didnt like. Ritter dramatically revealed that Gonzo Lira had expressed concern that the authorities in Kyiv were looking for him and noted that Volodymyr Zelensky had recently promised consequences for collaborators. And now, Ritter continued ominously, Gonzo Lira had gone missingpresumably a victim of kidnapping, torture, and likely murder by the Ukrainian Nazis.

Ritter went on to blast the Wests double standards. Look at all the outrage when Belarus detains a blogger! Look at the indignation at the horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist and dissident! And yet in this case, nothing:

To remain silent in the murder of Gonzo Lira is to be complicit in his possible death, and the deaths of all journalists who pursue the truth, even if it runs counter to the mainstream narrative. Critical thinking should not be a death sentence. Unfortunately for Gonzo Lira, it seems it was.

Ritter did hedge a bit on the murder, noting that he had cautioned on Telegram one day earlier that he had no direct evidence that Gonzalo has been killed and that he simply wanted to raise awareness about his disappearance. However, he added that Gonzo said any disappearance of more than 12 hours should be treated as if something bad had happened to him.

Meanwhile, also on April 21, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted an opinion by ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova that referred to Lira as a famous film director, praised his reports on the Nazis atrocities, deplored his disappearance, and took a swipe at liberal queers and honest Western journalists who were joining the neo-Nazis in supposedly celebrating Liras murder. (That was a reference to transgender journalist Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, who had tweeted a couple of days earlier that Lira had been captured by Ukrainian security services on charges of being a Russian spy and saboteur posing as a journalist.) Screenshots of Zakharovas text were boosted on Twitter by trollish Columbia University academic and ultra-isolationist Richard Hanania, who commented gleefully on the current Nazi-transgender alliance in favor of disappearing journalists.

But the very next day, Gonzalo Lira resurfaced, looking hale and hearty, saying that he had been detained by the Ukrainian security service, the SBU, and was okay physically but a little rattled.

So much for his martyrdom.

Liras output is pretty much what youd expect:

His writings also include other things that arent particularly surprising on the pro-Russian side of the culture wars. For instance, Lira is a rabid anti-vaxxer and COVID denier who thinks that the vaccine is an experimental bioweapon; that modern-day Western democracies are the real tyrannies (after all, its not as if Qaddafi, Hussein, and Assad forced all their people to take experimental vaccines to make Big Pharma obscene profits!); and that if you got vaccinated you now have AIDS confirmed because the vaccine causes immune erosion.

But there is still more: for instance, the day before he was apparently grabbed by the SBU, Lira made a post to his Telegram account sharing some deep thoughts from the infamous /pol/ (politically incorrect) board of the 4Chan websitea cesspool of anti-Semitism, racism and misogyny that makes Gab look pleasantand adding an appreciative LMAO.

The anti-Semitism is far from an isolated instance. Another /pol/ repost last November, shared with Liras comment, Something I came acrosswhat do you all think, argues that if the Holocaust was real and the Allies really did save the Jews from the Nazis, Jews should be eternally grateful to white men; but since they constantly revile white people and openly encourage non-Whites and non-gentiles to destroy their society and culture, this means that either Jews are odiously ungrateful to their liberators and Hitler was right, or the Holocaust is just propaganda and lies. (Not surprisingly, Liras YouTube videos tend to draw a certain kind of person: the chat sections of his YouTube livestreams are full of such comments as, Ukraine had a Jew coup, Oligarch = Jew, and (((Victoria Nuland))) or Victoria Kikeland in reference to the Obama and Biden administration official who supposedly helped engineer the 2014 revolution in Ukraine.)

The misogyny is not incidental, either. A March 21 Daily Beast feature reveals that before 54-year-old, California-born Lira was an intrepid journalist reporting from the Ukrainian war zone, he was a dating and life skills guru known as Coach Red Pill. (Before that, he had tried his hand at fiction writing and indie filmmaking, then got into the alternative media via Zero Hedge, the controversial financial blog that doubles as a far-right, pro-Kremlin conspiracy theory site.)

Red Pill is, of course, a popular term in anti-establishment Internet circles, based on The Matrix, that refers to opening ones eyes to supposed hidden truths the powers that be dont want us to know. Perhaps its most common usage refers to an ultra-reactionary and frankly misogynistic perspective on gender based on a very crude version of pop evolutionary psychology, which holds that sexual equality is a delusion and female liberation is a product of modern Western degeneracy. While Lira has scrubbed his dating-coach material from his YouTube channel after turning to war reporting, the Daily Beast has the receipts, which include a 2020 video advising men to never date a woman in her thirties since a single, childless woman past 30 is a degenerate slut who is about to succumb to baby rabies and will do anything to trick a man into marriage.

Liras redpill views still surface in his Telegram posts, as in this comment from February about how to deal with a COVID-vaccinated girlfriend: Shes sterile, so why bother with her. A woman whos been vaxed is useless except as a cum dumpster.

Obviously, Liras repugnant beliefs dont mean that he should be tortured or killedwhich, obviously, he wasnt. Some have even suggested that he faked his own disappearance as an attention-seeking ploy.

But assuming that Lira really was picked up and held for questioning by the SBU, is there much of a cause for outrage? When youre a foreigner living in a country battling a foreign invasion and youre basically churning out full-time propaganda for the invader, I would say youre fair game not only for arrest but for deportation as well. Amusingly, a solid and scathing debunking of the Lira victimhood narrative is offered in a video by Conor Clyne, a fellow dating and seduction guru with red pill leaningsbut with a strongly pro-Ukraine outlook.

The chorus of lamentations over Liras disappearance (which included not only Ritter and Zakharova but compulsive West-hater Max Blumenthal) turned out to be wasted. The good part about the attention he got, though, was that it offers a useful glimpse of the kind of Westerner who ends up in the pro-Kremlin camp: a conspiracy theorist who hates Western liberalism for empowering women and thinks white men are oppressed and exploited by sluts and Jews.

Link:
The Redpill Grifter Who Became an Anti-Ukraine Propagandist - The Bulwark