Category Archives: Political Correctness

10

Its often said that Donald Trump is a gift to comedy. But few comics bother with him whats to add? and fewer still do so successfully. Among the best is Curb Your Enthusiasm star Wanda Sykes, the first half hour of whose London date was a concentrated howl of dismay at POTUS 45. It was salutary, it was cathartic and it couldnt sustain, as Sykes set devolved into good but less great material on LA life. But that opening sequence lingers in the mind: as fierce a blast as standup has yet administered to the Maga man. Read the full review.

The Boxer was an absolute gem of a show from one third of the sketch team Beasts, in which McNicholas tells the story of his grandad Terry Downes, a 1960s boxing champ. Cue faux-cockney accent, loving boxing-movie cliches and much self-mockery as McNicholass feeble life is contrasted with grandpas glory. But thats rope-a-dope stuff: theres nothing feeble about The Boxers closing rounds, which come out swinging with big laughs and lumps in the throat, too. Read the full review.

It hosted Michael McIntyre back in the day. But I doubt the mismatch between the size of the Pleasance Courtyards Attic and its performers potential was ever greater than when London Hughes performed To Catch a D*ck there this summer. This uproarious blue-humour hour advertised a personality that demanded attention and delivered it, with gloriously shameless tales of sex, dating and the lower rungs of celebrity. The roof was raised; the profile too. McIntyre-level stardom probably beckons. Read the full review.

Brookes lowered his sights this year, after experiencing burnout with 2018s hi-tech fringe show Bleed. Ive Got Nothing could not have been more low-fi: it featured Brookes on stage with no mic, no props and scarcely any prepared material. But his keen eye remained intact for the faultlines in standup convention and those unsettling areas where joking meets antisocial behaviour and he used it to ruthless effect in this part-improvised hour, which bagged him a well-deserved Edinburgh comedy award. Read the full review.

Steve Delaneys confused alter ego Count Arthur Strong might easily coast through this stage in his career: the popular sitcom is behind him; national treasure status is secured. But his senile, malapropping comedy gets more sublime in this touring show, in which the count bids to supplant Brian Cox as the nations astronomer-in-chief. He teaches us precisely nothing about the cosmos, of course but plenty about bats, Dustbin Hoffman and the Renaissance stargazer Gary Barlow. A tragicomic tour de force. Read the full review.

How do you follow the standup sensation of the decade? Aussie comic Hannah Gadsby would have been forgiven for not trying particularly given that the global Netflix hit Nanette was meant to be her comedy swansong. Instead, she returned with Douglas, cheerfully baiting her trolls, reflecting on a recent autism diagnosis and sending up her newfound prophet status with an audaciously cocky intro. She is, it turns out, in the big league for keeps. Read the full review.

Memories were stirred of the legendary Pappys: Last Show Ever by this big-hitting turn, in the same venue, from double act Max Olesker and Ivan Gonzalez. It likewise conjures big questions of friendship, young dreams and what they amount to as the duo tell the tale (in sketch, PowerPoint and multi-character fun) of Maxs efforts to reunite Ivans teenage band for the latters wedding. Under Kieran Hodgsons direction, Commitment delivers laugh after unexpected laugh and warms the heart, too. Read the full review.

Theres a particular and intense pleasure that comes from comedians who make you laugh in ways you barely understand. Step forward US standup Kate Berlant, who returned to the UK with another thrilling part-improvised hour. The joke is on Berlants preciousness and narcissism, as she congratulates herself on her brilliance, shows off her (questionable) ESP, and narrates, instant by instant, her experience of existing on stage. Its so in the moment, and constantly, surprisingly hilarious. Read the full review.

We waited almost three years for new material from the minence increasingly grise of alt comedy, and with two new shows, Tornado and Snowflake, either side of an interval Lee delivered handsomely. Exploring the twilight of political correctness and his own place in the entertainment firmament and biting chunks out of fellow standups, Bond movies and the cult of Phoebe Waller-Bridge the beady, ultra-ironic Lee was as funny (looser and more fun, even) than wed ever seen him before. Read the full review.

The Edinburgh fringe has introduced us to many a blazing comic talent from overseas in the past Bo Burnham, Hans Teeuwen and Tim Minchin among them. None made a more vivid first impression than this years dazzling import, Catherine Cohen. A 27-year-old native of Texas, Cohen is a comic cabaret artiste resident at Alan Cummings nightspot in downtown Manhattan. With her UK debut The Twist ? Shes Gorgeous this summer, she hit Scotlands capital like a hurricane, whipped up laughs and plaudits in abundance and left with a best newcomer award in her slipstream.

As with all great musical comedy, her two-for-the-price-of-one offer delivers great tunes and big laughs in equal measure. And these laughs knock the wind out of you. Cohens act is as a fellow comic described it pure id, the kind of Niagara of self-love, self-loathing and snark you get when a brittle, brilliant millennial turns herself inside out for you on stage. Sequins-and-smile fabulous, as sidekick Henry Koperski tinkles the piano stage right, Cohen trills about her ego, her weight, her dating life. Boys never wanted to kiss me, runs the signature lyric, so now I do comedy.

And she does it wonderfully. Every gesture, moue or flash of eye is engineered for humour. Her voice abstracted from words can be as funny as her choicest lyrics. So too her ad libs (after a burp: Im sorry. I literally cant stop creating content) and the detours her songs take into anecdote and confession. Each lead us deeper into the fragile ego of the modern twentysomething, where the strain of presenting a perfect face (or, at least, photogenic vulnerability) to the world threatens to bring the whole structure crashing down. Its monstrous, its ridiculous and, in Cohens hands, its showbiz. Shes a star in the making and the find of the year. Read the full review.

See the article here:

Top 10 comedy shows of 2019 | Stage - The Guardian

Your guide to what's hot in London

Good lord, havent we all needed a laugh this year? Shout out to all the comedians who have kept us on the right side of despair.

Were paying homage to some of the best gigs of the year, from observational stand-up and big hitters to niche nonsense and newcomers.

These are Evening Standard comedy critic Bruce Dessaus top ten shows from 2019:

Bruce Dessau had his faith in comedy restored after watching John Kearns in his latest show. Distinctive, thought-provoking and steering stand-up into rarely explored waters, Double Take and Fade Away was leagues away from the comedy-by-numbers routines of some arena shows. One minute hes singing the praises of Leonardo Da Vinci, the next he is mocking him, noting that drawing helicopters is not the same as building them. Five stars for Kearnss humour with a philosophical garnish.

Nanette- which became a global smash hit after being picked up by Netflix - was a tough act to follow, but Hannah Gadbsy wasnt put off. If she has not topped Nanette, its sequel, Douglas, certainly matches its brilliance, said Bruce Dessau in his five star review. Douglas had less volcanic ire and more mischief in the show where every detail matters, from Wheres Wallyto mansplaining. Gadsbys masterpiece of a show was met with a well-earned standing ovation.

(Andy Hollingworth)

Tim Minchinsfirst UK tour in eight years saw the fiendishly clever comic deliver a show more music gig than stand-up set except that rock lyrics are never, ever this funny. From songs such as Rock n; Roll Nerd to a very curse-heavy F**k This, he had the audience in stitches all the way up to the rafters.

This is Lee the clever crowdpleaser, said Bruce Dessau in his review. Stewart Lee delivered two shows in one: Tornado, which stemmed from a Netflix listing error that confused his stand-up special with a shark Armageddon movie, and Snowflake, which plunges into the world of political correctness. Among teasing of Ricky Gervais and Phoebe Waller-Bridge, he was equally swift to mock himself. Although not all may agree with him, it is testament to his talent that he is even brutally funny when wrong.

Until January 25, Leicester Square Theatre, leicestersquaretheatre.com. June 27, 28, July 1-3, Royal Festival Hall, southbankcentre.co.uk

After a particularly well-received debut at Edinburgh Fringe, London-based New Yorker Janine Harouni bagged herself a Edinburgh Comedy Awards Best Newcomer nomination. A natural anecdotalist with a compelling story, Harouni had the right formula for a knock-out show, as she wove her relationship with her Trump-voting father into a wider fable of compassion, tolerance and reconciliation.

Until December 21, Soho Theatre, sohotheatre.com

(Idil Sukan)

Jessica Fostekew found her voice in Hench, a show about the tyranny of body image and her reaction to being called hench by a man in the gym. Another nominee for this years Edinburgh Comedy Awards this time for best show the voice she found is a loud and vital one. Bruce Dessau said in his review that the laughs flow thick and fast alongside the anger.

January 6-25, Soho Theatre, sohotheatre.com

Desiree Burchs compelling monologue explored race, relationships and identity through a story about her quest for sex at Burning Man festival. Desirees Coming Early is a near-perfect example of comedic storytelling, said Bruce Dessau in his review. Burch knows what she is doing. You will be hooked until the show reaches its, no pun intended, climax.

This consummate performance confirms that the Portsmouth-born comic has truly hit her stride, said Bruce Dessau about Suzi Ruffells show Nocturnal. It first debuted at the Fringe in 2018 (when it deserved an award nod), and saw the Portsmouth-born comedian talk about anxiety over everything from dating show Naked Attraction to internet trolls. She followed it up with Dance Like Nobodys Watching, where she showed that comedy doesnt need to come from misery. It has been a good year for Ruffell.

February 24-29, Soho Theatre, sohotheatre.com

(Matt Writtle)

Another comic who made an absolutely storming full-length debut at this years Edinburgh Fringe was Sophie Duker, with Venus. The Standards review called her so assured that she is surely heading straight to the top no exaggeration, as she was nominated for Best Newcomer. The title was inspired by the Hottentot Venus, Sara Baartman, an African woman who was regarded as a freak in the 19th century because of her buttocks, and led to a show about feminism, race and perception. While the subject matter might sometimes sound heavy, said Bruce Dessau. Duker has a tremendous lightness of touch.

January 13-18, Soho Theatre, sohotheatre.com

Sometimes silliness is what we need. Spencer Joness D-I-Y brand of Tommy Cooper-meets-Noel Fielding delivers it in spades, complete with googly eyeballs and no shortage of audience interaction. From the moment he walks on his funny bones make everyone laugh, said Bruce Dessau in his review. It is nonsense but brilliant nonsense.

January 11, Soho Theatre, sohotheatre.com

Ben Meadows

PA Wire/PA Images

Adrian Lourie

Tan Roberts

Matt Writtle

Daniel Hambury/Stella Pictures

Dave

Idil Sukan

Josh Knox

Matt Stronge

Mark Dawson

Dave

PA

Matt Crossick/Empics Entertainment

Daniel Hambury/Stella Pictures

Jiksaw

Getty Images

Ben Meadows

PA Wire/PA Images

Adrian Lourie

Tan Roberts

Matt Writtle

Daniel Hambury/Stella Pictures

Dave

Idil Sukan

Josh Knox

Matt Stronge

Mark Dawson

Dave

PA

Matt Crossick/Empics Entertainment

Daniel Hambury/Stella Pictures

Jiksaw

Getty Images

Click here to buy London theatre tickets with GO London Tickets

See the article here:

London comedy 2019: The best comedy shows of the year, from Hannah Gadsby to Tim Minchin - Evening Standard

President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate gears up for battle over witnesses in impeachment trial Vulnerable Democrats tout legislative wins, not impeachment Trump appears to set personal record for tweets in a day MORE on Tuesday night appeared to call out security officials over their failure to quickly remove a protester from a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, lamenting that it was a product of a "political correctness."

Trump became noticeably frustrated after a woman wearing a black knit hat and carrying a "grabbing power back" sign disrupted his speech. After stepping a way from the lectern, Trump returned to microphone and repeatedly stated, "get her out."

Video shared on social media showed the woman walking around in circles and shouting as a security guard triedto contain her. Security eventually escorted her out of the arena. Footage showed one rally attendee attempting to snatch her sign as sheneared an exit.

"See, these guys want to be so politically correct. Get her out," Trump said amid a chorus of boos and jeers from the audience. "See that. Ill tell you, law enforcement is so great."

"That particular guy wanted to be so politically correct," Trump added, before mocking the security guard's posture. "We don't want to be politically correct. I don't know who he was. He didn't do the greatest job."

"See, these guys want to be so politically correct -- get her out!... We don't want to be politically correct."

President Trump responds to a protester at #TrumpRallyHershey. pic.twitter.com/l0ZIiTWBHo

Trump rally security tries unsuccessfully to corral the protester wearing the @RefuseFascism shirt with a gigantic pink middle finger on it in Hershey, PA as she dances around them, giving the crowd the finger. Trump was calm at first then started to lose his temper. pic.twitter.com/40lbOeupJW

Trump's rally came the same day House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against the president over his dealings with Ukraine. Trump spent much of his time during hisrally speech criticizing Democrats over their handling of the inquiry, deriding it as "stupid."

During his speech, Trump also rejected the Justice Department Inspector General report that found FBI agents were not motivated by political bias when they launchedinvestigations into associates of Trump's campaign in 2016.

The president has repeatedly sparked controversy over his comments about demonstrators who have protested at his rallies.Heonce said at a 2016 rallyin Las Vegas that he'd like to punch a protester "in the face."

Trumpalso encouraged his supportersat another rally that year to "knock the crap" out of any protesters causing trouble.

"I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees," Trump said.

Read the rest here:

Trump on removal of protester at rally: 'We don't want to be politically correct' | TheHill - The Hill

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

See the article here:

Letter to the editor: When will political correctness end? - TribLIVE

Myanmar State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyiat the International Court of Justice in The Hagueon Dec. 11, the second day of hearings in a case filed by The Gambia against Myanmar alleging genocide against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State. / Myanmar State Counselors Office

By Mon Mon Myat 12 December 2019

It is now part of the worlds politically correct orthodoxy to blame Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for the Rohingya refugee crisis and to condemn her for defending Myanmar against the genocide case brought by Gambia before the International Court of Justice.

Last week in Yangon, I had a conversation with a Western diplomat about Daw Aung San Suu Kyis trip to The Hague to face the genocide case brought against Myanmar. He asked me whether I think it is too risky for Daw Suu to defend the military generals. I replied, Did she say she was defending the generals?

Ive had similar conversations with some of my foreign friends. When it comes to the Rohingya crisis, blaming Daw Suu has become fashionable among diplomats and the INGO community in Myanmar. They condemn her whether she remains silent or speaks out. This puzzles me, as it must puzzle anyone who understands Myanmars history.

The fashion is doubtless shaped by news headlines and influential global news outlets. A sample of such headlines includes From Democracy Icon to Genocide Defender, Ignoble Laureate, Fading Icon, and the like.

Twenty-eight years ago, the words media celebrated Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as a symbol of Myanmars new democratic age. For example, during the 1990s, it became politically incorrect for tourists to travel to Myanmar. Daw Suu had urged a tourist boycott to support her condemnation of the military regime. It was headline news around the world. How the times have changed.

Even Daw Aung San Suu Kyis lawyer and genocide scholar Professor William Schabas is considered politically incorrect. His crime is taking part in the legal team representing Myanmar.

So who, then, are the politically correct? The improbable answer is Gambia, not a country known for its stellar record of human rights, nor as an advocate for minority populations. Gambia is one of the 57 member countries representing the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It is accusing Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya in a case brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Gambias case rests on two key elements, genocidal intent and genocidal acts. Referring mainly to the UN Fact-Finding Mission report, Gambia claimed genocidal intent in the systematic denial of legal rights to the Rohingya. These include restrictions on their ability to marry and bear children, severe restrictions on freedom of movement, including detention camps, and governmental support for, and participation in, pervasive hate campaigns aimed at demonizing and dehumanizing the group.

However, it is puzzling why Gambia omits the fact that this systematic denial of legal rights to the Rohingya was a policy of the former dictators since 1982. It also reflects the unhappy fact that for decades, the UN ignored the Rohingya, as well as other human rights issues in Myanmar. Gambias accusation cites the recently elected government as the offender with specific genocidal intent.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi characterized the Gambian accusation as an incomplete and misleading factual picture of the situation in Rakhine State. The situation in Rakhine is complex and not easy to fathom. But one thing surely touches all of us equally: the suffering of the innocent people whose lives were torn apart as a consequence of the armed conflict of 2016 and 2017, in particular, those who have had to flee their homes are now living in camps in Coxs Bazar she said.

The genocidal acts Gambia cites refer to incidents from the October 2016 and August 2017 clearance operations. These include the mass executions of Rohingya men, women, and children; the systematic burning of Rohingya villages with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part; the targeting of children; and the commission of rape and sexual violence on a massive scale.

These are indisputably horrific acts. Yet Gambia omits what triggered these incidents; namely, the provocations of the Muslim militant group Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), and its mass killings, forced relocations and sexual violence. These occurred before the Myanmar army ran its clearance operations. Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, referring to the ARSA attacks, emphasized the perilous situation in Rakhine State: After years of insecurity and instability, it should be clear that violence is not the solution to the challenges facing Rakhine State. As violence sweeps through northern Rakhine, Kofi Annans recommendations to alleviate the states suffering have seemingly been forgotten.

What is almost entirely overlooked by the worlds media is the incipient violence in ARSAs claim that Rakhine belongs to Rohingya. This slogan taps into the legitimate fears of the ethnic Arakanese people, who form the majority along the coastal region of RakhineState (Rahkine state was formerly officially calledArakan). The Arakanese know what ARSA is capable of.

As for ongoing acts of genocide, Gambias application highlights the continuing attacks on the Rohingya, notably the destruction of more than 30 villages between November 2018 and May 2019, denying the Rohingya access to food. It also notes the Fact-Finding Missions recent warning that the 600,000 Rohingya still in Myanmar live under the threat of further genocidal acts by Myanmar.

However, what Gambias application to the ICJ entirely ignores is Myanmars earlier endeavor to find lasting solutions to the complex and delicate issues in Rakhine state, through the Advisory Commission led by Dr. Kofi Annan.

Rohingya ethnogenesis

The German sociologist Max Weber famously argued that primordial phenomena like ethnicity and nationalism would decrease in importance and eventually vanish as a result of modernization, industrialization and individualism. Many early- to mid-20th-century social scientists shared this view. However, as the Norwegian anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen shows, Webers thesis was wrong. Eriksen demonstrates that ethnicity, nationalism and other forms of identity politics grew in political importance after World War II and continue into the 21st century.

Eriksens argument helps understand the conflict in Rakhine State, where we can observe the formation of a modern ethnogenesis, namely that of Rohingya, which displaces the older term, Bengali. Rohingya identity formation and the identity politics of the Muslim community in northern Rakhine State is one of the factors driving the current crisis. According to Eriksen, the Rohingya ethnogenesis has been developed by many factors, including slavery and capitalism, migration and the consequences of social change for identity formation. Yet as Eriksen observes, whether we employ the name Rohingya or Bengali, this group is part and parcel of colonialism.

The international media played a significant role in the politicization of Rohingya ethnicity. The media had uncritically accepted the Rohingya narrative since the refugee exodus in late August 2017. The UN member states rebuked the Myanmar militarys engagement in ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) drafted the resolution statement, which was adopted by the Human Rights Council on Dec. 5, 2017.

Ironically, the violent acts of the Myanmar military against civilians and other minority ethnic groups have never been brought to the UN Security Council. These outrages were only brought to the worlds attention after UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres labeled the Rohingya exodus, a textbook example of ethnic cleansing and UN special rapporteur Yanghee Lee suggested another term, the hallmarks of genocide.

However, Professor Schabas argues that the legal term genocide needs to be used carefully and in a restricted sense. It should not be used to describe every atrocity involving mass killings.

Politicization of ethnicity

Today, the use of the term Rohingya has become a matter of political correctness for international organizations and the international media. The author Jacques Leider writes, Not calling the Muslims Rohingya may be considered, by many activists, as the denial of their self-acclaimed ethno-religious identity and, by extension, a virtual rejection of claims on citizenship.

Leider further observes that the conventional use of Rohingya by international organizations puts pressure on all the Muslims in Rakhine, especially when they leave the country, to define themselves exclusively as Rohingyas for the simple reason that outside of Myanmar, the term has a high value in terms of name recognition.

The Muslim community in Rakhine State is still a minority group in Myanmar. However, because of the national boundaries between Myanmar and Bangladesh, the Muslim community becomes a majority population near the Bangladesh border. Perhaps this is why they seek a separate Muslim zone by politicizing the Rohingya ethnic identity.

The call for pro-Rohingya groups to set up a safe zone for the Rohingya community in Rakhine State echoes the idea of a separate Muslim zone demanded by the Mujahidin Muslim militant group in 1948, a few months after Myanmar gained independence.

Genocidal intent or genocidal provocation?

The latest stage of the Rohingya refugee problem includes referring Myanmar to the International Criminal Court to investigate genocide and atrocities against the Rohingyas. The politicization of the Rohingya ethnicity has led to more than 700,000 people fleeing to neighboring Bangladesh.

Myanmar stands accused of genocidal intent, yet the Myanmar army is not the only perpetrator of violence. The ARSA provokes violence and engages in mass killing, and so it too needs to be accounted for in an honest appraisal of any charge of genocide. The provocations of the ARSA and the clearance operation of the Myanmar army are the heads and tails of the same coin. And if the ICJ looks at the perpetrators intent for the crime of genocide, then they should also consider the intentions behind the politicizing of ethnicity.

The Muslim community in Rakhine State faces a dilemma. They need to decide whether they should accept their citizenship status as being Bengali, that is, of a foreign root, just like Indian and Chinese in Myanmar, or whether they should stick with the politicized identity Rohingya. If they continue with the politicized identity Rohingya, about 2 million Muslim people will continue to suffer as a stateless community inside Rakhine State and in the refugee camps in Bangladesh.

Mon Mon Myat is a freelance writer/journalist and a graduate student in the PhD program in peace building at Payap University in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

You may also like these stories:

Myanmar Army Plans Rakhine Airstrikes Against Arakan Army

Suu Kyis Older Brother Still Disputing Inheritance Decision

Rights Groups Call for MyanmarBoycott Ahead of ICJ Genocide Hearings

The Lady in The Hague

Read more:

Political Correctness and the Genocide Case Against Myanmar - The Irrawaddy News Magazine

Michael J. Stern, Opinion columnist Published 1:15 a.m. MT Dec. 10, 2019 | Updated 11:34 a.m. MT Dec. 10, 2019

Pete Buttigieg has been criticized after a 2011 clip resurfaced saying children from lower income, minority neighborhoods lack role models. USA TODAY

Acknowledge the original sin, but also that white men risked their lives to end slavery and a black man led the way to marriage equality for gay people.

When I came across Michael Harriots recent article titled Pete Buttigieg is a lying MF, I thought perhaps he haduncovered proof that the Democratic presidential candidate's Harvard education and Rhodes scholarship were lies that had been manufactured with Photoshop and a stolen diploma printer.Or that Buttigiegs eight years in the Navy Reserve, and his deployment to Afghanistan, wereactually a cover story for his time as a male stripper at a gay bar.

But no. Harriot'sattack in The Root, an African American-oriented online magazine,was prompted by a 2011 interview in which Buttigieg said that"kids need to see evidence that education is going to work for them in order to be motivated to get a higher education.Because many kids in minority communities havent seen it work for people they know, Buttigieg said, its understandable that they are skeptical about the value of education.For this expression of empathy, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana,was labeled a baldfaced liar.

Harriot was furious that Buttigieg did not name systemic racism as the reason for black kids depressed college enrollment.But Buttigiegs comment was not intended as a list of all reasons, only one.So when Harriot cited higher unemployment and lower income for black college graduates as two reasons black kids are less likely to go to college, it sounded an awful lot like Buttigieg saying black kids dont see college working for them in the same way white kids do.It made me think Harriots anger was about something else.

To be fair, Buttigieg had a black problem before Harriots article.By most accounts, the problem began when he demoted South Bends black police chief in 2012, shortly after he was electedMayor Pete.At the time, federal prosecutors were investigating the police chiefin theillegalwiretapping of four white officers.The officers allegedly used racist language on the wiretapped calls, but that did not negate the impropriety of the wiretapping.

According to Buttigieg, the U.S. attorneys office told him that if the police chief stayed in that position,hed be indicted. Despite the complicating factors, it appears that demoting the police chief spared him criminal charges and spared South Bend the problems that come with a chief of police under federal indictment.

Pete Buttigieg at a Sunday service on Oct. 27, 2019 in Rock Hill, South Carolina.(Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

There was alsoButtigiegs statement at the Democratic presidential debate last month in which he said being gay helped him understand the struggles of the black community. To avoid any misunderstanding, Buttigieg said:I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin.But the impact of anti-gay discrimination left the mayor sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate.

Buttigiegs expression of camaraderiewith another minority is a good thing, right? Nope.It drew anger from the black community, with many feeling a privileged white man should not be comparing his struggle to theirs.

Oliver Davis, a black South Bend city councilman who supports former Vice President Joe Biden, told The Washington Post: When you see me, you would know that I'm African American from day one. Davis went on to describe how gays can hide the part of themselves that draw discrimination.With all due respect, someone should explain to Mr. Davis that closeting the most basic component of yourself for decades is not an asset and comes at an insidious personal cost.

Recent efforts to paintButtigieg as an undercover bigot prompted an uproar over a stock photo of a black woman and child that was used to promote Buttigiegs Douglass Plan, which is designed to dismantle racist structures and systemsin the United States.The woman in the photo is from Kenya and was not aware her picture was going to promote the plan.The backlash was swift and strong.Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.,who has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont for the Democratic nomination, tweeted: This is not OKor necessary.

Heres the thing, sometimes models come from different countries. Andmodels in stock photos allow their pictures to be taken knowing theywill be used for all sorts of advertisements. They dont approve the ads in which their picture is used.Thats why the photos are called stock.And, spoiler alert: The models in ads of a happy family chowing down at the Outback Steakhouse may actually be vegans.

Buttigieg created a comprehensive plan to battle racial inequality by making changes to this countrys health, educationand criminal justice systems, and hes being skewered over a picture used to advertise it?

Democrat rising:All eyes are on Pete Buttigieg, especially from skeptical black voters

This faux outrage is political correctness run amok.But it's also something more.

Pete Buttigieg isnt just white. Heis I dont tan, I burn white.This has not escaped his black critics.Harriotnotes that Buttigieg attended one of the best private schools in the country and that his mom taught at an even better, more elite school.The italics were included by Harriot, just to make sure no one missed the dig.And referring to the 2011 speech that ignited Harriots scorched-earth assault, he wrote that Buttigiegs effort to acknowledge the inequality experienced by black kids was explained whitely.

In reality, Buttigieg has been convicted of white privilege. The phrase was originally intended to convey that white people in the United States have gained unfair advantages by virtue of being white.Thats indisputable.Butthe phrase has morphed into more than that.

Detonating the white privilege bomb on someone is a way of saying: You only achieved what youve got through systemic inequality and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.Actress Rosanna Arquette summed up the intended feeling this year in a tweet:Im sorry I was born white and privileged.It disgusts me.And I feel so much shame.

Role model: Why we need Pete Buttigieg in the White House

Tearing at people like Buttigieg and dismissing their achievements as a result of white privilege is counterproductive.It is not necessary to feel guilty about being white to acknowledge the broad disparity between black and white America and fight against it.

Our default should not be the belief that only people who look like us are willing to fight for equality. While acknowledging the original sin, we mustalso acknowledge that it was white men who split the country in two and risked their lives to bring an end to slavery.It was white men who secured women the right to vote.And it was a straight black man who was the beating heart that brought marriage equality, and the dignity that comes with it, to millions of LGBT people across this country.

At some point, we will all find ourselves on the dangerous side of a borderline.Its understandable to hesitate before reaching for the hand that held you down.But sometimes an extended hand calls for a leap of faith.Until he does something to legitimately call the sincerity of his intentions into question, Pete Buttigieg should be given the benefit of that doubt.

Michael J. Stern, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors,was a federal prosecutor for 25 years in Detroit and Los Angeles. Follow him on Twitter: @MichaelJStern1

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/10/buttigieg-deserves-benefit-of-doubt-black-problem-2020-column/2631049001/

See the original post:

Pete Buttigieg's real 'black problem': He has been convicted of white privilege - AZCentral.com

They isnt new.

Many nonbinary people, who dont identify as male or female, have been using the pronouns they and them for years. Being able to use a pronoun thats not he or she is really affirming and really welcoming and freeing for many people, Addison Rose Vincent, acting executive director of the nonprofit Intersex & Genderqueer Recognition Project, told Vox.

And when people use they and them pronouns, theyre tapping into a long history they has been used as a singular pronoun in English since the late 1300s, if not before.

Despite this background, the pronoun has received pushback, with grammar sticklers arguing that its incorrect English and right-wing commentators dismissing its use as mere political correctness. University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, for example, proclaimed in 2016, I dont recognize another persons right to determine what pronouns I use to address them.

But recently, they has been getting a new level of mainstream recognition. In September, Merriam-Webster added the singular pronoun they, used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary, or to a person whose gender is unknown or is intentionally not revealed. And earlier this month, the publication went a step further and chose the pronoun as its Word of the Year. Meanwhile, this October, the American Psychological Association (APA) endorsed the use of the singular they in scholarly writing.

For groups like the APA, the change is about recognizing that the pronouns he and she dont describe all Americans. We wanted to be sure that our entire community knows that we see you, we hear you, we value you, Emily Ayubi, director of APA Style, told Vox. And for some nonbinary people, the changes are a sign that mainstream publications and groups are finally catching up to where they already are.

Its really important for these organizations to take a stance, Vincent said, but at the same time, we dont necessarily need the approval or validation of anyone else to be who we are.

The first known use of the singular they occurs in the 1375 poem William and the Werewolf, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Each man hurried ... till they drew near ... where William and his darling were lying together, reads the relevant part of the poem, using a modern English translation. But its likely that the pronoun was in use long before then, writes Dennis Baron at the OED blog. In fact, the singular they didnt fall out of favor until the 18th century, when grammarians started discouraging its use, according to Baron.

Over time, he or she (often just he) became more common. For example, someone might say a person should enjoy his or her vacation.

But, as Baltimore Sun copy editor John E. McIntyre noted, 19th- and 20th-century writers from Jane Austen to W.H. Auden still used the singular they. And while some people used they to describe a person whose gender was unknown or to conceal that persons gender nonbinary people began using the pronoun as well.

For people who dont identify as male or female, it was difficult to navigate having to choose between he and she, Vincent said, since neither applied. Instead, many nonbinary people use the pronouns they and them meaning its correct to say, They went to the store rather than She (or he) went to the store.

They and them arent the only pronouns nonbinary people use others have included ze and hir. But for people who do use those pronouns, its a way of reclaiming a history of the English language in which they has long been used in a gender-neutral way, Vincent said.

As the use of they became more visible, right-wing critics began to push back against its use. Among the most famous was Peterson, a psychology professor whos hailed by conservatives and libertarians as a member of the intellectual dark web. In response to a 2016 Canadian bill banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression, Peterson announced, Im not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if theyre made up by radical left-wing ideologues.

Others have argued against the singular they on grammatical rather than political grounds. New Yorker copy editor Mary Norris, for example, called it just wrong in her 2015 book Between You & Me. (However, she also said in a 2016 interview that when it comes to pronouns, You should call people what they want to be called.)

Ultimately, critics of singular they are increasingly in the minority as more publications and groups like the APA endorse the use of the pronoun. Writers are using it in two main scenarios, which Chelsea Lee outlined in an APA Style blog post in October: when referring to a generic person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context and when referring to a specific, known person who uses they as their pronoun.

While the APA endorses the use of correct pronouns to refer to specific people, it also supports using they in a general context, as in the sentence, Each student submitted their art portfolio to the committee. Using their in this case, rather than his or her, acknowledges that some students might not use he or she pronouns.

The APA change is important because scholars in psychology and other fields, as well as librarians, authors, and editors, look to the organizations guidelines for advice, Ayubi said. The groups goal in making the change was to help ensure that everyone across the academy is using affirming and inclusive language, Ayubi added. We feel that its important for all readers to see themselves in academic works.

The APA was also joining a growing list of publications that use the singular they. The Washington Post officially sanctioned the use of the pronoun in 2015; the Associated Press began allowing its use in limited cases in 2017. Vox has long had a policy of using the correct pronouns for all people, but has now updated its style guide to recommend the use of they in generic contexts rather than he or she.

The shift by the APA is part of a broader one in American society, as more companies, nonprofits, and individuals who do identify as male or female recognize something that nonbinary people have been saying for some time: The pronouns he and she dont include everybody. That shift includes a move by people of all genders to list pronouns in their social media bios and email signatures, to point out that pronouns arent always obvious and shouldnt be taken for granted. Several Democratic presidential candidates, for example, including Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Julin Castro, include their pronouns in their Twitter bios.

In general, thats good practice for everybody, Vincent said. Whenever and wherever you introduce yourself with your name, introduce yourself with your own gender pronouns if possible, they advised. You never know the impact that youll make on a nonbinary or trans person, who might feel a little bit safer talking to you, they explained. (Its not always safe for nonbinary or trans people to be open about their gender identity, and some have made the point that pronoun-sharing in academic settings, for example, shouldnt be required.)

And even though nonbinary people dont need a stamp of approval from the outside, changes by the APA and others are a positive step forward, Vincent said. It really helps to have these bigger organizations, especially those that are around mental health and grammar and writing, to be able to be behind us now.

Overall, they said, its about time.

Read more:

They is Merriam-Websters Word of the Year. Heres why. - Vox.com

Jillian Michaelsbelieves political correctness is dangerous for larger bodies - and thats a major problem.

The personal trainer lived up to her no-holds-barred reputation in a recent interview withWomens Health U.K., in which she shared some troubling views about the current state of health, fitness and body positivity.

ALSO SEE: 'We should be proud of our size': How this beauty influencer became a fashion industry changemaker

I think were politically correct to the point of endangering people, Michaels told the magazine. Yes, we want to be inclusive of everyone [and respect that] everyone comes in all different shapes and sizes. That nobody should ever be body shamed or fat shamed or excluded and that everyone is equally deserving and should feel equally valuable. But obesity in itself is not something that should be glamourized. But weve become so politically correct that no one wants to say it.

Jillian Michaels. Image via Getty Images/Photo by Daniel Zuchnik.

The author of Slim for Life: My Insider Secrets to Simple, Fast, and Lasting Weight Loss, said the current climate of body acceptance would prevent a potential reboot of The Biggest Loser from success.

I think the world has shifted to a place where that format and messaging is considered fat shaming. But it isnt and its not meant to be, Michaels said. Now weve gone so far in the opposite direction.

Heres the thing - Im not surprised by Michaelss statements, but I am disappointed.

ALSO SEE: Brooke Shields opens up about overcoming body image issues: 'I can't believe that I didn't turn into a train wreck'

Its exclusive and narrow-minded for Michaels to suggest that by being in a larger or fat body (whatever phrase youre comfortable using), peoples lives are in danger, instead of recognizing that weight is not the sole determinant of health. Genetics, environment, mental health, sleep quality, medical issues and prescribed medications all play a factor on a persons weight in addition to diet and exercise. It takes effort for people to expand their minds and think of weight as a symptom of disease in the body, rather than the culprit. Its only through education and access to adequate medical care that we can begin to undo years of misinformation and half-truths that fuel weight stigma for profit.

Michaels on "The Biggest Loser." (Photo by: Trae Patton/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank)

One of the most common arguments against body positivity and size acceptance is that we promote obesity by simply showing people with larger bodies respect. There seems to be this unspoken belief that there is a weight limit to the courtesy we show people before it becomes a collective responsibility to label someone as unhealthy or at risk.

Story continues

Even Michaels purports body respect and acceptance to a point - before proposing that we are endangering other people if we dont impose our own beliefs and feelings on other people, offer unsolicited advice or remind people with larger bodies that they are, in effect wrong.

ALSO SEE: Plus-size singer Lizzo wants people to stop calling her 'brave' for posing nude

The political correctness Michaels speaks of is whats holding people accountable to what is essentially the last socially acceptable form of discrimination in our society.

Unlike race, age and gender, weight is not protected under the Human Rights Code of Canada. In the United States, its only illegal in Michigan, as well as a handful of cities scattered across the rest of the country. Our social climate fosters respect and equality, and helps us to highlight the areas affected by weight stigma that prevent larger bodied individuals from earning an equal salary as well as gaining access to housing, education and particularly, quality health care.

Image via Getty Images.

Weight bias impacts and impairs the level of care people receive from their physicians. While there are alarm bells ringing on the dangers of obesity, medical professionals remain undertrained in the field of study. A 2010 study published inAcademic Medicinerevealed education in obesity and nutrition among medical students is on the decline. Of the 105 medical schools surveyed, only 25 per cent of students met the required minimum of 25 hours of nutrition education, compared to 38 per centin 2004.

ALSO SEE: 'I had to walk away': Why one body positivity blogger called 'time-out' on social media

The lack of education into the complexities of weight are exemplified by health professionals in their treatment of larger bodied patients. Physiciansspend less timewith patients with larger bodies, offer fewer preventative tests and less cancer screening tests, while one survey revealed31 to 42 per centof nurses would prefer not to care for them.

If the people Michaels suggest are at risk are faced with biased, undertrained medical professionals (and former reality TV trainers), what hope is there to make positive and healthy changes?

It takes education, respect and accountability - whether Michaels likes it or not. It doesnt hurt people to practice political correctness, but it does hurt when public figures with a large following use their platform to propel harmful and stigmatizing messages.

Let us know what you think by commenting below and tweeting @YahooStyleCA!Follow us onTwitterandInstagram.

See the rest here:

Jillian Michaels believes 'political correctness' is 'glamourizing obesity' - and that's not OK - Yahoo News Canada

'Fleabag,' 'Succession' and 'Ramy'

Courtesy of Amazon, HBO and Hulu

Contrary to what Todd Phillips might be telling the media, "cancel culture" and "political correctness" have not killed comedy. Maybe the Joker director just needs to watch more TV? My top 10 list for 2019 is dominated by shows that I consider comedies. I've got silly half-hours, trenchantly dark hourlongs and several shows that pivot from pain to mirth from scene to scene. And I couldnt even find room for the latest seasons of Baskets, The Good Place, Barry and Bojack Horseman, or newbies like Pen15, Tuca & Bertie and Sherman's Showcase. Maybe they'll pop up in future lists, because it was another great year for TV.

As seems to be the refrain this winter, Netflix leads the way with three shows on my list, but none in my top 5. It's a list without any broadcast shows at all, even after a surprising fall that included three very solid new network dramas Evil, Stumptown and Emergence and a spring that saw the departure of Jane the Virgin and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend,top-tier series that thrived in the fertile obscurity of The CW. A lot of critics' lists look the same this year, but hopefully mine will provide you with a couple of shows you haven't watched yet to check out over the holidays.

Read more:

Daniel Fienberg: The 10 Best TV Shows of 2019 - Hollywood Reporter

Americas welfare system is broken.

In the wake of President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate gears up for battle over witnesses in impeachment trial Vulnerable Democrats tout legislative wins, not impeachment Trump appears to set personal record for tweets in a day MOREs decision to toughen work requirements for food stamp recipients last week, Democrats and mainstream media elites are outraged at the thought of nearly 700,000 people breaking free from the shackles of government dependency.

Make no mistake: Americans should feel relieved to see a glimmer of common sense in the midst of the Democratss crusade to plunge the nation into socialism. Rather than celebrate this as an opportunity to end Americas chronic addiction to welfare, however, left-wing talking heads are once again terrifying the American people with more doomsday prophecies of social and economic collapse.

Following the 1996 passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA), many Democrats predicted catastrophe then just as they are now. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) claimed it would leave many welfare recipients unemployable and children ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed." Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said streets would "look like the streets of the cities in Brazil" with children "begging for money, begging for food [and] engaging in prostitution." A July 1996 study released by the Urban Institute even estimated that over a million children would soon go into poverty.

Of course, none of these apocalyptic visions came true. The following years saw a decline in overall poverty rates, and the number of families receiving cash welfare fell to its lowest level in three decades. Furthermore, according to a 2006 report from the Brookings Institution, the number of employed single mothers rose from 58 percent in 1993 to 75 percent in 2000, while employment among never-married mothers rose from 44 percent to 66 percent.

Now, with job openings outnumbering unemployed workers by the largest margins ever, no excuse remains as to why able-bodied Americans cannot work. The incentive to take a job regardless of the wage must replace the attitude that the government can take care of us from the cradle to the grave.

America is a generous nation, perhaps the most generous in world history. According to The Giving Institute, Americans gave a record-breaking 427.71 billion dollars in charity in 2018 (even more than the record-setting amounts of 2017). The idea that America lacks the charitable spirit to take care of our neighbors who truly need it, is an insult to the kindness and goodwill of the American people.

We have allowed political correctness to stop us from exposing the welfare state for what it really is: politicians stealing money from some in order to buy votes from others.

Americans understand that prosperity originates from the people, not politicians. The ability of everyday people to create and innovate as they wish is a key aspect of the advancement of a society. Rather than encourage industry, imagination, and innovation, out-of-control welfare spending disincentivizes these values, allowing a crippling cycle of idleness, reliance on government, and poverty to take their place.

While we cannot rely on executive orders alone (nor should we), this move should spark a discussion across the country about how to end Americas addiction to corporate and domestic welfare spending. For those who say cutting welfare lacks compassion, ask yourselves this: Is it really compassionate to force hardworking Americans to support others who can work yet choose not to?

Real charity means helping a neighbor in need, not using the power of government against them.

Cliff Maloney is the president of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL).

Continue reading here:

Welfare is killing the American dream | TheHill - The Hill