Category Archives: Political Correctness

A moment from the 2016 campaign came back to me this week. Not the EU referendum, though that decision hovers over every aspect of this election, but rather the US presidential contest that same year. I was in Cleveland, Ohio, speaking to a proud member of Bikers4Trump, all in leather save for the stars and stripes bandana. What exactly was it about Donald Trump that appealed? Hes honest, came the reply.

I dont think I concealed my incredulity. Honest? Are you sure? I rattled off the serial lies and proven falsehoods, a tally that, for Trumps presidency, now approaches 14,000, at a rate of 22 false claims a day. But that didnt faze the biker one bit. He says what he believes, he explained. While other politicians trimmed and euphemised, Trump just came out with it: insulting women, Mexicans, the Chinese, war heroes, you name it political correctness be damned. What the fan on the Harley-Davidson had in mind was a different notion of honesty, one captured by the briefly fashionable apercu that Trumps admirers took him seriously, even if they did not take him literally.

The memory of that resurfaced on Thursday night, as I sat in a small meeting room in a Holiday Inn in Newcastle-under-Lyme, just outside Stoke, watching a focus group made up almost entirely of Labour leave voters, convened by the public relations company Edelman. As they discussed the current campaign, what they believed and, more importantly, who they believed, it was tempting to conclude that we are living through Britains first post-truth election. Not in the sense of politicians lying thats not new but in terms of the impact that post-truth, the casual disregard for the difference between truth and falsehood, is having on us, the electorate.

Early on in the session, the group was asked to write down the first word that popped into their heads when they thought of Boris Johnson. Trump, said one. Liar, said another. Buffoon, said a third. When asked to elaborate, a fourth said, He talks well but you cant believe anything he says, citing the pledge to recruit 20,000 police officers.

To which you might add Johnsons promised 50,000 new nurses, a figure that includes 18,500 people who are already nurses. Or the 40 new hospitals that are really six upgraded hospitals. Or the 350m on the side of the bus. Or the fact that Johnson was sacked by both Michael Howard and the Times for lying. Or that he misled the Queen when he gave his reasons for proroguing parliament.

But guess what happened when, at the close, the scrupulously neutral moderator asked this group of past Labour voters who they would back on 12 December. All but one opted for Johnson. The same group that had declared him a liar nevertheless planned, quite cheerfully, to put him back into Downing Street. Why?

The core answer came back to Brexit and Johnsons pledge to Get Brexit done. They might not trust the prime minister in general, but on Brexit they believe him because, like Trump and his pledge to build a wall, they believe its what Johnson really thinks and what he really wants. When reminded of his broken die-in-a-ditch promise to leave by 31 October, there was a consensus around the table. That wasnt his fault, said Tim, whos semi-retired. Parliament wouldnt let him.

The implication is that while the Westminster class, journalists and rival politicians, are focused on the literal truth accurate stats, misleading claims voters are looking for something different from a politician. Do you mean what you say and, crucially, will you make good on it?

Enter Jeremy Corbyn. The group were asked about him too and, in addition to calling him indecisive, arrogant and weak, three people offered that he too was a liar and untrustworthy. And yet while they forgave the dishonesty of Johnson, they gave no such leeway to Labour. The offer of free broadband was mocked, along with several other Labour manifesto promises. Jamie, who owns a car repair business, reckoned Labour had sat around asking themselves, Who havent we given something to yet? I know, lets do free dental care. Itll be free Pot Noodles for migrants next. That brought laughter and agreement.

Make no mistake, these were not people who couldnt do with the government spending more money. They all agreed that their town needed help and that things had got worse in the last 10 years (though, tellingly, none blamed the Tories for that, instead speaking of the decline as if it were the inevitable result of global, even natural, forces). Three of the women worked in local schools. And yet they dismissed Labours offer of new billions out of hand.

The objection was not that they, or their neighbours, dont need the cash. Nor that they thought Corbyn wouldnt want to spend it if he could. Im just not sure how achievable its going to be, said Kath, a senior nursery nurse. Shes a Waspi woman; shed love to have the pension money that is owed her. But the sheer size of the spending commitment made her distrust it. Based on the past, all the things that were promised and not delivered, nodded Zena. Wheres the money going to come from? asked Caroline.

There is a specific Labour dimension to this, a reputation for fiscal unreliability that dates back at least to the 1970s. But it also connects to a wider shift. Thanks in part to the cavalier disregard for truth that has come to characterise politics here and elsewhere, many voters now start from a base assumption that politicians are dishonest. Rows about details, numbers and figures especially, are shrugged off: Who knows whats true and whats not? After all, they all lie.

That helps a serial peddler of untruths like Johnson. But it also narrows the scope for what any politician can offer. They can, it seems, get away with making one big promise if that pledge seems both true to that politician and deliverable: Heres my oven-ready Brexit deal, lets get it done, fits that bill for Johnson (even if, of course, Brexit wont be anywhere near done). But Labours long, expensive laundry list of costly spending promises falls at the second hurdle.

Its a sour irony that Johnson, who did so much to shape this post-truth landscape, is currently benefiting from the scepticism it has nurtured while its his opponents who are paying the price.

Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

View post:

When all politicians are seen as liars, its Boris Johnsons big lie that cuts through - The Guardian

HOLON, Israel Two years after being swept up in the #MeToo movement and acknowledging sexual misconduct with multiple women, comedian Louis C.K. took to the stage at a nearly packed basketball arena outside Tel Aviv, where the audience seemed ready to let it go.

"How have your last couple of years been?" he asked near the start of the hour-long set Thursday night, before describing himself sitting in a restaurant, eating alone, as someone at another table gives him the finger for the duration of the meal.

Later in the set, he acknowledged his transgressions, saying that even though he had asked permission before masturbating in front of women, it had been a mistake. "If they say 'yes,' then still don't do it, because it's not popular."

The 52-year-old comedian's career imploded in November 2017 after he acknowledged complaints of harassment reported by the New York Times, most of which involved him masturbating in the presence of women he knew professionally. Some of the women said they feared their careers would suffer if they discussed the incidents, which took place more than a decade ago.

C.K. released a statement after the Times report, saying "these stories are true." He acknowledged abusing his power over others and causing them pain but did not publicly apologize.

Earlier this month, one of his five accusers disputed that his behavior was consensual. "We never agreed nor asked him to take all his clothes off and masturbate to completion in front of us," Julia Wolov wrote in an op-ed for the Canadian Jewish News.

The revelations, which came at the height of the #MeToo movement against sexual abuse in the workplace, led to the cancellation of C.K.'s numerous TV contracts and the scrapping of his feature-length film, "I Love You, Daddy," shortly before its release.

The comedian vowed to "step back and take a long time to listen."

But he returned to the stage less than a year later, and is now on an international tour that includes several sold-out shows. Protesters have gathered outside some of them, including a small demonstration outside his first show in Tel Aviv organized by Kulan, a local women's advocacy group.

Bracha Barad, the group's director, said those attending the show were "normalizing sexual violence."

"They are basically telling him everything is OK, you're not going to pay a price for this and you will be given a stage," she told the local Kan TV.

There were no protests Thursday outside the arena in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv.

Most of the more than a dozen audience members who spoke to The Associated Press had heard about the scandal. Some said they didn't know the details or that it wasn't clear whether he had done anything wrong. Several young men attending the show declined to comment. "Twitter is fragile," one muttered as he strode away. "Feminists."

The show drew an audience of around 5,000 men and women of all ages. Most appeared to be fans who felt the severity of the misconduct was not enough to justify a boycott.

"We don't support what he did to those women, but we like him as a comedian," said Asaf, who came to the show with his wife, Tal. They declined to give their last name out of privacy concerns. "It's not like he raped someone," he added.

"It's like a little bit complicated," Tal said. She noted that C.K. had reportedly asked permission before masturbating in front of the women and said it shouldn't end the career of a "genius." But she also acknowledged the pervasiveness of sexual misconduct.

She finally concluded that paying to see Louis C.K. was "like supporting animal rights and still eating meat."

C.K. alluded to the scandal on a number of occasions throughout the performance. He said he used to love New York City, his home for many years, but that now he hates it, implying it's because of the negative attention he receives.

"I'd rather be in Auschwitz than New York City," he told the almost entirely Israeli audience, which broke out in laughter and applause. "I mean now, not when it was open."

The set was similar to his past material, with wry observations punctuated by raunchy and irreverent punchlines whose humor came largely from their shock value. There was an extended discussion of the history of using the term "retarded," and passing references to the Boston Marathon bombing and the Sept. 11 attacks.

He did not repeat an earlier bit in which he made fun of school shooting survivors who had become gun control advocates, which had outraged many and raised concerns among some fans that he would reinvent himself as a right-wing comedian railing against political correctness.

Instead, he displayed some of the same sensitivity to sexual abuse that had earned him praise from many feminists before his rapid downfall.

After discussing his own misconduct, he observed that in sexual situations women sometimes act as though everything is OK when they are actually fearful or disgusted and that men mistake this for consent. He compared it to listening to African-American slave spirituals and mistaking them for an expression of contentment.

It was perhaps the closest C.K. came to acknowledging that he had learned something deeper from his misconduct and its aftermath, and it was well-received, just like all the other jokes. Those who were prepared to forgive C.K. before the show emerged even more reassured.

"It was just hilarious," Shiri Ayalon said as she left the arena.

"As a woman who's been very aware of everything that has happened over the #MeToo movement and all of that, I'd say that he's probably the only celebrity who's expressed regret over what he had done and was willing to actually address it," she said.

"I think he should probably be un-boycotted."

Read more from the original source:

After time in the wilderness, Louis CK is welcomed in Israel - Minneapolis Star Tribune

WELLINGTON, New Zealand While conservative populism is now ascendant in some of the worlds leading democracies, New Zealand is rushing in the opposite direction, taking on several liberal social issues all at once.

Next year, the country will hold public referendums to decide whether to legalize assisted suicide and recreational marijuana. Separately, lawmakers are considering a bill that would decriminalize abortion.

Those votes will come after New Zealands Parliament voted 119 to 1 this month to enshrine in law an ambitious set of targets to reduce the countrys carbon emissions.

This burst of democratic action is in contrast to the legislative gridlock that has gripped countries like the United States and Britain. But it also threatens to push a generally conflict-averse New Zealand into uncomfortable territory, and it could overwhelm an election next year that will determine whether Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern remains in office.

New Zealand is a socially liberal country, though it is not clear where New Zealanders will fall when the three issues come up for consideration in the months ahead. Tackling them simultaneously could foster an already growing culture war in New Zealand, said Bryce Edwards, a political commentator and lecturer at Victoria University in Wellington, the capital.

Next years election could end up being one revolving less around economic issues and more about social and moral ones, he added.

That would be a shift in New Zealand, where election campaigns have long ceased being the province of personal morality debates.

While Ms. Ardern has built a global reputation for her brand of cordial, inclusive liberalism, the leader of the opposition center-right National Party, Simon Bridges, has seized on the increasingly fractured tone of the public debate.

In railing against political correctness, woke politics and identity politics, Mr. Edwards said, Mr. Bridges is trying to mobilize the so-called shy Tory voter who feels uncomfortable with some of the progressive changes in New Zealand society. Mr. Bridgess party has maintained a lead over Ms. Arderns Labour Party in major polls.

The governments concerns about the quality of the looming public debate are evident. It is acutely aware of the online misinformation campaigns that have been generated when other countries have put polarizing topics to public votes, such as Britains 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union.

In New Zealand, a team has been set up in the Ministry of Justice to combat manipulation of the public debate in the lead-up to the referendums, Radio New Zealand reported last month.

Ministry officials will work to verify that if someone claims to have a highly authoritative piece of research, it is that, not some sort of highly partisan, highly skeptical or dubious piece of information, Andrew Little, the justice minister, told Radio New Zealand.

He added that it would be a very difficult balancing act for the monitors public servants who must remain neutral to avoid being drawn into the debate.

That debate is taking New Zealand onto new ground. While recreational marijuana and euthanasia have been legalized by legislatures in a small number of countries, New Zealand is believed to be the first to put either issue to a public referendum. Both votes will be held at the same time as the election in late 2020.

Support for legalizing cannabis has eroded since the referendum was announced, with a June poll by 1 News showing 52 percent of New Zealanders against it. In another 1 News poll in July, 72 percent of those surveyed supported legalizing euthanasia, but that was before the public learned that it would have to decide the matter itself.

Decriminalization of abortion, the issue that may be decided in Parliament, is narrowly favored by the public. Although abortion is technically illegal in New Zealand, it is widely available to those who obtain the approval of two doctors.

The reason for the double referendum is a quirk of New Zealand politics. Euthanasia and recreational cannabis were forced to a public vote by two minor parties that give Ms. Arderns Labour Party the majority she needs to govern.

The left-leaning Green Party insisted that marijuana be put to a public vote as part of its agreement to support Ms. Ardern, while New Zealand First, a populist group that holds the balance of power in Parliament, said it would support the passage of the euthanasia bill only if it also faced a referendum.

Mark Patterson, a New Zealand First lawmaker, told Parliament during a debate on the euthanasia law that it was one of our founding principles that conscience votes go to the people of New Zealand to decide.

A referendum can help make sure that lawmakers do not forge too far ahead of the public on social matters. Paul Moon, a history professor at Auckland University of Technology, said New Zealands Parliament had in the past passed progressive bills that did not have full public backing.

Parliament plays this process of setting the social agenda and then public opinion eventually catches up to it, he said.

But one member of Parliament said she was appalled that her colleagues had shunted the euthanasia decision to the public.

Were actually empowered, 120 of us, to make decisions every day about laws that pass through our Parliament, said the lawmaker, Louisa Wall, a member of the Labour Party.

Ms. Wall said she worried that pressure groups particularly religious ones might find more influence ahead of a public vote than they would if lawmakers were deciding the matter.

New Zealanders are often wary of religion. The 2018 census revealed that those who said they had no religion 49 percent of the population had overtaken Christians, at 38 percent, for the first time.

In a debate this year on the abortion bill, none of the 23 lawmakers who cast an initial vote against the act mentioned their faith, the church or God in their speeches opposing it, although some are known to be religious privately.

Church leaders, who do not wield influence in mainstream New Zealand, could nonetheless do well at mobilizing their members ahead of the referendums.

Ms. Wall said that she had closely followed debates about same-sex marriage in Australia and Ireland ahead of public votes there, and that the euthanasia referendum encouraged people to use whatever mechanism they can to promote their particular views.

It led, she said, to the demonization of minorities and the validity of their lives being debated.

Originally posted here:

New Zealand Is Tackling Hot-Button Liberal Issues in One Swoop - The New York Times

Scarlett Johansson has responded to the backlash she received this summer after saying she believes any actor should be able to play any person, or any tree, or any animal.

The statement came after the star dropped out of a film based on the life of a transgender man due to criticism from the trans community. The 35-year-old was also accused of whitewashing popular Japanese manga Ghost in the Shell in 2017.

In hindsight, I mishandled that situation, Johansson recently told Vanity Fair of her previous comments. I was not sensitive, my initial reaction to it. I wasnt totally aware of how the trans community felt about those three actors playing and how they felt in general about cis actors playing transgender people. I wasnt aware of that conversation I was uneducated.

Johansson went on admit she misjudged the situation, adding, It was a hard time. It was like a whirlwind. I felt terribly about it. To feel like youre kind of tone-deaf to something is not a good feeling.

Scarlett also released a statement claiming her original comments were taken out of context

An interview that was recently published has been edited for clickbait and is widely taken out of context, she wrote. The question I was answering in my conversation with the contemporary artist, David Salle, was about the confrontation between political correctness and art. I personally feel that, in an ideal world, any actor should be able to play anybody and Art, in all forms, should be immune to political correctness. That is the point I was making, albeit didnt come across that way.

I recognize that in reality, there is a wide spread discrepancy amongst my industry that favors Caucasian, cis-gendered actors and that not every actor has been given the same opportunities that I have been privileged to, Johansson went on. I continue to support, and always have, diversity in every industry and will continue to fight for projects where everyone is included.

The controversial quotes stem from a July 2019 As If magazine interview where she discussed the intersection of political correctness and art.

Acting goes through trends, she said. You know, as an actor I should be allowed to play any person, or any tree, or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job. There are a lot of social lines being drawn now, and a lot of political correctness is being reflected in art.

More here:

Scarlett Johannson clarifies controversial casting comments: 'I mishandled that' - Page Six

Scott Jennings, Opinion contributor Published 11:20 a.m. ET Nov. 26, 2019

In 2016, Donald Trumps message of busting political correctness won him the White House. Rejecting the Democratic Partys identity politics run amok was a sneaky good strategy, working like a charm among working-class voters in Americas heartland. Trump, though he had just become a Republican five minutes ago, better sensed than the partys established leaders the emotional needs of rank-and-file Republicans.

For all his faults, this is Trumps superpower sensing cultural undercurrents and reflecting the emotions of histarget audience. He often says what regular folks are thinking but dont feel they are allowed to verbalize.

Today, a great many Americans feel angst about their children inheriting a country that allows for the indiscriminate destruction of reputations via cancel culture and promotes narratives over truths in the name of political correctness. In 2020, Trump can rekindle his old strategy by giving voice to these concerns to overcome serious political headwinds.

Scott Jennings: How Beshear deals with GOP will decide if term is Kentucky Democrats' last gasp

Extreme uneasinessexists in middle America over cancel culture, the practice of journalists and woke activists unearthing old utterances of celebrities, athletes, and even some regular peoplefor the purpose of embarrassing them and ruining their lives.

Do some human beings say or tweet dumb things? Yes. Does it often happen when a person is younger, less experienced in the world and not enlightened enough to know that at some point in the future someone might find their thoughtless tweet offensive? You bet.

If theres anyone in America who could rally the canceled to his cause, it's Trump, who faces cancellation attempts every day. Heck, several Democrats have proposed taking his twitter feed for violating the platforms terms of service.

But thats the point why should we tolerate a society in which a group of inquisitors is given carte blanche to silence people they dont like, banish political thoughts that arent welcome in liberal enclavesand ruin peoples lives over things uttered years ago? Never one to eschew affiliation with the controversial, Trump is uniquely positioned to make this a voting issue in 2020.

In Washington, D.C., when a 12-year-old African American girl claimed that three white boys at her private Christian school pinned her down and shaved her dreadlocks, the media predictably fell for it hook, line and sinker, demanding answers of Vice President Mike Pences wife, Karen, who teaches at the school.

The account was too perfect for media types who crave stories confirming their own political biases: white-on-black violence, Christian school, connection to Trump. Instead of seeking the truth, however, the media just as it did with the Covington Catholic and Jussie Smollett stories was blinded by a narrative instead of approaching the fantastical claim with caution.

After a few days, the little girl confessed to making it up. I dont blame her; in America these days, a good narrative is better than the truth when you want attention. Just ask the liberal politicians seeking the Democratic nomination for president.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, for instance, falsely tweeted a debunked allegation that Michael Brown was murdered by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, never mind that President Barack Obamas Department of Justice disproved the hands up, dont shoot narrative long ago. In doing so, Warren and Harriscravenly served their political ends without regard for the societal damage done by spreading falsehoods on such tragic stories.

Scott Jennings: Trump's no angel, but liberals with their ugly threats have become what they claim to hate

Warrens use of false narrativesextends to her own origin story, which now includes multiple fabrications including that she is Native American and was once fired from a teaching job for getting pregnant. Last week, she misled a voter about sending her children to private school (she did, but claimed she didnt).

Scott Jennings, columnist(Photo: photo courtesy Scott Jennings)

Warren is not a woman of color, despite allowing employers to describe her as such, nor was she fired in the 1970s for becoming pregnant, according to recently discovered school board documents. But being a plain old white woman who declines job offers and is wealthy enough to send her kids to private school doesnt sell in todays Democratic Party, so she conjured a put-upon alter ego and rocketed to the top of the primary field.

No wonder our kids are inventing plights of their very own.

Americans are rightly worried about their children inheriting a sick culture. President Trump can jujitsu his political problems by relentlessly focusing on the need to defeat this cancer; hell get a lot of Amens in flyover country (think Pennsylvania, Michiganand Wisconsin) if he does, and no Democratic contender has the wherewithal to stop him.

Scott Jennings is a Republican adviser, CNN political commentator and partner at RunSwitch Public Relations. He can be reached at scott@RunSwitchPR.com and on Twitter @ScottJenningsKY. His firm represented Nicholas Sandmann in the aftermath of the Covington Catholic story.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2019/11/26/donald-trump-can-beat-democrats-and-their-false-narratives-race/4295360002/

View original post here:

Opinion: Trump can use his 'superpower' to defeat Democrats and their false narratives - Courier Journal

If Donald Trump gets his wish, hell soon take the three convicted or accused war criminals he spared from consequence on the road as special guests in his re-election campaign, according to two sources who have heard Trump discuss their potential roles for the 2020 effort.

Despite military and international backlash to Trumps Nov. 15 clemencyfallout from which cost Navy Secretary Richard Spencer his job on SundayTrump believes he has rectified major injustices. Two people tell The Daily Beast theyve heard Trump talk about how hed like to have the now-cleared Clint Lorance, Matthew Golsteyn, or Edward Gallagher show up at his 2020 rallies, or even have a moment on stage at his renomination convention in Charlotte next year. Right-wing media have portrayed all three as martyrs brought down by political correctness within the military.

He briefly discussed making it a big deal at the convention, said one of these sources, who requested anonymity to talk about private conversations. The president made a reference to the 2016 [convention] and where they brought on-stage heroes like former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, who refused to execute detained civilians ahead of a devastating Taliban attack.

Former Army Lt. Lorance was sentenced to 19 years in prison in 2013 for murder after ordering his soldiers in 2010 to fire on three unarmed Afghan men riding a motorcycle, killing two of them. He walked out of military prison at Fort Leavenworth on Nov. 15. Next month, former Green Beret Maj. Golsteyn was supposed to stand trial for the murder of an unarmed Afghan man whom he told the CIA he killed in the belief the man was a Taliban bombmaker. Golsteyn, who allegedly burned the mans corpse, pleaded not guilty to the murder; the Green Berets stripped Golsteyn of his Special Forces tab. Lorance and Golsteyn were both causes clbres in certain military circles and among their right-wing supporters, as was Navy SEAL Chief Gallagher.

A military jury this summer acquitted Gallagher for the murder of a wounded teenage fighter for the so-called Islamic State. The case, which both featured Trumps conspicuous intervention boosting Gallagher and serious prosecutorial misconduct, began, like Lorances, with Gallaghers own platoon mates reporting his conduct. Against Gallaghers denial, two SEALs testified seeing the senior SEAL chief stab the wounded teenager in the neck. Gallagher, along with lower-ranking SEALs, took a photo with the corpse and texted it with the caption good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife. But another SEAL reversed his testimony to say that he, not Gallagher, killed the wounded teenager by closing off an inserted breathing tube. Gallaghers only conviction was for taking the photo and he was released for time served. Trump pardoned Lorance and Golsteyn and reversed Gallaghers demotion in rank.

Opposition to the clemency was reportedly ardent in the senior ranks of the Pentagon and the uniformed military. The Navy opted to proceed with an internal review over stripping Gallagher of his Trident pin, which symbolizes his place in the elite commando ranks. Trump, via tweet, insisted that the Trident board not happen, and publicly clashed with Spencer, his Navy secretary, who took the position that the board ought to proceed despite Trumps tweets.

Yet late on Sunday afternoon, Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced that Spencer had made a secret entreaty to Trump that would have rendered the board for show and ensured Gallagher retired at full SEAL rank and pension. Espers account was in such stark opposition to Spencers positions in the case that several in military circles, while acknowledging the murkiness around the entire episode, consider it to be untrue. A Navy Reserve officer who requested anonymity doubted that a true account would emerge from the administration, but said the current messy narrative is not credible.

Esper, in a statement, said he was deeply troubled by Spencer allegedly routing around the defense secretary to take a position the Pentagon conceded was contrary to Spencers public position. That line holds Spencer was fired despite secretly agreeing with Trump on Gallaghers disposition. And Esper also confirmed he will do the exact thing that Trump and, allegedly, Spencer, sought: permitting Gallagher to retire as a Navy chief, and a SEAL. Esper, astonishingly, told reporters Monday that Trump had ordered the defense secretary to ensure Gallagher keeps his Trident, rendering moot the Navys Trident board proceeding.

In irreconcilable contrast to that account, Spencer said in a scorching resignation letter that Trump had jeopardized the rule of law within the military and he could not in good conscience carry out Trumps order to the Navy on Gallagher.

The Constitution, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are the shields that set us apart, and the beacons that protect us all, Spencer wrote. Unfortunately it has become apparent in this respect that I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline.

Robert Work, a former deputy defense secretary in the Obama and Trump administrations with deep ties to the Navy, said that while he had no first-hand knowledge of the debacle, he believed Spencer.

I take Spencers resignation letter as the truth, Work told The Daily Beast. Its one of those things where well never know the real truth. He continued: I think Spencer just felt he had to do this. Its extremely unfortunate.

Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School, one of the foremost experts in U.S. military justice, cautioned that what exactly occurred remains unclear. But Fidell said it had already done enormous damage to the Navys fidelity to the law.

Esper has committed the very offense he has accused Spencer of having committed, though in Espers telling, it happened behind [Espers] back, Fidell said. If Spencer did this, Spencer is in the wrong. Esper doing this makes Esper in the wrong. Either way, its a body blow to the rule of law in the Department of the Navy.

Esper received a political boost from the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, James Inhofe (R-OK), who had clashed with Spencer on other issues. Both Secretary Esper and President Trump deserve to have a leadership team who has their trust and confidence, Inhofe said in a statement.

But in the Democratic-controlled House, the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Maryland Democrat Anthony Brown, an Iraq veteran, came to Spencers defense. It is a dark day when the president stands with those accused of committing war crimes over a man like Secretary Spencer, Brown said in a statement.

Neither the White House nor Trump campaign spokespeople responded to requests for comment as of press time.

While the war crimes pardons were not Trumps firstin May, he granted clemency to convicted murderer Michael Behenna, an Army lieutenant who in 2008 killed an unarmed, naked Iraqi man during an unauthorized interrogationTrump had fought the Pentagon for more than half a year for the pardons. Promoting them was Pete Hegseth, an Iraq War veteran and a Fox & Friends co-host who had aggressively and personally lobbied Trump since at least March to take such action.

In fact, Lorance, just days after receiving his pardon, appeared on Hegseths Fox News show and effusively lauded Trump, saying, I love you, sir, and telling the president, you are awesome! Days before Spencers firing, Lorance also said on the Fox program that President Trump needed a better team around him, as well as more people watching your back. Gallagher, in a statement tweeted by Hegseth, called Trump a true leader and exactly what the military needs.

Gallaghers attorney Tim Parlatore told The Daily Beast on Monday afternoon that shortly after President Trump called his client to inform him that the rank reinstatement was coming, Gallagher held a conference call with members of his family and Parlatore, to inform them of the news. The lawyer said he then joked on the phone call, Theres no quid pro quo? He didnt ask you to investigate the Bidens?

Gallagher then laughed and replied, No, he just gave it to me! Parlatore recalled, adding that since that phone call, no quid pro quoa clear reference to the impeachment inquiry bedeviling the Trump presidencyhas become a little inside joke between Gallagher and Parlatore.

Yet even Trump allies believe that absolving convicted or accused war criminals of their actions consequences has done substantial damage to the military.

I think more often than not when something like this happens in the administration, a lot of people hyperbolically state that this is undermining our institutions or destroying our democracy, said one ally of the Trump administration who works on military issues. Most of the time it is over-the-top nonsense, but not in this case. This whole thing is a mess and it will undermine good order and discipline in the SEAL community when it is badly needed after a string of incidents involving severe misconduct.

This person added, Pete Hegseth, as a field-grade Army officer, should know what he is doing is wrong, but either doesnt understand the negative repercussions this will have for officers and senior [non-commissioned officers] trying to maintain good order and discipline in their units, or doesnt care. Its shameful and this is truly a black mark on the Trump administrations national security record.

Editors note: This story has been updated to correct the nature of the photo of Gallagher and the corpse.

See the original post:

Trump Tells Allies He Wants Absolved War Criminals to Campaign for Him - The Daily Beast

Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood(Lacey Terrell/Sony Pictures Entertainment)Tom Hanks delivers his latest paean to secular humanism.

In Polar Express (2004), Tom Hanks kept urging Believe! without specifying what to believe in. Some of that same damnable over-secularization threatens to ruin Hankss new film, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. Hanks plays Fred Rogers, creator and host of the TV series Mister Rogers Neighborhood (aired 19662001 on public broadcasting), which taught life lessons to children. The movie re-creates those homilies by artificially re-creating scenes of the shows videotape and alternating them with the real-life story of optimistic Rogers (Hanks) being interviewed by cynical journalist Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys).

Director Marielle Heller attempts a sensitive, almost spiritual evocation. She intersperses TV-show sets and toylike miniatures among scenes of desolate realism in which pious Rogers is tested by pessimistic Vogel. Rogers looks past Vogels sarcasm, almost divining the writers private pain. Its a dramatization of Rogerss uncanny calm and childlike patience qualities that modern society distrusts, preferring to put stock in Freudian explanations.

This concept is almost too philosophically large for the kind of movie Heller is making. Scenes where Vogel reveals lifelong resentment of his philandering father (Chris Cooper) apply Rogerss TV teaching to an adults family crisis. But Heller and screenwriters Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster dont show enough faith in Rogerss remedies and not enough interest in their religious origins.

In short, the movie seems wary of faith (it briefly mentions that Rogers was an ordained minister) and settles for secular sentimentality to account for his sensibility and behavior. This not only weakens the film, but it also hobbles Hankss characterization.

When Hanks attempts to replicate Rogerss sangfroid and gentleness, he avoids the remarkably complex mixed feelings of his conman role in The Ladykillers and falls back on Forrest Gump simplemindedness. While Heller strives to show Rogers as a lay Christian, Hanks succumbs to oddity.

I always found it ironic that pop musician David Byrne once referred to Fred Rogers as creepy when it is Rogers whom the art-savant Byrne most resembles. Hankss misguided performance (not scornful yet neither is it absolutely guileless) hints at the same mistrust as his hollow Believe! exhortations in Polar Express.

The films title suggests kinship; the lessons Rogers imparts to Vogel suggest forgiveness and spiritual belief. But it is all background to the story of a gloomy Esquire magazine writer who is meant to be the audiences surrogate: Vogel is a white liberal whose good intentions are signified by his having a black wife and a biracial infant.

With progressive politics as the opiate of Hollywood, theres no way to find true meaning in Fred Rogerss life story, reducing it to the Christmas-without-Christ cheerleading. Using Rogerss TV show as a replacement for religion as if it merely demonstrated our need for psychoanalysis fights Hellers own sensitivity. (She brought sympathy to the larcenous scoundrels of her previous film Can You Ever Forgive Me?) Hellers most daring tactic occurs when Rogers tells Vogel to think of all the people who loved you into being and the movie observes a full minute of silence.

This should be a bravura sequence. Hanks acts it simply, and Rhyss anguish (hes like a scared Bill Murray with anger issues) rouses intense neediness. But the moment fails because of a cultural catastrophe: Hollywood does not customarily express spirituality.

Heller based that scene on one of the remarkable moments in last years Fred Rogers documentary Wont You Be My Neighbor? where witnesses to Rogerss life respond to his call for reflection and gratitude. Doc director Morgan Neville briefly acknowledged Rogerss faith by his interviewees personal testimony. They went beyond Freud.

Nevilles documentary also revealed Rogerss contempt for TV habits, especially as they infect children and adults. Neville recounted Rogerss mission: We are all called upon to be tikun olam, repairers of creation: to bring joy and light and hope and faith and pardon and love to your neighbor and to yourself. Rogers insisted on this enlightenment for a medium that regularly fed stupidity, violence, and selfishness to children. He felt that addressing the community of children was a way of addressing the nation.

Hellers attention to this idea makes her one of the few contemporary female filmmakers to display moral sensitivity above political correctness. A Wonderful Day in the Neighborhood resists Christian belief yet still promotes secular humanism.

Read the rest here:

Christian Faith Is the Missing Ingredient in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood - National Review

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and several other charges pertaining "to a pattern of threatening and intimidating actions toward Afghans" as a platoon leader in Afghanistan. The ruling relied on the testimony of nearly a dozen of the men who served under him, accounts describing an "ignorant, overzealous, and out of control" officer who "hated the Afghan people" and spent his days "tormenting the locals and issuing death threats." Lorance's conviction included at least one crime every single day at the station in question.

This month, President Trump pardoned Lorance and another U.S. soldier convicted of war crimes while restoring the rank of a third subject to similar accusations. "Just this week I stuck up for three great warriors against the deep state," Trump boasted at his Florida rally Tuesday night. His rationale for issuing the pardons was threefold: First, because he likes the military so much ("I will always stick up for our great fighters"); second, because he wanted to reunite the families separated by these convictions ("He hugged his parents; it was a beautiful, beautiful thing"); and third, because he wants U.S. soldiers to feel free to do whatever it takes to keep America safe ("People have to be able to fight").

This is a load of tripe with a dash of trolling. The bit about the beauty of reuniting families seems calculated to infuriate opponents of this administration's zero-tolerance policy of separating migrant families at the border. That's the trolling. As for the rest of it, what Trump actually likes is war crimes, and, I suspect, he sees parallels here to himself. He wants his own history of fighting dirty to be likewise excused.

The president's affection for violence beyond the laws and norms of modern warfare is well-established. He expresses total confidence in the efficacy of torture, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and insists it should be employed even if it doesn't work ("They deserve it anyway for what they do to us"). In a 2016 op-ed, for example, Trump argued it is only political correctness that prevents the United States from drowning and beheading our enemies in the style of the Islamic State. He has waxed rhapsodic about the prospect of killing the families of terrorists which is to say, murdering children because of the misfortune of their birth and slaughtering women who very possibly had no choice in their marriage. He has no interest in confining the U.S. military to the rule of law, whether domestic or international, instead envisioning himself as the war crime commander-in-chief: "If I say do it, they're going to do it."

Thus the twisted mercy Trump offers in pardoning war crimes is not a boon to the U.S. military. It is a degradation, a blood offering to Mars.

This enthusiasm for cruelty might be sufficient to get Trump to issue pardons for war crimes. He has made clear he doesn't care whether these soldiers are innocent of what they are accused of doing and in fact believes they were right to do it if indeed they are guilty. But I think there's another factor at work: Trump in a sense identifies with the men he has pardoned. He is giving them the indemnity he hopes for himself.

"You know what I'm talking about," Trump said in Florida. "I had so many people say, 'Sir, I don't think you should do that.' People have to be able to fight. These are great warriors. They can't think, 'Gee whiz, if I make a mistake, do I go [to jail] for it?'" he continued. "People can sit there in air-conditioned offices and complain, but you know what? That doesn't matter to me whatsoever. [The soldiers are] out in that field, and they're doing a job for us like nobody else anywhere in the world can do."

Add in the "deep state" line from earlier in the speech and here's what you get: The Washington establishment is conspiring to stop our hero from doing what needs to be done what he alone can do for America. These prissy bureaucrats are obsessing over rules and niceties, bitching about the champion's commitment to fight for our country however he can.

Sounds familiar, no? It's Trump's framing of his war crimes pardons, but it's also his framing of the impeachment inquiry against him, in which as he put it in Florida "the failed Washington establishment is trying to stop me because I'm fighting for you and because we're winning."

Lorance and the other alleged and convicted war criminals Trump has pardoned would have attracted the president regardless. His rhetoric about torture and violence made that evident long before he was subject to accusations of corruption. But now that those accusations have been leveled, there is an added appeal. Trump has espied an opportunity to protect in parallel his own foul play. He has found a way to give the pardon he wants.

Excerpt from:

Why Trump identifies with war criminals - The Week Magazine

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 21: House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) delivers opening remarks during an open hearing in the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center June 21, 2017 in Washington, DC. Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified before the committee about Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential elections and his department's response to the threat. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

To put it mildly, House Democrats impeachment scenario hasnt gone as planned. According to the Real Clear Politics polling aggregation, since the end of October, Trumps approval rating has ticked up a little, while his disapproval has ticked down. And according to FiveThirtyEight, support for impeachment has declined slightly over the last month.

These small shifts might not seem earth-shattering, yet the failure of the hearings to dump Trump seems to have been shattering to some Democrats. Hence this November 22 headline in Politico: Vulnerable Democrats panic amid GOP impeachment ad onslaught. We should note that the headline was later softened, such that panic became merely spooked. Still, Trump foes have been disappointed to discover that Ukraine-gate hasnt been the Watergate II they were hoping for.

To be sure, the Democrats and their allies fervently believe they have made their case, that President Trump attempted to manipulate U.S. foreign policy for political advantageeven if, of course, he ultimately delivered to Ukraine the very military aid that the Obama administration had denied.

Nevertheless, that legal case, such as it might be, has been obscured by poor opticswhich are obvious to see. As Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican though hardly a partisan barnburner, observed on Meet the Press, I think the Democrats had a bad week.

Of course, with Trump, one dreads making any prediction about what could come next. Theres always another bombshell about to go offand who knows where the shrapnel will fly.

Still, it is possible to look back at the hearings and assess what went wrong for Team Impeach. In a nutshell, House Democrats gambled that a procession of witnesses, most of them careeristsor, if one prefers, foreign service and military officers, yet still careeristswould deliver a knockout blow to Trump. Yet what emerged from their testimony was that, well, they were bureaucrats.

As Mark Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump administration policy was made byTrump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Trumps Ukraine policy was inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagencythat is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, Nobody elects an interagency consensus.

Indeed, as Byron York of The Washington Examiner pointed out, Vindmans perspective is a classic bureaucrats view of government and the world. York then added, speaking of the fabled interagency process:

Needless to say, Trump does not do that sort of thing. The president is remarkably freewheeling, unbureaucratic, and certainly not always consistent when it comes to making policy. But he generally has a big goal in mind, and in any event, he is the president of the United States. He, not the interagency, sets U.S. foreign policy.

In the words of Harry Truman, The buck stops here. Here, that is, at the desk of the commander-in-chief, not in the cubicles of bureaucratic functionaries.

So now we begin to see how the Democrats made their mistake. Having gotten their inspiration in the first place from that Deep State whistleblower, they then assumed they could carry on their investigation, relying on still more Deep Statists. But these individuals dont typically make for good witnessesat least up to the level of convincing people to think, okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach Trump.

On November 25, Congressman Matt Gaetz poured acid on the political effectiveness of the Democrats chosen witnesses:

In the State Departmentpeople think theres only one way to do things. That they have to do it through their precise diplomatic channels & only in the way they all learned going to the same schools & working at the same think tanks.

Thus we can see a wide cleft here, between the delicate and precise culture of the bureaucracy and the churning and heaving culture of the anti-bureaucracy, led by you-know-who. For their part, the Democrats made the mistake of siding with the bureaucratsand when was the last time a bureaucrat won an election, to say nothing of a national election?

In fact, if we peer down into that wide cleft, between bureaucratic super-ego and presidential id, we see something even deeper than the Deep Statewe see the fundamental workings of the human brain.

Here we might summon up the work of Roger W. Sperry, who in 1981 was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Sperry argued that two hemispheres of the brain are responsible for different functions: the left brain deals with words, facts, and sequences, while the right brain deals with visuals, emotions, and intuitions. The theory further holds that for most people, one hemisphere or another is stronger; thus left-brainers are more words and facts driven, while right-brainers are more visuals and emotions driven.

Now it must be footnoted that as a matter of medical physiology, the left-brain/right-brain dichotomy is debatable. Yet as a matter of pop psychology, its even more debatable, in that the duality is seemingly irresistible as a matter of parlor discussion. Why? Because each of us can see see the dueling personality types all around usand theres nothing more compelling, of course, than human nature.

For instance, the left-brain/right-brain concept helps explain the rise of political correctness. According to Greg Piccionelli, a Los Angeles-based attorney-inventor-biologist, the hard categorical thinking of left-brainers can easily turn into hard-left dogma.

Dogma isnt new, of course, and its always been spread across the left-right spectrum. But these days, left-brained PC dogma has received an enormous reinforcement: from the PC. That is, political correctness has been bolstered by the personal computerand by supercomputers, artificial intelligence, and big data.

Of course, when everything is online, its hard not to be cyber-immersed. And thats the point: to borrow a phrase from Marx, computers are the dominant mode of production, and so its no surprise that thinking machines are affecting our thinking. (Last year, this author wrote about PC/PC dogma in regard to the censorship of the Monty Python comedy troupe, as well as re: Brett Kavanaughs Senate confirmation hearings.)

Of course, in this world, everything has its dialectical negation. And for left-brained culture, that dialectic is Trump, who is obviously strongly right-brained. Whatever else one might think of him, Trump is real and raw, the exact opposite of ordered and dogmatic. No wonder he and Marie Jovanovitch didnt hit it off.

Its this mental cleft, left-brain versus right-brain, that provides the ultimate backdrop for the impeachment battle. As brain-pundit Piccionelli puts it, If there was a personification of left-brain-ism, its Adam Schiff, and most of the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. And those witnessesthey were even more left-brained.

Of course, one could say that its in the nature of such hearings to be dry, proceduraland left-brained. To which Piccionelli answers, Okay, but nobody told Trump and the Republicans they had to play by those rules. They were emotional and passionateright-brainedand it worked better for them.

What the Democrats needed, Piccionelli says, is some right-brained passion of their own. They needed someone to look directly into the camera and say, This is wrong! Piccionelli says. They needed someoneMember of Congress or witnessto connect with the ordinary right-brain emotions of Americans.

To be sure, practicing politicians, in both parties, tend to be pretty good at connecting to votersthat is, after all, how they got elected. Yet Piccionelli speculates that the Democrats, as the tech-ier partyif anyone in Silicon Valley likes Trump, he, she, or they hide it wellhave been more influenced by politically correct modalities.

That is, without even realizing it, Democrats have slipped into the sort of PC consciousness that makes for cold dogmatism, the attitude that just cant believe that everyone cant see the obvious truth of its argument. And here we might pause to note the baleful influence of ultra-woke college campuses, which provide up-and-coming Democrats with great skill in one-way preaching, but less skill at actual debating.

Meanwhile, lower-tech Republicanswho probably didnt go to Woke U.are more in touch with right-brain humanity.

So lotsa luck, Democrats, if you pass impeachment in the House. That Senate trial, dominated by Trumpy right-brained Republicans, wont be in the least bit woke, but it sure will be lit.

See more here:

How Democrats Lost the Impeachment Debate - The American Conservative

At a current Paul Gauguin exhibition at Londons National Gallery, visitors are warned that the famous French painter had sexual relationships with young girls, including two with whom he fathered children.

A wall text notes, Gauguin undoubtedly exploited his position as a privileged Westerner [in French Polynesia] to make the most of the sexual freedoms available to him.

An audio guide even raises the question, Is it time to stop looking at Gauguin altogether?

This is what art appreciation has come to: a PC prism through which a painting, a work of literature or even a popular song must be scrutinized for racism, sexism, gender bias or just plain hurt feelings.

New York museums havent banned anything yet. But look out: Metropolitan Museum of Art director Max Hollein told The New York Times that, Art cannot solely be perceived in regard to its beauty and craftsmanship. You also have to evaluate it in light of its political messages.

If you say so, chief. I thought most human beings turned to art not for ideological hectoring but for the joy of beauty and insight into the human condition whether from Dante, Shakespeare or Springsteen.

The warnings against Gauguin are another step toward excommunicating every Western creative talent from the realm of permissible enjoyment. If left unopposed, the PC fascists will inevitably ban everything by Western-world artists, writers and musicians due to perceived sensitivities or colonialist violations.

Why stop with Gauguin? Another revered European painter, Caravaggio, was a murderer, a pimp and a sex abuser of children. His Victorious Cupid and St. John the Baptist depict a naked young boy with whom Caravaggio is believed to have been having sex, according to Guardian critic Emine Saner.

By any consistent standard of political correctness, Shakespeares got to go. While he was no pedophile, his play The Taming of the Shrew celebrates misogyny. Othello is full of racist tropes. Shylock in The Merchant of Venice betrays a deeply anti-Semitic spirit.

By that token, Vladimir Nabokov should be exiled to Siberia for Lolita. Though its widely recognized as one of the 20th centurys greatest novels, his character Lolita is 12 years old when narrator Humbert Humbert falls for her. He beds and ultimately loses her to a romantic rival, whom Humbert enthusiastically bumps off. Burn the book and ban the movie adaptations!

Mark Twains masterpiece Huckleberry Finn has barely survived the onslaught of racism charges. Its been dropped from some campus reading lists over a character whose nickname is the N-word. Shouldnt Twain, who wrote the novel as an anti-racism saga more than 120 years ago, have predicted that the slur widely used by whites in the pre-Civil War South would be deemed impermissible in a work of fiction in the 21st Century?

If Huck Finn needs condemnation, so do the poems of Walt Whitman, who referred to black people as baboons. Or the novels of Joseph Conrad, whose racism was implicit in the African fable Heart of Darkness.

Im overreacting, right? Well, last year, Kate Smith was dropped from the Yankee Stadium soundtrack for having once, at 24, sung a racist tune at her record companys behest at a time when segregation was the law of the land in many states. More recently, a few busybodies changed the teasing lyrics to Baby Its Cold Outside lest the original be misconstrued as a lead-up to rape. (Of course, rap artists who celebrate actual sexual subjugation of women see 50 Cents P.I.M.P. get a free pass.)

If the PC purity test continues to rule, well be left with empty bookshelves and bare-wall galleries. Art may survive only if its twisted to politically correct ends like the Broadway staging of Oklahoma! thats so warped from the original, its been ridiculed as Wokelahoma.

Its time for some brave pushback to arrest the slide or woke me when its over.

Read more from the original source:

The move to cancel Gauguin could kill off Western culture - New York Post