Category Archives: Political Correctness

Speaking to CBS in New York City on Tuesday, former tennis star John McEnroe refused to apologize for saying that Serena Williams would be ranked around 700th if she played on the male circuit.

Questioned by the CBS hosts, McEnroe was unrepentant. He had no intention of upsetting Serena Williams, he said, but nor did he regret his comments.

Still, what was more interesting in the interview was how the hosts embraced political correctness.

Under fire, McEnroe threw the contention back at Charlie Rose, asking him what rank he believed Serena would hold were she on the men's circuit. Rose is a tennis fan and knows the tour. But he couldn't bring himself to answer truthfully. Even when pushed, Rose stated, "She seemed pretty strong to me."

Next up, Gayle King challenged McEnroe. His comments, said Gayle, "belittle" female sporting accomplishments. Evidently angered by McEnroe's rebuttal, King asked McEnroe where he would rank on the men's tour. The 58-year-old responded, "about 1,200th in the world." It was a clever riposte. McEnroe suggested that Williams is a better player than him (she'd be 700th, he's 1,200th).

Regardless, the exchange was embarrassing. The CBS hosts clearly believed that they had a responsibility to slap down McEnroe's original comment. They were not there to question McEnroe, they were there to flay him. It didn't matter that McEnroe was right or wrong, but only that he be punished.

Of course, anyone who knows tennis knows that McEnroe is right. In the power of shots and endurance of the players, the male circuit is stronger than the women's. That's not a sexist comment. It's a fact of nature. As comparative serve speeds attest, facts are facts. It's as obvious as saying that a B-2 bomber carries more explosive power than a F-18 Super Hornet.

And it's not just the statistics of the court. Consider the relative daily attendance and TV viewing figures for major tennis tournaments. At Wimbledon, for example, figures for the gentlemen's semifinals or quarterfinals are greater than at the ladies' equivalent. The viewers know that the men's game is faster and stronger. And for that reason, many find it more compelling.

This doesn't take away from the accomplishment of the female players on the tour. From working at Wimbledon for seven years, I know firsthand the exceptional athleticism and skill that defines female tennis players. In the end, this is just a question of biology. And up against the male circuit, Serena Williams would not find the extraordinary success that she has attained. We should be able to admit that and be comfortable with it.

And we should be able to celebrate Serena Williams for being the best tennis player of her sex. She is a far better player on the women's tour than McEnroe ever was on the men's.

The rest is here:

John McEnroe, Serena Williams and political correctness - Washington Examiner

Millinocket hospital provides good care

Millinocket residents have recently been bombarded by mailings from an unknown author. The mailings speak of a malpractice lawsuit against the Millinocket Regional Hospital and how a pregnant woman was awarded $1.8 million from the suit.

While the story is true, Im not sure what the intent of these mailings are. They seem to imply that the residents of the Millinocket area should stop using Millinocket Regional Hospital as our health care provider. It seems this person is an advocate for closing down one of the only health resources we have left here in an area that has been devastated by an economic downturn.

To have this facility available in a town of 4,500 people is incredible. Is this person really asking us to drive 45 minutes to an hour for our health care? What about emergency care? Now these mailings have implied that the quality of health care is reduced because of the fact that Millinocket Regional Hospital uses physician assistants instead of real doctors. If Millinocket Regional Hospital has made a financial decision to use physician assistants instead of doctors for emergency room care, and that decision helps keep the hospital open, Im OK with that.

To imply that they are any less professional or knowledgeable is flat out wrong. Of the many occasions Ive visited the emergency room, both personally and with my business, Ive never had anything but the best of care, been seen promptly and dealt with true professionals.

Dean Rodrigue

Millinocket

Im certain Maine State Chamber of Commerce President Dana Connors knows that because two things happen at the same time doesnt mean one caused the other. The reasons someone moves to one locale over another are varied and complicated and often have nothing to do with taxes.

People are supposedly abandoning Connecticut in droves because of a tax increase on high income earners. And he believes the same will happen in Maine if the Legislature recognizes the will of the people and leaves in place the 3 percent surtax on annual income above $200,000 to fund the states share of public education at the 55 percent level, as mandated by the voters many years ago.

Connors plays the economic development card in his June 26 BDN OpEd, hoping well believe we can have that as a state without adequate investments in education.

Fewer than 10 percent of small businesses will be impacted by the surtax. If I made $250,000 as a small-business owner, I will owe an additional $1,500.

The prosperity we experienced as a country in the 1900s was due in large part to the investments our parents and grandparents made in education, infrastructure, research and development.

Business owners should be applauded for their hard work and their willingness to take risks. And they need to acknowledge that their success is due, at least in part, to the collective investments weve all made in structures and systems that support our commerce and our democracy.

We get what we pay for. Just ask Kansas.

Mary Ann Larson

Portland

The similarity of Vladimir Putins and Donald Trumps personalities is remarkable and explains how each requires loyalty beyond anything else.

Putin surrounds himself with long-term, mostly business allies, and Trump, his family. Such is oligarchy. Within a constitutional democracy such as ours, Trump is a rat in the larder.

I have confidence that our system can right itself, and the first step is an exterminator such as Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The truth will come out, notwithstanding a parallel reality that is not real. Otherwise, two party representative democracy is on the pale.

Philip C. Groce

Union

Not using derogatory and offensive names for women, Jews, Roman Catholics, Irish, Native Americans, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Middle-Easterners isnt political correctness. Using respectful names is simply decent behavior.

But if thats what we call being PC, then I definitely take issue with William Duddys pronouncement in his June 24 BDN letter to the editor that multiculturalism and being PC are the worst things to have happened to the United States.

Being kinder and generous to different peoples is an excellent way for us all to be decent human beings to each other.

Joyce Cornwell

Lamoine

More:

Wednesday, June 28, 2017: Mueller will uncover the truth, 'political ... - Bangor Daily News

Highbrow Magazine

How the First Amendment Trumps Political Correctness Highbrow Magazine On Monday June 19, in the case of Matal v. Tam, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled yet again that the First Amendment trumps political correctness. This time, though, the circumstances were a bit unusual. Simon Tam, an Asian-American musician, founded ... The Slants: Is This the Beginning of the End for Political Correctness?Daily Business Review (registration) Opinion - Supreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States Rock band 'The Slants' takes on Supreme CourtUSA TODAY Bleacher Report -ACLU -Telegraph.co.uk all 112 news articles »

Original post:

How the First Amendment Trumps Political Correctness - Highbrow Magazine

Its a miracle I survived my childhood. I wonder how my parents could have been so neglectful and this exactly one week after we celebrated Fathers Day. Gasp. Roll eyes. Tsk. Tsk.

After reading the Dakota Estates news this week, one thing became abundantly clear Dakota Estates cares more for its residents than my parents did for their children. Dakota Estates residents played lawn darts, not to be confused with the lawn jarts we often played when I was a child. Seriously, any excuse my dad could manufacture, he pulled out the lawn jarts. Now I wonder if he was just trying to kill off a child. He had five of us. Wonder which one was expendable? Im betting on the youngest, my brother Tom.

Lawn darts are caricatured versions of a plastic bomb, while lawn jarts could never be mistaken for anything else, not with the sharp metal tip on one end so the jart could sink deep into the earth. Lawn jarts was fun, an evil form of horse shoes.

We played lawn jarts all the time, and lived to tell the tale. No one was injured or maimed. Not even a little scratch. I remember those deadly tournaments with fondness.

It was fun, during an era that posed other obvious safety hazards as children routinely drank from the hose. I remember eating carrots straight out of the vegetable garden without thought to pesticides or dirt. We didnt use Clorox wipes every 15 minutes in case an itinerant germ suddenly sprang out of the air with the speed of a President Trump tweet.

I survived childhood and rarely visited my childhood pediatrician Dr. Dooley, unless it was for stitches that resulted from a dare. I had a lot of stitches in my youth since recklessness and being foolhardy often walk hand-in-hand.

On one hand, I can appreciate that lawn darts are safer, but on the other, I dont like the way they bounce when tossed. Lawn jarts stuck, unless you missed and they skittered across the grass. I understand theres less likelihood of death when playing lawn darts, but I really do miss lawn jarts. Political correctness has its place in the world, but there is always a cost.

Go here to see the original:

There is always a cost for political correctness - Wahpeton Daily News

A whole lot of sound and fury has been made over political correctness. Its impossible to avoid talking about it, given its important role in the culture wars.

The old conservative yarn about political correctness is that its a leftist tool to suppress free speech. It accomplishes this by conditioning political discourse according to the constantly evolving rules and mercurial sensibilities of the left. This set-up skews the conversation from the outset in favor of the left. In this sense, political correctness has mostly been bad for the right so far.

Political correctness has doubtless played a major role in transforming our society according to the progressive program, and it continues to be the lefts major weapon in the culture wars. But how long can this advantage last?

Because of the fragile sensibilities of progressives, the culture wars have become, increasingly, a battle about speech rather than ideas. And this is starting to be bad for progressives. A tool that was meant to give them an edge is turning on them, and making them look out-of-touch and foolish.

The thing about odd speech is that it excites our amusement involuntarily. Lewis Carrolls Jabberwocky is funny because its all nonsense. There is something inherently funny about nonsensical bullshit.

When leftists butcher language to make reality conform to their ideas, the results are often ridiculous and difficult for outsiders to take seriously. SJW talk has been the butt of internet jokes for a while now, long enough to almost stop being funny altogether. Once upon a time, it was edgy and original to satirize the odd lingo popularized on Tumblr to describe confused young people who didnt receive enough attention from their parents growing up. There was something funny about those non-binary conforming non-GMO eating otherkin because the language seemed innocuous.

Its not funny anymore because it has become obvious that the left was never joking. Recently, Cambridge University tutors were told to stop using the word genius because of its sexist assumptions. Too often, genius has been used to describe brilliantly inventive men; therefore, the term genius is offensive to women.

To observers outside this strange bubble, this linguistic revisionism is pretentious, confusing, and simply ridiculous. It does nothing but push people away.

Political correctness is not new, but there is a growing feeling, not only on the right but outside the extreme-left campus bubble generally, that it didnt used to be this crazy. It only seems new because it has reached such an intensity of ridiculousness as to impress itself as something completely original. We are free-floating in a whole new world of linguistic and logical possibilities. In this world, it is possible at one and the same time to be a radical feminist and a devout Muslim; race is a social construct, but whites are inherently guilty for past injustices; and cisgendered people, the normative group, are expected to treat transgendered people like the new normative group. Most people identify with their biological sex, so it goes without saying that most people would balk at being prompted to give their preferred gender pronoun. Only in the vacuum-sealed world of academia could a question like this make any sense.

This system of ideas, if it can be called that, has no internal logic because it is not based on time-honored common sense. We have become unmoored from the traditions that Westerners accepted for generations to make sense of the world, and in doing so, we have discarded common sense.

The left has become reliant on political correctness to conceal the illogic of this system. Open dialogue is threatening to the left because it risks exposing their ideology as illogical and indefensible.

Outside the campus leftist bubble, people in the real world arent taken in by this Panglossian junk.

All it does is hurt the left in the end. Jon Ossoffs electoral loss has demonstrated better than any recent election could that the left needs to rethink how it reaches the electorate. A platform based on political correctness and antipathy towards the President wont do.

Worse, political correctness brings down political discourse by making it all about speech and feelings rather than ideas. Part of having a productive conversation is having clear ideas. Every philosophy undergrad knows this. How is it even possible to have a productive discussion when the ideas arent at the forefront of the discussion? When the terms to signify those ideas are constantly evolving?

Political correctness has been helpful to the left so far, but it will only hurt the progressive cause in the long run. If progressives dropped the language games, the constant speech policing, and the histrionic hurt parades, they might well lose some support, initially. But if they want to stay in touch with the electorate, they will have to, at some point, reflect, develop a better strategy for reaching people, and come down to earth. Maybe, then, theyll start winning again.

Original post:

Political Correctness Presents A Challenge For Progressives - The Daily Caller

It had never occurred to me to think Asian if I see the word slant until I read the June 20 article in the Peninsula Daily News, High Court Strikes Down Part Of Trademark Law Over Speech.

If some members of the band the Slants are of Asian ancestry and are comfortable with the name for business sake, it is their right.

Political correctness has gotten out of hand.

When I hear [Washington] Redskins, I think football.

However, this is a great reminder for students to study the history books to find out how the name came about as it pertains to Native Americans.

In my opinion, it is not derogatory.

It is a word that has been used to describe a part of history.

The list could go on:

The Oakland Raiders use the logo of a pirate with a patch over one eye.

Is this offensive to folks with sight challenges?

Those who look for fault in everything around them should take time to work in the yard and enjoy the beautiful landscaping nature has provided or volunteer in an organization that assists others in need.

Thank you, Peninsula Daily News, for keeping us informed.

Now, lets take on the day.

Linda Hindes,

Sequim

Read more:

LETTER: Political correctness has gotten way out of hand - Peninsula Daily News

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) presided over a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses. In his opening remarks, Grassley cited several recent concerning incidents on college campuses and expressed concern that on too many campuses today, free speech appears to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.

Grassley cited a requirement At Kellogg Community College for prior approval for speech in public forums, a two-fold violation of the First Amendment, adding that amazingly, students there were arrested for distributing copies of the United States Constitution. Their lawsuit against the college and against its administrators in their personal capacity is pending.

He said that many students erroneously think that speech that they consider hateful is violent, but some students engage in acts of violence against speech, and universities have failed to prevent or adequately punish that violence.

He cited the instances of safety concerns over mob violence at the University of California Berkeley which the university failed to control that prevented invited speakers Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter from speaking.

Grassley emphasized that the First Amendment is clear. The Supreme Court has decided that offensive speech is protected, that speech cannot be restricted based on viewpoint, that public forums must be places where free speech rights can be exercised, and that prior restraints on speech are highly disfavored. Otherwise, any speech that anyone found offensive could be suppressed. Little free speech would survive.

This point was reaffirmed Monday when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Asian-American bad named The Slants being able to trademark the term because of free speech despite the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office finding it to be offensive.

Many administrators believe that students should be shielded from hate speech, whatever that is, as an exception to the First Amendment, Grassley said. Unfortunately, this censorship is no different from any other examples in history, when speech that authorities deemed to be heretical has been suppressed based on its content.

Grassley also cited a recent Gallup poll which found that students by a 69-31 margin believe that it is desirable to restrict the use of slurs and other language intentionally offensive to certain groups.

Our democracy depends on the ability to try to advocate to inform or to change minds, he emphasized. When universities suppress speech, they not only damage freedom today, they establish and push norms harmful to democracy going forward. These restrictions may cause and exacerbate the political polarization that is so widely lamented in our society.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), thought that for speeches that inspire violent protest maybe universities should be steeped in and have the ability financially to really develop the kind of intelligence you need and the kind of policing that you need at some of these events.

I think our efforts would be much better finding methodologies to handle those incidents, she explained, pointing out that many universities are dealing with real safety concerns that they do not have the resources to address.

Its not a simple matter when demonstrations become violent, she emphasized.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointed out that on many campuses You see violent protests enacting effectively a hecklers veto where violent thugs come in and say this particular speaker, I disagree with what he or she has to say. And therefore, I will threaten physical violence if the speech is allowed to happen.

Cruz added that far too many colleges and universities quietly roll over and say okay the threat of violence we will effectively reward the violent criminals and muzzle the First Amendment.

Peach State Beatdown: Can Handel Survive Ossoff Insurgency in GA-06?;UPDATE: Handel Beats Ossoff

View original post here:

Sen. Grassley: On Many Campuses Free Speech Is Sacrificed at the Altar of Political Correctness - Townhall

WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of a law that bans offensive trademarks in a ruling that is expected to help the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name.

The justices ruled that the 71-year-old trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes free speech rights.

The ruling is a victory for the Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but the case was closely watched for the impact it would have on the separate dispute involving the Washington football team.

Slants founder Simon Tam tried to trademark the band name in 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the request on the ground that it disparages Asians. A federal appeals court in Washington later said the law barring offensive trademarks is unconstitutional.

The Redskins made similar arguments after the trademark office ruled in 2014 that the name offends American Indians and canceled the teams trademark. A federal appeals court in Richmond put the teams case on hold while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in the Slants case.

In his opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito rejected arguments that trademarks are government speech, not private speech. Alito also said trademarks are not immune from First Amendment protection as part of a government program or subsidy.

Tam insisted he was not trying to be offensive, but wanted to transform a derisive term into a statement of pride. The Redskins also contend their name honors American Indians, but the team has faced decades of legal challenges from Indian groups that say the name is racist.

Despite intense public pressure to change the name, Redskins owner Dan Snyder has refused, saying it represents honor, respect and pride.

In the Slants case, government officials argued that the law did not infringe on free speech rights because the band was still free to use the name even without trademark protection. The same is true for the Redskins, but the team did not want to lose the legal protections that go along with a registered trademark. The protections include blocking the sale of counterfeit merchandise, and working to pursue a brand development strategy.

A federal appeals court had sided with the Slants in 2015, saying First Amendment protects even hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities.

2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

-

This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rating: 9.7/10 (3 votes cast)

Read more here:

Supreme Court: Freedom of speech wins; political correctness loses - GOPUSA

Nolan Kelly left New York for two weeks to unveil all the contradictions of Cannes film festival. In a time of political correctness and reality-star presidencies, he writes, the politics of art seems more important than ever.

In recent years, Europe has received a reputation for exclusivity. The small continent is broadcasted to the rest of the world as being full of sleepy countrysides, aided by the tranquility of welfare, a rustic idyll that comes at a steep price.

For many Americans, its become more tempting than ever to reach out to expatriate friends or distant relatives in search of a vacation or exit. But this pressure is insignificant compared to the thousands migrating from Africa or the Middle East in search of asylum or prosperity. The recent refugee crisis has led everyone to feel that Europe is too small or to set in their ways to accommodate the rest of the world. As time goes on, the clump of nations seems to only get smaller, and harder to reach. If you can pinpoint the zenith of this process, the genesis of our idyllic image, it would likely be the French Riviera in springtime, at an event which this year celebrated its 70th anniversary.

For two weeks, the Cannes Film Festival transforms the sleepy little beach town into its own kind of life raft, where prosperity and opulence await absolutely anyone who can find a way onboard. There are three things which set the experience apart from all others. The first is its prestige it remains the highest honor for selection and awards of any film festival on Earth. Next is its market; Cannes is one of the only festivals which fosters the buying and selling of film in its official capacity. And the third and most important is its closed nature those who manage to get a festival pass and decent formal attire have the feeling of nearly complete access, but passes arent sold to the public, and to get one you have to demonstrate some connection to the entertainment industry. This makes festival passes, in some sense, priceless.

The American Pavilion offers one of the more interesting ways to climb aboard. Culinary, film, or hospitality students can all apply to intern and work at or through the pavilion, a large tent situated on the beach behind the main theater, which acts as the United States main cultural hub. The internship is expensive, and essentially means paying to work a likely menial job, anything from serving industry execs coffee to washing down Harvey Weinsteins yacht. The Cannes pass makes this all worthwhile.

It just so happened that Cannes was my first stop on my very first trip to Europe. I left New York City the day after finishing my freshman year of college at The New School. In the whirlwind of finals and packing, I didnt have a lot of time to take this in, but I was sure of one thing: my first impressions of this new place would be Europe at its most presentable, most excessive, and most gilded. The young, scrappy, and hungry spend their time dreaming of Riviera nights; entry isnt usually granted until they make something out of it. I had been given what felt like a free trial, and a chance to figure out the proper way in. It was easy enough to consider myself an outsider, at least Id have a front row seat to study how the insiders operate.

The beautiful thing about Cannes, I soon realized, is that no one is allowed to attend without embracing a few contradictions. This is perhaps the truest remnant of the founders intentions to create a truly international film festival.

The first thing I noticed that didnt meet my expectations going into the program was the collaboration between the East and West. Cannes is the international film festival of recognition, yes, but I had been primed by the American Pavilion to see the coming weeks as a Hollywood invasion of the Riviera. This was true only compared to the traditional standards of French country life, and though Cannes was both glitzy and gossipy, it was refreshing as a film student to see a celebration of film that wasnt overrun by the L.A. County crowd. In fact, it seemed, the diverse and inclusive world of the film simply met in the middle, and threw themselves a party.

Its true that American standbys such as Jessica Chastain and Will Smith were on the jury, and Barry Jenkins secured a spot as head judge of shorts just months after his film Moonlight won the best picture at the Academy Awards, but these people were just some of the crowd that was in charge of enshrining and judging the official selections. This is the first platform Id ever encountered where foreign films are given the same criterion of judgment as English-language, rather than a single category of recognition, like at the Oscars. It has everything to do with the fact that American films are foreign-language here. And power rests squarely in the hands of the many.

For example, Pedro Almodovar, the head of this years jury, is a Spanish filmmaker who garners international respect from film critics. I had the pleasure of meeting Almodovar in person one night as he was walking down La Croisette at around 9 pm, surrounded by a few plainclothes security guards, iconic yellow sunglasses in hand.

Here was perhaps the most important man in town taking an evening stroll, unrecognized by the constituents that praised him. I was able to thank him for his work and shake his hand without arousing the suspicion of any photographers dining nearby. Here, the scope of quality is so wide that theres a place for anyone, and from this, a coexistence emerges.

Of course, a big part of this is that many, if not most of the people with a festival badge, are what I refer to as the carnivorous industries to film. Cinema was the first art form in which oodles of money were to be reliably made, in which a right movie at the right time could culturally polarize the world, and whole professions of sellers, buyers, promoters, and photographers have emerged just trying to absorb and capitalize on that blow.

It wasnt until I arrived at Cannes that I realized this relationship to the art of the movie is not parasitic but symbiotic. Ive been watching movies since childhood in awe of their artistic vision but never asking how it was that they arrived at a screen near me. The idea that genius begets greatness is as backward as believing rain follows the plow, and only at film festivals does one see the thunderstorm of creativity meet its lightning rod. Often there are masters of their craft who go unrecognized and unutilized out of a lack of connection with the right publicist, producer, or distribution agent.

One night at Cannes I had the pleasure of watching Wind River, a gripping true crime thriller by Taylor Sheridan, a rising star actor and screenwriter making his directorial debut at Un Certain Regard. Sheridan had partnered with The Weinstein Company for his production, and at the screening, Harvey Weinstein was the first one in the theater and the last one out.

Before the film started he was talking on the phone and holding an ice pack to his knee, looking not unlike a mobster whod just offed a guy. It took me a while to realize that when the films leads. Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olson, received their standing ovations upon walking in, people were really clapping for Weinstein; he was the one who had provided the star power and gotten them in the room. The ovation at the end, too, had a double meaning: a feather in the cap of Sheridan but a progress report for Weinstein. He was capitalizing on his investment. Running into a few of my friends at the theaters exit, he asked the Millennials, So you liked it? You didnt fall asleep? But he already knew the answer. To him, this was all business.

That side of Cannes is important, if only because it gives the artists the prestige, money, and attention to make their work count. Here, film buffs and business execs sit side by side watching the same movies with two very different sets of eyes. Like the red-and-blue lenses in 3D glasses, it is only this combination of vision that allows the movie to really be seen.

This fusion also generates the political specter of Cannes, of which I have quite a lot of ambivalence. In a time of political correctness and reality-star presidencies, the politics of art seems more important, or at least more distracting, than ever. This is truer nowhere else than on film, where the tedious tendency emerges for the powerful to portray the meek. In Hollywood, a peculiar kind of armchair activism emerges from this, and the question of empathys ability to cross socioeconomic boundaries comes into play. Many of the best movies in the competition had strong political allegiance:

In Hollywood, a peculiar kind of armchair activism emerges from this, and the question of empathys ability to cross socioeconomic boundaries comes into play. Many of the best movies in the competition had strong political allegiance: Okja vs. GMOs and the meat industry, 120 Beats per Minute celebrating gay rights, The Beguiled as a feminist retelling of an originally misogynist movie. And yet I found myself watching three films in three days which graphically depicted rape scenes (Wind River, Okja, and the Cannes Classic restoration of The Ballad of Narayama (1983), each with a unique level of political awareness and validity all to be outdone and outvoiced by Lynne Ramseys You Were Never Really Here).

Jessica Chastain, at the end of the festival, stated This is the first time I watched 20 films in 10 days, and what I really took away from this experience is how the world views women. It was quite disturbing to me. She noted, of female characters, They just dont react to the men around them. They have their own point-of-view. This chiding is applicable to any number of Official Selection films, all but three of which were directed by men. And besides two South Korean and Japanese screenings, all directors

This chiding is applicable to any number of Official Selection films, all but three of which were directed by men. And besides two South Korean and Japanese screenings, all directors were white and made movies starring white actors, the kind of small-minded selection which got the Oscars roundly and justifiably criticized two years ago.

I came to the French Riviera to watch movies about the most passive thing you can possibly do. But I wasnt expecting the emotional and intellectual challenge of a dealing with a diverse community promoting, selling, and generating narratives both deeply personal and globally significant. The beauty of Cannes is that this challenge is extended to all of the salespeople, filmmakers and movie stars who join in on this two-week voyage into the frontier.

No one can come and go with their frame of reference intact, and in todays world of polarization and echo chambers, thats what makes the Cannes Film Festival an experience worth having. Its art at its most reverential.

Read also:EXCLUSIVE Movie Star Marion Cotillard For The Pavlovic Today: You Have To Stay Strong In Front Of People Who Want To Destroy Your Life

See the original post here:

In A Time Of Political Correctness, The Politics Of Art Is More Important Than Ever - The Pavlovic Today

A photo recently posted on Facebook showed a white family of four with the caption, "Only white people can be racist."

As a white, 74-year-old male, I lived through the turbulent 1960s in inner city Philadelphia but did not encounter the white-on-black racism captioned in this Facebook photo. Ethnic slurs against people of different nationalities were more the norm than racial slurs against blacks, in my experience.

I played in the Sonny Hill Basketball League in the late 1950s and early 60s. The league was formed by Sonny Hill, a local mentor who offered inner city youth, predominately black, a place to develop character and skill sets that applied to both basketball and life. At no time were any of the players who participated in this league, black or white, subjected to ethnic or racial slurs. There was mutual respect among all players as engendered by the coaches, and leadership that benefited all.

Which is why I cannot understand the need for today's blacks to denigrate themselves with the use of the "n" word in daily conversation, music lyrics, etc. while vilifying a white person's use of the same word. It shouldn't be a part of our lexicon at all.

We see how Confederate-era statues are being removed from prominence throughout the South in an effort to remove the palpable "hate" felt by their presence. Yet the racial tensions that were present during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s seem much more volatile today. One would have thought the election of the first black president would have done much to positively empower the black community to aspire to greater things. Unfortunately, the opposite seems true. The destruction of black communities is not being done by whites. But the media would have the general populace believe otherwise.

We are a nation of immigrants, arriving at different times and under different circumstances, but we should all want to be Americans ... without hyphenation. It's that "hyphen" that divides us unnecessarily, both racially and ethnically. I am of Italian descent, but I do not refer to myself as an Italian-American, just an American. My grandfather came here with his family to become Americans. He suffered ethnic slurs, as did his children and grandchildren, but we were undaunted in our pursuit of the American dream for our family through assimilation.

My children, however, were raised as I was, to be Americans, to be accepting of all races and ethnicities. Political correctness is not a necessary component in our lives. The PC culture has done more to divide this country along racial/ethnic lines than anything else. I believe that as long as we adhere to the PC mindset, we as a country will remain divided.

Leonard Vigna

Warminster

Read the original post:

Political correctness divides the country - The Intelligencer