Category Archives: Political Correctness

During Indias Independence movement, there was much admiration for ancient India, emphasising the continuity of India as a country and a dharmic civilisation. From Swami Vivekanandas Yoga-Vedanta revival, to Lokmanya Tilaks back to the Gita message, to Sri Aurobindo and his honouring of the Vedas, to the Ram Rajya ideal that extended to Mahatma Gandhi, this respect for Indias past was prominent and proud. Images of Bharata Mata, and songs like Vande Mataram expressed such inspiration. The founders of Indias constitution emphasised India as Bharat to show an identity between older and modern India, with no division between the two.

However, after Indias independence occurred, leftists and Marxists, including members of the Communist Party, rewrote the countrys history books. Like leftists everywhere, they deconstructed Indias history and rejected the native religion and culture of the land. They reduced Hinduism to disparate cults and Bharatiya civilisation to a modern myth not reflecting any historical reality. For them, India as a nation was mainly a product of the British and the Mughals that took shape only under Nehru.

In their accounts of history, they turned Islamic invaders, intent on converting the country by force, into secular leaders with a progressive outlook. They gave credence to the British and colonial rule as benefitting the country and its peoples.

New Views Of History

Recently Shashi Tharoor wrote a brilliant book exposing the crimes of the British in India. The British created a colonial narrative that they helped modernise and liberalise India, while in fact they allowed millions to die in famines, engaged in regular brutal atrocities, and suppressed traditional education, learning and culture.

However, similar books as Shashi Tharoors exposing British rule in India as tyrannical could also be written about the Mughals and other Islamic invaders. Mughal rule commonly practised genocide of Hindus and destruction of temples, not merely by Aurangzeb. Such studies could be made on Tamerlanes genocide of north India and on the older Delhi Sultanate overall notably Alauddin Khilji, who pillaged India north and south. They could be written on many Islamic invaders and rulers in India over the centuries, some of whom are portrayed as heroes in Indian history books today. But most scholars would not dare conduct such research, as political motives override their willingness to tell the truth.

Some scholars have said that these atrocities, even if true, should not be highlighted today because it may cause discrimination against current Muslims in India who had nothing to do with the brutalities of centuries ago. Yet one could just as well say that Tharoor should not have criticised the British as it might cause discrimination against Christians and hatred of westerners in India today.

Yet history should not be denied, even if unpleasant. The history of the Nazis is not denied to protect the sensitivities of Germans or Europeans today. In addition, it should be noted that Pakistan history books glorify these attacks on India as religiously inspired and their leaders as religious heroes, with Hinduism as degenerate, and India without any great pre-Islamic civilisation.

Enter Bollywood Into Historical Debates

Meanwhile, Bollywood has taken up the cause of rewriting Indias history in a way that whitewashes or glorifies the invaders, even turning them into romantic literary figures. Whatever the reasons behind these depictions, they distort history and demean the fierce resistance demonstrated against such attacks. Indias resistance to foreign rule and religious conversion goes back to the eighth century, and is not just a fact of the British era.

The Vijayanagar Empire pushed the Delhi Sultanate of Khilji back from the South, and the Marathas defeated the Mughal empire centuries later. Yet, little is portrayed in a positive light about their courageous efforts.

Similar Religious Wars In Europe

Some scholars go so far to say that the Mughals were secular because they had Hindus in their armies that they fought against other Muslims, and that Hindus were also fighting among each other, so religion should not be made into the main motive of their wars. Let us compare this situation to what was happening in Europe at the same time.

When Turkish armies were at the gates of Vienna in the seventeenth century, boasting that they would make Europe Islamic, and the Christian armies, with the support of the Pope were fighting on the other side, there were also some Christians among the Islamic armies and some Muslims among the Christian armies, and the French were attacking the same Holy Roman Empires to the west for their own local advantage. But all this was secondary to the real battle. One cannot doubt that conversion was the prime focus and it was a religious war.

Need For New Historical Research

Today when scholars try to expose the brutality of Muslim rule, they are judged as politically incorrect, biased or uninformed. But the criticism against them is mainly polemical and personal, distorting or ignoring the actual facts that are to the contrary.

Why does this distortion of history occur? Because it is advantageous to certain political persuasions in India in promoting divisive vote bank politics. It is not a matter of historical accuracy, but a drive for power and a lack of regard for Indias dharmic civilisation. This deception must be thoroughly exposed, not to target one group or another, but to reveal the truth. When the truth of history is denied, the future is also put at risk.

Here is the original post:

When Will They Purge Indian History Of Political Correctness And Teach Us As It Is? - Swarajya

Political Correctness. PC. The right has wielded that phrase going on three decades now, and popular vote loser Donald Trump made it a major part of his presidential campaign. They claim that PC shuts down certain ideas and elevates others based on how they make people feel, rather than the actual truth. And theres no better way to describe the Trump Administrations approach to terrorism and Islam thus far.

Lets start with the ban on all nationals from seven Muslim countries (but not the ones with whom Trump does significant business) entering the U.S., and the blocking of all Syrian refugees from our shores. The fact that this policy violates basic morality and some of our core values as a nation is a vitally important reason why many of us oppose it, but lets leave that aside for a moment. Lets examine the truth about its necessity and effectiveness.Guess how many people have died on our territory in an attack carried out by someone from one of those seven countries since 9/11?Zero. How about since 1975? Also zero.

But thats not all Trump has been up to. On Thursday, sources indicated that the new Administration plans to radically alter the Countering Violent Extremism program initiated under President Obama. Currently, the program works to combat violent extremism, i.e., terrorism, in the U.S., no matter what the underlying ideology. Regarding Muslims, CVE encourages community groups to work together with the government.

Trumps new plan? He wants to limit the programs focus to Islam, and change the name to either Countering Islamic Extremism or Countering Radical Islamic Extremism. What about white supremacist killers, or terrorists who murder Muslims while they pray? Apparently, theres no need for a federal effort to counter them any longer. Furthermore, does anyone think this change will make American Muslimsthe overwhelming majority of whom reject terrorist violencejust a wee bit wary of joining hands with a program, not to mention a government, that targets their faith specifically?

We have some evidence on that front already. One group, Leaders Advancing & Helping Communities, just decided to turn down a CVE grant they won because of the current political climate and cause for concern. And they arent the only ones. Its definitely a cause for concern if Muslim American groups feel alienated by Trumps counterproductive policies.

So why did Trump enact these measures, in particular given that numerous experts believe they will weaken, not strengthen, our national security? Feelings. Nothing more than ...sorry. Trump, and many other Republicans, have long sought to fire up their base with charges that, for example, President Obama wouldnt use the words radical Islam when talking about terrorist acts committed by Muslims. That was 100 percent about politics, about playing on fear to gin up anger.

Obama, like George W. Bush before him, made a sober, strategic assessment that not saying those words would make us safer, stronger, and help us in the fight against ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups acting in the name of Islam. Would you like to know who else agrees with Obama and Bush, and thinks Trump is just plain wrong? Vladimir Putin:

Putin is an authoritarian thug, to be sure. I am loathe to cite him for, well, anything. The point is that if he, Bush, and Obama all agree on which approach works best on this issue, that says something. What it says is that Trumpno doubt influenced by his own personal Rasputin, i.e., Steve Bannon, is pursuing a policy that makes the American people less safe. Hes doing so because it makes a segment of his base feel good, feel like they are the ones whose ideas are in charge. Its nothing more than right-wing political correctness.

Along similar lines, Judge James Robarts order that blocked Trumps travel ban gave him another opportunity to play to the emotions of his base. He attacked the judge, and thus the constitutional principle of an independent judiciary, in incendiary terms. The clear message hes able to send is that he wants to keep you safe, but the establishment just wont let him.

If Democrats want to beat Trump, its not enough to talk only about the fact that his policies are immoralas important as that is. People are scared of terrorism, specifically coming from Muslims, especially after San Bernadino and Orlando. From the perspective of political strategy, to deny that reality is unhelpful to say the least. We must talk about morality and American values, but we also have to talk about effectiveness.

Like it or not, there are Americans who are willing to sacrifice their morality for their safety. We can convince them that Trump is making them and their loved ones less safe by targeting Muslims with his policies, and that hes doing so in a cynical way to appeal to their fears and win their votes. In a close election, that could make the difference between a one-term failed Trump presidency that discredits everything he stands for, and a re-election that is painful to even contemplate.

More:

Trump's Right-wing Political Correctness Makes Us Less Safe - Huffington Post

Here we go again. People are getting offended over some little TV seriesand even threatening to boycott not only the show, but Netflix, the platform that serves it.

But its not the usual suspects getting triggered over slights to their perceived notions of political correctness. Its not the social justice warriors outraged over lack of diversity, cultural appropriation or past crimes of the director.

No, its white conservatives. The same people who mock and deridepolitical correctness. The same people who claim that broad labels like sexist and racist hamper the free speech of creatorsof entertainment to explore controversial ideas. Now they are the ones peddling their own rightwing version of political correctness to shut down a TV show they do not fully understand.

Netflixs upcoming series Dear White People has created a furor online among some right wingers, even spawning the hashtag BoycottNetflix. Some on Twitter are even claiming they will cancel their subscriptions based on this slight to the white race.

Rightwing influencers like Mark Dice and Paul Joseph Watson are calling the show anti-white and praising the massive amounts of dislikes the promo trailer is receiving on YouTube.

The trailer is certainly transgressive, almost like it was designed to offend some on the right. Does that sound familiar? These are the same people who say that provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos speech, which is also designed to offend, should not be silenced by the left. But by encouraging this boycott they are essentially doing the same thing to this Netflix series.

Part of being against political correctness is having a thick skin. Its not allowing broad, knee-jerk labels to influence your thinking on pop culture. To encourage controversial art that may offend. To promote free speech in the face of those who wish to silence it. These right wingers dont believe in free speech, only free speech they find politically correct.

The hilarious part of Dear White People, is that its not even as controversial or anti-white as these boycotters think it is.

The series is based on a 2014 film of the same name. The longer trailer for the movie paints a completely different picture than the Netflix promo.

In the trailer, its clear the filmis a satirical take on race relations in America. It takes on white peoples lack of empathy for the experiences of black people, but also seeks to challenge the protagonists anger and bitterness over racial injustice, which only hampers her personal relationships with both black and white people.

And spoiler alert: the film ends with the main character, Samantha, entering into an interracial relationship with a white guy and learning to put aside her resentment of white people as a whole. Thats not controversial, thats just a movie taking on controversial subjects.

But even if the film or series did not have such a universalist message, and perhaps kept its edginess right to the end, should people be trying to silence it? Hell no. Least of all those who claim to be fighting against political correctness and censorship.

All these people are doing is fighting back against identity politics with more identity politics. The identity politics of white men. This should be a sinister signto anyone in the free speech, anti-political correctness camp, who dreams of a post-racial world where everyone can be seen simply as humans. These people are not working towards that goal, they are simply propping up a special interest group for white people.

Follow me on Twitter @William__Hicks

See the original post:

Netflix Boycott Over 'Dear White People' Is Right-Wing Political Correctness in Action - Heat Street

The Rev. Peter West, pastor of St. Johns Catholic Church in Orange, New Jersey, will soon have quite the following on social media once America catches on to his not so politically correct liberal bashing that includes more than a little humor.

beginning with hisTwitter profile: Im a Catholic Priest at St. Johns Church and a Russian agent personally assigned by Vladmir Putin to stop Hillary Clinton.

West, a big supporter of President Donald Trump, doesnt hesitate to take on liberals and their revered institutions, like Planned Parenthood, on Twitter and Facebookwhere hes already amassed 7,300 followers, according to NJ.com.

Renewed calls to get rid of Fox News Shepard Smith after hes unable to control his contempt for Trump

The priest even takes on Islamic extremism, calling moderate Islam a myth while supporting Trumps executive order on immigration and refugees, NJ.com reported.

More from the NJ.com on the clergymans political bomb-throwing, as characterized by the author:

Westhas assailed millennials as snowflakes who attend cry-ins and described liberals as smug and arrogant people who find solace in puppies and Play-Doh.

He has called Hillary Clinton an evil witch and former President Barack Obama a bum, at one point sharing a post that challenged Obamas authenticity as an African-American because he wasnt raised by a poor single mother in the inner city.

In response to the charge of calling liberals snowflakes, West offered up a defense of sorts on Facebook.

I never called all millennials snowflakes I have great respect for family, friends and especially members of our military who are millennials, he wrote.

Now theyre deporting her: NY Times piece stirs seismic reaction on Twitter, but not a lot of sympathy

However old you are, if as an adult you demand a safe space where you wont hear opinions contrary to yours, you are a snowflake, especially on a university campus where there should be debate and a free exchange of ideas.

How can you not love this man?

Here are a few samplings from Wests Twitter feed:

Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review.

Read the original:

Pro-Trump priest casts political correctness aside and creates quite ... - BizPac Review

5471872

Federalism is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Every violation of state sovereignty by Federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans. (2016 GOP Platform)

In a stunning moment on the Senate floor, Sen. Elizabeth Warren clashed with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday night after McConnell determined the Massachusetts Democrat had violated a Senate rule against impugning another senator. In an extremely rare rebuke, she was instructed by the presiding officer to take her seat. Tuesday nights rule means Warren will be barred from speaking on the floor until Sessions debate ends, McConnells office confirmed. (Warren cut off during Sessions debate)

On matters of moral and political principle, and on almost every critical policy issue I can recollect, I stand diametrically opposed to Senator Elizabeth Warren. But I felt outrage when I read the above quoted report. I felt outrage because Senator Mitch McConnell prevented the duly elected representative of the State of Massachusetts from freely speaking as such. I felt outrage that any Senator would be barred from exercising freedom of speech during formal debate, in order to offer relevant evidence in support of her position on the Sessions nomination, or any other issue. Especially when speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, U.S. Senators do not speak as individuals. They speak for the governments and people of the States they respectively represent.

It ought to go without saying that they must do so in accordance with their own conscientious assessment of what the good of their State, and the United States requires. Now, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that No state shalldeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. When her speech was cut off, Senator Warren was reading into the record a 1986 letter, relevant to this Constitutional requirement. In it Martin Luther Kings widow, Coretta Scott King, expressed her opposition to Sessions nomination to be a Federal judge. In it King said:

I write to express my sincere opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office asUnited States Attorneyto intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship.

I would not presume to dispute the fact that this letter communicated Coretta Kings sincerely held views. Given the checkered reality of our countrys history with respect to racial attitudes and relations, (particularly in states where racial discrimination and segregation were once enforced by law) I would not presume to impugn her motives for writing as she did. But as a Christian, who believes people can and should repent, I also believe that when good fruit proves their repentance to be sincere, they should be forgiven. Accordingly, the proper answer to Coretta Scott Kings letter is not to silence Elizabeth Warrens effort to use it as evidence for her views of Senator Sessions record. It is to answer her speech with evidence that, as Attorney General, Senator Sessions will fulfill the Constitutions demand that no person be denied the equal protection of the law.

This is a reasonable thing to expect from the person who will, if confirmed, be responsible for overseeing, the Federal governments law enforcement activities, on the Presidents behalf. I respect Coretta Kings sincerity. But I also respect sincere testimony from others that, like our people as a whole, Senator Sessions has risen to the challenge of our nations now broadly accepted determination to make the ideal of equal justice for all a reality. Thats among the reasons I support confirming him as Attorney General.

But the action of the GOP majority in this instance is like a high-handed ruling from the bench in a court of law, to prevent testimony about conduct that bears on the issue being tried. It is an act of Party tyranny; no more acceptable than the judicial tyranny the vast majority of GOPs constituents deplore. Moreover, it shows little respect for Senator Sessions judgment, courage and good faith in allowing himself to be nominated for the position of Attorney General. He knew that his record would be discussed and examined, in light of the Constitutions relevant requirements. He did not shrink from the test.

From what I know of him, he must deplore his colleagues no doubt well-meant but truly misguided attempts to suppress criticism, rather than frankly rebut it. Otherwise, we would have to fear that, as Attorney General, he would seek to suppress dissenting speech, by force of law, instead of defending the freedom of speech, while competently rebutting its content, as appropriate. I would not be surprised to see him speak out, on Constitutional grounds, against suppressing one of the voices the people of Massachusetts have chosen to speak for their state in Congress.

Such majority tyranny, enacted to suppress the duly authorized voice of any State, is an egregious and damaging blow against federalism. Moreover, if the representatives of the states, in Congress assembled, do not have the freedom to cite in debate, relevant testimony supportive of their views, doesnt this contravention of their freedom also portend the very assault on the liberties of individual Americans, the GOPs 2017 platform decries? Doesnt it exemplify the politically stultifying culture of political correctness, extending it into the very heart of political deliberations on which the whole safety, welfare and integrity of our self-government as a people depends?

The GOPs Senate leadership should have let Warren speak. It is for the people of Massachusetts to silence her voice in the Senate, if they will. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate should display the self-disciplined restraint so many Americans have had to show throughout our history. Their sacrifices in this countrys battles proved their dedication to the often-repeated sentiment rightly expressed with the words: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your freedom to say it. During his service in the U.S. Armed Forces, my own father did so, in WWII and during the Korean War. He put his life on the line, for a country in which the nations laws still spoke in wrongful derogation of his God-endowed human worth. Is our nations government now so crippled by partisan passion that those in Congress, sworn to the goal of securing the blessings of liberty, no longer have the self-possession liberty requires? Pray God this is not so; and that the U.S. Senates leadership will reverse the action by which they have called for action that suggests that it is.

Continue reading here:

Foregoing Political Correctness, The Senate Should Have Let Warren Speak - Daily Caller

Dear Griffin,I am glad that you took the time to learn about feminism and use your privilege to promote its ideas. I also think its good for people in positions of power to ask marginalized groups about the challenges they face in order to form a more empathetic worldview. However, your op-ed sees political correctness as an obstruction to education as though by being politically correct, we cannot understand people who are different from us. I believe your view on this matter is inconsiderate at best and destructive at worst.

Political correctness is not a means of degrading people of your social status. It is a basic component of the respectful discourse you appear to advocate. It also has nothing to do with you being called out for mansplaining. Having seen some of your Facebook posts, I believe that you were actually being a helpful ally in the way you approached the prompt why we need feminism. However, your response to women being upset should not have been to quit publicly advocating for womens rights. It should have been to continue a conversation with them about why they, the people whose rights you claim to value, feel patronized. Maybe you would have learned something from them, or maybe they would have seen that you are helping their cause.

Ignoring political correctness is dangerous. It means ignoring the history that contributes to oppression today. For years, marginalized groups have been forced to conform to the language and etiquette that make those in power comfortable. Black Americans were told to address white people using Yes maam/sir for years while they were not treated with the same dignity. Just because your safety doesnt depend on using culturally correct language, it doesnt make it any less important that you use the right terms for others.Richard Wright, who was once beaten for forgetting to address a white man as sir, said, I had to keep remembering what others took for granted; I had to think out what others felt. You may believe that you are doing your best to think out what others feel, but you have misidentified what the real implications of your words are. Your friend was appalled by your comment about they/them/their pronouns because it wasnt a respectful inquiry into genderqueer identity, but rather a thoughtless comment that does not consider the challenges faced by the trans community. Sure its grammatically incorrect to use plural words to refer to one individual, but that linguistic issue pales in comparison to the fight for recognition that trans people face.

A better way to voice your discomfort around pronouns would be to ask, Why do certain people use they/them/their when its not proper grammar? or to look it up on the thousands of great websites specifically created to educate the public. Otherwise, you risk being one of countless examples of cis, white, straight, upperclass men valuing their comfort over a marginalized persons struggle for equality.

I understand that your feelings were hurt, and yes, it is important to treat one another with kindness and respect. Attacking people for lacking knowledge about an issue is not only ineffective, but disrespectful. However, disregarding political correctness does nothing to advance social justice conversations. It actually damages them. This isnt part of some mass liberal agenda. Its part of human rights, specifically the right to live outside the shadow of oppression.

I dont believe your identity devalues your thoughts about gender or any other matter, as that would run counter to the ideals of equality and free speech. However, it should give you reason to think about how your ideas will be received, in contrast to those held by marginalized people. You say youve left a conversation about gender feeling scorned and uneducated, but youve probably never left one feeling unloved by your family, as so many trans people have.

Youre right we should talk about what makes us different. These are tough conversations and feelings will get hurt, but maybe you can put aside your guilt long enough to realize that, when it comes to advancing social justice, we need to be listening to the grievances of oppressed peoples first and our own discomfort second.

I think we owe our fellow humans that much.

Sincerely,

Vahni KurraA fellow human

Vahni Kurra 20 is undeclared from Columbus, Ohio. Contact her at kurra1@kenyon.edu.

More here:

To a Collegian columnist: Disregarding political correctness hinders social justice causes - Kenyon Collegian

Citing cost and the availability of cheap space at the landfill in which to bury toxic materials, Casper City Council voted on Tuesday to effectively end its legally mandated electronic waste recycling program.

Council rejected a five-year contract with Electronic Recyclers International, based in Aurora, Colorado, despite a city ordinance passed in 2009 that bars Casper from dumping electronic waste in its landfill.

It probably started as a feel-good measure, said councilman Chris Walsh. If we stop, it can go in our lined landfill.

Electronics can contain lead, chromium, cadmium, mercury, beryllium, nickel, zinc and brominated flame retardants, the website states. When electronics are not disposed of or recycled properly, these toxic materials can present problems.

Walsh and other council members cited the annual $57,400 cost of the five-year contract, despite solid waste division manager Cynthia Langstons clarification that the city would pay that amount only under the worst-case scenario.

It looks to me like were spending $57,000 on a measure thats more politically correct than it is necessary for us, Walsh said. Over the term of this contract, were going to save a quarter million dollars.

Langston had clarified at councils pre-meeting that the actual payment would likely be around $25,000 per year.

She said that dumping electronics in the citys landfill instead would cost $10,000 to $15,000 per year.

In an interview Wednesday, Langston said that she had miscalculated and the cost would be closer to $4,000 per year to dispose of electronics in the landfill, meaning the city would save about $20,000 per year by rejecting the contract.

Council members did not have the information when they voted against the agreement.

At the pre-meeting, Walsh said he was prepared to take what he saw as the politically unpopular position of opposing recycling.

Nobody wants to say that, he said. I say smash it with a bulldozer.

Langston also said that the recycling programs cost was already covered by the approximately $28,000 in annual fees paid by residents earmarked for recycling electronics.

Ending the program will also affect other cities, like Rawlins, which pay Casper to dispose of their residents trash and recyclables.

Councilman Charlie Powell said that while he supported recycling in theory, it was better for Casper to use its landfill rather than truck the electronics to Colorado.

We have enough land to run the landfill for another 1,000 years, Powell said. We can bury a lot of trash in Casper.

Walsh also said that because not all of the electronics that would be shipped to Colorado could be recycled, he would prefer they go into the local landfill.

Langston told council that some parts of certain electronics, like wood panels on old stereo systems, had to be thrown away. But she said 96 percent of the waste would be recycled.

Langston said city residents had demanded an electronics recycling program in the early 2000s after the issue of children picking toxic materials out of old American computers and cellphones in developing countries gained national attention.

You saw the little kids and they were melting the electronics and it was really bad for the environment, she said.

Still, Langston said cutting the program would be an easy way to save money during a budget crunch.

At a time when you want to cut budgets, recycling is what you should cut first, she said.

Walsh speculated that since Casper residents paid a 12-cent monthly fee for the recycling program as part of their utility bill, the city might be able to pass a rate decrease if it began dumping the electronics in its landfill.

Langston said that since the council banned dumping electronic waste in the landfill in 2009, a local organization that helps people with disabilities had recycled the electronics at a discount as a way to provide jobs for that population.

But Northwest Community Action Programs of Wyoming lost several hundred thousand dollars in federal funding this year and was forced to end its recycling program a few weeks ago.

Mayor Kenyne Humphrey asked whether councils rejection of the contract would disrupt operations at the solid waste facility given the citys existing ban on putting electronics in the landfill.

City attorney Bill Luben pointed out that council would need to vote three times to repeal the ordinance. He said council could temporarily approve the contract since it could be cancelled at no charge with 30 days notice.

If you dont move forward with this, Im not sure what the timing is for items to build up, Luben said.

Langston said if her facility filled up, she would ask city manager V.H. McDonald to landfill some of it, despite the ban on doing so.

She acknowledged in an interview that McDonald would be violating city law by allowing her to do that and said he could also instruct her to store the waste in public storage space around Casper.

Langston said the facility would likely reach capacity in the next three to four weeks.

The soonest the ordinance could be repealed would be March 21.

Langston said that according to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the 80 tons of electronics waste the city receives each year could be placed in Caspers lined landfill, which has a physical barrier between the pit and the ground so that toxic materials do not drain directly into the North Platte River watershed.

Powell said the 80 annual tons was a tiny fraction of the 400 tons of waste the landfill collects per day.

The $20,000 the city is likely to save by cancelling the electronics waste program makes up .002 percent of the the sanitation divisions roughly $11 million annual budget.

Council members rejected a motion by councilman Jesse Morgan to postpone a vote on the contract until city staff could explore other, less expensive options for safely disposing of electronics.

I dont think well gain much information that would change anybodys mind, said councilman Bob Hopkins. This is just not a winner.

Langston clarified on Wednesday that she was personally in favor of the recycling program, which she noted was initially advocated for by local residents.

If they really want it, they need to tell their council people, Langston said. We absolutely cover the cost [of the program] through that 12 cents per month charge to citizens. We can do it thats not the issue.

See the original post here:

Slamming 'political correctness,' Casper scraps recycling program ... - Casper Star-Tribune Online

This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Political Correctness, or lack of it, is front and center in todays highly-charged political and social arenas. Terry Howard joins me in reflecting on the true nature of PC, then and now. Check out Terrys editorial followed by my own. We welcome your views on PC, so please add your comments.

Whats the biggest problem facing the United States today?

Nice try Sarah, but not our crumbling national infrastructure!

No, the biggest problem facing our nation in 2017, so sayeth the pundits, is political correctness or, to put it in their words, political correctness run amuck.

Now class, before we go any further, lets step back briefly with a backgrounder on PC.

Decades ago, the growth of cultural diversity, primarily on college campuses, brought with shifting self-identities and identifications coupled with evolving languages. And what accompanied that trend was a growing confidence and assertiveness in people articulating how they wanted to be treated and what they wanted to be called.

For many those early assertions were communicated without rancor and with explanations relative why they expected the change. Say Bob, got a second? Please address me as a woman and not as a girl, okay? I know you dont mean to offend but when Im referred to as a girl I feel devalued as a woman. For others, those messages were delivered rather harshly and with little or no explanation. Stop referring to me as girl, Bob. Thats offensive and shows how sexist you are!

The answer to that question for the person offended leads to other questions, among them how do you call out the change youre seeking. If it comes across as a personal affront, defensiveness and maybe even downright denial could happen. And trickier still is, if the message is too soft, too polite or too vague or ambiguous, then it may be lost altogether.

On the other side, that of the offender, if he/she is unaccustomed to constructive feedback or sees nothing wrong with what was said or done, youre just being too PC may be the retort or, if the message is too soft, he/she may miss it altogether.

Lets listen in on the PC perspectives of two of my favorite columnists, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post and Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald.

Wrote Milbank, The notion of political correctness has recently grown into the mother of all strawmen. Once a pejorative term applied to liberals determined not to offend any ethnic groups or other identify group, it now is used lazily by some conservatives to label everything classified under that with which I disagree.

Wrote Pitts, (Screaming PC) is used to mean they are sick of not being able to insult blacks, Muslims, women and homosexuals as freely as they once did. But for all the (sometimes justified) criticism it receives. So called political correctness has at heart an important goal: language that is more inclusive, respectful and reflective of marginalized lives.

Now please. Lets cut through the chaise, the BS, and comes to grips with the reality is that PC is really a strawman (oops, or straw woman), a tepid excuse, a whiny cop out for the inability to hear and accept an important, albeit uncomfortable, message.

So the question is who goes first, where does the lions share of the responsibility reside in launching into a productive conversation when the stakes are so high, when relationships, reputations, egos, dignities and even careers are at stake?

I sat in the audience of a university theater and listened to elected officials and professors ruminate on inclusion in the upcoming election. It was Chicago in the 1990s and as in-your-face then as it is now. The discussion over race was loud and raucous as the candidates, Caucasian and African American, went toe to toe. As the debate turned to women, the all-male stage veered into the surreal. It turned into a shouting match as to who was more popular with the ladies. They gestured wildly about the numbers of women who called them, trying to prove that who was the more politically correct and more popular among the ladies.

The audience was more than 50% female with expressionless faces, rolling eyeballs, and a few yawns. I couldnt resist, raised my hand, and stood when the emcee called on me. I appreciate that the bias is unconscious but its foolish for a male-only stage to be fighting over who gets more calls from women. The correct alternative is to have women on stage who can speak for themselves. My political correctness was a bulwark against discrimination, but also a threat.

After much nervous fidgeting, the emcee finally responded, We tried! We invited the woman qualified to join us on stage, but she was busy. To which I replied, Any woman in this audience would be happy to name qualified women for you. The debate then concluded, quickly.

Later, one of the speakers, David Axelrod, approached me and offered to be my campaign manager if I ran for office. Regrettably, I declined. Neither I was not prepared to take on the inevitable personal attacks and name calling. Instead, I added my voice through writing, following the old saying, The pen is mightier than the sword. It would take years of lobbying, protesting, and aggressive challenges to achieve a greater representation in leadership, politically and socially.

The political correctness label would be applied to the activist women with the intention of intimidating and marginalizing them. The term Feminism was continually hammered as political correctness on steroids. Feminists were stereotyped as nasty, masculine and emasculating, and ugly, too. As progress for women was made, we expected, but rejected the accusations. With time, it became politically incorrect to make them.

Yet, just a few years ago, I was told to Wait my turn while less-experienced male candidates were chosen for board positions. Was this unconscious bias or a backlash against my political correctness? Either way, I wasnt surprised, and simply moved on.

Since the 2016 election, attacks on political correctness have been weaponized. Is it the anonymity of the internet or the surfacing of groups previously side-lined by a politically correct culture? Either way, I wasnt surprised, but now its impossible to move on.

On LinkedIn, I was told that women must stop demanding preferential treatment. If they were qualified, there wouldnt be any disparities. When I objected, I was accused of being a man-hating b**ch. That mymanufactured rage would no longer be tolerated and political correctness was over.

Since that incident, the womens marches grabbed the publics attention. The women relished the label nasty, rejecting any enforcement of ladylike. We endured name-calling like childish, ignorant, deluded, manipulated, and manipulative. Some gleefully called the women fat, and ugly, too. This is what political correctness protected us against. Ask women, any woman, if shes going to back down when called fat and ugly. No, the fight for political correctness isnt over. A new phase has just begun.

Read more:

Too PC? - Two Views on Political Correctness - Huffington Post

The five main characters of Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia are often described as the worst people in the world. And, sure, they pretty much are. Scanning around their Paddys Pub HQ most weeks, one can hear the ghostly echoes of Ben Kenobis pronouncement about Mos Eisley as a wretched hive of scum and villainy bouncing off of the ill-washed glasses and even iller-washed regulars. And the Gang, of course, variously huddled in ever-changing factions to hatch whatever plot they imagine will satisfy the selfish needs of their twisted psyches.

Still, the Gang arent really the worst, are they? Making a sitcom about actual evil people would be an even harder trick than the one the creators of Sunny have pulled off for 12 seasons. The secret of Sunnys dark comedy is that the main characters live in their own awfulness. They create it, they cause it, theyre product and victim of it, and, ultimately, they can never escape it. The Gang is a gang because there are no other people in the world who would, or could, have them.

That interdependent hell that is the Gangs daily existence comes to a hilarious head in Hero Or Hate Crime, where a stray breeze, a wayward $2 scratch ticket, a falling piano, some dog shit, and a gay slur cause Dee, Charlie, Frank, Mac, and Dennis to run through a series of very expensive professional arbitrators in order to settle their latest dispute. Normally, the argument over ownership of a potentially worthless (they havent scratched it yet) lottery ticket would be taken care of, as Charlie puts it, in-house. Like their legendarily nonsensical and horrifying rainy day board/endurance game CharDee MacDennis (The Game Of Games), over the years the Gang has developed an elaborate system of jurisprudence to hash out their constant, hysterical squabbling. Motion for sub-arbitration to determine whether or not thats sad!, cries Mac, after Dee explains that she hadnt scratched the lottery ticket because, As long as you dont scratch it, then youre not a loser.

As arbiter here, Ill say that is sad, although less in the mocking way that Mac, Dennis, Charlie, and Frank accuse Dee of being, and more in keeping with the idea that, on some level, the Gang is aware of how awful their awfulness makes their lives. As Dennis explains to the first of their referees tonight, This ticket represents hope, okay? Potential. Promise. The very foundation upon which this group rests. Glenn Howerton gives Dennis spiel the maniacal edge of one brazening out a position to avoid the yawning abyss of ugly truth, something that goes a long way toward explaining the Gangs signature, hair-trigger enthusiasms. Every scam, every scheme, every newfound obsession and pursuit is the thing that will lead them out of the darkness that is their daily existence. As we see, eventually tonight, even the genuine victory of a $10,000 winning scratch ticket will ultimately be consumed by the inescapable reality of the fact that their 17 hours of professionally arbitrated backstabbing to obtain it have eaten up all the money they were fighting over. The pursuit has to be the point, because the reality is that happiness is simply not something these people will ever know.

Luckily for us, theres plenty of joy in watching these characters and these actors play out the inevitable. The circumstances surrounding the lottery ticket form a filthy Rube Goldberg device of disaster, as Charlie and Mac interrupt their argument about whether Charlie intentionally stepped in a pile of dog crap (he did) to almost get creamed by a falling piano. Fortunately(?), Frankout looking up womens skirts with his trusty shoe-mirrors like the dirtbag he issees this and screams out the full-throated warning, Look out, faggot!, allowing Charlie to karate kick Mac out of the way. Sue, this leaves a shoe-shaped dog crap imprint on Macs shirt, but alives alive. And potentially rich. Well, potentially potentially rich, as Dees windblown, unscratched ticket ends up in Macs hands, sending the Gang off to the lawyers offices. (Sadly, we dont get an appearance from Brian Ungers unnamed, always-funny Lawyer. Hed find a way to cheat the Gang out of that ticket, especially after they may have blinded him.)

As far as the legal arguments go, the labyrinthine circumstances surrounding the tickets ownership are enough to test the wisdom of Solomon, including as they do: Dennis bribing Dee to overtip the barely-legal shopgirl hes grooming as sexual conquest; Franks offensive but life-saving warning; Charlies heroic (if poopy) kick; and the fact that Mac actually has possession of the thing. The actors playing the lawyers (especially Karen McClain, whose character hears the bulk of the argument) are all excellent at deadpanning their way through the shenanigans. (As is revealed, they know theyre getting well-paid.) As for the arguments themselves, the pressures of avarice and a ticking clock sees the Gang turn on each other with the all the chaotic ingenuity their feverish minds can muster. Which is a lot.

A major theme in the arguments is Franks slur against Mac. Macs tortured relationship with his sexuality has been mined for jokes for well-on a decade, and, yes, the revelation that hes constructed a makeshift pleasuring device out of a decrepit exercise bike and a fist-topped dildo isnt the subtlest gag. (There is a moment where the seat-mounted dildo rises unexpectedly that is timed to absolute comic perfection, though.) But the joke, as the rest of the Gang asserts, has never been that Mac is gay (Hes into the closet hes out of the closet, we dont like you either way, explains Dennis), but that Macs contortions to deny his homosexuality have turned him into a joke. (He explains that hes been working out on the machine with assless bike shorts for air flow.) Like Dennis desperate assertion of the meaning of that unscratched ticket, Macs denial about just what he gets up to down in Paddys basement partakes of that strain of humanizing denial that keeps the Gang, for all their undeniable awfulness, relatable.

The same goes for the Gangs long digression here about hate speech. Like most social issues that Sunny incorporates into its plots, political correctness isnt on trial as much as its used to examine the Gangs various double-standards and blind spots. When Frank protests that his use of the word faggot wasnt disqualifyingly offensive, its due to Franks adherence to old-school, pragmatic assholery. There was a lot going on. I needed something that would cut through. As soon as I said the slur, everybody knew to look at Mac, says Frank. Macs response that a bigot should not be entitled to a heros payout, is self-serving (he really wants that ticket), but also points to how, within the Gang, finding offense in the others actions is often the best offense against them. When Dennis cautions, You know what, were treading on some dangerous territory, his objections to hate speech are more about standing (in the Gang and as the upstanding citizen he fancies himself) than about whether Franks assertion that Youre allowed to use any language to save a mans life extends to using the word nigger in a similar situation. (McClains arbitrator, who is black, still manages to maintain her impartiality, which deserves some sort of medal.) So when all four of the guys turn on Dee for trying to apply the same logic to the word cunt, the shouting match that ensues (We cant lose that! Especially when its directed towards a woman when youre trying to insult her, yells Charlie), illuminates the shifting nature of the Gangs outrage. On Its Always Sunny, morality is, indeed, a moveable feast, depending on whos doing the eating.

In the end, the ticket comes down to Frank and Mac, the final arbitrators ruling finding that they have to split the ticket, since Franks claim can only be nullified if his hate speech was actually directed at a gay person. (Again, Im not saying these are necessarily good arbitrators.) Heres where things get just a little bit tricky, explains Dennis, before bringing in that bike (The Asspounder 4000, according to the deliberately oblivious and proud Mac) to show that Mac is, indeed, gay. (Or, at least, as Dennis puts it, a sexual deviant.) Sunny lives on the edge, and, if the bike gag is crude, the payoff of Macs dilemma is transcendent.

Seeing a way to get the whole ticket (now worth 10 grand), Mac quickly proclaims his gayness to snatch the prize. (Gay Mac rules! Rich, gay Mac!) But, given the chance to renege on his claim once the cash is safely in hand, Mac demurs. Rob McElhenney makes Macs hesitation one of those improbably affecting character moments that Sunny can wield so expertly. After the others sneer that hell retreat back into the closet now that hes won, McElhenneys look of clear-eyed relief is genuinely heartening as Mac says softly, I dunno, maybe Ill just stay out. No, I think Im out now. Yeah, Im gay. Actually... it feels pretty good. See you guys. Naturally, the Gangs momentary, shocked silence is swept away by the revelation that all the fighting has cost them all but $14 of Macs winnings (which theyll make him pay), but, even then, Dennis says, Maybe lets make him pay this tomorrow. Lets let him have this. In the Gangs Philly, the smallest of victories are not victories at all. Not if youre trapped there.

Previous episode Its Always Sunny cant commit to Making Dennis Reynolds A Murderer

Go to the A.V. Club homepage

Follow this link:

Political correctness is life and death on a hilarious It's Always Sunny - A.V. Club

Just how big is the size of the state in the UK?

A simple question you might think. Surely all you need is a numerator (a tax or public spending measure) and a denominator (a GDP measure)? Divide one by the other and hey presto theres your size measure as a proportion of GDP. Based on that approach, public spending is projected by the OBR to fall to 38 per cent of GDP by 2020.

Unfortunately its not that simple. If you use a factor cost measure of GDP, as opposed to a market prices measure, the share rises by around 5 percentage points of GDP to 43 per cent. This reveals how technical details can mask powerful truths.

And it doesnt end there either. The total intervention of the state isnt measured by tax and spend alone. There is also regulation to consider. If the government pays income related benefits on day one, but then mandates a national minimum wage on day two, public spending could fall but the total intervention of the state would be unchanged.

Read more: Leviathans tentacles: How the state hides its true size

Of course, the impact of regulation extends far beyond the replacement of benefits. The costs of regulation encompass a whole swathe of labour and product market activity.

Assessing the costs and benefits of such activity is fiendishly complicated with regard to individual regulations. Aggregating such impacts across the whole economy is downright impossible. But that doesnt mean we should ignore it. Some of the best aggregate work has been undertaken in the US, with an estimated cost around 10 per cent of GDP rather dated now. The working assumption since has been that EU membership means the UK figure will be significantly higher. But how much higher, nobody knows.

So we have a total intervention measure, so far, of at least 53 per cent of GDP (38 per cent plus 5 per cent plus 10 per cent). Unfortunately this is not the end of the story. Theres more.

Read more: Regulation, regulation, regulation: What to expect in 2017

Political correctness is a tumour at the heart of our culture. Recent decades have seen an explosion in political correctness, as regulation of our behaviour (product and labour market regulation) was added to by the regulation of our minds (what we think and say). And while it is utterly impossible to quantify the impact of such encroachment by the state, it doesnt make the tentacles of control any less real.

Political correctness also interacts with other areas of state intervention, making it difficult to curtail spending, cut taxes or undertake a bonfire of regulations. But if the UK is to achieve its economic potential in the twenty-first century, it will need to take a scythe to tax and spend and regulation, and apply a wrecking ball to political correctness.

Political correctness is embedded in our culture, and culture shapes institutions (the rules of the game, such as law, taxation and regulation), which then shape economic performance (such as productivity and competitiveness). An analogy might be a River of Prosperity, with culture upstream, institutions mid-stream and economic performance downstream. Political correctness risks blocking the river, far upstream.

Research on the impact of freedom such as by the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute on economic success is powerful and compelling, and the conclusion is clear. If we just look at tax and spend measures alone, we will delude ourselves as to the true scale of economic and political freedom in the UK.

Read the original post:

We must take a wrecking ball to political correctness to achieve our true economic potential - City A.M.