Category Archives: Political Correctness

On Wednesday, ABC News announced the suspension of The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg following a set of ill-informed remarks she made (and later apologized for) about the Holocaust. During the shows Hot Topics segment on Monday, the panel criticized the recent banning of Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel Maus, which depicts the Holocaust, by a Tennessee school board supposedly due to its profanity and nudity. And the conversation ended up demonstrating in real time why the use of Art Spiegelmans book in academic institutions is so necessary when Goldberg argued that the Holocaust was not about race because it involved two groups of white people.

Whether Goldbergs comments were antisemitic, simply uneducated, dangerous, stupid, or all of the above is being widely debated across social media. Judging by her subsequent appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert where she essentially doubled down, Goldbergs ignorance seems to stem from a limited understanding of race solely as an American construct rather than a set of categories that white supremacists have defined and redefined for centuries and in other parts of the world to maintain power. No, Adolf Hitler did not establish the same color lines born out of the Atlantic slave trade that Goldberg alludes toalthough, plenty of Afro-Germans suffered and died under the Nazi regime, and Jim Crow inspired Germanys citizenships laws. But this dark period in history was unambiguously and fundamentally about race.

This sort of blunder isnt surprising, even from someone born just a decade after World War II ended. Like most historical flashpoints, our education system has done an insufficient (and willfully shitty) job of teaching students about antisemitism and contextualizing the Holocaust beyond a generally tragic event. Despite the visibility of white supremacists in the Trump era, I know a few people who would be surprised to know that Jews are their No. 1 enemy. Likewise, some viewers are arguing that Goldbergs comments shouldve been treated as a public teaching moment without a slap on the wrist. Additionally, the fact that the daytime talk show has entertained the asinine, racially ignorant views of Meghan McCain and other conservative commentators, while Goldberg is receiving public condemnation, is arguably suspect.

However, the EGOT-winning multi-hyphenate has a storied history of being loud and wrong that feels like its finally catching up to her. Specifically, many people are looking back on Goldbergs defense of her friend, actor and filmmaker Mel Gibson, on The View in 2010, following his racist and antisemitic comments about Black and Jewish peopleincluding an audio recording of the actor saying that he hoped his then-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, was raped by a pack of n---ers.

I dont like what he did here, she said on the show. But I know Mel and I know hes not a racist. He may be a bonehead. I cant sit and say that hes a racist, having spent time with him in my house with my kids.

Goldbergs legacy as an important, trailblazing figure for women and Black people and a staple of the liberal commentariat has long been at odds with her various controversies. We all remember or have read about Goldbergs infamous 1993 roast held at the Friars Club where her boyfriend at the time, Ted Danson, performed in blackface and said a slew of N-words and racist jokes. Goldberg ardently defended the routine and admitted to writing some of it, telling the press that she has never been about political correctness. Shes proved as much throughout her almost 15-year tenure on The View, defending former Ravens football player Ray Rice after he was caught on video violently assaulting his then-girlfriend, saying director Roman Polanskis rape of a 13-year-old girl wasnt rape-rape, and refusing to condemn Bill Cosby during most of his sexual-assault allegations saga. Just like her most recent controversy, The View brought on an expert to speak with Goldberg about statute-of-limitation laws in rape cases.

Goldbergs legacy as an important, trailblazing figure for women and Black people and a staple of the liberal commentariat has long been at odds with her various controversies.

Additionally, she was accused of victim-blaming actress Bella Thorne in 2019 after she criticized her for taking nude photos of herself when a hacker threatened to release them.

In recent years, Goldberg has been celebrated for her ability to cut through the noise on The View. This role of the wise, morally authoritative figure is often unwillingly given to Black women, whether theyve earned it or not. Likewise, Goldbergs viral back-and-forths with former co-host Meghan McCain have earned her praise and seemingly made some of the internet forget about her past indiscretions. To be fair, Goldbergs quick-wittedness and assertiveness as a personality was amusing when confronted with McCains serious, ill-tempered attitude. But winning an argument against the former Fox News commentator is not a necessarily difficult task nor an accurate representation of how equipped someone is to moderate political discussions on national television.

But thats the thing about The View: You could make the same assertion about most of the panelists who have sat around that table and made misinformed, offensive remarks. This has seemingly made the decision to eliminate Goldberg from what has long been a burning trash can of opinions more complicated for certain viewers. On top of that, you now have bad-faith right-wing pundits, like McCain, turning Goldbergs ignorance into an opportunity to own the libs and claiming to be better allies to the Jewish community.

Still, no matter how performative these responses may be, theres never been a better time for the 66-year-old to understand the magnitude of her platform, and that her words matter. Its also a crucial reminder that, no matter how commanding and charismatic our favorite celebrities may be, theyre rarely experts on things outside of what they are paid to do.

Go here to read the rest:

Whoopi Goldberg's Long History of Appalling Takes, From Defending Cosby and Mel Gibson to the Holocaust - The Daily Beast

Isnt it tantalizing to think that the government could simply ban the worst ideas?

Six Republican legislators in South Carolina are co-sponsoring a utopian proposal of that sort. It is the intent of the General Assembly that educators, administrators, students, childcare providers, employers, and employees respect the dignity of individuals, its text begins, refrain from judging, stereotyping, or scapegoating others based on personal or group characteristics or political and religious beliefs; acknowledge the right of others to express differing opinions; and foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry, and instruction. Supporters of the bill, seductively named Freedom from ideological coercion and indoctrination, seem to think that South Carolinas teaching corps is full of left-wing ideologues bent on brainwashing studentsand that an act of the legislature would prevent that.

The GOP lawmakers are hardly alone in wanting to banish objectionable attitudes and ideas by fiat. At Princeton in 2020, 350 faculty members signed a letter demanding, among many other things, that the administration constitute a committee composed entirely of faculty that would oversee the investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty, adding that what counts as racist should be determined by the committee. My colleague Ibram X. Kendi, author of the best-selling 2019 book How to Be an Antiracist, has urged a constitutional amendment creating a Department of Anti-racism, whose staff of formally trained experts on racism would, among other duties, be tasked with preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they wont yield racial inequity.

Such proposals share an assumption that offenses such as ideological coercion or racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication could be eliminated if relevant authorities had the power and the will. But within most institutions in a free, diverse, pluralistic society are earnest, intractable disputes about what constitutes racism or indoctrination. Any attempt to eliminate contested concepts as a matter of official policy will tend to invite abuses of power and chill free speech and inquiry.

Anne Applebaum: Democracies dont try to make everyone agree

When pondering whether university professors should investigate and discipline scholars for racism, Republicans understand the danger of empowering thought-policing micromanagers. Yet they sponsor statewide legislation thats similarly untenable in hopes of stymieing the bad ideas of leftists.

I share the concern that some public-school educators encourage indoctrination by activists. I acknowledge that legislatorsyes, even conservative legislatorshave a legitimate role in shaping public-school curricula. I have substantive criticisms of the 1619 Project and the racial essentialism embedded in the way progressive identitarians understand whiteness. I would cheer if more American educators embraced dialogue and viewpoint diversity. And I have no problem with bills that forbid compelled speech or beliefs or that mandate transparency in curriculum (so long as they dont create unreasonable administrative burdens).

Ibram X. Kendi: There is no debate about critical race theory

Yet even the most cautious GOP-sponsored legislation regulating history and civics instruction seems likely to do more harm than good. Far worse is the South Carolina billa calamity of legislative intrusion and excess whose effects would extend far beyond which history textbooks are in public schools. The bill would chill free speech and sow bureaucratic dysfunction within any state-funded entitya category that includes public and private schools; institutions of higher education; local government agencies; any business that gets tax exemptions; nonprofit organizations; state contractors, consultants, and vendors; and some labor unions.

The South Carolina bills crux is its ban on nine discriminatory concepts. If youre a state-funded entity you may not promote, engage, or treat individuals in accordance with any of them. You may not direct or compel individuals to affirm, accept, adopt, or adhere to them. You may not subject individuals to instruction, presentations, discussions, or counseling affirming or promoting them.

The first discriminatory concept is that one race or sex is inherently superior or inferior to another race or sex. Thats certainly wrongheaded, and perhaps the least worrisome prohibition of the lot, though even its censoriousness is problematic. Historically important material such as the Cornerstone Speech, delivered in 1861 by Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, and Mein Kampf, authored by Adolf Hitler, teach that one race is superior to another. One certainly wouldnt want South Carolina schools affirming such ideas. But this law states that a state-funded entity cannot engage the discriminatory concepts or subject individuals to material that affirms them, regardless of whether the instruction, presentation, discussion, or counseling is part of a lesson, assigned or suggested materials made available in any format or setting. How can you teach history without engaging or subjecting students to its most influential bad ideas?

The second verboten concept: a group or an individual, by virtue of his or her race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, heritage, culture, religion, or political belief is inherently racist, sexist, bigoted, ignorant, biased, fragile, oppressive, or contributive to any oppression, whether consciously or unconsciously. The general thrust accords with most of our moral intuitions, yet this would seem to prohibit a history museum from asserting that Nazis, by virtue of their political beliefs, were inherently racist.

The seventh concept is that an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of his or her race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, heritage, culture, religion, or political belief. I would object to a teacher affirming that misguided concept as truth in a public-school classroom. But a nonprofit shouldnt lose its tax-exempt status for promulgating the belief that Americans ought to feel discomfort about (say) their culture of keeping livestock in inhumane conditions or emitting so much carbon.

Read: The GOPs critical race theory obsession

Individuals and institutions who break the proposed law would be identified by way of callouts that trigger investigations: The bill establishes a public reporting hotline telephone number and email address for receiving reports of violations and compels the South Carolina attorney general to promptly investigate all reported violations, making large swaths of the state vulnerable to false allegations, harassment by way of investigation, and the targeting of institutions by their political enemies. (Imagine running a small business that is constantly under state investigation as competitors call in anonymous discrimination complaints that a state official must probe.)

Offenders would quite literally get canceled: Perpetrators of a single violation must lose their state funding, tax-exempt status, and any other state-provided accommodation until proving compliance to the Attorney General, and all funds lost in the meantime are forfeited and may not be repaid. That appears to give one state official extraordinary power over many kinds of institutions. For a college or university in South Carolinaeven a private onethis would be a death sentence, the academic and free-speech advocate Jeffrey Sachs wrote in his analysis of the legislation. Given such drastic consequences, the chilling effects could be grave, forcing teachers and professors to give any content that is even remotely risky a wide berth.

The bill goes on to further constrain entities it covers, declaring that they may not subject minors to instruction, presentations, discussions, counseling, or materials in any medium that involve a) sexual lifestyles, acts, or practices; b) gender identity or lifestyles; or (c) pornographic, lewd, explicit, profane, or similarly age-inappropriate materials. While a rule that porn has no place in public schools neednt worry us, this language seems to prohibit public and private schools alike from teaching standard sex ed and even certain pages in biology textbooks.

Indeed, the bill would seem to prevent educators from uttering even the most commonsense advice. If a high-school football coach learns that a rumor is spreading among his players that women cant get pregnant during a full moon, so thats the time to try sex without a condom, shouldnt he be allowed to tell them theyve been misinformed rather than biting his tongue? If a ninth grader goes to a school counselor and says, I think Im gay, and Im afraid my dad will try to kill me to spare the family shame if he finds out, should counseling be forbidden?

A final prohibition in the bill forbids instruction of students in any place of learning or preschool or childcare in a manner that:

Thats just an invitation to endless fights.

In theory, no one objects to the inclusion of all relevant and important context in instruction. In practice, whats relevant and important are subjective questions that everyone answers in different ways. Parents or students have every right to raise disagreements with a teacher or principal or school board, or with the officials who buy the textbooks. Whats absurdly unreasonable is compelling South Carolinas attorney general to launch an investigation anytime someone emails the state to complain that important context was left out of a teachers lesson. In many cases, resources will be wasted on frivolous complaints. And even the most diligent teacher would struggle to cover world, American, or South Carolina history without omitting anything important. To lose state funding over any such failure would signal a broken system.

If the South Carolina bill were an anomaly, perhaps it could be ignored unless it passed. But it is part of a trend. Since the beginning of 2021, dozens of bills that the free-expression advocacy group PEN America dubs educational gag orders have been introduced in the United States. Collectively, these bills are illiberal in their attempt to legislate that certain ideas and concepts be out of bounds, even, in many cases, in college classrooms among adults, the organization writes in a report on the bills. Their adoption demonstrates a disregard for academic freedom, liberal education, and the values of free speech and open inquiry that are enshrined in the First Amendment and that anchor a democratic society.

Conor Friedersdorf: Critical race theory is making both parties flip-flop

The bills do have staunch defenders. In a recent podcast conversation with Andrew Sullivan, the populist-right activist Christopher Rufo, best known for exposing instances of leftist excesses in American institutions and branding them as critical race theory, complained that the American center-left recognizes and dislikes woke politics but offers only a neutered or impotent response. Instead, Rufo argues for a firm conservative opposition driven by conservative states.

But in South Carolina (where, as in other solidly red states, public schools are not typically dominated or captured by wokeism) the conservative push for this bill is not a potent assertion of the values of open inquiry and educational freedom. It is a flagrant violation of those values.

As PEN warns, the vague and sweeping language of bills like the one in South Carolina means that they will be applied broadly and arbitrarily, threatening to effectively ban a wide swath of literature, curriculum, historical materials, and other media, and casting a chilling effect over how educators and educational institutions discharge their primary obligations. That the South Carolina law applies even to institutions of higher education puts its GOP sponsors in competition with the most illiberal campus administrators for the title of most blatant enforcer of political correctness. Its application to private businesses and charities is more big government run amok.

If youre a Republican who doubts those characterizations or cannot see any danger in this bill, ask yourself: Would you trust the attorney general of California to set up a phone hotline and email address; field complaints about allegedly discriminatory ideas uttered in schools, colleges, nonprofits, and businesses; and reach subjective judgments as to their merit, with severe penalties for those found guilty? Of course notany more than the Princeton faculty would entrust a GOP attorney general of South Carolina to make determinations about what laws or scholarly work is racist.

Read the rest here:

Banning Bad Ideas Won't Make Them Go Away - The Atlantic

The Worst Person in the World, 2021.

Directed by Joachim Trier.Starring Renate Reinsve, Anders Danielsen Lie, Herbert Nordrum, Maria Grazia Di Meo, Hans Olav Brenner, Marianne Krogh, Helene Bjrnebye, Vidar Sandem, Anna Dworak, Thea Stabell, Deniz Kaya, Lasse Gretland, Karen Rise Kielland, Karla Nitteberg Aspelin, Sofia Schandy Bloch, Savannah Marie Schei, Eia Skjnsberg, and Ruby Dagnall.

SYNOPSIS:

Chronicles four years in the life of Julie, a young woman who navigates the troubled waters of her love life and struggles to find her career path, leading her to take a realistic look at who she reallyis.

Its up for debate whether or not Julie (a stunningly empathetic complex revelatory turn from Renate Reinsve) is the worst person in the world, but she starts as one of the most indecisive, with a prologue depicting her going through numerous study and career changes within 10 minutes. Director Joachim Trier (co-writing alongside Eskil Vogt and finishing up his Oslo trilogy of independent films tackling similar themes) establishes some of Julies interests (psychology, photography, sex) with a sense of humor as she enters a relationship with workaholic comic book artist Aksel (Anders Danielsen Lie, a regular collaborator of the filmmaker delivering his best performance to date), in his early forties and roughly ten years her senior.

Aksel expresses that if they become more serious, it likely wont last because they are in different stages of their lives, but its not enough to stop the magnetism. From there, Julie finds herself happy in ways yet also leaving an unfulfilling life, with Aksel bringing up hopes of having children someday. Thats just a tiny sample of what The Worst Person in the World tackles in regards to relationships (the film is initially described as 12 chapters of Julies life with a prologue and epilogue, taking place over four years), as the script continuously peels away that Julie while exploring life, love, loss, family issues, gender roles, political correctness, eroticism, and perhaps one of the most human looks at the notion of cheating on ones partner (Im not saying anyone does or doesnt, but the option is there).

It shouldnt come as a surprise that due to Julies already mentioned indecisiveness and lack of career direction, not to mention Aksel seemingly unable to match her sex drive, not necessarily giving her enough emotional attention, and being busy in the spotlight (his comic is getting adapted into an animated feature, although its been stripped of its crudeness and edge which is not happy about, in turn, further hampering his focus on the relationship), and of course, the age gap, that she might second-guess being together. However, this is realized with a brilliant touch of magical realism, a beautiful sequence of a passenger taking over the drivers seat in the car of life. The script is sharp with rich performances that allow an engrossing lived-in feel, but the imaginative visual detours (including a drug trip where Julie somewhat confronts a strained relationship with her father and the effects pregnancy and aging could potentially have on her body, culminating in a moment both nasty and empowering) elevate intricacies of the drama.

Without getting too specific, Julie does befriend the already partnered Elvind (Herbert Nordrum, also giving a fantastic and delicate performance), who is more her age but lacks the ambition of Aksel. Julies life is a mess for pretty much every second of the 130-minute running time, but theres a line in the film about how sometimes the best is messy, which is a sentiment palpably felt here. Thats not to say every creative choice in The Worst Person in the World, as convenient events occasionally happen and Im not entirely sold on one aspect that is tossed into the mix during the third act.

Such decisions would probably sink other romantic dramedies, but again, Renate Reinsve is an absolute delight here. Every single actor gives such naturalistic and compelling turns that even when the story feels like its slipping away from Joachim Trier, its not. The messiness is simply enhancing the art. The Worst Person in the World is thoughtfully constructed, proud of its flawed characters with unquantifiable amounts of empathy, steamy, hilarious, and above all else, life-affirming.

Flickering Myth Rating Film: / Movie:

Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association and the Critics Choice Association. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Checkherefor new reviews, follow myTwitterorLetterboxd, or email me at MetalGearSolid719@gmail.com

Go here to see the original:

The Worst Person in the World (2021) - Movie Review - Flickering Myth

I saw Daniel OConnell last Sunday, rising majestically out of a foggy Dublin dawn, wrapped in his cloak, eyes boring into mine. At least thats how it felt, the pair of us alone in the deserted main thoroughfare of the capital.

hat do you think of the country you died for?I whispered to the bronze likeness. Have we honoured the legacy you gave so much for? His reply drifted silently on the breeze.

The man forever honoured as The Liberator was no stranger to controversy, and would likely raise an amused eyebrow at the current wrangling on whether a monument to him should grace Dil ireann during this decade of centenaries.

Doubtless the champion of Catholic Emancipation would throw a dismissive Kerry yerra at todays petty politics his heart, as always, geared toward more critical issues.

What would assuredly cause him righteous anger from his loftyplinth are the legions of homelesshuddled in frozen doorways on the street that bears his name.

Such was his commitment to the cause of human dignity it even echoed across the oceans, with former slave Fredrick Douglass crediting The Liberators glorious rhetoric in directly hastening Abraham Lincolns act of emancipation in 1863.

He defined me not as a colour, but as a man, and strengthened the campaign I was dedicated to wage.

OConnells fiery oratory was particularly directed at his own countrymen, the bastard Irishmen who turned a blind eye to slavery. How can the noble emotions of the Celtic heart have become extinct amongst you? he raged. It was not in Ireland that you learned this cruelty.

No stranger to the compromises of politics, when fellow MPs in the House of Commons offered him their support on Irish independence in return for his silence of slavery, OConnell was not for turning: May my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth before, to help Ireland, I keep silent on slavery.

Yet, while Ireland in 2022 is not short of caring public servants, all too often the limelight is taken by those Yeats excoriated as fumbling in a greasy till.

Wandering down the quays as Dublin slowly awoke from its slumber, I wondered where are todays great orators modern-day Liberators whose magnificent rhetoric would rouse us to be better than we are?

Has the nation that produced the exhilarating eloquence of Grattan, Burke, Redmond and Connolly succumbed to the dreary tongue-tied measurement of political correctness?

On hearing of OConnells death in 1847, Douglass said: The fire of freedom burned brightly within his mighty heart, with words that shook the world.

We need that fire again today desperately.

See more here:

Has the nation that produced the fiery oratory of Daniel O'Connell succumbed to tongue-tied political correctness? - Independent.ie

(This is the third of 10 essays I'm writing before Primary Day on May 3)

In recent years, the long-accepted adage that all politics is local has been inverted. Unfortunately, all politics is now national. The controversial issues that drive ratings in primetime on Fox News and MSNBC often dominate local politics.

As Hamilton County prepares to decide who will serve as its fourth county mayor, divisive national issues have already crept in the conversation. Focusing on issues like illegal immigration, which all conservatives oppose, does nothing but distract from conservatives articulating an agenda for local challenges education, crime and infrastructure.

Last week, a Nashville-based, far-right political website called attention to comments Ive made about former President Trump. The Free Press editorial page shared some of these comments, including my statement from a 2018 Twitter exchange that Trump was not a conservative in the traditional sense. I stand by that.

Like 92,000 other Hamilton Countians, I voted for President Trump. But that doesnt mean he was perfect or that hes a role model for children like the four Shelby and I are raising.

Trump was disruptive to the Washington political class. His disregard for political correctness was entertaining, refreshing and, in many cases, effective. However, his frequent personal insults posed a conflict for conservative parents of young children, particularly those of us raising daughters.

Trumps version of conservatism is closer to national populism than traditional conservatism. He led a movement like none other in my lifetime. But, traditional American conservatism cannot be separated from the principles of fiscal conservatism.

During the four years of the Trump presidency, Americas national debt rose $8 trillion, despite Trumps promise in 2016 that he would pay off the then $19 trillion debt over a period of eight years.

To be clear, many of Trumps policies were conservative. He was rightfully pro-life, took China to task over its human rights abuses and de-regulated numerous industries.

But as the founder of one of the only organizations in America that advocates for generational stewardship and reducing the national debt, I consider myself to be more conservative than Trump.

Last year, the organization I founded, the Millennial Debt Foundation, convened 2,000 conservative leaders across the country to fight wasteful government spending and advocate generationally responsible policy at all levels of government. Our events have featured strong fiscally conservative voices like Senator Tim Scott, Senator Marco Rubio, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Governor Bill Lee and Senator Joe Manchin.

For the first time in 28 years, our community has an opportunity to consider the direction of Hamilton County government. That conversation should not be hijacked by the dysfunction of our national politics simply for political gain, but should focus on conservative policies with an emphasis on the two most profound roles of local government, education and public safety. Thats what Hamilton County citizens deserve and expect.

Sixty percent of Hamilton County graduates are not ready to go to work or to college, according to the states Ready Graduate standard. That is beyond unacceptable. Conservative solutions to education will empower parents, reward our best teachers and principals, and create apprenticeships and increase career training for our students. A conservative agenda aimed at preparing young people for lives of dignified work will reduce crime over the long term in our most hopeless neighborhoods.

They may not admit it on cable news tonight, but these issues matter more than anything being debated in Washington.

Weston Wamp

* * *

What is wrong Weston, raising complaints about the Tennessee Stars findings of your anti-Trump efforts?

The political drama of this situation, as it is almost impossible to take back your words the Tennessee Star has published. So now, you respond with rhetoric discrediting national media with the title, The Peril In Nationalizing Local Politics.

Let me repeat your title, The-Peril-In-Nationalizing-Local-Politics. Oh no, run for the hills, it sounds like national media is dangerous covering the county mayors race. The heart of your message is, dont read national coverage of the Hamilton County mayors race, it could be riddled with danger.

Just come clean and tell the voters the truth, and that aint going to cost anything. Tell them you condemned President Trump for years in your work through the political non-profit Issue One.

Weston, your posted words on the Internet are subjected to conservative review on the Tennessee Star, and it is troublesome. It is almost impossible to refute your own words, somehow you just cannot unsay the social media posts and opinion published in national media.

You know sometimes when you're caught, it is just better to come clean.

Instead, you write, national media is bad in local politics. Be truthful, the real peril is that 65 percent of Hamilton County Republicans voted for Donald Trump, and eventually they will be presented with your anti-Trump social media posts and letters of opinion published to national media outlets.

I would also say it is foolish to attempt to capture free campaign media on open venue opinion sites, as your detractors can post here as well.

Weston, you cannot unprint your words. Just come clean, and tell the voters the truth. They may respect the honesty and forgive your lapse in judgment.

The Times Free Press conducted a financial study of your congressional campaign disclosures, and determined that 65 percent of your congressional campaign funds came from Zach Wamp donors.

Yes, the Times Free Press published this data during the Congressional races. The Times Free Press covers national politics, should we ignore them too?

Just tell the truth about your words against The Donald, and cease the C-Street excuses that only work in Washington.

April Eidson

Excerpt from:

Weston Wamp: The Peril In Nationalizing Local Politics - And Response - The Chattanoogan

Finn Wolfhard and Julianne Moore in When You Finish Saving the World. (Courtesy Sundance.org)

In 2002, Jesse Eisenberg made his cinematic acting debut in Roger Dodger.His quick-witted, razor-sharp quirky style quickly became adored and his career began to skyrocket. With a range of acclaimed roles from the deviously brilliant Lex Luthor to the real-life supervillain Mark Zuckerberg, Eisenberg is a force to be reckoned with. Twenty years later, Eisenberg has taken his talents behind the camera in his directorial debut When You Finish Saving the World.

Based on Eisenbergs original audiobook of the same name, When You Finish Saving the World is an intimate and touching exploration of the troubled relationship between mother Evelyn Katz (Julianne Moore) and her teenage son Ziggy (Finn Wolfhard) as they navigate the minefield of finding personal worth.

In Indiana, Evelyn runs a womens shelter and pines to assist those down on their luck. Ziggy on the other hand is a top musical performer on a fictitious TikTok facsimile called HiHat. Both characters are aspiring to do the right thing in their respective fields, but find that this desire only distracts from their overwhelming internal emptiness. This emptiness is emphasized by the severely dysfunctional home life they share. They exist in a world of false faces and invulnerability one where the question how are you doing? is only asked when prompted by a fascinating scholarly article on teen suicide.

When You Finish Saving the World touches on our hindered ability to serve others when we are not addressing our own personal infirmities. It explores themes of narcissism, self-worth, understanding and the gatekeeping that comes with political correctness. Moore gives a brilliant performance that grasped me and brought many of these themes to life. Her physicality, delivery and expressions are marvelously thought out and calculated. While her performance was breathtaking, the film, left something to be wanted. The themes it centers are inherently interesting, but they are not explored in a particularly deep or memorable way.

The film is unabashedly Jesse Eisenberg. His token fast-talking, intelligent wit are around every corner. It was interesting to see how well Eisenberg translated his style from acting to directing. For some, this style is frustrating, alienating and abrasive. As a fan of Eisenberg, however, I found it implicitly charming. Due to his divisive nature, my guess is that if you dont like Eisenberg, you wont like When You Finish Saving the World.

As the credits rolled, I was left with the realization that we often dont give each other enough credit. I was reminded of a quote by the great Fred Rodgers who said, You dont have to do anything sensational for people to love you. While this quote may be a touch lovey-dovey, When You Finish Saving the World, though a little clumsily, embodied this message.

Constantly we each strive to match our ideals and constantly we fail to do so. There is so much going on in the world without enough people asking the questions When You Finish Saving the World highlights. How are you doing? Are you happy? Are you okay? Eisenberg seems to think that we need more of that in the world. Honestly, while his directorial debut may not knock it out of the park, I think he is right.

So, sincerely, how are you doing? Are you happy? Are you okay?

[emailprotected]

@__lukejackson

Originally posted here:

Sundance: Jesse Eisenberg's Directorial Debut 'When You Finish Saving the World' is a Touching Exploration of Self-Worth - Daily Utah Chronicle

They were what would soon, I suppose, come to be known as young fogeys; they went around in tweeds or academic gowns at a time when almost all students wore jeans and duffle coats, talked in a stylised posh manner regardless of their own social origins, and sometimes attended high Anglican acts of worship, with much chat of double genuflections and incense.

They also engaged in Conservative politics, although in a style I had never encountered in Scotland before; during my first term in St Andrews, for instance, they were busy celebrating the fifth anniversary of Rhodesian UDI, a declaration of independence from the UK by a white colonial government which refused to move towards majority rule.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

What I could never work out about this crew, though, was how seriously they really took all this, as a political programme. Emotionally, it was easy to trace in them some kind of visceral nostalgic reaction to the more egalitarian world that had evolved in Britain since the Second World War, a resistance to the implicit radicalism of 1960s pop culture, and a desire to preserve the manners and style of a bygone age of aristocracy and empire.

Yet there was something performative about the stance they took ironic, jocular, lightly self-mocking which suggested that they also knew it was out of kilter with late 20th century reality.

I never heard any of them actually defend white supremacy, for example, although they were willing to attend a party celebrating it; and it wasnt until slightly later, when I encountered different, more serious St Andrews Conservatives like Michael Forsyth and Michael Fallon, that I realised how their attitude meshed with a much more substantial attack on post-war values, and on the very idea of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, which had shaped British public policy since 1945.

And it struck me last week, as I watched Jacob Rees-Mogg giving one of his ageing-Lord-Fauntleroy performances in the Commons, that I have now been witnessing this cult of performative reactionary poshness, in one form or another, for almost my entire adult life; and that it is one of the keys both to the political success of the present Prime Minister, and to the reasons why his days in Downing Street many now be numbered. Boris Johnson is no Lord Fauntleroy, of course; he leaves the high-camp 18th century stylings to others.

He has, though, long adopted the persona of the hapless but charming jolly aristocrat, hail-fellow-well-met, chummy in the pub, wearing his classical education lightly, his hair rumpled, and his posh vowels reassuringly deep in the throat, as if hinting at hidden reserves of bottom and moral strength. And he has found that in an age of political reaction driven not only, since the 1980s, by a renewed elite class determined to defend its wealth and privileges, but also by dispossessed working-class people bereft of socialist alternatives there has been an ever-growing market for his kind of leadership.

The problem for Johnson, though, is that this comedic and ironic style which served him well as a political journalist only really works for a leader of opposition, dissent and mockery, and not for the leader of a government trying to deal with 21st century realities. The long collapse of Johnsons successful act began, of course, on the morning of 24 June 2016, when white with shock he realised that powerful forces largely beyond his control had combined to make his jokey retro-fantasy of British withdrawal from the EU into a pressing reality, for which he would probably, at some point, have to take some responsibility.

The second blow to his chosen persona came with the Covid pandemic, which obliged governments everywhere to take the kind of serious nanny state measures, to protect health services and lives, that Boris most deeply despises.

Indeed if you seek an explanation for the unfolding Downing Street party scandals, you need look no further than the divided mind of a man working half-heartedly as a rational Prime Minister, who almost every day had to announce the current regulations to a struggling populace, but whose Boris brain was never fully engaged with the words he spoke, particularly when it came to the behaviour of his own inner circle.

Now, though, we seem to have come to the point where most people have tired of Boriss amusing political turn, which proved so popular, at least with some, at the general election of 2019.

Suddenly, his jocular and ironic stance is not about reassuring nods and winks against political correctness, for those upset by it, but about rank arrogance and double standards, in first ignoring, and then trying to bluster his way out of, regulations made by his own government, for the public good, during a national emergency.

When I first glimpsed the political pantomime of nostalgia for aristocratic times long gone, in St Andrews half a century ago, it never occurred to me that it would ever reach the commanding heights of British government; it was silly, negative and mockingly destructive then, and it remains so now, even as rafts of damaging right-wing policy are enacted under cover of its tomfoolery.

So, to echo David Davis in the Commons this week, in the name of God go now, all you nostalgists and jokers, mockers and myth-makers and imperial throwbacks; and let us have government by the people and for the people, at last, at least in some parts of these un-sceptred isles.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Follow this link:

Boris Johnson's political career has benefited from his comic persona but his government is now a sick joke Joyce McMillan - The Scotsman

Weve all been Carrie at a point, with our money put where I can control it, hanged in my closet, a pile of shoes and a broken heart; dating the city when there was no one else to date, or being underpaid but writing stuff we loved.

Please, if you can, give us back the Carrie, Miranda and Charlotte of yesterday, matured from the joints of life but still with a sparkle. Those witty, politically incorrect but human friends. Give us back mistakes, failures, jokes, gossips (maybe not Cosmpolitans, I hate it). Give us back the boldness of (almost) youth theirs and ours. I would not want those three grown-up boring (and not that well dressed) ladies as friends to save my life, at the moment. And frankly, once the dutiful and cathartic tears for the way they (and we) were are dried, I can not help but ask myself: whats the ultimate meaning of such an operation?

(Francesca Marino is a journalist and a South Asia expert who has written Apocalypse Pakistan with B Natale. Her latest book is Balochistan Bruised, Battered and Bloodied. She tweets @francescam63. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for his reported views.)

View post:

And Just Like That, Political Correctness Killed Sex and the City - The Quint

I agree with the writer of Not about inclusion, its about respect (Letters to the editor, Dec. 31) that political correctness is a plague. His rant is Exhibit A.

When folks dont conform to ones notion of political correctness, he gets offended and retreats to his tribal dogma.

The writer claims that saying Happy Holidays diminishes what he believes is the true meaning of Christmas. Faith comes from within. If his faith in the true meaning of Christmas relies on others conformity to his notion of political correctness, his faith is exceedingly brittle.

He keeps saying that saying Happy Holidays offends many Christians. But Ive only heard that its politically incorrect to say Happy Holidays since the early 2000s, via the right-wing media.

I dont even know if these right-wing talking heads spewing this nonsense are actually Christians. They sound like money-grubbing demagogues, the type Jesus found intolerable. These right-wing demagogues have unfortunately garnered a following, however.

The writer ought to read Glenn Becks book Addicted to Outrage. As a recovering outrage addict and a former purveyor of outrage, Beck tells the afflicted to chill.

Whats wrong with just appreciating others expressions of good will? Can we all get along?

James Joseph Clarkson

Wailuku

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Visit link:

Just appreciate others' expressions of good will | News, Sports, Jobs - Maui News

Trump supporters converge on the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.John Minchillo/The Associated Press

With the anniversary of Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection on Thursday, many Canadians will be thumbing their noses at the Donald Trump cult and what it has done to the beleaguered great republic. Except for about six million of them.

Six million? Thats roughly the number of Canadians, pollsters estimate, who support Mr. Trump or the Trumpism ideology.

Its a number more than the population of British Columbia thats not easy to fathom. It shows how susceptible Canada is to American currents. It suggests that as we watch Americans recall the horror of that day, we should refrain from gloating. The corrosive forces at work in the U.S. are alive and well here.

Most of the Canadian polling was done in November of 2020, after four years of Mr. Trumps handiwork. His support numbers didnt sag during that period. Like Americans, it seems Canadians who are enamoured of the demagogue stay that way no matter what he does.

Its possible what happened on Jan. 6 the ghastly images of the attempted overthrow of democracy still shock resulted in that six million number dropping. But likely not by much. We recall after the election that Mr. Trump began his campaign to negate the result with his wild-eyed stop-the-steal campaign. A poll by the Angus Reid Institute found that no less than 41 per cent of Canadian Conservative voters agreed with him that the election was unfair and should be contested. Overall, the number of Canadians who agreed was 18 per cent, which is in the six-million neighbourhood.

It need be noted that this is less that half the percentage of Americans who continue to back Mr. Trump. But its still remarkable given his shredding of democratic values, his race-baiting, his sleaze, his pandering to peoples worst instincts, his serial lying, his record of sexual harassment, his retrograde policy stances and, in Canadas case, his dismissive treatment.

The Canadian Conservative Party generally steers clear of him. After Jan. 6, long-time Conservative strategist Ken Boessenkool wrote that this was the last straw, that he could no longer tolerate party members who supported him, that Mr. Trump was an evil man. His backward populism, he said, served to stoke anger and posed a threat to Canada.

The Trump appeal lies primarily in the Prairie provinces. Among the many reasons for his support, said Abacus Data chairman Bruce Anderson in an interview, is his ransacking of political correctness. Theres a good-sized market for it, especially among those who harbour resentment towards minorities, women, immigrants.

Being pro-oil and one who scoffs at climate change wins him support in the West, and hes struck a chord, as he has in the U.S., with people who detest political institutions, wokeism and elites. Moreover, Mr. Anderson says, he beats up on the mainstream media and theres a pretty large and I think growing market for that.

Like Mr. Trump, many of his Canadian supporters tend to be angry and venomous. Being very vocal, they have a disproportionately large presence on social media platforms, where they spew their bile while often hiding behind pseudonyms, too cowardly to reveal their identities.

Their attacks on the media, on my own shortcomings for example, sometimes have merit. But when it comes to truth fornication and fake news, its hard to surpass the Trumpians.

Ekos Research president Frank Graves, who has done extensive research on right-wing populism in Canada, said in an interview that the Trumpians tend to be under the age of 50, working class, male, less educated and located mainly outside urban cores.

My view is that the same forces that produced the Trump presidency in the U.S. are at work in Canada, albeit on a smaller scale. Trump apostles debase the national dialogue. Their effect, he said, is corrosive on Canadian values, unity, institutions.

Its too difficult to tell, he added, whether Trump support numbers will grow or decline. Though the Peoples Party of Canada denies being a home for Trumpians, there is likely some overlap, and its level of support in the next few years could be a barometer.

Whatever the case, should Mr. Trump return to power he could well have a large cohort of Canadians supporting him and his destabilizing designs.

Its of paramount concern, said Mr. Anderson, and media organizations, for one, have to step up. Theyve been contributing to the problem by chasing the clicks rather than modulating the debate, and by removing guardrails rather than protecting a civil conversation.

Guardrails indeed need to be heightened. Let the first anniversary of what happened at the American Capitol on Jan. 6 be an emphatic reminder.

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

Original post:

Opinion: The disturbing reality is that millions of Canadians support Trump - The Globe and Mail