Category Archives: Political Correctness

Playwright Ken Ludwig is a pretty popular guy on Cape Cod right now.

Not only is thestory of his parents' romance during World War II playing out in a local premiere at Cape Rep Theatre in Brewster, but just down the road, Chatham Drama Guild is opening his adaptation of one of the classic murder mysteries of all time: Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express."

What's not written by Ludwig at Cape theaters? Miranda Jont's one-woman autobiographical play is so popular that the run was extended another week. Then there's the most seasonal of the shows, in a fashion. Cape Cod Community College is producingthe area premiereof Larissa Fasthorse's "A Thanksgiving Play" that gives a very different, for mature audiences only, perspective onwhat really happened at that first feast centuries ago.

Written by: Ken Ludwig, based on the book by Agatha Christie,presented by the Chatham Drama Guild

What it's about: Its winter1934 and strangers are (seemingly) thrown together for a rail trip from Istanbul to London on the legendary and elegant Orient Express train. Also along for the ride is world-famous detective Hercule Poirot (Joe Theroux), the master Belgian sleuth at the center of Christiemysteries. Before the champagnehas had time to chill, there is, of course ,a murder. Obnoxious, zoot-suit-wearing Samuel Rachett (Bragan Thomas) is found dead in his compartment with eight stab wounds and too many clues, as the always-debonair Poirot declares. But fear not, the master investigator will live up to his sterling reputation and unravel the mystery.

See it or not: Go to once again be immersed in Christie's gentle geniusand her alter-ego Poirot.

Highlight of the show: Therouxs take on Christies diminutive detective is spot-on. He is brilliant yet subtle, and commanding yet endearing. He engages the audience from the beginning, often speaking directly to the assembled mystery lovers, bringing them into the heart of the action. Its never easy to step on stage as such a familiar character, and Theroux proves equal to the challenge. He is ably supported by a cast that includes some guildveterans: Thomas (who doubles as Scottish Colonel Arbuthnot), Stephanie Haig as British beauty Mary Debenham, and Kathy Hamilton as aristocratic Countess Andrenyi. If youre a guild regular, youll remember Haig as the delightfully mischievous Elvira in Blithe Spirit, and Thomas as a down-on-his luck Shakespearean actor/actress in Leading Ladies.

Fun fact: To date, there have been 10 Hercule Poirot films and a popular and long-running British TV series starring the incomparable David Suchet.

Worth noting: The costumes are both authentic and attractive, thanks to costumer Pam Banas. And an ingenious set design allows scenes to switch seamlessly from the trains lounge to individual compartments.

One more thing: The play is perfectly suited to the guilds small and intimate theater, with the audience drawn into the action from the start.

If you go: 7:30 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays and 2 p.m. Sundays through Nov. 28 at Chatham Drama Guild, 134 Crowell Road; $24; 508-945-0510,http://www.chatdramaguild.org/.Masks are required for unvaccinated patrons.

Sue Mellen

Written by: Ken Ludwig, presented by Cape Rep Theatre

What it's about: Its the early days of World War II and Jack and Louise on opposite coasts are thrown together by parents who are sure they should meet, if only via the U.S. postal service. What follows is a courtship-by-letter as Jack, an army physician in Oregon, and Louise, a struggling actress in the Big Apple, wend their way through the highs and lows of their burgeoning romance. The audience is there in Louises boudoir and Jacks army barracks as each of the sweethearts recites letters to the other.

Highlight of the show: The co-stars timing is perfect. As Jack (Lewis D. Wheeler) is opening a letter on his half of the stage, Louise (Jade Schuyler) is reciting its contents in her little corner of the world. Then, of course, the process is reversed. Neither reacts to the other, cementing the illusion that the pen pals are separated by thousands of miles.

Fun fact: The play is actually based on the real-life romance of playwright Ken Ludwigs parents. That should tell you theres a happy ending; Ludwig is, after all, here to tell the story.

Worth noting: The combination of authentic WWII-era costumes and love songs transports the audience back to a time of romance and glamour.

One more thing: The stage is hung with oversized sheets of writing paper and telegrams, an effective reminder of the romance-by-letter.

If you go: 7:30 p.m. Wednesdays through Saturdays and 2 p.m. Sundays through Nov. 21 at Cape Rep Theatre, 3299 Route 6A, Brewster. Tickets: $25;Reservations and information: 508-896-1888, http://www.caperep.org. All patrons will be required to show proof of vaccination, and be required to wear a mask during performances.

Sue Mellen

Written and performed by: Miranda Jont, presented by the Cotuit Center for the Arts

What its about: This one-person, autobiographical show, directed by Kerry Flanagan, showcases a woman on the back end of 30 sharing the intimacies and regrets of a lifetime so far. They include relationships borne of habit and desperation that left her empty, vulnerable and unsure of her own viability as a woman, as a human being. After a long-term relationship dissolves, she tries on a bunch of others, seeking her own self-worth.

See it or not: This monodrama is eminently relatable (who hasnt lived through relationship lies and heartache?), funny, poignant and entertaining. The script tends to rely too much on crude language and cliches at times, but, overall, it is an engaging 60 minutes of theater.

Highlight of the show: Miranda Jont is a true talent, captivating the audience with a story that is, truth be told, not all that earth-shattering. Her charisma and passion carry the evening, which leans toward confessional at times.

Fun fact: This play was initially an autobiographical Facebook post that went viral. A literary manager read it, and asked Miranda to develop it for the stage.

Worth noting: Jonte starred in the centers streaming video series Teacher of the Year, and creating this production included others involved in that show.

Theater is back! Two Cape companies stage musical revues for global reopening celebration

One more thing: You need to have proof of COVID-19 vaccination to attend; masks are still recommended in the small space.

If you go: 7:30 p.m. Thursdays through Saturdays and 2 p.m. Sundays through Nov. 14at the Vivian and Morton Sigel Black Box Theater, Cotuit Center For the Arts, 4404 Falmouth Road;$25, $20 for members;508-428-0669, http://www.artsonthecapeorg. Proof of COVID-19 vaccination is required for entrance.

Carol Panasci

Theater returns to Cape Cod Community College with Larissa Fasthorse's "The Thanksgiving Play," which is described as giving audiences "an inside view at what happens when an overachieving and oh-so-politically-correct high school teacher tries to stage the first Thanksgiving for her students but finds herself way over her head when cultural suppositions, political correctness and social "woke-ness" reframe the historical narrative."

This play,intended for mature audiences and containingreferences to culturally insensitive material, will conclude its run at 7 p.m. Nov. 12-13 and 2 p.m. Nov. 14 in the Studio Theatre at Tilden Arts Center at the college, 2240 Iyannough Road, West Barnstable. Masks are required to be worn at all times when inside the building. Tickets and information: https://www.eventbrite.com/.

Read the original:

Cape Cod theater reviews: Romance, revelations and a different view of Thanksgiving - Cape Cod Times

FIRST ON FOX: Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is publishing a book next summer tackling the "misguided failures" of the U.S. education system, from the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020 to the critical race theory fight of today, her publisher announced Wednesday.

Center Street, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, will publish DeVos book, titled "Hostages to the Cause: The Fight for Education and the Future of the American Child" on June 21, 2022.

BETSY DEVOS: YOUNGKIN WIN WILL FURTHER FUEL THE 'PARENTS GROUNDSWELL' FOR EDUCATION FREEDOM

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos listens during a visit to Florida Virtual School in Orlando, Florida, on Monday, Oct. 26, 2020. (Stephen M. Dowell/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

The book chronicles DeVos fight for "groundbreaking reforms to American education after being relentlessly vilified by the teachers unions, media and Democrats," Center Street said in a press release exclusively shared with Fox News.

"She recounts her decades-long battles to put students first, hits back at woke curricula and policies in our schools and describes why the fight for the future of the American child is so vital and important to the future of the country," the release stated.

The publisher said DeVos, who served as education secretary under former President Trump from 2017 to 2021, also "candidly shares" in the book her experiences working within the Trump administration.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos arrives to pay her respects as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 24, 2020. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP)

"The frontline venue in the fight for the future of this country is Americas schools," DeVos said in a statement. "The leftists have taken over in spectacularly awful fashion and our students are paying the price. From school lockdowns and learning loss to CRT and the 1619 Project, every family got a front row seat to the misguided failures of our education system during the past 18 months."

BETSY DEVOS: YOUNGKIN WIN WILL FURTHER FUEL THE 'PARENT GROUNDSWELL' FOR EDUCATION FREEDOM

"It doesnt have to be this way," she continued. "If we empower students and families to find the best educational fit for them, their lives will improve, as will the trajectory of our great nation. Im excited to share my experiences and ideas on how we get that done."

Story continues

DeVos, who had been involved in the school choice movement for decades before becoming education secretary, recently told Fox News that the nationwide movement against critical race theory (CRT) has skyrocketed in recent months.

Parents and community members attend a Loudoun County School Board meeting, just 40 minutes from Fairfax, Virginia. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

"Ive been involved in the parental empowerment, school choice movement for 35 years," she noted. "This last year and a half, the momentum has built in ways that nobody could have predicted pre-pandemic."

The book is expected to dive into the CRT battle and deliver "blunt insights" about the "crisis" in American education due to political correctness.

"Betsy DeVos has been a leading conservative in the battle over the future of education for decades long before her tenure as Secretary of Education. This is not just another book about the last administration," Center Street Editorial Director Alex Pappas said in a statement. "Betsy has written a powerful, forward-looking book that offers solutions to the most pressing issues in Americas schools. Center Street is proud to publish this important and timely book."

Fox News' Tyler O'Neil contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:

Betsy DeVos to publish Hostages to the Cause, a book on misguided failures of US education system - Yahoo News

Remember Family Guy? Fifteen-odd years ago, the Seth MacFarlane-created animated sitcom seemed to be everywhere. After The Simpsons had revolutionised the possibilities of TV animation in the 1990s, Family Guy went one step further. This was The Simpsons grubby little brother. The animation was cheap-looking, the storytelling flimsy and artless, and the jokes were loudly, proudly crass. Racist jokes, homophobic jokes, transphobic jokes, ablist jokes, jokes about rape, about paedophilia; nothing was off the table. It won plenty of fans especially within the young male demographic but plenty of detractors, too, inciting numerous controversies with its shock-factor material. In many ways, Family Guy represented the worst impulses of an era when pushing back against PC culture was considered a cutting-edge comic sensibility.

But there comes a time when every provocateur must meet a reckoning, when every enfant terrible must face trial as a terrible adult. The needle of consensus swings, and jokes that once were hailed as edgy, or outspoken, are found to be, on closer reinspection, offensive, or ill-informed, or simply unfunny. Some series get off with a rap on the knuckles Friends penchant for homophobia hasnt put a dent in its popularity while others have been yeeted into total exile, such as Family Guys erstwhile bad-taste contemporary Little Britain. And yet, next Wednesday, on Disney Plus in the UK, Family Guy begins its 20th season, with a 21st already in the pipeline. You cant help but ask: how has it managed to survive so long in an era of supposedly enforced political correctness?

Well, to some extent, Family Guy has changed with the times, making certain concessions to our changing social standards of acceptability. The role of Peter Griffins Black friend Cleveland Brown was recently recast, for instance, with Arif Zahir stepping in to replace white actor Mike Henry. The character of Quagmire, depicted throughout much of the shows run as a lascivious sex offender, was tweaked in recent seasons, accentuating his other, somewhat less problematic characteristics. The 2019 episode Trump Guy made headlines not just for its bullish attack on then-president Donald Trump featuring a scene in which he sexually assaults the Griffins daughter, Meg but also for the suggestion that it was dialling back homophobic jokes. Many children have learnt their favourite Jewish, Black, and gay jokes by watching your show over the years, the cartoon Trump tells Peter in the episode. In fairness, weve been trying to phase out the gay stuff, he replies, an utterance that was celebrated in the press as a statement of tolerant intent.

Family Guy didnt phase out the gay stuff, not really (Peter even admits in a later episode: That quote was taken out of context and widely misunderstood). Nor did it particularly phase out the racism, ableism, and sexism that make up such a large part of the show. But itd be wrong to suggest it has learnt nothing. Exec-producer Alec Sulkin told TV Line two years ago: If you look at a show from 2005 or 2006 and put it side-by-side with a show from 2018 or 2019, theyre going to have a few differences. Some of the things we felt comfortable saying and joking about back then, we now understand is not acceptable.

Still, some of the jokes that the show feels comfortable about making now still feel like reactionary outrage-baiting. The 2019 episode Bri-da featured a number of crass jokes about transgender people; the 2017 episode Trans-fat, which saw Peter Griffin pretend to be trans to gain social advantages, contained similarly objectionable jokes.

One of the arguments used to defend the politically incorrect humour in Family Guy, and in other bad taste comedies, is that it is satirical: depiction is not endorsement. Of course, this argument never really holds up in Family Guys case; the satire here is usually paper-thin. Even if the character of Mort Goldstein is in fact satirising antisemitism, the satire is indistinguishable from antisemitism itself. Besides, even if the show itself isnt fundamentally approaching its material from a right-wing viewpoint MacFarlane is a major donor to the Democratic Party, and some of the shows writers are vocally liberal a good amount of its viewers are. When Trans-fat first aired, a subset of Family Guy fans lambasted the series on social media for supposedly capitulating to PC culture, thanks to an ending in which Peter Griffin apologises for mocking trans people.

Family Guys enduring survival could be down to a gradual maturation in other areas. The animation, a full-blown eyesore in its early days, has improved ten-fold. Increasingly, the humour has scaled back the frenzied, puerile cutaway gags, and increasingly takes a more self-aware tone. More risks are taken, too, with its format, such as an entire episode devoted to a fake in-universe DVD commentary, or a triptych emulating the filmmaking aesthetics of Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Michael Bay. This long-term creative stamina is nothing to be scoffed at: by its own 20th season, The Simpsons was over a decade past its peak and had already lost all trace of what made it such a monumental piece of TV. Regardless, Family Guys viewing figures have declined substantially over the years, at least on traditional TV. In 2000, and 2002, Family Guy was twice cancelled by Fox for low viewership ratings, before being revived due to high DVD sales and the popularity of Adult Swim re-runs. Now, it draws less than half of what it did at its lowest pre-cancellation ebb. Maybe there just arent enough people still watching to really cultivate much offence.

Glenn Quagmires transgender parent, Ida, has been the subject of numerous offensive jokes on the series

(Fox/Disney)

All of these factors may be overlooking the obvious answer. Family Guy hasnt been hogtied by the PC police, run out of town on a rail, because the PC brigade doesnt really exist. For all the talk of being unable to say anything anymore, the fact is that you can, by and large, say whatever the hell you want. Dave Chappelle complains about being cancelled for his jokes about trans people, but hes still given high-profile Netflix specials. Theres a place in the market for bad-taste comedy, and Family Guy is dutifully filling that hole. Its a show that prides itself on saying the unsayable. Thankfully for most people, what its really saying is the easily ignorable.

Family Guy season 20 begins on Disney Plus in the UK and Ireland on 3 November

More:

How on earth has Family Guy survived for 20 seasons in the supposed era of political correctness? - The Independent

Remember Family Guy? Fifteen-odd years ago, the Seth MacFarlane-created animated sitcom seemed to be everywhere. After The Simpsons had revolutionised the possibilities of TV animation in the 1990s, Family Guy went one step further. This was The Simpsons grubby little brother. The animation was cheap-looking, the storytelling flimsy and artless, and the jokes were loudly, proudly crass. Racist jokes, homophobic jokes, transphobic jokes, ablist jokes, jokes about rape, about paedophilia; nothing was off the table. It won plenty of fans especially within the young male demographic but plenty of detractors, too, inciting numerous controversies with its shock-factor material. In many ways, Family Guy represented the worst impulses of an era when pushing back against PC culture was considered a cutting-edge comic sensibility.

But there comes a time when every provocateur must meet a reckoning, when every enfant terrible must face trial as a terrible adult. The needle of consensus swings, and jokes that once were hailed as edgy, or outspoken, are found to be, on closer reinspection, offensive, or ill-informed, or simply unfunny. Some series get off with a rap on the knuckles Friends penchant for homophobia hasnt put a dent in its popularity while others have been yeeted into total exile, such as Family Guys erstwhile bad-taste contemporary Little Britain. And yet, next Wednesday, on Disney Plus in the UK, Family Guy begins its 20th season, with a 21st already in the pipeline. You cant help but ask: how has it managed to survive so long in an era of supposedly enforced political correctness?

Well, to some extent, Family Guy has changed with the times, making certain concessions to our changing social standards of acceptability. The role of Peter Griffins Black friend Cleveland Brown was recently recast, for instance, with Arif Zahir stepping in to replace white actor Mike Henry. The character of Quagmire, depicted throughout much of the shows run as a lascivious sex offender, was tweaked in recent seasons, accentuating his other, somewhat less problematic characteristics. The 2019 episode Trump Guy made headlines not just for its bullish attack on then-president Donald Trump featuring a scene in which he sexually assaults the Griffins daughter, Meg but also for the suggestion that it was dialling back homophobic jokes. Many children have learnt their favourite Jewish, Black, and gay jokes by watching your show over the years, the cartoon Trump tells Peter in the episode. In fairness, weve been trying to phase out the gay stuff, he replies, an utterance that was celebrated in the press as a statement of tolerant intent.

Family Guy didnt phase out the gay stuff, not really (Peter even admits in a later episode: That quote was taken out of context and widely misunderstood). Nor did it particularly phase out the racism, ableism, and sexism that make up such a large part of the show. But itd be wrong to suggest it has learnt nothing. Exec-producer Alec Sulkin told TV Line two years ago: If you look at a show from 2005 or 2006 and put it side-by-side with a show from 2018 or 2019, theyre going to have a few differences. Some of the things we felt comfortable saying and joking about back then, we now understand is not acceptable.

Still, some of the jokes that the show feels comfortable about making now still feel like reactionary outrage-baiting. The 2019 episode Bri-da featured a number of crass jokes about transgender people; the 2017 episode Trans-fat, which saw Peter Griffin pretend to be trans to gain social advantages, contained similarly objectionable jokes.

One of the arguments used to defend the politically incorrect humour in Family Guy, and in other bad taste comedies, is that it is satirical: depiction is not endorsement. Of course, this argument never really holds up in Family Guys case; the satire here is usually paper-thin. Even if the character of Mort Goldstein is in fact satirising antisemitism, the satire is indistinguishable from antisemitism itself. Besides, even if the show itself isnt fundamentally approaching its material from a right-wing viewpoint MacFarlane is a major donor to the Democratic Party, and some of the shows writers are vocally liberal a good amount of its viewers are. When Trans-fat first aired, a subset of Family Guy fans lambasted the series on social media for supposedly capitulating to PC culture, thanks to an ending in which Peter Griffin apologises for mocking trans people.

Family Guys enduring survival could be down to a gradual maturation in other areas. The animation, a full-blown eyesore in its early days, has improved ten-fold. Increasingly, the humour has scaled back the frenzied, puerile cutaway gags, and increasingly takes a more self-aware tone. More risks are taken, too, with its format, such as an entire episode devoted to a fake in-universe DVD commentary, or a triptych emulating the filmmaking aesthetics of Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Michael Bay. This long-term creative stamina is nothing to be scoffed at: by its own 20th season, The Simpsons was over a decade past its peak and had already lost all trace of what made it such a monumental piece of TV. Regardless, Family Guys viewing figures have declined substantially over the years, at least on traditional TV. In 2000, and 2002, Family Guy was twice cancelled by Fox for low viewership ratings, before being revived due to high DVD sales and the popularity of Adult Swim re-runs. Now, it draws less than half of what it did at its lowest pre-cancellation ebb. Maybe there just arent enough people still watching to really cultivate much offence.

Glenn Quagmires transgender parent, Ida, has been the subject of numerous offensive jokes on the series

(Fox/Disney)

All of these factors may be overlooking the obvious answer. Family Guy hasnt been hogtied by the PC police, run out of town on a rail, because the PC brigade doesnt really exist. For all the talk of being unable to say anything anymore, the fact is that you can, by and large, say whatever the hell you want. Dave Chappelle complains about being cancelled for his jokes about trans people, but hes still given high-profile Netflix specials. Theres a place in the market for bad-taste comedy, and Family Guy is dutifully filling that hole. Its a show that prides itself on saying the unsayable. Thankfully for most people, what its really saying is the easily ignorable.

Family Guy season 20 begins on Disney Plus in the UK and Ireland on 3 November

View post:

How on earth has Family Guy survived in the era of political correctness? - News Nation USA

When one thinks of a Board of Education election, or boards of education in general, it is not common to associate them with political drama.But the 2021 election cycle has shown that no assumption is safe.

In Randolph, the culture war bubbled up when Columbus Day was taken off the school calendar, only to be met with a backlash from the public.This, in turn, led to the knee-jerk reaction where all school holidays were erased, replaced with a simple day off.Another uproar followed and when all was settled, Columbus and all the other holiday names were returned as before.

The Randolph school kerfuffle was picked up by Jack Ciattarellis campaign as an example of political correctness run amok.The Passaic County Republican commissioner campaign even used the decision of the Paterson School Board to swap Columbus Day out as a sign that Democrats were out of control. The Democrats later fired back on social media, saying the county government does not have anything to do with what the schools choose to call their holidays.

Columbus, however, has been stirring controversy for several years.More recent, and more imperative, is the matter of COVID-19 defense and policies which best serve childrens health and education.To keep the focus on Passaic County, the Wayne school board meetings have been a manifest microcosm of the bigger debate on masking. Tensions have run high between those in support of and against keeping kids masked in school. Parents have also raised concerns regarding the content of what they describe as inappropriate, explicit literature in the schools with respect to sex education.

In the summer, the governor issued an executive order requiring all pre-school through high school personnel to be vaccinated or undergo COVID testing every week.Executive Order 251 required all personnel as well as students to wear masks while in school for the 2021-2022 school year.The NJEA, the powerful teachers union, supported the governors decision.

The messaging on mask requirements coming from Trenton has changed over the course of the year, with the government often saying that decisions are determined by the data, reserving the right to issue such executive orders as he deems the coronavirus situation requires.Not everyone agrees, however, with requiring students to wear masks in school.Executive orders from the governor bind the school boards, but there are other areas where the board can exercise control.A group of parents opposed to mask mandates wanted the board to send a letter to the governor, asking that school districts be allowed to set this policy on their own.Initially, the suggestion was taken up, passing by one vote.Then, the decision to send the letter was reversed.

The drama continued when a raucous school board meeting in early October saw a woman condemning certain books in the schoolillustrated books which demonstrated particular sex acts.Parents cheered for her as the board turned off the microphone and a man approached the board itself, being escorted away by police.

Former New Jersey State Senator Norman Robertson (R) took an interest in the developments in Wayne, getting to know many of the parents opposed to the controversial literature.Wayne is a harbinger of things to come in New Jersey, Robertson said.With virtual learning required during most of the pandemic, parents at home were privy to the details of their childrens educational experience in ways that they had not been before.For some, this sparked their concerns and brought them out in large numbers to protest to the school board.Parents became involved because of the things that they saw being taught to the children online, Robertson said.He was unhappy, however, with the way some of the board members have handled the parents concerns.

Matters came to a head in Wayne most recently when the Board of Education meeting was not held because there were an insufficient number of board members to constitute a quorum.A sizable gathering of people had met to make themselves heard, and were angry no meeting would take place.This, of course, with Election Day right around the corner.According to local news, the absent board members all offered reasons they could not attend, but some parents felt it was a deliberate act designed to silence them.

What I would say is, unfortunately, it appears that some people believe in public education, Robertson said, as long as the public has nothing to do with it.

The election, according to the veteran senator, will not put the matter to bed in Wayne, however, and he expects more conflicts between school boards, school administrations, and families going forward.Wayne, in a sense, is the canary in the mineshaft.

THE MUNICIPALITY HAWTHORNE

Elsewhere in Passaic County, the borough of Hawthorne represents one of the battlegrounds of the county with respect to the mayor and council race.Hawthorne is also the only municipality with a Green Party candidate running for local election.Craig Cayetano is running an independent campaign to capture one of the three council-at-large seats.Madelyn Hoffman is the Green Party candidate for governor.

Hawthorne is politically famous for the forty-year reign of Republican Mayor Louis Bay II, whose administration stretched from 1948-1988.Afterward, the borough changed to a Faulkner Act strong-mayor municipal government.All mayors since Bay have been Republican and the council has also reflected a majority of Republican control.However, for the first time, Hawthorne now sees a slight advantage in registered Democrats than Republicans and the Democratic party has new municipal leadership.Hawthorne in the 21stCentury has not been able to return more than 1 Democrat to the council which comprises 4 ward councilmen and 3 at-large seats. A largely ineffectual Democratic Party in Hawthorne, combined with the historic majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning unaffiliated voters meant that the former grew stagnant and the latter became complacent after easy victories, with re-elections a near certainty.

Mayor Richard Goldberg, with some 13 years in the mayors seat, is a distant second to Louis Bays record, but nevertheless is the longest serving mayor the town has seen since 1988.Under his watch, he has appointed a number of Democrats to posts within the town, including the Municipal Alliance, the borough administrator, and the recently-formed Hawthorne Pride Alliance to address matters related to the LGBT community.Goldberg has strong bipartisan chops.

Hawthorne is also the home of former NJ State Senator John Girgenti (pictured, top), a man who, in the past, would have been the strongest Democrat to run against Goldberg, although he did not run.With no other meaningfully competitive Democrat, Goldberggenerally popular and noted for his sense of humorwas able to handily win re-elections that the opposition put in his way.In this cycle, however, he has decided not to seek re-election and a competitive mayoral race began.

Councilman Joseph Wojtecki, the Democrats only voice on the council, threw his hat into the ring.This is his third time running and Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh at a recent fundraiser dinner lauded his effort, saying, This is your time.Sayegh noted that he won the mayors seat on his third try, and was confident his Hawthorne counterpart would do the same before hoisting his fist into the air like a champion pugilist.

The Republican candidate seeking to succeed Goldberg is Council Vice President John Lane, a man who has served on the council for the better part of two decades and made an unsuccessful primary bid against former Mayor Fred Criscitelli in the past.

Both Lane and Council President Frank Matthews sought to run for mayor, but rather than risk a divisive primary election, they agreed to allow the County Committee to decide which of the two would be the mayoral candidate.Lane prevailed.

The incumbents united, the Republicans nevertheless still faced a primary in June, where former school board member Michael Doyle and tavern-owner Jay Shortway ran as a ticket, while a third Republican, Phil Speulda, ran his own campaign.

The incumbents were solidly victorious in the primary and moved toward the general election.The defeated Shortway, however, filed to run for one of the school board seats, running on a policy of maintaining the status quo.

The Hawthorne race has attracted the attention of county as well as state operatives looking to see whether or not the red borough will have become so purple that it might, in fact, turn blue.If it did, it could well serve as another feather in the cap of former state chairman (and still Passaic County chairman) John Currie.Curries tenure as Democratic chair saw the establishment of Democratic dominion on the county level where Republicans have consistently been frustrated in their attempts to gain freeholder seats.

If Wojtecki does not win he will still remain on the council since he represents Ward 1, and only the at-large council seats are up for grabs.The stakes are higher for Lane who, as a councilman-at-large, would no longer serve as a public official should he lose.

Hawthorne, a sleepy suburb which seldom makes headlines in the Garden State, has become one of Passaic Countys must-watch races.

DISTRICT 39

Senator Holly Schepisi, representing the 39thDistrict of Bergen and Passaic Counties, is running with Robert Auth andDeAnne C. DeFuccio on the assembly ticket.Given the bloodbath which marred the relationship between Auth and Schepisi after the passing of Senator Gerald Cardinale, their names together validate the late-great Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.The PM is said to have told Queen Victoria that Great Britain had no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.In this case, a demonstration of party unity must prove somewhat astounding to insiders, given the bitterness of the Schepisi/Auth break.

LD39 Democrats looking to displace the incumbents are senate candidate Ruth Dugan, who served on the Saddle River Board of Ed and is the wife of former state senator James Dugan, while Demarest Mayor Melinda Iannuzzi and Senator Loretta Weinberg aide Karlito Almeda try to dislodge Auth and DeFuccio.

The district is very close in terms of Democratic and Republican voters, and the unaffiliated voters will fundamentally make the difference either way.Schepisi, seen at several Ciattarelli rallies in North Jersey, demonstrated her tenacity and iron will.This was shown when she overcame her former assembly partner Auth, beating him out for Cardinales seat, but also in the highly charged 2019 election where she beat Democrat John Birkner by some 5,800 votes.

Auth, a longtime Cardinale acolyte, brings local name recognition through his incumbency, and DeFuccio a new face and fresh perspective.The Republican and Democratic assembly tickets are, in a way, reflective of each other.Iannuzzi, as a mayor and with her own local name recognition, represents the executive experience and political establishment to give balance to Alemda, a 26-year-old Filippino-American who has served Senator Weinberg, reflecting the growing diversity of the districts constituents generationally and culturally.

District 39 represents a unique palette of experience and continuity along with varied perspectives, all served up with a hefty-dose of New Jersey political diner booth chatter to make the raceand its consequenceswell worth monitoring.

(Visited 363 times, 24 visits today)

View post:

The Board of Ed Elephant in the Room and Other Passaic Elections Nuggets - InsiderNJ

I have had several people ask why I do not write some ridiculous and funny columns as I once did. You must understand that I am older, likely not wiser, and often confused as to the reasons for some of my current dilemmas and interpretations. It is difficult for me to find much funny material in my puzzling and perplexing everyday world.

History teaches us that what goes around usually comes around again. In the 1970s, my wife would take me to work and then go and sit for hours in gasoline lines, often witnessing fist fights, vulgar frustrated finger salutes, names called not found in most dictionaries and even one instance of handgun waving.

I realize that my reasoning may have slipped a bit, but I understood just a few months ago that America was fuel independent and selling energy resources to other countries. I asked someone who I really trust concerning their accuracy on current world affairs for his opinion. He said something about our oil production having been drastically reduced and that we were dependent once more on Arab suppliers and their high selling prices and current availability. An explosion in bicycle, skateboard, roller skate and walking shoe sales could be in the not- too-distant future.

Allow me to relate some of my recent experiences in the race for refueling my vehicle. Any conclusions, especially political, drawn by the readers are entirely up to their informed, nonjudgmental and intellectual judgment. The gas lines are not especially long just yet, but my memory, although spotty at times, remembers those long lines of bygone years.

One of the basic so-called automotive improvements in modern times is that different cars and models have the gas filling port on different sides. In my youth and even beyond, the gas cap was in the middle, often under the license plate, so the driver did not need to be on a certain side of the pump.

Recently, after sitting in line for some time, I observed a person getting out of their car to see which side the gas cap was on. As they were in the wrong lane, it became a major traffic operation to rescue and remove the errant driver. Car horns and loudly vocalized words of dissatisfaction floated through the fragrant gasoline aroma in the brisk autumn air.

On another occasion after waiting in line, I finally reached the right pump only to find an elderly woman approaching the same pump coming in my lane and direction. I was always taught to be respectful of the elderly, but I had several cars in my rear-view mirror, the nearest nearly touching my bumper. The elderly obstacle pilot had no one behind her, and I presumed she would politely back up.

I think she must have been influenced by the current standard of I am what and who I am, and no one can change me. She defiantly turned off her engine, crossed her arms with a snarly grin, and the battle of wills was on. I couldnt help thinking, I wish Joe Manchin were here to break this tie.

I do not know how they did it, but two or three caring souls behind me somehow managed to allow me to retreat or relocate, if you prefer current political correctness, with honor, dignity and purity of intention, of course.

Some speak of karma or eventual retribution, but I was not raised by that belief. I will let you judge from the following scene. As I searched for another place in the line, I heard car horns and those nasty words being yelled. On observation, it seems my defiant gas line combatants car would not restart, and the situation was nearing a violent (often called peaceful) demonstration of total frustration.

Because of my upbringing, my first instinct was to feel sorry for this dear woman in distress. After quite a bit of mental and emotional discipline, I did just for a moment. But sneaking around the curves and corners of my inner self was the mental image of a fellow who looked a lot like me with one arm pumping the air and softly exclaiming YEA! You must forgive me, but there are so few times to celebrate, no matter how shortly or gently, in this crazy world in which we find ourselves.

I think these green electric cars will have the same trouble plugging into chargers unless they have a very long extension cord. I have not been able to figure out what fuel will be used to manufacture all the batteries to propel these gasless automobiles. That is another story for future thought and contemplation.

I suppose my one small YEA moment will last me until some other earthshaking event in my mundane and often uneventful maturing existence while trying to keep up with all the craziness and confusion in which we daily find ourselves. Remember: Be kind to the elderly, for you are rapidly on your way to that hard-earned distinction, accept it or not. Age is a matter of mind; if you dont mind, it doesnt matter, so some say. I havent found that to be personally true yet.

More here:

Deadlock at the pump | Opinion | wvnews.com - WV News

This essay is adapted from the preface to the forthcoming paperback edition of Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West.

A few months after Return of the Strong Gods was published, the strong gods returned.

Panic struck in March 2020 as a virus originating in China spread around the world. Fear of death and disease rippled through the population, especially among influential, university-educated people, who in the West are especially anxious about their health and safety. Politicians responded by throwing entire countries into lockdown, an unprecedented measure that put society in a state of suspended animation for months.

Nature abhors a vacuumespecially human nature, which is sociable and restless. In June 2020, amid the existential void of the universal lockdown, police in Minneapolis arrested an agitated, unruly black man named George Floyd, who died under restraint. The result was an explosion of protests across the United States that often descended into violence and looting.

We can argue endlessly about what killed George Floyddrugs in his bloodstream, vicious police tactics, a criminal justice system that targets blacks. We can speculate why protests spread so quicklysystemic racism, endemic violence in poor black communities, networks of professional agitators. But one thing is indisputable: In the vacuum of lockdown, blood cried out from the ground. After a long season of turmoil and confinement, the rhetoric of diversity and inclusion seemed ineffectual. It was replaced by strident demands for retribution, reparation, and punishment. No justice, no peace. This is the slogan of a strong god.

We should not judge movements by extreme voices, but anyone who wishes to understand the events inspired by the slogan Black Lives Matter must pay attention to what people say, especially people of influence. In early June 2021, a woman named Aruna Khilanani revealed her fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any White person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Khilanani is not an anger-addled street-corner crank but a psychiatrist, and her words, uttered in a lecture at the Yale School of Medicine, expressed more than political correctness. She was there to worship the strong god of vengeance.

In the ensuing controversy, Khilanani insisted that she had been exaggerating for rhetorical effect, which was no doubt true. But how and when we exaggerate is revealing. Impatient with calm discussion and meticulous analysis, she will no longer deliberate about root causes. Her remarks excluded all softening gestures such as sharing perspectives or hearing new voices. The hot hyperbole rejected the open-society slogans that have dominated for so long, clichs that soften civic life and make things more porous and fluid, formulations that weaken strong claims and blur sharp boundaries.

Khilananis talk of guns and blood points in a very different direction. A powerful consensus in favor of fluid openness was embraced by the left and right in recent decades. I call it the postwar consensus, because I trace its origins to the American-led reconstruction of the West after Auschwitz. In my reading of recent history, that fell name denotes more than a death camp in Poland. It sums up the entire orgy of destruction that began in the trenches of World War I and ended with mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The consensus that took hold after 1945 sought to dissolve the political passions that many deemed to be the underlying cause of those decades of violence. The postwar consensus sought to banish the strong gods.

By the first decade of the twenty-first century, the postwar consensus supported a power-sharing arrangement between the Democratic party, favoring go-fast liquefaction of traditional culture and go-slow economic deregulation, and the Republican Party, favoring go-fast economic deregulation with the hope of not-too-fast cultural deregulation. When I wrote Return of the Strong Gods, the establishment consensus in favor of openness was plain to see. And when I was writing, a rejection of open borders, open trade, and other fruits of the postwar consensus by the populist right was also obvious. The events of 2020 indicate that the strong gods are returning on the American left as well.

Return of the Strong Gods offers a succinct history of the past seven decades, most of which I have experienced as a teenager and adult. I distrust the sufficiency of singular explanations, including my own. Technological innovations (the Pill, for example) shaped that history, as did international events and economic developments. There exists no Lord of the Rings in social analysis, no single explanation that rules them all.

But I remain confident in the basic story I tell. After 1945, our ruling class agreed that powerful loves and intense loyalties make us easily manipulated by demagogues. Our passions hurl us into disastrous conflicts and brutal ideological movements. Our only hope, the postwar consensus holds, is to tamp down our loves and loyalties, to weaken them with skepticism, nonjudgmentalism, and a political commitment to an open society.

And I argue that the wheel of history is turning. The gods of weakening are losing their power over public life. Donald Trump horrified the establishment because he derided the open-society consensus. His brash Americanism, his promises to tear up trade deals, and his loud talk of building a wall thrilled voters who wanted reconsolidation not deregulation, protection not limitless openness.

You can find Trump odious or inspiring. You can reject or affirm his political priorities. But a sober observer recognizes that Trump rose to prominence because an angry populace felt betrayed by the postwar consensus. What I did not see while writing the book is that the American left, which opposed Trump bitterly, would pivot to affirm the return of its own strong gods.

Only yesterday, multicultural managers and HR bureaucrats spoke solemnly of diversity and inclusion, vague notions that serve the gods of weakening. Today, however, the same managers and bureaucrats add equity, a term that signifies a change in direction. Equity operates in the domain of justice, and justice promises not diversity but the right result. Equity encourages strong measurescondemning the unjust, punishing the oppressors, denouncing the unfairly advantaged and the wrongly privileged. Diversity is a feel-good word. Equity topples statues.

I cannot pretend to know the future. I can only take the measure of present trends. The postwar consensus trusted that a better future could be achieved by removing barriers, setting aside traditional mores, empowering individual choice, and letting markets decide. The sudden prominence of the rhetoric of equity suggests that many on the left are losing confidence in the promise of an open society. They now demand racial and sexual quotas, hard numerical measurements that cannot be evaded with avowals of good intentions. As the right demands clear and enforced borders, the left demands clear and enforced results. It wants a just society (as it conceives of it), not an open society. And it is willing to rule with an iron fist to achieve that goal.

I am suspicious of those who turn too quickly to Nazi Germany for analogies that illuminate our present distempers. But if we remain sober and do not allow ourselves to be swept up into moral and political panic, we can detect parallels. In the 1920s, conservatives in Germany distrusted the procedural justice and commercial ethos of the Weimar Republic, believing that a good society would not automatically evolve in accord with liberal principles and market forces. The future, they argued, must be shaped by a decisive act of will. A similar view is emerging on the left. Progressives are impatient. Free speech? Merit? Procedural justice? Laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race? These formal commitments must be set aside, we are told, because they stand in the way of transformative justice.

And so it is not only Trump and the populist right that wants the strong gods to return. Many on the American left look to blood for answers, a vengeful and punitive image that suggests strong gods with grim designs. They champion bloods binding power, its demand for justice, and its powerful symbolism of moral and political urgency. The signs of the times suggest that the historical thesis of the book is correct. The postwar era is ending. The strong gods are returning. Let us work to ensure that they are ennobling, not debasing, that they rebuild and renew rather than tear down and degrade.

Return of the Strong Gods has been criticized from a number of angles. I will not try to respond to all of them, but it is useful to consider some. Some have complained that my talk of strong gods is imprecise and obscure. Yes, but every consequential episode in human history is blurry and opaque, including the past seventy years. My aim is to illuminate, as best I can, our political and cultural struggles, which have become intense. The metaphor of strong gods casts useful light on our situation.

Friends counsel that I should be less enthusiastic about the return of the strong gods. I am fully aware of the dangers they pose, which is why, following the Bible, I urge a politics of noble loves. The Book of Wisdom begins with an extended allegory. Lady Wisdom goes through the city, explaining to men the bad consequences of their liaisons with prostitutes and loose women (a metaphor for idolatry). But the men are smitten, and the arguments of Lady Wisdom have no effect. Returning to her palace, she prepares a great banquet and sends her beautiful young attendants into the public square to draw in the men of the city. They come to feast, and their perverse loves are corrected by the higher love of Lady Wisdom. The opens society tries to buy peace with dispassion and small ambitions, encouraging critique and other techniques of weakening. This approach will not succeed in the long run. The only reliable safeguards against debased political passions are elevated ones.

Though many defend the status quo, I will not raise my voice in defense of the dying postwar consensus. I argue that the West overreacted. Intent on countering the evils of Auschwitz and all it represented, we embarked on a utopian project of living without shared loves and strong loyalties. Human nature was never going to allow that project to succeed. We are made for love not open-ended diversity, limitless inclusion, and relentless critique. The postwar consensus went too far, emptying our souls and desiccating our societies. So yes, the strong gods can be dangerous. But they make transcendence possible. They restore to public life spiritual drama and shared purpose.

Christian allies warn that I am insufficiently alive to the danger that populism will make an idol of the nation. In Platos Symposium, Socrates recounts the teaching of Diotima, his mentor, who observed that we often love finite goods as if they were ultimate. But this is not reason to despair. For once aroused, loves ardor can be directed toward a ladder that rises from lower loves to higher ones. I hold the Platonic view. There is no guarantee that we will climb the ladder of love. Misjudging lesser goods as the highest good (the essence of idolatry) always remains a danger. But the unstated premise behind Return of the Strong Gods is that life without love is a greater evil than life in which finite loves are made absolute. I have argued for this premise in other works (see especially the essays in Fighting the Noonday Devil). Put simply, to love wrongly is dangerous, but however debasing, it is human. By contrast, to fail to love is inhuman. The deepest failure of the postwar consensus, then, is that it trains us to be loveless and therefore to be something less than human.

Let me issue my own theological warning: Beware iconoclasm. It is a heresy born of the fantasy that we can eliminate the possibility of idolatry by destroying every object of love other than the highest, which is God. Thomas Aquinas taught that grace perfects nature; it does not destroy nature. Family, team, city, countrythese social spheres rightly win our love and command our loyalty. We can be seduced and blinded by our loves. A great deal can go wrong, which is why Jesus warns us that our love of God may require us to hate our father. The same holds for fatherland. But our capacity for perversion does not destroy these natural goods. They remain worthy of our love if we will but love rightly.

Liberal allies worry that I court a dangerous illiberalism. Their concerns are overwrought, but they have a basis in truth. Our liberal traditions aim to limit the role of religious and metaphysical passions in public life. In this regard, liberalism harkens to the gods of weakening. The open-society consensus gained traction after 1945 so easily because it drew upon the liberalism that is an important part of our Anglo-American inheritance. Like my liberal critics, I cherish this inheritance. Let us by all means defend the Bill of Rights and other honorable components of our liberal tradition. But let us also remember that liberalism tempers and moderates; it does not initiate. It weeds the field but does not plant. When liberalism becomes dominant, as it has done in the postwar consensus, civic life withers, for liberalism offers no vigorous language of love.

For everything there is a season. I argue that our historical moment begs for the restoration of shared loves. We must not fail to meet this need. In my estimation, only an uplifting politics of solidarity can counter identity politics, which makes a dark promise of solidarity, one based on blood, chromosomes, and sexual appetites. In this historical moment, full of the confusion and danger that attend the collapse of a governing consensus, we need something more than liberalism. We need strong gods, purified by reason and subordinate to true religion but nevertheless powerful enough to win our hearts.

I have cryptically thanked Philip Rieff in my acknowledgements. I never met him, but as a young theological scholar I read his books. A brilliant sociologist, he despaired of the desacralization promoted by so-called critical reason, which he believed was leading us to an anti-culture, a third world of spiritual impoverishment heretofore unknown to men. And Rieff despaired over his despair. In his agony of unbelief, he pointed me toward a fundamental truth: It is more precious to love than to know.

Of course, the Bible says as much. Love of God is the first commandment, and as the First Letter of John teaches, Love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. As I have already noted, Plato strikes a similar note. I should not have needed Philip Rieff to guide me to such an obvious truth. But I did need him. He reasoned his way to the dark bottom of the postwar consensus, allowing me to see that the opposite of love is not hate but death, the placid cessation of aspiration and desire, the tempting void of nothingness.

The spasms of violence in the twentieth century rose to great heights, casting a long shadow over our moral and political ideals and even over our spiritual imaginations. The postwar consensus was originally modest. I would have supported the efforts of men like James B. Conant, and in fact I did in my younger days. But as it developed and became more and more rigid in its dogmatic openness, that consensus became an enemy of love.

I am more than sixty years old. The only society I have known is the one dominated by the postwar consensus. I am therefore a largely blind guide to whatever comes next. But of this I am sure: It will require a restoration of love. And love is roused by the strong gods, which is why they are returning.

R. R. Reno is editor ofFirst Things.

First Thingsdepends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Clickhereto make a donation.

Clickhereto subscribe toFirst Things.

Here is the original post:

Shared Loves and Strong Loyalties | R. R. Reno - First Things

When Lawrence Summers tweeted on Sunday that he is "certainly no left wing ideologue," it wasn't a Halloween joke.

Summers is a famous academic who served as Chief Economist of the World Bank and President of Harvard University. Hewas influential in crafting the economic policies for two center-leftDemocratic presidents Bill Clinton (serving in various Treasury Department roles) and Barack Obama (serving as Director of the National Economic Council). Summers' resume is what makes his recent remarksso noteworthy.

"I think something wrong when taxpayers like me, well into the top .1 percent of income distribution, are getting a significant tax cut in a Democrats only tax bill as now looks likely to happen," Summers explained on Twitter. He went on to criticize President Joe Biden's current legislative package for "no rate increases below $10 million, no capital gains increases, no estate tax increases, no major reform of loopholes like carried interest and real estate exchanges but restoration of the state and local deduction explain it."

He added, "We don't need radical new ideas, just determination to implement old good ones." Summers then included a link to a paper he co-authored last year with University of Pennsylvania professor of law Natasha Sarin and research assistant Joe Kupferberg. It calls for stronger measures to make it harder for people to legally avoid taxes and to crack down on illegal tax evasion, which could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Biden's bill is currently being criticized by progressivesbecause in order to win support from moderate senators likeJoe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, as well as many moderate House Democrats the president has agreed to remove a number of tax increases that would have compelled the wealthy to pay a fairer share. They protected President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, kept in a loophole that helps wealthy heirs avoid taxes on their inheritances andjettisoned a proposed tax increase on income accrued from wealth that would have taxed it like ordinary income. They also refused to raise taxes on corporations or eliminate a tax break that mainly helps private equity firm managers and hedge fund managers.

This is not the first time that Summer has openly disagreed with Biden and the Democratic Party, even though he continues to characterize himself as a supporter. What makes this public dissent notable, though, is that Summers is approaching his criticism from the left this time rather than from the right.

When it was revealed last year that Summers was advising Biden's campaign, progressive groups protested until he promised that he would not work for a future Biden administration.In June, The New York Times reported that Summers' political clout remains so significant that the Biden administration felt compelled to address Summers' claim that the president's March stimulus bill would overheat the economy and cause a spike in inflation. At the time Summers described it as "the least responsible macroeconomic policy we've had in the last 40 years," blaming both the Democratic Party's left wing and the entire Republican Party.

The concern about rising inflation coming from excess spending would seem to put Summers more in the Manchin/Sinema wing of the Democratic Party than the more progressive one. This makes his recent policy statement all the more striking, as it potentially signifies that moderates as well as progressives are unhappy with some of the changes to the original proposed legislation.

Summers has also attracted headlines for reasons unrelated to economic policy and not always in flattering ways. He stepped down as President of Harvard University in 2006 partially because of comments he made about women in STEM fields that were criticized as sexist. He has been broadly critical of political correctness, referring to it as a "creeping totalitarianism."

View post:

Larry Summers slams Democrats for failing to tax the wealthy - Salon

Modern conservative use of the word woke taps into a larger societal backlash againstsocial justice movements and efforts to confront racism. Its a word that means something very different now than it did just a few years ago in the Blackcommunity.

Woke initially came out of the Black community It meant that, if you were saying stay woke or be woke there was a kind of seriousness and playfulness, that you need to be aware of the social conditions of America to surviveit. Joshua Adams,journalist

Broader attitudes toward wokeness invoke similarly co-opted and weaponized concepts such as cancel culture and political correctness. But when we dig deeper into the meaning of the word and how it is used by conservatives and most white Americans, it becomes clear that the wordhas lost all of its original meanings in order to create a new slur to be leveled against progressives and AfricanAmericans.

Joshua Adams is ajournalist whowrote a piece for Colorlines in May titled How Woke Became a Slur.

He says that language is incredibly important in the Black community.African American vernacular English comes out of the slave experience, he says. Black people couldnt learn the language formally We had to learn it through the ear. He also notes the necessity for slaves to be able to communicate in ways that slave owners couldntunderstand.

Woke initially came out of the Black community, says Adams. It meant that, if you were saying stay woke or be woke there was a kind of seriousness and playfulness, that you need to be aware of the social conditions of America to surviveit.

Damon Youngis co-founder of Very Smart Brothas, author of the memoir What Doesnt Kill You Makes You Blacker.He wrote a piece in The New York Times in 2019 titled, In Defense ofWoke.

Hesays, although the meaning of the word has changed for people who arent Black, the meaning hasnt changed as much for AfricanAmericans.

For Black people, woke still has the same connotation as someone who has consciousness, but maybe takes that consciousness too far, Youngexplains, someone who maybe believes conspiracy theories, who maybe shows a more performativeBlackness.

Young says conservatives like toco-optand weaponizeterms that begin in the Blackcommunity.

They are very effective at distilling these complex ideas around a single word and galvanizing support around the use of that single word, he says.Its easier to rail against something than to createsomething.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today

Visit link:

How the Word 'Woke' Was Co-Opted And Weaponized - WDET

The Trumps were also captured joining in the Braves' signature "tomahawk chop" before the game, which didn't go unnoticed in the press. The cheer, which originated in 1991, has come under fire from Native communities who say it promotes racist stereotypes (viaKCRA). However, it's not likely that Donald Trump was too worried about the implications of the war cry; he once stated, "[T]his political correctness is just absolutely killing us as a country. You can't say anything. Anything you say, they'll find a reason why it's not good" (via CNN).

The gesture was greeted with roaring approval by Trump fans who saw it as a slap in the face to "woke liberals." Others felt differently. Keith Olbermann commented on Twitter, "Well, it IS a cousin of the Nazi salute so."

What really got people's attention, though, was Melania Trump's face. In a clip now circulating on social media (and seen here on MSN), the former first lady smiled broadly for the cameras as she faced her husband. A second later, turning away from him, her smile faded into an expression that looked positively disgusted.

Naturally, Twitter exploded with comments and jokes. Writer and pastor John Pavlovitz quipped, "Melania despises him as much as decent people do" (via Twitter). Humorist Paul Rudnickadded on Twitter, "Melania can maintain a smile for three seconds and then even rubbing the krugerrand she keeps in her pocket can't control the nausea."

More here:

The Head-Turning Gesture Donald And Melania Trump Made At The World Series - The List